motivation theory assignment

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 5: Theories of Motivation

Chapter Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to know and learn the following:

• Understand the role of motivation in determining employee performance.
• Classify the basic needs of employees.
• Describe how fairness perceptions are determined and consequences of these perceptions.
• Understand the importance of rewards and punishments.
• Apply motivation theories to analyze performance problems.

Introduction

The challenges and motivators in a post pandemic world..

The world is becoming progressively more digital with every passing year, so today’s workforce looks a lot different than it did 25 years ago. This progression, expedited by the global pandemic of Covid19, presents new challenges that today’s employers must learn to navigate to motivate their teams, prevent employee burnout and minimize turnover.

To understand and overcome the challenges in motivating today’s workforce, especially companies with significant numbers of non-desk workers, we must understand both the challenges and the motivators of new age, digital employees.

Let’s start with the challenges.

The top challenges chosen by the vast majority of employers

A. Building a great employee experience

1.Listen to people. Ensure that employees have a means of communication. Many non-desk workers are not connected to the company in a way that allows  two-way communication.

2.Get feedback from surveys and focus groups, then implement change if need be. Keep an open channel of communication so that employees feel connected. Be committed to employee development and growth.

3.Equip and enable managers to support their teams. Creating a positive employee experience  goes a long way with employee engagement and motivation.

B. Creating calm and reassurance in periods of turbulence

1.We can all agree that the world has been in a period of turbulence over the past two years. As a leader in an organization, you  must pause and breathe . Managers can unintentionally pass their stress onto other employees.

2.Do the research and  prevent the spread of misinformation.  Speak clearly and confidently to your teams and colleagues so that you appear to have control over the situation.  Transparency will create trust and go a long way in calming the workforce.

C. Fighting burnout

1.Let’s talk about the ever-elusive fight against burnout. It’s easy to understand that the outside stressors of everyday life during and after a pandemic paired with  the daily stressors of work  are enough to burn anyone out. More than  70%  of employees reported feeling burnt out over the past year, making history (Forbes.com).

2.It’s never been more critical than it is now to tackle feelings of physical and emotional exhaustion. The key to avoiding burnout is  getting in front of it, as it is much easier to prevent burnout than reverse it.

D. Turnover and letting employees go

1.Turnover tends to be a result of a poor approach to the above challenges. It’s no secret that the cost of turnover is high, estimated at 1.5 – 2 times an employee’s salary and $1,500 per hourly employee  (builtin.com).

Therefore,  organizations should actively avoid turnover  by putting into place best practices and implementing a solid plan to tackle the above challenges.

E. Retaining top talent

1.With the cost of turnover being so high, retaining top talent is a priority . The key here is employee engagement, so ask questions to gain insight on employees to  instill the correct development and training programs.

Weekly one-on-one meetings with department heads or managers are an  excellent way to ask questions and get to know these individuals.  Including all employees in the communication loop creates an atmosphere of teamwork and ensures that everyone’s efforts are appreciated.

2.Create on-the-job learning opportunities, whether significant or small. Vary learning experiences and provide insightful feedback that is constructive and accompanied by manageable action steps.

F. Communicating effectively

These challenges arguably have a common denominator – they’re a causal effect of poor communication. Therefore,  effective communication could essentially eliminate or solve these challenges.

It seems simple, yet effective communication is complex and involves complex solutions. Everyone communicates differently. The good news is there are a  plethora of companies specializing in making communications in the workforce easy.

According to Pew Research,  91% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 64  own a smartphone, making them far and away the most popular way to communicate. Due to this information, the most innovative and easiest way to reach employees and increase engagement would be to  interact via the smartphone.

Employee engagement apps can  simplify your workforce management system  and workplace communication making it accessible for all employees, non-desk workers, remote and office workers alike. Some of these platforms include  Artificial Intelligence which provides highly structured communications.

These communications give the right message to the right person at the right time, prevent spray and pray messaging, and the chaos and lack of usage that reply-all messaging creates.

Now that the challenges have been addressed, let’s understand the motivators.

Why is it that, on some days, it can feel harder than others to get up when your alarm goes off, do your workout, complete a work or school assignment, or make dinner for your family?

Motivation (or a lack thereof) is usually behind why we do the things that we do.

There are different types of motivation, and as it turns out, understanding  why  you are motivated to do the things that you do can help you keep yourself motivated — and can help you motivate others.

There are two types of motivator categories in a company’s culture, intrinsic and extrinsic.

What Is Intrinsic Motivation?

When you’re intrinsically motivated, your behavior is motivated by your internal desire to do something for its own sake — for example, your personal enjoyment of an activity, or your desire to learn a skill because you’re eager to learn.

Examples of intrinsic motivation could include:

• Reading a book because you enjoy the storytelling
• Exercising because you want to relieve stress
• Cleaning your home because it helps you feel organized

What Is Extrinsic Motivation?

When you’re extrinsically motivated, your behavior is motivated by an external factor pushing you to do something in hopes of earning a reward — or avoiding a less-than-positive outcome.

Examples of extrinsic motivation could include:

• Reading a book to prepare for a test
• Exercising to lose weight
• Cleaning your home to prepare for visitors coming over

If you have a job, and you must complete a project, you’re probably extrinsically motivated — by your manager’s praise or a potential raise or commission — even if you enjoy the project while you’re doing it. If you’re in school, you’re extrinsically motivated to learn a foreign language because you’re being graded on it — even if you enjoy practicing and studying it.

So, intrinsic motivation is good,  and  extrinsic motivation is good. The key is to figure out  why you — and your team — are motivated to do things and encouraging both types of motivation.

If someone is not performing well, what could be the reason? According to this equation, motivation, ability, and environment are the major influences over employee performance.

Motivation is one of the forces that lead to performance. Motivation is defined as the desire to achieve a goal or a certain performance level, leading to goal-directed behaviour. When we refer to someone as being motivated, we mean that the person is trying hard to accomplish a certain task. Motivation is clearly important if someone is to perform well; however, it is not sufficient. Ability —or having the skills and knowledge required to perform the job—is also important and is sometimes the key predictor of effectiveness. Finally, environmental factors such as having the resources, information, and support to perform well are critical to determine performance. At different times, one of these three factors may be the key to high performance. For example, for an employee sweeping the floor, motivation may be the most important factor that determines performance. In contrast, even the most motivated individual would not be able to successfully design a house without the necessary talent involved in building quality homes. Being motivated is not the same as being a high performer and is not the sole reason why people perform well, but it is nevertheless a key influence over our performance level.

So, what motivates people? Why do some employees try to reach their targets and pursue excellence while others merely show up at work and count the hours? As with many questions involving human beings, the answer is anything but simple. Instead, there are several theories explaining the concept of motivation. We will discuss motivation theories under two categories: need-based theories and process theories.

5.1 A Motivating Place to Work: The Case of Rogers Communications Inc

Rogers Communications Inc has been identified as one of Canada’s 100 top employers by Media Corp Canada, who investigate Canadian companies based on 8 criteria: (1) Physical Workplace; (2) Work Atmosphere & Social; (3) Health, Financial & Family Benefits; (4) Vacation & Time Off; (5) Employee Communications; (6) Performance Management; (7) Training & Skills Development; and (8) Community Involvement. Employers are compared to other organizations in their field to determine which offers the most progressive and forward-thinking programs (Media Corp Canada,2019).

5.2 Need-Based Theories of Motivation

Early researchers thought that employees try hard and demonstrate behaviour to satisfy their own personal needs. For example, an employee who is always walking around the office talking to people may have a need for companionship, and his or her behaviour may be a way of satisfying this need. At the time, researchers developed theories to understand what people need. Two theories may be placed under this category: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and McClelland’s acquired-needs theory.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow is among the most prominent psychologists of the twentieth century. His hierarchy of needs is an image familiar to most business students and managers. The theory is based on a simple idea: human beings have needs that are ranked (Maslow, 1943; Maslow, 1954). There are some needs that are basic to all human beings, and in their absence nothing else matters. As we satisfy these basic needs, we start looking to satisfy higher order needs. In other words, once a lower-level need is satisfied, it no longer serves as a motivator.

The most basic of Maslow’s needs are physiological needs . Physiological needs refer to the need for food, water, and other biological needs. These needs are basic because when they are lacking, the search for them may overpower all other urges. Imagine being very hungry. At that point, all your behaviour may be directed at finding food. Once you eat, though, the search for food ceases and the promise of food no longer serves as a motivator. Once physiological needs are satisfied, people tend to become concerned about safety needs . Are they free from the threat of danger, pain, or an uncertain future? On the next level up, social needs refer to the need to bond with other human beings, be loved, and form lasting attachments with others. In fact, attachments, or lack of them, are associated with our health and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The satisfaction of social needs makes esteem needs more salient. Esteem needs refer to the desire to be respected by one’s peers, feel important, and be appreciated. Finally, at the highest level of the hierarchy, the need for self-actualization refers to “becoming all you are capable of becoming.” This need manifests itself by the desire to acquire new skills, take on new challenges, and behave in a way that will lead to the attainment of one’s life goals.

How can an organization satisfy its employees’ various needs? In the long run, physiological needs may be satisfied by the person’s paycheck, but it is important to remember that pay may satisfy other needs such as safety and esteem as well. Providing generous benefits that include health insurance and company-sponsored retirement plans, as well as offering a measure of job security, will help satisfy safety needs. Social needs may be satisfied by having a friendly environment and providing a workplace conducive to collaboration and communication. Company picnics and other social get-togethers may also be helpful if most employees are motivated primarily by social needs (but may cause resentment if they are not and if they must sacrifice a Sunday afternoon for a company picnic). Providing promotion opportunities at work, recognizing a person’s accomplishments verbally or through more formal reward systems, and conferring job titles that communicate to the employee that one has achieved high status within the organization are among the ways of satisfying esteem needs. Finally, self-actualization needs may be satisfied by the provision of development and growth opportunities on or off the job, as well as by work that is interesting and challenging. By making the effort to satisfy the different needs of each employee, organizations may ensure a highly motivated workforce.

Acquired-Needs Theory

Among the need-based approaches to motivation, David McClelland’s acquired-needs theory is the one that has received the greatest amount of support. According to this theory, individuals acquire three types of needs because of their life experiences. These needs are the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power . All individuals possess a combination of these needs, and the dominant needs are thought to drive employee behaviour.

McClelland used a unique method called the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to assess the dominant need (Spangler, 1992). This method entails presenting research subjects an ambiguous picture and asking them to write a story based on it. The instructions will be: “Take a look at the following picture. Who is this person? What is she doing? Why is she doing it?” The story you tell about the woman in the picture would then be analyzed by trained experts. The idea is that the stories the photo evokes would reflect how the mind works and what motivates the person. ( Apperception : the mental process by which a person makes sense of an idea by assimilating it to the body of ideas he or she already possesses. For example: a perception would be seeing a dog and thinking “There is a dog.” Apperception would be seeing a dog and thinking “That dog looks like the one that bit my friend Andres”)

If the story you come up with contains themes of success, meeting deadlines, or coming up with brilliant ideas, you may be high in need for achievement. Those who have high need for achievement have a strong need to be successful. As children, they may be praised for their hard work, which forms the foundations of their persistence (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). As adults, they are preoccupied with doing things better than they did in the past. These individuals are constantly striving to improve their performance. They relentlessly focus on goals, particularly stretch goals that are challenging in nature (Campbell, 1982).

Are individuals who are high in need for achievement effective managers? Because of their success in lower-level jobs where their individual contributions matter the most, those with high need for achievement are often promoted to higher level positions (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). However, a high need for achievement has significant disadvantages in management positions. Management involves getting work done by motivating others.

If the story you created in relation to the picture you are analyzing contains elements of making plans to be with friends or family, you may have a high need for affiliation . Individuals who have a high need for affiliation want to be liked and accepted by others. When given a choice, they prefer to interact with others and be with friends (Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991).

Finally, if your story contains elements of getting work done by influencing other people or the desire to make an impact on the organization, you may have a high need for power . Those with a high need for power want to influence others and control their environment. A need for power may in fact be a destructive element in relationships with colleagues if it takes the form of seeking and using power for one’s own good and prestige.

5.3 Process-Based Theories

A separate stream of research views motivation as something more than action aimed at satisfying a need. Instead, process-based theories view motivation as a logical process. Individuals analyze their work environment, develop thoughts and feelings, and react in certain ways. Process theories attempt to explain the thought processes of individuals who demonstrate motivated behaviour. Under this category, we will review equity theory, expectancy theory, and reinforcement theory.

Equity Theory

Imagine that you are paid $10 an hour working as an office assistant. You have held this job for 6 months. You are very good at what you do, you come up with creative ways to make things easier around you, and you are a good colleague who is willing to help others. You stay late when necessary and are flexible if requested to change hours. Now imagine that you found out they are hiring another employee who is going to work with you, who will hold the same job title, and who will perform the same type of tasks. This person has more advanced computer skills, but it is unclear whether these will be used on the job. The starting pay for this person will be $14 an hour. How would you feel? Would you be as motivated as before, going above and beyond your duties?

If your reaction to this scenario is along the lines of “this would be unfair,” your behaviour may be explained using equity theory (Adams, 1965). According to this theory, individuals are motivated by a sense of fairness in their interactions. Moreover, our sense of fairness is a result of the social comparisons we make. Specifically, we compare our inputs and outcomes with other people’s inputs and outcomes. We perceive fairness if we believe that the input-to-outcome ratio we are bringing into the situation is like the input-to-outcome ratio of a comparison person, or a referent . Perceptions of inequity create tension within us and drive us to action that will reduce perceived inequity.

What Are Inputs and Outcomes?

Inputs are the contributions people feel they are making to the environment. In the previous example, the person’s hard work; loyalty to the organization; amount of time with the organization; and level of education, training, and skills may have been relevant inputs. Outcomes are the perceived rewards someone can receive from the situation. For the hourly wage employee in our example, the $10 an hour pay rate was a core outcome. There may also be other, more peripheral outcomes, such as acknowledgment or preferential treatment from a manager. In the prior example, however, the person may reason as follows: I have been working here for 6 months. I am loyal, and I perform well (inputs). I am paid $10 an hour for this (outcomes). The new person does not have any experience here (referent’s inputs) but will be paid $14 an hour. This situation is unfair.

Who is the Referent?

The referent other may be a specific person as well as a category of people. Referents should be comparable to us—otherwise the comparison is not meaningful. It would be pointless for a student worker to compare himself to the CEO of the company, given the differences in inputs and outcomes. Instead, individuals may compare themselves to someone performing similar tasks within the same organization or, in the case of a CEO, a different organization.

Reactions to Unfairness

The theory outlines several potential reactions to perceived inequity. Oftentimes, the situation may be dealt with perceptually by altering our perceptions of our own or the referent’s inputs and outcomes . For example, we may justify the situation by downplaying our own inputs (I don’t really work very hard on this job), valuing our outcomes more highly (I am gaining valuable work experience, so the situation is not that bad), distorting the other person’s inputs (the new hire really is more competent than I am and deserves to be paid more), or distorting the other person’s outcomes (she gets $14 an hour but will have to work with a lousy manager, so the situation is not unfair).

Another option would be to have the referent increase inputs . If the other person brings more to the situation, getting more out of the situation would be fair. If that person can be made to work harder or work on more complicated tasks, equity would be achieved.

The person experiencing a perceived inequity may also reduce inputs or attempt to increase outcomes . If the lower paid person puts forth less effort, the perceived inequity would be reduced. Research shows that people who perceive inequity reduce their work performance or reduce the quality of their inputs (Carrell & Dittrich, 1978; Goodman & Friedman, 1971). Increasing one’s outcomes can be achieved through legitimate means such as negotiating a pay raise. At the same time, research shows that those feeling inequity sometimes resort to stealing to balance the scales (Greenberg, 1993).

Other options include changing the comparison person (e.g., others doing similar work in different organizations are paid only minimum wage) and leaving the situation by quitting (Schmidt & Marwell, 1972). Sometimes it may be necessary to consider taking legal action as a potential outcome of perceived inequity. For example, if an employee finds out the main reason behind a pay gap is gender related, the person may react to the situation by taking legal action because sex discrimination in pay is illegal in Canada.

Fairness Beyond Equity: Procedural and Interactional Justice

Equity theory looks at perceived fairness as a motivator. However, the way equity theory defines fairness is limited to fairness of rewards. Starting in the 1970s, research on workplace fairness began taking a broader view of justice. Equity theory deals with outcome fairness, and therefore it is considered to be a distributive justice theory.

Distributive justice refers to the degree to which the outcomes received from the organization are perceived to be fair. Two other types of fairness have been identified: procedural justice and interactional justice.

Let’s assume that you just found out you are getting a promotion. Clearly, this is an exciting outcome and comes with a pay raise, increased responsibilities, and prestige. If you feel you deserve to be promoted, you will perceive high distributive justice (you getting this promotion is fair). However, you later found out upper management picked your name out of a hat! What would you feel? You might still like the outcome but feel that the decision-making process was unfair. If so, you are describing feelings of procedural justice.

Procedural justice refers to the degree to which fair decision-making procedures are used to arrive at a decision. People do not care only about reward fairness. They also expect decision-making processes to be fair. In fact, research shows that employees care about the procedural justice of many organizational decisions, including layoffs, employee selection, surveillance of employees, performance appraisals, and pay decisions (Alge, 2001; Bauer et al., 1998; Kidwell, 1995). People also tend to care more about procedural justice in situations in which they do not get the outcome they feel they deserve (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996). If you did not get the promotion and later discovered that management chose the candidate by picking names out of a hat, how would you feel? This may be viewed as adding insult to injury. When people do not get the rewards they want, they tend to hold management responsible if procedures are not fair (Brockner et al., 2007).

Now let’s imagine the moment your boss told you that you are getting a promotion. Your manager’s exact words were, “Yes, we are giving you the promotion. The job is so simple that we thought even you can handle it.” Now what is your reaction? The feeling of unfairness you may now feel is explained by interactional justice. Interactional justice refers to the degree to which people are treated with respect, kindness, and dignity in interpersonal interactions. We expect to be treated with dignity by our peers, supervisors, and customers. When the opposite happens, we feel angry. Even when faced with negative outcomes such as a pay cut, being treated with dignity and respect serves as a buffer and alleviates our stress (Greenberg, 2006).

Expectancy Theory

The expectancy theory of motivation, or the expectancy theory, is the belief that an individual chooses their behaviors based on what they believe leads to the most beneficial outcome. The individual’s motivation to put forth more or less effort is determined by a rational calculation in which individuals evaluate their situation (Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964).

This theory is dependent on how much value a person places on different motivations. This results in a decision they expect to give them the highest return for their efforts.

According to this theory, individuals ask themselves three questions.

The first question is whether the person believes that high levels of effort will lead to outcomes of interest, such as performance or success. This perception is labeled expectancy . For example, do you believe that the effort you put forth in a class is related to performing well in that class? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort.

The second question is the degree to which the person believes that performance is related to subsequent outcomes, such as rewards. This perception is labeled instrumentality . For example, do you believe that getting a good grade in the class is related to rewards such as getting a better job, or gaining approval from your instructor, or from your friends or parents? If you do, you are more likely to put forth effort.

Finally, individuals are also concerned about the value of the rewards awaiting them as a result of performance. The anticipated satisfaction that will result from an outcome is labeled valence . For example, do you value getting a better job, or gaining approval from your instructor, friends, or parents? If these outcomes are desirable to you, your expectancy and instrumentality is high, and you are more likely to put forth effort.

Expectancy theory is a well-accepted theory that has received a lot of research attention (Heneman & Schwab, 1972; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996). It is simple and intuitive. Consider the following example. Let’s assume that you are working in the concession stand of a movie theater. You have been selling an average of 100 combos of popcorn and soft drinks a day. Now your manager asks you to increase this number to 300 combos a day. Would you be motivated to try to increase your numbers? Here is what you may be thinking:

• Expectancy: is the belief that if an individual raises their efforts, their reward may rise as well. Expectancy is what motivates a person to gather the right tools to get the job done, which could include raw materials and resources, skills to perform the job and support and information from supervisors. Can I do it? If I try harder, can I really achieve this number? Is there a link between how hard I try and whether I reach this goal or not? If you feel that you can achieve this number if you try, you have high expectancy.
• Instrumentality: is the belief that the reward you receive depends on your performance in the workplace. What is in it for me? What is going to happen if I reach 300? What are the outcomes that will follow? Are they going to give me a 2% pay raise? Am I going to be named the salesperson of the month? Am I going to receive verbal praise from my manager? If you believe that performing well is related to certain outcomes, instrumentality is high.
• Valence: is the importance you place on the expected outcome of your performance. This often depends on your individual needs, goals, values and sources of motivation. For example, if you expect to be one of the top performers on your team, you may place high importance on achieving that goal, even if others don’t expect you to achieve this level of performance. How do I feel about the outcomes in question? Do I feel that a 2% pay raise is desirable? Do I find being named the salesperson of the month attractive? Do I think that being praised by my manager is desirable? If your answers are yes, valence is positive. In contrast, if you find the outcomes undesirable (you definitely do not want to be named the salesperson of the month because your friends would make fun of you), valence is negative.

If your answers to all three questions are affirmative—you feel that you can do it, you will get an outcome if you do it, and you value the reward—you are more likely to be motivated to put forth more effort toward selling more combos.

As a manager, how can you motivate employees? In fact, managers can influence all three perceptions (Cook, 1980).

Influencing Expectancy Perceptions

Employees may not believe that their effort leads to high performance for a multitude of reasons. First, they may not have the skills, knowledge, or abilities to successfully perform their jobs. The answer to this problem may be training employees or hiring people who are qualified for the jobs in question. Second, low levels of expectancy may be because employees may feel that something other than effort predicts performance, such as political behaviours on the part of employees. If employees believe that the work environment is not conducive to performing well (resources are lacking or roles are unclear), expectancy will also suffer. Therefore, clearing the path to performance and creating an environment in which employees do not feel restricted will be helpful. Finally, some employees may perceive little connection between their effort and performance level because they have an external locus of control, low self-esteem, or other personality traits that condition them to believe that their effort will not make a difference. In such cases, providing positive feedback and encouragement may help motivate employees.

Reinforcement Theory

Reinforcement theory is based on a simple idea that may be viewed as common sense. Beginning at infancy we learn through reinforcement. If you have observed a small child discovering the environment, you will see reinforcement theory in action. When the child discovers that twisting and turning a tap leads to water coming out and finds this outcome pleasant, he is more likely to repeat the behaviour. If he burns his hand while playing with hot water, the child is likely to stay away from the faucet in the future.

Despite the simplicity of reinforcement, how many times have you seen positive behaviour ignored, or worse, negative behaviour rewarded? In many organizations, this is a familiar scenario. People go above and beyond the call of duty, yet their actions are ignored or criticized. People with disruptive habits may receive no punishments because the manager is afraid of the reaction the person will give when confronted. Problem employees may even receive rewards such as promotions so they will be transferred to a different location and become someone else’s problem.

Reinforcement Interventions

How does a leader modify a team members’ behaviour so that the team member becomes more productive. ?

Reinforcement theory describes four interventions to modify employee behaviour. Two of these (Positive and Negative reinforcement) are methods of increasing the frequency of desired behaviours, while the remaining two (Punishment and Extinction) are methods of reducing the frequency of undesired behaviours.

Positive reinforcement is a method of increasing the desired behaviour (Beatty & Schneier, 1975). Positive reinforcement involves making sure that behaviour is met with positive consequences. For example, praising an employee for treating a customer respectfully is an example of positive reinforcement. If the praise immediately follows the positive behaviour, the employee will see a link between the behaviour and positive consequences and will be motivated to repeat similar behaviours.

Negative reinforcement is also used to increase the desired behaviour. Negative reinforcement involves removal of unpleasant outcomes once desired behaviour is demonstrated. Nagging an employee to complete a report is an example of negative reinforcement. The negative stimulus in the environment will remain present until positive behaviour is demonstrated. The problem with negative reinforcement is that the negative stimulus may lead to unexpected behaviours and may fail to stimulate the desired behaviour. For example, the person may start avoiding the manager to avoid being nagged.

Extinction is used to decrease the frequency of negative behaviours. Extinction is the removal of rewards following negative behaviour. Sometimes, negative behaviours are demonstrated because they are being inadvertently rewarded. For example, it has been shown that when people are rewarded for their unethical behaviours, they tend to demonstrate higher levels of unethical behaviours (Harvey & Sims, 1978). Thus, when the rewards following unwanted behaviours are removed, the frequency of future negative behaviours may be reduced. For example, if a co-worker is forwarding unsolicited e-mail messages containing jokes, commenting and laughing at these jokes may be encouraging the person to keep forwarding these messages. Completely ignoring such messages may reduce their frequency.

Punishment is another method of reducing the frequency of undesirable behaviours. Punishment involves presenting negative consequences following unwanted behaviours. Giving an employee a warning for consistently being late to work is an example of punishment.

An inspiring speech for your reflection

Jon Fisher  (born January 19, 1972) is an entrepreneur, investor, author, speaker, philanthropist and inventor. Fisher is known for a viral commencement speech at the University of San Francisco. Here is an excerpt.

5.4 Motivation in Action: The Case of Trader Joe’s

People in Hawaiian T-shirts. Delicious fresh fruits and vegetables. A place where parking is tight and aisles are tiny. A place where you will be unable to find half the things on your list but will go home satisfied. We are, of course, talking about Trader Joe’s (a privately held company), a unique grocery store headquartered in California and located in 22 states. By selling store-brand and gourmet foods at affordable prices, this chain created a special niche for itself. Yet the helpful employees who stock the shelves and answer questions are definitely key to what makes this store unique and helps it achieve twice the sales of traditional supermarkets.

Shopping here is fun and chatting with employees is a routine part of this experience. Employees are upbeat and friendly to each other and to customers. If you look lost, there is the definite offer of help. But somehow the friendliness does not seem scripted. Instead, if they see you shopping for big trays of cheese, they might casually inquire if you are having a party and then point to other selections. If they see you chasing your toddler, they are quick to tie a balloon to his wrist. When you ask them if they have any cumin, they get down on their knees to check the back of the aisle, with the attitude of helping a guest that is visiting their home. How does a company make sure its employees look like they enjoy being there to help others?

One of the keys to this puzzle is pay. Trader Joe’s sells cheap organic food, but they are not “cheap” when it comes to paying their employees. Employees, including part-timers, are among the best paid in the retail industry. Full-time employees earn an average of $40,150 in their first year and also earn average annual bonuses of $950 with $6,300 in retirement contributions. Store managers’ average compensation is $132,000. With these generous benefits and above-market wages and salaries, the company has no difficulty attracting qualified candidates.

But money only partially explains what energizes Trader Joe’s employees. They work with people who are friendly and upbeat. The environment is collaborative, so that people fill in for each other and managers pick up the slack when the need arises, including tasks like sweeping the floors. Plus, the company promotes solely from within, making Trader Joe’s one of few places in the retail industry where employees can satisfy their career aspirations. Employees are evaluated every 3 months and receive feedback about their performance.

Employees are also given autonomy on the job. They can open a product to have the customers try it and can be honest about their feelings toward different products. They receive on- and off-the-job training and are intimately familiar with the products, which enables them to come up with ideas that are taken seriously by upper management. In short, employees love what they do, work with nice people who treat each other well, and are respected by the company. When employees are treated well, it is no wonder they treat their customers well daily (Lewis, 2005; McGregor et al., 2004; Speizer, 2004).

5.5 Conclusion

In this chapter, we have reviewed the basic motivation theories that have been developed to explain motivated behaviour. Several theories view motivated behaviour as attempts to satisfy needs. Based on this approach, managers would benefit from understanding what people need so that the actions of employees can be understood and managed. Other theories explain motivated behaviour using the cognitive processes of employees. Employees respond to unfairness in their environment, they learn from the consequences of their actions and repeat the behaviours that lead to positive results, and they are motivated to exert effort if they see their actions will lead to outcomes that would get them desired rewards. None of these theories are complete on their own, but each theory provides us with a framework we can use to analyze, interpret, and manage employee behaviours in the workplace.

Organizational Behaviour Copyright © 2019 by Seneca College is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Theories of Motivation

Motivation  describes the wants or needs that direct behavior toward a goal, but, why do we do the things we do? What motivations underlie our behaviors? Is motivation an inherited trait or is motivation influenced by reinforcement and consequences that strengthen some behaviors and weaken others? Is the key to motivating learners a lesson plan that captures their interest and attention? In other words, is motivation something innate that we are born with that can be strengthened by reinforcers external to the learning task, or is it something interwoven with the learning process itself?

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

Some motives are biological, like our need for food or water. However, the motives that we will be more interested in are more psychological. In general, we discuss motivation as being  intrinsic  (arising from internal factors) or  extrinsic  (arising from external factors). Intrinsically motivated behaviors are performed because of the sense of personal satisfaction that they bring, while extrinsically motivated behaviors are performed in order to receive something from others.

Video 6.1.1.  Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivation  explains the difference and provides examples of these types of motivation.

Think about why you are currently in college. Are you here because you enjoy learning and want to pursue an education to make yourself a more well-rounded individual? If so, then you are intrinsically motivated. However, if you are here because you want to get a college degree to make yourself more marketable for a high-paying career or to satisfy the demands of your parents, then your motivation is more extrinsic in nature.

In reality, our motivations are often a mix of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors, but the nature of the mix of these factors might change over time (often in ways that seem counter-intuitive). There is an old adage: “Choose a job that you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life,” meaning that if you enjoy your occupation, work doesn’t seem like . . . well, work. Some research suggests that this isn’t necessarily the case (Daniel & Esser, 1980; Deci, 1972; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). According to this research, receiving some sort of extrinsic reinforcement (i.e., getting paid) for engaging in behaviors that we enjoy leads to those behaviors being thought of as work no longer providing that same enjoyment. As a result, we might spend less time engaging in these reclassified behaviors in the absence of any extrinsic reinforcement. For example, Odessa loves baking, so in her free time, she bakes for fun. Oftentimes, after stocking shelves at her grocery store job, she often whips up pastries in the evenings because she enjoys baking. When a coworker in the store’s bakery department leaves his job, Odessa applies for his position and gets transferred to the bakery department. Although she enjoys what she does in her new job, after a few months, she no longer has much desire to concoct tasty treats in her free time. Baking has become work in a way that changes her motivation to do it. What Odessa has experienced is called the overjustification effect—intrinsic motivation is diminished when extrinsic motivation is given. This can lead to extinguishing intrinsic motivation and creating a dependence on extrinsic rewards for continued performance (Deci et al., 1999).

Other studies suggest that intrinsic motivation may not be so vulnerable to the effects of extrinsic reinforcements, and in fact, reinforcements such as verbal praise might actually increase intrinsic motivation (Arnold, 1976; Cameron & Pierce, 1994). In that case, Odessa’s motivation to bake in her free time might remain high if, for example, customers regularly compliment her baking or cake decorating skills.

These apparent discrepancies in the researchers’ findings may be understood by considering several factors. For one, physical reinforcement (such as money) and verbal reinforcement (such as praise) may affect an individual in very different ways. In fact, tangible rewards (i.e., money) tend to have more negative effects on intrinsic motivation than do intangible rewards (i.e., praise). Furthermore, the expectation of the extrinsic motivator by an individual is crucial: If the person expects to receive an extrinsic reward, then intrinsic motivation for the task tends to be reduced. If, however, there is no such expectation, and the extrinsic motivation is presented as a surprise, then intrinsic motivation for the task tends to persist (Deci et al., 1999).

In addition, culture may influence motivation. For example, in collectivistic cultures, it is common to do things for your family members because the emphasis is on the group and what is best for the entire group, rather than what is best for any one individual (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). This focus on others provides a broader perspective that takes into account both situational and cultural influences on behavior; thus, a more nuanced explanation of the causes of others’ behavior becomes more likely. (You will learn more about collectivistic and individualistic cultures when you learn about social psychology.)

In educational settings, students are more likely to experience intrinsic motivation to learn when they feel a sense of belonging and respect in the classroom. This internalization can be enhanced if the evaluative aspects of the classroom are de-emphasized and if students feel that they exercise some control over the learning environment. Furthermore, providing students with activities that are challenging, yet doable, along with a rationale for engaging in various learning activities can enhance intrinsic motivation for those tasks (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Consider Hakim, a first-year law student with two courses this semester: Family Law and Criminal Law. The Family Law professor has a rather intimidating classroom: He likes to put students on the spot with tough questions, which often leaves students feeling belittled or embarrassed. Grades are based exclusively on quizzes and exams, and the instructor posts the results of each test on the classroom door. In contrast, the Criminal Law professor facilitates classroom discussions and respectful debates in small groups. The majority of the course grade is not exam-based but centers on a student-designed research project on a crime issue of the student’s choice. Research suggests that Hakim will be less intrinsically motivated in his Family Law course, where students are intimidated in the classroom setting, and there is an emphasis on teacher-driven evaluations. Hakim is likely to experience a higher level of intrinsic motivation in his Criminal Law course, where the class setting encourages inclusive collaboration and a respect for ideas, and where students have more influence over their learning activities.

Think About It

Schools often use concrete rewards to increase adaptive behaviors. How might this be a disadvantage for students intrinsically motivated to learn? What are the educational implications of the potential for concrete rewards to diminish intrinsic motivation for a given task?

We would expect to see a shift from learning for the sake of learning to learning to earn some reward. This would undermine the foundation upon which traditional institutions of higher education are built. For a student motivated by extrinsic rewards, dependence on those may pose issues later in life (post-school) when there are not typically extrinsic rewards for learning.

Like motivation itself, theories of it are full of diversity. For convenience in navigating through the diversity, we have organized the theories around two perspectives about motion. The first set of theories focuses on the innateness of motivation. These theories emphasize instinctual or inborn needs and drives that influence our behavior. The second set of theories proposes cognition as the source of motivation. Individual motivation is influenced by thoughts, beliefs, and values. The variation in these theories is due to disagreement about which cognitive factors are essential to motivation and how those cognitive factors might be influenced by the environment.

Innate Motivation Theories

First, we will describe some early motivational theories that focus on innate needs and drives. Not all of these theories apply to the classroom, but learning about them will show you how different theorists have approached the issue of motivation. You are sure to find some elements of your own thinking about motivation in each of them. We will examine instinct theory, drive theory, and arousal theory as early explanations of motivation. We will also discuss the behavioral perspective on motivation and the deficiency-growth perspective, as exemplified by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Cognitive Theories of Motivation

Cognitive theories of motivation assume that behavior is a result of cognitive processes. These theories presume that individuals are interpreting information and making decisions, not just acting on basic needs and drives. Cognitive motivation theories share strong ties with the cognitive and social learning theories that we discussed previously. We will examine several cognitive motivation theories: interest, attribution theory, expectancy-value theory, and self-efficacy theory. All emphasize that learners need to know, understand, and appreciate what they are doing in order to become motivated. Then, along with these cognitive motivation theories, we will examine a motivational perspective called self-determination theory, which attempts to reconcile cognitive theory’s emphasis on intrinsic motivation with more traditional notions of human needs and drives.

Video 6.1.2.  Instincts, Arousal, Needs, Drives  provides a brief overview of some of the major motivational theories.

Candela Citations

• Theories of Motivation . Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Retrieved from : . License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Kelvin Seifert and Rosemary Sutton. Provided by : The Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/educationalpsychology. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Educational Psychology. Authored by : Borlin. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Psychology 2e. Authored by : Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett. Provided by : Open Stax. Retrieved from : https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Extrinsic vs Intrinsic Motivation. Provided by : ASCatRIT. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/kUNE4RtZnbk. License : All Rights Reserved

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

14.3 Process Theories of Motivation

• Describe the process theories of motivation, and compare and contrast the main process theories of motivation: operant conditioning theory, equity theory, goal theory, and expectancy theory.

Process theories of motivation try to explain why behaviors are initiated. These theories focus on the mechanism by which we choose a target, and the effort that we exert to “hit” the target. There are four major process theories: (1) operant conditioning, (2) equity, (3) goal, and (4) expectancy.

Operant Conditioning Theory

Operant conditioning theory is the simplest of the motivation theories. It basically states that people will do those things for which they are rewarded and will avoid doing things for which they are punished. This premise is sometimes called the “law of effect.” However, if this were the sum total of conditioning theory, we would not be discussing it here. Operant conditioning theory does offer greater insights than “reward what you want and punish what you don’t,” and knowledge of its principles can lead to effective management practices.

Operant conditioning focuses on the learning of voluntary behaviors. 18 The term operant conditioning indicates that learning results from our “operating on” the environment. After we “operate on the environment” (that is, behave in a certain fashion), consequences result. These consequences determine the likelihood of similar behavior in the future. Learning occurs because we do something to the environment. The environment then reacts to our action, and our subsequent behavior is influenced by this reaction.

The Basic Operant Model

According to operant conditioning theory , we learn to behave in a particular fashion because of consequences that resulted from our past behaviors. 19 The learning process involves three distinct steps (see Table 14.2 ). The first step involves a stimulus (S). The stimulus is any situation or event we perceive that we then respond to. A homework assignment is a stimulus. The second step involves a response (R), that is, any behavior or action we take in reaction to the stimulus. Staying up late to get your homework assignment in on time is a response. (We use the words response and behavior interchangeably here.) Finally, a consequence (C) is any event that follows our response and that makes the response more or less likely to occur in the future. If Colleen Sullivan receives praise from her superior for working hard, and if getting that praise is a pleasurable event, then it is likely that Colleen will work hard again in the future. If, on the other hand, the superior ignores or criticizes Colleen’s response (working hard), this consequence is likely to make Colleen avoid working hard in the future. It is the experienced consequence (positive or negative) that influences whether a response will be repeated the next time the stimulus is presented.

Reinforcement occurs when a consequence makes it more likely the response/behavior will be repeated in the future. In the previous example, praise from Colleen’s superior is a reinforcer. Extinction occurs when a consequence makes it less likely the response/behavior will be repeated in the future. Criticism from Colleen’s supervisor could cause her to stop working hard on any assignment.

There are three ways to make a response more likely to recur: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and avoidance learning. In addition, there are two ways to make the response less likely to recur: nonreinforcement and punishment.

Making a Response More Likely

According to reinforcement theorists, managers can encourage employees to repeat a behavior if they provide a desirable consequence, or reward, after the behavior is performed. A positive reinforcement is a desirable consequence that satisfies an active need or that removes a barrier to need satisfaction. It can be as simple as a kind word or as major as a promotion. Companies that provide “dinners for two” as awards to those employees who go the extra mile are utilizing positive reinforcement. It is important to note that there are wide variations in what people consider to be a positive reinforcer. Praise from a supervisor may be a powerful reinforcer for some workers (like high-nAch individuals) but not others.

Another technique for making a desired response more likely to be repeated is known as negative reinforcement . When a behavior causes something undesirable to be taken away, the behavior is more likely to be repeated in the future. Managers use negative reinforcement when they remove something unpleasant from an employee’s work environment in the hope that this will encourage the desired behavior. Ted doesn’t like being continually reminded by Philip to work faster (Ted thinks Philip is nagging him), so he works faster at stocking shelves to avoid being criticized. Philip’s reminders are a negative reinforcement for Ted.

Approach using negative reinforcement with extreme caution. Negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment. Punishment, unlike reinforcement (negative or positive), is intended to make a particular behavior go away (not be repeated). Negative reinforcement, like positive reinforcement, is intended to make a behavior more likely to be repeated in the future. In the previous example, Philip’s reminders simultaneously punished one behavior (slow stocking) and reinforced another (faster stocking). The difference is often a fine one, but it becomes clearer when we identify the behaviors we are trying to encourage (reinforcement) or discourage (punishment).

A third method of making a response more likely to occur involves a process known as avoidance learning. Avoidance learning occurs when we learn to behave in a certain way to avoid encountering an undesired or unpleasant consequence. We may learn to wake up a minute or so before our alarm clock rings so we can turn it off and not hear the irritating buzzer. Some workers learn to get to work on time to avoid the harsh words or punitive actions of their supervisors. Many organizational discipline systems rely heavily on avoidance learning by using the threat of negative consequences to encourage desired behavior. When managers warn an employee not to be late again, when they threaten to fire a careless worker, or when they transfer someone to an undesirable position, they are relying on the power of avoidance learning.

Making a Response Less Likely

At times it is necessary to discourage a worker from repeating an undesirable behavior. The techniques managers use to make a behavior less likely to occur involve doing something that frustrates the individual’s need satisfaction or that removes a currently satisfying circumstance. Punishment is an aversive consequence that follows a behavior and makes it less likely to reoccur.

Note that managers have another alternative, known as nonreinforcement , in which they provide no consequence at all following a worker’s response. Nonreinforcement eventually reduces the likelihood of that response reoccurring, which means that managers who fail to reinforce a worker’s desirable behavior are also likely to see that desirable behavior less often. If Philip never rewards Ted when he finishes stocking on time, for instance, Ted will probably stop trying to beat the clock. Nonreinforcement can also reduce the likelihood that employees will repeat undesirable behaviors, although it doesn’t produce results as quickly as punishment does. Furthermore, if other reinforcing consequences are present, nonreinforcement is unlikely to be effective.

While punishment clearly works more quickly than does nonreinforcement, it has some potentially undesirable side effects. Although punishment effectively tells a person what not to do and stops the undesired behavior, it does not tell them what they should do. In addition, even when punishment works as intended, the worker being punished often develops negative feelings toward the person who does the punishing. Although sometimes it is very difficult for managers to avoid using punishment, it works best when reinforcement is also used. An experiment conducted by two researchers at the University of Kansas found that using nonmonetary reinforcement in addition to punitive disciplinary measures was an effective way to decrease absenteeism in an industrial setting. 20

Schedules of Reinforcement

When a person is learning a new behavior, like how to perform a new job, it is desirable to reinforce effective behaviors every time they are demonstrated (this is called shaping ). But in organizations it is not usually possible to reinforce desired behaviors every time they are performed, for obvious reasons. Moreover, research indicates that constantly reinforcing desired behaviors, termed continuous reinforcement, can be detrimental in the long run. Behaviors that are learned under continuous reinforcement are quickly extinguished (cease to be demonstrated). This is because people will expect a reward (the reinforcement) every time they display the behavior. When they don’t receive it after just a few times, they quickly presume that the behavior will no longer be rewarded, and they quit doing it. Any employer can change employees’ behavior by simply not paying them!

If behaviors cannot (and should not) be reinforced every time they are exhibited, how often should they be reinforced? This is a question about schedules of reinforcement , or the frequency at which effective employee behaviors should be reinforced. Much of the early research on operant conditioning focused on the best way to maintain the performance of desired behaviors. That is, it attempted to determine how frequently behaviors need to be rewarded so that they are not extinguished. Research zeroed in on four types of reinforcement schedules:

Fixed Ratio. With this schedule, a fixed number of responses (let’s say five) must be exhibited before any of the responses are reinforced. If the desired response is coming to work on time, then giving employees a $25 bonus for being punctual every day from Monday through Friday would be a fixed ratio of reinforcement.

Variable Ratio. A variable-ratio schedule reinforces behaviors, on average, a fixed number of times (again let’s say five). Sometimes the tenth behavior is reinforced, other times the first, but on average every fifth response is reinforced. People who perform under such variable-ratio schedules like this don’t know when they will be rewarded, but they do know that they will be rewarded.

Fixed Interval. In a fixed-interval schedule, a certain amount of time must pass before a behavior is reinforced. With a one-hour fixed-interval schedule, for example, a supervisor visits an employee’s workstation and reinforces the first desired behavior she sees. She returns one hour later and reinforces the next desirable behavior. This schedule doesn’t imply that reinforcement will be received automatically after the passage of the time period. The time must pass and an appropriate response must be made.

Variable Interval. The variable interval differs from fixed-interval schedules in that the specified time interval passes on average before another appropriate response is reinforced. Sometimes the time period is shorter than the average; sometimes it is longer.

Which type of reinforcement schedule is best? In general, continuous reinforcement is best while employees are learning their jobs or new duties. After that, variable-ratio reinforcement schedules are superior. In most situations the fixed-interval schedule produces the least effective results, with fixed ratio and variable interval falling in between the two extremes. But remember that effective behaviors must be reinforced with some type of schedule, or they may become extinguished.

Equity Theory

Suppose you have worked for a company for several years. Your performance has been excellent, you have received regular pay increases, and you get along with your boss and coworkers. One day you come to work to find that a new person has been hired to work at the same job that you do. You are pleased to have the extra help. Then, you find out the new person is making $100 more per week than you, despite your longer service and greater experience. How do you feel? If you’re like most of us, you’re quite unhappy. Your satisfaction has just evaporated. Nothing about your job has changed—you receive the same pay, do the same job, and work for the same supervisor. Yet, the addition of one new employee has transformed you from a happy to an unhappy employee. This feeling of unfairness is the basis for equity theory.

Equity theory states that motivation is affected by the outcomes we receive for our inputs compared to the outcomes and inputs of other people. 21 This theory is concerned with the reactions people have to outcomes they receive as part of a “social exchange.” According to equity theory, our reactions to the outcomes we receive from others (an employer) depend both on how we value those outcomes in an absolute sense and on the circumstances surrounding their receipt. Equity theory suggests that our reactions will be influenced by our perceptions of the “inputs” provided in order to receive these outcomes (“Did I get as much out of this as I put into it?”). Even more important is our comparison of our inputs to what we believe others received for their inputs (“Did I get as much for my inputs as my coworkers got for theirs?”).

The Basic Equity Model

The fundamental premise of equity theory is that we continuously monitor the degree to which our work environment is “fair.” In determining the degree of fairness, we consider two sets of factors, inputs and outcomes (see Exhibit 14.11 ). Inputs are any factors we contribute to the organization that we feel have value and are relevant to the organization. Note that the value attached to an input is based on our perception of its relevance and value. Whether or not anyone else agrees that the input is relevant or valuable is unimportant to us. Common inputs in organizations include time, effort, performance level, education level, skill levels, and bypassed opportunities. Since any factor we consider relevant is included in our evaluation of equity, it is not uncommon for factors to be included that the organization (or even the law) might argue are inappropriate (such as age, sex, ethnic background, or social status).

Outcomes are anything we perceive as getting back from the organization in exchange for our inputs. Again, the value attached to an outcome is based on our perceptions and not necessarily on objective reality. Common outcomes from organizations include pay, working conditions, job status, feelings of achievement, and friendship opportunities. Both positive and negative outcomes influence our evaluation of equity. Stress, headaches, and fatigue are also potential outcomes. Since any outcome we consider relevant to the exchange influences our equity perception, we frequently include unintended factors (peer disapproval, family reactions).

Equity theory predicts that we will compare our outcomes to our inputs in the form of a ratio. On the basis of this ratio we make an initial determination of whether or not the situation is equitable. If we perceive that the outcomes we receive are commensurate with our inputs, we are satisfied. If we believe that the outcomes are not commensurate with our inputs, we are dissatisfied. This dissatisfaction can lead to ineffective behaviors for the organization if they continue. The key feature of equity theory is that it predicts that we will compare our ratios to the ratios of other people. It is this comparison of the two ratios that has the strongest effect on our equity perceptions. These other people are called referent others because we “refer to” them when we judge equity. Usually, referent others are people we work with who perform work of a similar nature. That is, referent others perform jobs that are similar in difficulty and complexity to the employee making the equity determination (see Exhibit 14.11 ).

Three conditions can result from this comparison. Our outcome-to-input ratio could equal the referent other’s. This is a state of equity . A second result could be that our ratio is greater than the referent other’s. This is a state of overreward inequity . The third result could be that we perceive our ratio to be less than that of the referent other. This is a state of underreward inequity .

Equity theory has a lot to say about basic human tendencies. The motivation to compare our situation to that of others is strong. For example, what is the first thing you do when you get an exam back in class? Probably look at your score and make an initial judgment as to its fairness. For a lot of people, the very next thing they do is look at the scores received by fellow students who sit close to them. A 75 percent score doesn’t look so bad if everyone else scored lower! This is equity theory in action.

Most workers in the United States are at least partially dissatisfied with their pay. 22 Equity theory helps explain this. Two human tendencies create feelings of inequity that are not based in reality. One is that we tend to overrate our performance levels. For example, one study conducted by your authors asked more than 600 employees to anonymously rate their performance on a 7-point scale (1 = poor, 7 = excellent). The average was 6.2, meaning the average employee rated his or her performance as very good to excellent. This implies that the average employee also expects excellent pay increases, a policy most employers cannot afford if they are to remain competitive. Another study found that the average employee (one whose performance is better than half of the other employees and worse than the other half) rated her performance at the 80th percentile (better than 80 percent of the other employees, worse than 20 percent). 23 Again it would be impossible for most organizations to reward the average employee at the 80th percentile. In other words, most employees inaccurately overrate the inputs they provide to an organization. This leads to perceptions of inequity that are not justified.

The second human tendency that leads to unwarranted perceptions of inequity is our tendency to overrate the outcomes of others. 24 Many employers keep the pay levels of employees a “secret.” Still other employers actually forbid employees to talk about their pay. This means that many employees don’t know for certain how much their colleagues are paid. And, because most of us overestimate the pay of others, we tend to think that they’re paid more than they actually are, and the unjustified perceptions of inequity are perpetuated.

The bottom line for employers is that they need to be sensitive to employees’ need for equity. Employers need to do everything they can to prevent feelings of inequity because employees engage in effective behaviors when they perceive equity and ineffective behaviors when they perceive inequity.

Perceived Overreward Inequity

When we perceive that overreward inequity exists (that is, we unfairly make more than others), it is rare that we are so dissatisfied, guilty, or sufficiently motivated that we make changes to produce a state of perceived equity (or we leave the situation). Indeed, feelings of overreward, when they occur, are quite transient. Very few of us go to our employers and complain that we’re overpaid! Most people are less sensitive to overreward inequities than they are to underreward inequities. 25 However infrequently they are used for overreward, the same types of actions are available for dealing with both types of inequity.

Perceived Underreward Inequity

When we perceive that underreward inequity exists (that is, others unfairly make more than we do), we will likely be dissatisfied, angered, and motivated to change the situation (or escape the situation) in order to produce a state of perceived equity. As we discuss shortly, people can take many actions to deal with underreward inequity.

Reducing Underreward Inequity

A simple situation helps explain the consequences of inequity. Two automobile workers in Detroit, John and Mary, fasten lug nuts to wheels on cars as they come down the assembly line, John on the left side and Mary on the right. Their inputs are equal (both fasten the same number of lug nuts at the same pace), but John makes $500 per week and Mary makes $600. Their equity ratios are thus:

As you can see, their ratios are not equal; that is, Mary receives greater outcome for equal input. Who is experiencing inequity? According to equity theory, both John and Mary—underreward inequity for John, and overreward inequity for Mary. Mary’s inequity won’t last long (in real organizations), but in our hypothetical example, what might John do to resolve this?

Adams identified a number of things people do to reduce the tension produced by a perceived state of inequity. They change their own outcomes or inputs, or they change those of the referent other. They distort their own perceptions of the outcomes or inputs of either party by using a different referent other, or they leave the situation in which the inequity is occurring.

• Alter inputs of the person. The perceived state of equity can be altered by changing our own inputs, that is, by decreasing the quantity or quality of our performance. John can affect his own mini slowdown and install only nine lug nuts on each car as it comes down the production line. This, of course, might cause him to lose his job, so he probably won’t choose this alternative.
• Alter outcomes of the person. We could attempt to increase outcomes to achieve a state of equity, like ask for a raise, a nicer office, a promotion, or other positively valued outcomes. So John will likely ask for a raise. Unfortunately, many people enhance their outcomes by stealing from their employers.
• Alter inputs of the referent other. When underrewarded, we may try to achieve a state of perceived equity by encouraging the referent other to increase their inputs. We may demand, for example, that the referent other “start pulling their weight,” or perhaps help the referent other to become a better performer. It doesn’t matter that the referent other is already pulling their weight—remember, this is all about perception. In our example, John could ask Mary to put on two of his ten lug nuts as each car comes down the assembly line. This would not likely happen, however, so John would be motivated to try another alternative to reduce his inequity.
• Alter outcomes of the referent other. We can “correct” a state of underreward by directly or indirectly reducing the value of the other’s outcomes. In our example, John could try to get Mary’s pay lowered to reduce his inequity. This too would probably not occur in the situation described.
• Distort perceptions of inputs or outcomes. It is possible to reduce a perceived state of inequity without changing input or outcome. We simply distort our own perceptions of our inputs or outcomes, or we distort our perception of those of the referent other. Thus, John may tell himself that “Mary does better work than I thought” or “she enjoys her work much less than I do” or “she gets paid less than I realized.”
• Choose a different referent other. We can also deal with both over- and underreward inequities by changing the referent other (“my situation is really more like Ahmed’s”). This is the simplest and most powerful way to deal with perceived inequity: it requires neither actual nor perceptual changes in anybody’s input or outcome, and it causes us to look around and assess our situation more carefully. For example, John might choose as a referent other Bill, who installs dashboards but makes less money than John.
• Leave the situation. A final technique for dealing with a perceived state of inequity involves removing ourselves from the situation. We can choose to accomplish this through absenteeism, transfer, or termination. This approach is usually not selected unless the perceived inequity is quite high or other attempts at achieving equity are not readily available. Most automobile workers are paid quite well for their work. John is unlikely to find an equivalent job, so it is also unlikely that he will choose this option.

Implications of Equity Theory

Equity theory is widely used, and its implications are clear. In the vast majority of cases, employees experience (or perceive) underreward inequity rather than overreward. As discussed above, few of the behaviors that result from underreward inequity are good for employers. Thus, employers try to prevent unnecessary perceptions of inequity. They do this in a number of ways. They try to be as fair as possible in allocating pay. That is, they measure performance levels as accurately as possible, then give the highest performers the highest pay increases. Second, most employers are no longer secretive about their pay schedules. People are naturally curious about how much they are paid relative to others in the organization. This doesn’t mean that employers don’t practice discretion—they usually don’t reveal specific employees’ exact pay. But they do tell employees the minimum and maximum pay levels for their jobs and the pay scales for the jobs of others in the organization. Such practices give employees a factual basis for judging equity.

Supervisors play a key role in creating perceptions of equity. “Playing favorites” ensures perceptions of inequity. Employees want to be rewarded on their merits, not the whims of their supervisors. In addition, supervisors need to recognize differences in employees in their reactions to inequity. Some employees are highly sensitive to inequity, and a supervisor needs to be especially cautious around them. 26 Everyone is sensitive to reward allocation. 27 But “equity sensitives” are even more sensitive. A major principle for supervisors, then, is simply to implement fairness. Never base punishment or reward on whether or not you like an employee. Reward behaviors that contribute to the organization, and discipline those that do not. Make sure employees understand what is expected of them, and praise them when they do it. These practices make everyone happier and your job easier.

Goal Theory

No theory is perfect. If it was, it wouldn’t be a theory. It would be a set of facts. Theories are sets of propositions that are right more often than they are wrong, but they are not infallible. However, the basic propositions of goal theory* come close to being infallible. Indeed, it is one of the strongest theories in organizational behavior.

The Basic Goal-Setting Model

Goal theory states that people will perform better if they have difficult, specific, accepted performance goals or objectives. 28 , 29 The first and most basic premise of goal theory is that people will attempt to achieve those goals that they intend to achieve. Thus, if we intend to do something (like get an A on an exam), we will exert effort to accomplish it. Without such goals, our effort at the task (studying) required to achieve the goal is less. Students whose goals are to get As study harder than students who don’t have this goal—we all know this. This doesn’t mean that people without goals are unmotivated. It simply means that people with goals are more motivated. The intensity of their motivation is greater, and they are more directed.

The second basic premise is that difficult goals result in better performance than easy goals. This does not mean that difficult goals are always achieved, but our performance will usually be better when we intend to achieve harder goals. Your goal of an A in Classical Mechanics at Cal Tech may not get you your A, but it may earn you a B+, which you wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. Difficult goals cause us to exert more effort, and this almost always results in better performance.

Another premise of goal theory is that specific goals are better than vague goals. We often wonder what we need to do to be successful. Have you ever asked a professor “What do I need to do to get an A in this course?” If she responded “Do well on the exams,” you weren’t much better off for having asked. This is a vague response. Goal theory says that we perform better when we have specific goals. Had your professor told you the key thrust of the course, to turn in all the problem sets, to pay close attention to the essay questions on exams, and to aim for scores in the 90s, you would have something concrete on which to build a strategy.

A key premise of goal theory is that people must accept the goal. Usually we set our own goals. But sometimes others set goals for us. Your professor telling you your goal is to “score at least a 90 percent on your exams” doesn’t mean that you’ll accept this goal. Maybe you don’t feel you can achieve scores in the 90s. Or, you’ve heard that 90 isn’t good enough for an A in this class. This happens in work organizations quite often. Supervisors give orders that something must be done by a certain time. The employees may fully understand what is wanted, yet if they feel the order is unreasonable or impossible, they may not exert much effort to accomplish it. Thus, it is important for people to accept the goal. They need to feel that it is also their goal. If they do not, goal theory predicts that they won’t try as hard to achieve it.

Goal theory also states that people need to commit to a goal in addition to accepting it. Goal commitment is the degree to which we dedicate ourselves to achieving a goal. Goal commitment is about setting priorities. We can accept many goals (go to all classes, stay awake during classes, take lecture notes), but we often end up doing only some of them. In other words, some goals are more important than others. And we exert more effort for certain goals. This also happens frequently at work. A software analyst’s major goal may be to write a new program. Her minor goal may be to maintain previously written programs. It is minor because maintaining old programs is boring, while writing new ones is fun. Goal theory predicts that her commitment, and thus her intensity, to the major goal will be greater.

Allowing people to participate in the goal-setting process often results in higher goal commitment. This has to do with ownership. And when people participate in the process, they tend to incorporate factors they think will make the goal more interesting, challenging, and attainable. Thus, it is advisable to allow people some input into the goal-setting process. Imposing goals on them from the outside usually results in less commitment (and acceptance).

The basic goal-setting model is shown in Exhibit 14.12 . The process starts with our values. Values are our beliefs about how the world should be or act, and often include words like “should” or “ought.” We compare our present conditions against these values. For example, Randi holds the value that everyone should be a hard worker. After measuring her current work against this value, Randi concludes that she doesn’t measure up to her own value. Following this, her goal-setting process begins. Randi will set a goal that affirms her status as a hard worker. Exhibit 14.12 lists the four types of goals. Some goals are self-set. (Randi decides to word process at least 70 pages per day.) Participative goals are jointly set. (Randi goes to her supervisor, and together they set some appropriate goals for her.) In still other cases, goals are assigned. (Her boss tells her that she must word process at least 60 pages per day.) The fourth type of goal, which can be self-set, jointly determined, or assigned, is a “do your best” goal. But note this goal is vague, so it usually doesn’t result in the best performance.

Depending on the characteristics of Randi’s goals, she may or may not exert a lot of effort. For maximum effort to result, her goals should be difficult, specific, accepted, and committed to. Then, if she has sufficient ability and lack of constraints, maximum performance should occur. Examples of constraints could be that her old computer frequently breaks down or her supervisor constantly interferes.

The consequence of endeavoring to reach her goal will be that Randi will be satisfied with herself. Her behavior is consistent with her values. She’ll be even more satisfied if her supervisor praises her performance and gives her a pay increase!

In Randi’s case, her goal achievement resulted in several benefits. However, this doesn’t always happen. If goals are not achieved, people may be unhappy with themselves, and their employer may be dissatisfied as well. Such an experience can make a person reluctant to accept goals in the future. Thus, setting difficult yet attainable goals cannot be stressed enough.

Goal theory can be a tremendous motivational tool. In fact, many organizations practice effective management by using a technique called “management by objectives” (MBO). MBO is based on goal theory and is quite effective when implemented consistently with goal theory’s basic premises.

Despite its many strengths, several cautions about goal theory are appropriate. Locke has identified most of them. 30 First, setting goals in one area can lead people to neglect other areas. (Randi may word process 70 pages per day, but neglect her proofreading responsibilities.) It is important that goals be set for most major duties. Second, goal setting sometimes has unintended consequences. For example, employees set easy goals so that they look good when they achieve them. Or it causes unhealthy competition between employees. Or an employee sabotages the work of others so that only she has goal achievement.

Some managers use goal setting in unethical ways. They may manipulate employees by setting impossible goals. This enables them to criticize employees even when the employees are doing superior work and, of course, causes much stress. Goal setting should never be abused. Perhaps the key caution about goal setting is that it often results in too much focus on quantified measures of performance. Qualitative aspects of a job or task may be neglected because they aren’t easily measured. Managers must keep employees focused on the qualitative aspects of their jobs as well as the quantitative ones. Finally, setting individual goals in a teamwork environment can be counterproductive. 31 Where possible, it is preferable to have group goals in situations where employees depend on one another in the performance of their jobs.

The cautions noted here are not intended to deter you from using goal theory. We note them so that you can avoid the pitfalls. Remember, employees have a right to reasonable performance expectations and the rewards that result from performance, and organizations have a right to expect high performance levels from employees. Goal theory should be used to optimize the employment relationship. Goal theory holds that people will exert effort to accomplish goals if those goals are difficult to achieve, accepted by the individual, and specific in nature.

Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory posits that we will exert much effort to perform at high levels so that we can obtain valued outcomes. It is the motivation theory that many organizational behavior researchers find most intriguing, in no small part because it is currently also the most comprehensive theory. Expectancy theory ties together many of the concepts and hypotheses from the theories discussed earlier in this chapter. In addition, it points to factors that other theories miss. Expectancy theory has much to offer the student of management and organizational behavior.

Expectancy theory is sufficiently general that it is useful in a wide variety of situations. Choices between job offers, between working hard or not so hard, between going to work or not—virtually any set of possibilities can be addressed by expectancy theory. Basically, the theory focuses on two related issues:

• When faced with two or more alternatives, which will we select?
• Once an alternative is chosen, how motivated will we be to pursue that choice?

Expectancy theory thus focuses on the two major aspects of motivation, direction (which alternative?) and intensity (how much effort to implement the alternative?). The attractiveness of an alternative is determined by our “expectations” of what is likely to happen if we choose it. The more we believe that the alternative chosen will lead to positively valued outcomes, the greater its attractiveness to us.

Expectancy theory states that, when faced with two or more alternatives, we will select the most attractive one. And, the greater the attractiveness of the chosen alternative, the more motivated we will be to pursue it. Our natural hedonism, discussed earlier in this chapter, plays a role in this process. We are motivated to maximize desirable outcomes (a pay raise) and minimize undesirable ones (discipline). Expectancy theory goes on to state that we are also logical in our decisions about alternatives. It considers people to be rational. People evaluate alternatives in terms of their “pros and cons,” and then choose the one with the most “pros” and fewest “cons.”

The Basic Expectancy Model

The three major components of expectancy theory reflect its assumptions of hedonism and rationality: effort-performance expectancy, performance-outcome expectancy, and valences.

The effort-performance expectancy , abbreviated E1, is the perceived probability that effort will lead to performance (or E ➨ P). Performance here means anything from doing well on an exam to assembling 100 toasters a day at work. Sometimes people believe that no matter how much effort they exert, they won’t perform at a high level. They have weak E1s. Other people have strong E1s and believe the opposite—that is, that they can perform at a high level if they exert high effort. You all know students with different E1s—those who believe that if they study hard they’ll do well, and those who believe that no matter how much they study they’ll do poorly. People develop these perceptions from prior experiences with the task at hand, and from self-perceptions of their abilities. The core of the E1 concept is that people don’t always perceive a direct relationship between effort level and performance level.

The performance-outcome expectancy , E2, is the perceived relationship between performance and outcomes (or P ➨ O). 1 Many things in life happen as a function of how well we perform various tasks. E2 addresses the question “What will happen if I perform well?” Let’s say you get an A in your Classical Mechanics course at Cal Tech. You’ll be elated, your classmates may envy you, and you are now assured of that plum job at NASA. But let’s say you got a D. Whoops, that was the last straw for the dean. Now you’ve flunked out, and you’re reduced to going home to live with your parents (perish the thought!). Likewise, E2 perceptions develop in organizations, although hopefully not as drastically as your beleaguered career at Cal Tech. People with strong E2s believe that if they perform their jobs well, they’ll receive desirable outcomes—good pay increases, praise from their supervisor, and a feeling that they’re really contributing. In the same situation, people with weak E2s will have the opposite perceptions—that high performance levels don’t result in desirable outcomes and that it doesn’t really matter how well they perform their jobs as long as they don’t get fired.

Valences are the easiest of the expectancy theory concepts to describe. Valences are simply the degree to which we perceive an outcome as desirable, neutral, or undesirable. Highly desirable outcomes (a 25 percent pay increase) are positively valent. Undesirable outcomes (being disciplined) are negatively valent. Outcomes that we’re indifferent to (where you must park your car) have neutral valences. Positively and negatively valent outcomes abound in the workplace—pay increases and freezes, praise and criticism, recognition and rejection, promotions and demotions. And as you would expect, people differ dramatically in how they value these outcomes. Our needs, values, goals, and life situations affect what valence we give an outcome. Equity is another consideration we use in assigning valences. We may consider a 10 percent pay increase desirable until we find out that it was the lowest raise given in our work group.

Exhibit 14.13 summarizes the three core concepts of expectancy theory. The theory states that our perceptions about our surroundings are essentially predictions about “what leads to what.” We perceive that certain effort levels result in certain performance levels. We perceive that certain performance levels result in certain outcomes. Outcomes can be extrinsic , in that others (our supervisor) determine whether we receive them, or intrinsic , in that we determine if they are received (our sense of achievement). Each outcome has an associated valence (outcome A’s valence is V a V a ). Expectancy theory predicts that we will exert effort that results in the maximum amount of positive-valence outcomes. 2 If our E1 or E2 is weak, or if the outcomes are not sufficiently desirable, our motivation to exert effort will be low. Stated differently, an individual will be motivated to try to achieve the level of performance that results in the most rewards.

V o is the valence of the outcome. The effort level with the greatest force associated with it will be chosen by the individual.

Implications of Expectancy Theory

Expectancy theory has major implications for the workplace. Basically, expectancy theory predicts that employees will be motivated to perform well on their jobs under two conditions. The first is when employees believe that a reasonable amount of effort will result in good performance. The second is when good performance is associated with positive outcomes and low performance is associated with negative outcomes. If neither of these conditions exists in the perceptions of employees, their motivation to perform will be low.

Why might an employee perceive that positive outcomes are not associated with high performance? Or that negative outcomes are not associated with low performance? That is, why would employees develop weak E2s? This happens for a number of reasons. The main one is that many organizations subscribe too strongly to a principle of equality (not to be confused with equity). They give all of their employees equal salaries for equal work, equal pay increases every year (these are known as across-the-board pay raises), and equal treatment wherever possible. Equality-focused organizations reason that some employees “getting more” than others leads to disruptive competition and feelings of inequity.

In time employees in equality-focused organizations develop weak E2s because no distinctions are made for differential outcomes. If the best and the worst salespeople are paid the same, in time they will both decide that it isn’t worth the extra effort to be a high performer. Needless to say, this is not the goal of competitive organizations and can cause the demise of the organization as it competes with other firms in today’s global marketplace.

Expectancy theory states that to maximize motivation, organizations must make outcomes contingent on performance. This is the main contribution of expectancy theory: it makes us think about how organizations should distribute outcomes. If an organization, or a supervisor, believes that treating everyone “the same” will result in satisfied and motivated employees, they will be wrong more times than not. From equity theory we know that some employees, usually the better-performing ones, will experience underreward inequity. From expectancy theory we know that employees will see no difference in outcomes for good and poor performance, so they will not have as much incentive to be good performers. Effective organizations need to actively encourage the perception that good performance leads to positive outcomes (bonuses, promotions) and that poor performance leads to negative ones (discipline, termination). Remember, there is a big difference between treating employees equally and treating them equitably.

What if an organization ties positive outcomes to high performance and negative outcomes to low performance? Employees will develop strong E2s. But will this result in highly motivated employees? The answer is maybe. We have yet to address employees’ E1s. If employees have weak E1s, they will perceive that high (or low) effort does not result in high performance and thus will not exert much effort. It is important for managers to understand that this can happen despite rewards for high performance.

Task-related abilities are probably the single biggest reason why some employees have weak E1s. Self-efficacy is our belief about whether we can successfully execute some future action or task, or achieve some result. High self-efficacy employees believe that they are likely to succeed at most or all of their job duties and responsibilities. And as you would expect, low self-efficacy employees believe the opposite. Specific self-efficacy reflects our belief in our capability to perform a specific task at a specific level of performance. If we believe that the probability of our selling $30,000 of jackrabbit slippers in one month is .90, our self-efficacy for this task is high. Specific self-efficacy is our judgment about the likelihood of successful task performance measured immediately before we expend effort on the task. As a result, specific self-efficacy is much more variable than more enduring notions of personality. Still, there is little doubt that our state-based beliefs are some of the most powerful motivators of behavior. Our efficacy expectations at a given point in time determine not only our initial decision to perform (or not) a task, but also the amount of effort we will expend and whether we will persist in the face of adversity. 32 Self-efficacy has a strong impact on the E1 factor. As a result, self-efficacy is one of the strongest determinants of performance in any particular task situation. 33

Employees develop weak E1s for two reasons. First, they don’t have sufficient resources to perform their jobs. Resources can be internal or external. Internal resources include what employees bring to the job (such as prior training, work experience, education, ability, and aptitude) and their understanding of what they need to do to be considered good performers. The second resource is called role perceptions—how employees believe their jobs are done and how they fit into the broader organization. If employees don’t know how to become good performers, they will have weak E1s. External resources include the tools, equipment, and labor necessary to perform a job. The lack of good external resources can also cause E1s to be weak.

The second reason for weak E1s is an organization’s failure to measure performance accurately. That is, performance ratings don’t correlate well with actual performance levels. How does this happen? Have you ever gotten a grade that you felt didn’t reflect how much you learned? This also happens in organizations. Why are ratings sometimes inaccurate? Supervisors, who typically give out ratings, well, they’re human. Perhaps they’re operating under the mistaken notion that similar ratings for everyone will keep the team happy. Perhaps they’re unconsciously playing favorites. Perhaps they don’t know what good and poor performance levels are. Perhaps the measurements they’re expected to use don’t fit their product/team/people. Choose one or all of these. Rating people is rarely easy.

Whatever the cause of rating errors, some employees may come to believe that no matter what they do they will never receive a high performance rating. They may in fact believe that they are excellent performers but that the performance rating system is flawed. Expectancy theory differs from most motivation theories because it highlights the need for accurate performance measurement. Organizations cannot motivate employees to perform at a high level if they cannot identify high performers.

Organizations exert tremendous influence over employee choices in their performance levels and how much effort to exert on their jobs. That is, organizations can have a major impact on the direction and intensity of employees’ motivation levels. Practical applications of expectancy theory include:

• Strengthening the effort ➨ performance expectancy by selecting employees who have the necessary abilities, providing proper training, providing experiences of success, clarifying job responsibilities, etc.
• Strengthening the performance ➨ outcome expectancy with policies that specify that desirable behavior leads to desirable outcomes and undesirable behavior leads to neutral or undesirable outcomes. Consistent enforcement of these policies is key—workers must believe in the contingencies.
• Systematically evaluating which outcomes employees value. The greater the valence of outcomes offered for a behavior, the more likely employees will commit to that alternative. By recognizing that different employees have different values and that values change over time, organizations can provide the most highly valued outcomes.
• Ensuring that effort actually translates into performance by clarifying what actions lead to performance and by appropriate training.
• Ensuring appropriate worker outcomes for performance through reward schedules (extrinsic outcomes) and appropriate job design (so the work experience itself provides intrinsic outcomes).
• Examining the level of outcomes provided to workers. Are they equitable, given the worker’s inputs? Are they equitable in comparison to the way other workers are treated?
• Measuring performance levels as accurately as possible, making sure that workers are capable of being high performers.

Managing Change

Differences in motivation across cultures.

The disgruntled employee is hardly a culturally isolated feature of business, and quitting before leaving takes the same forms, regardless of country. Cross-cultural signaling, social norms, and simple language barriers can make the task of motivation for the global manager confusing and counterintuitive. Communicating a passion for a common vision, coaching employees to see themselves as accountable and as owning their work, or attempting to create a “motivational ecosystem” can all fall flat with simple missed cues, bad translations, or tone-deaf approaches to a thousand-year-old culture.

Keeping employees motivated by making them feel valued and appreciated is not just a “Western” idea. The Ghanaian blog site Starrfmonline emphasizes that employee motivation and associated work quality improve when employees feel “valued, trusted, challenged, and supported in their work.” Conversely, when employees feel like a tool rather than a person, or feel unengaged with their work, then productivity suffers. A vicious cycle can then begin when the manager treats an employee as unmotivated and incapable, which then demotivates the employee and elicits the predicted response. The blogger cites an example from Eastern Europe where a manager sidelined an employee as inefficient and incompetent. After management coaching, the manager revisited his assessment and began working with the employee. As he worked to facilitate the employee’s efficiency and motivation, the employee went from being the lowest performer to a valuable team player. In the end, the blog says, “The very phrase ‘human resources’ frames employees as material to be deployed for organizational objectives. While the essential nature of employment contracts involves trading labour for remuneration, if we fail to see and appreciate our employees as whole people, efforts to motivate them will meet with limited success” (Starrfmonline 2017 n.p.)

Pavel Vosk, a business and management consultant based in Puyallup, Washington, says that too often, overachieving employees turn into unmotivated ones. In looking for the answer, he found that the most common source was a lack of recognition for the employee’s effort or exceptional performance. In fact, Vosk found that most employees go the extra mile only three times before they give up. Vosk’s advice is to show gratitude for employees’ effort, especially when it goes above and beyond. He says the recognition doesn’t have to be over the top, just anything that the employees will perceive as gratitude, from a catered lunch for a team working extra hours to fulfill a deadline to a simple face-to-face thank you (Huhman 2017).

Richard Frazao, president of Quaketek, based in Montreal, Quebec, stresses talking to the employees and making certain they are engaged in their jobs, citing boredom with one’s job as a major demotivating factor (Huhman 2017).

But motivating employees is not “one size fits all” globally. Rewarding and recognizing individuals and their achievements works fine in Western cultures but is undesirable in Asian cultures, which value teamwork and the collective over the individual. Whether to reward effort with a pay raise or with a job title or larger office is influenced by culture. Demoting an employee for poor performance is an effective motivator in Asian countries but is likely to result in losing an employee altogether in Western cultures. According to Matthew MacLachlan at Communicaid, “Making the assumption that your international workforce will be motivated by the same incentives can be dangerous and have a real impact on talent retention” (2016 n.p.).

Huhman, Heather R. 2017. “Employee Motivation Has to Be More Than 'a Pat on the Back.’” Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/287770

MacLachlan, Matthew. 2016. “Management Tips: How To Motivate Your International Workforce.” Communicaid. https://www.communicaid.com/cross-cultural-training/blog/motivating-international-workforce/

Starrfmonline. 2017. “HR Today: Motivating People Starts With Right Attitude.”

http://starrfmonline.com/2017/03/30/hr-today-motivating-people-starts-with-right-attitude/#

• As a Western manager working in the Middle East or sub-Saharan Africa, what motivational issues might you face?
• What problems would you expect a manager from a Confucian culture to encounter managing employees in America? In Europe?
• What regional, cultural, or ethnic issues do you think managers have to navigate within the United States?

Expectancy Theory: An Integrative Theory of Motivation

More so than any other motivation theory, expectancy theory can be tied into most concepts of what and how people become motivated. Consider the following examples.

• Need theories state that we are motivated to satisfy our needs. We positively value outcomes that satisfy unmet needs, negatively value outcomes that thwart the satisfaction of unmet needs, and assign neutral values to outcomes that do neither. In effect, the need theories explain how valences are formed.
• Operant conditioning theories state that we will probably repeat a response (behavior) in the future that was reinforced in the past (that is, followed by a positively valued consequence or the removal of a negatively valued consequence). This is the basic process involved in forming performance ➨ outcome expectancies. Both operant theories and expectancy theory argue that our interactions with our environment influence our future behavior. The primary difference is that expectancy theory explains this process in cognitive (rational) terms.
• Equity theories state that our satisfaction with a set of outcomes depends not only on how we value them but also on the circumstances surrounding their receipt. Equity theory, therefore, explains part of the process shown in Exhibit 14.11 . If we don’t feel that the outcomes we receive are equitable compared to a referent other, we will associate a lower or even negative valence with those outcomes.
• Goal theory can be integrated with the expanded expectancy model in several ways. Locke has noted that expectancy theory explains how we go about choosing a particular goal. 34 A reexamination of Exhibit 14.11 reveals other similarities between goal theory and expectancy theory. Locke’s use of the term “goal acceptance” to identify the personal adoption of a goal is similar to the “choice of an alternative” in the expectancy model. Locke’s “goal commitment,” the degree to which we commit to reaching our accepted (chosen) goal, is very much like the expectancy description of choice of effort level. Locke argues that the difficulty and specificity of a goal are major determinants of the level of performance attempted (goal-directed effort), and expectancy theory appears to be consistent with this argument (even though expectancy theory is not as explicit on this point). We can reasonably conclude that the major underlying processes explored by the two models are very similar and will seldom lead to inconsistent recommendations.

Concept Check

• Understand the process theories of motivation: operant conditioning, equity, goal, and expectancy theories.
• Describe the managerial factors managers must consider when applying motivational approaches.
• 1 Sometimes E2s are called instrumentalities, because they are the perception that performance is instrumental in getting some desired outcome.
• 2 It can also be expressed as an equation: F o r c e   to Choose = E1 × ∑ ( E2 o × V o ) A   level   of   Effort F o r c e   to Choose = E1 × ∑ ( E2 o × V o ) A   level   of   Effort Where V o V o is the valence of a given outcome (o), and E2 o E2 o is the perceived probability that a certain level of performance (e.g., Excellent, average, poor) will result in that outcome. So, for multiple outcomes, and different performance levels, the valence of the outcome and its associated performance➔outcome expectancy (E2) are multiplied and added to the analogous value for the other outcomes. Combined with the E1 (the amount of effort required to produce a level of performance), the effort level with the greatest force associated with it will be chosen by the individual.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: David S. Bright, Anastasia H. Cortes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Principles of Management
• Publication date: Mar 20, 2019
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/14-3-process-theories-of-motivation

© Jan 9, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

20 Most Popular Theories of Motivation in Psychology

The many approaches to defining what drives human behavior are best understood when considering the very purpose of creating them, be it increased performance, goal pursuit, resilience, or relapse prevention, to name a few.

There is nothing more practical than a good theory.

There is no single motivation theory that explains all aspects of human motivation, but these theoretical explanations do often serve as the basis for the development of approaches and techniques to increase motivation in distinct areas of human endeavor.

This article briefly summarizes existing theories of motivation and their potential real-world applications.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains:

What is motivation psychology, theories of motivation, content theories of motivation, process theories of motivation, cognitive theories of motivation, motivational theories in business, motivational theories in sports psychology, textbooks on motivation, a take-home message.

Motivation psychologists usually attempt to show how motivation varies within a person at different times or among different people at the same time. The purpose of the psychology of motivation is to explain how and why that happens.

Broad views of how to understand motivation were created by psychologists based on various types of analyses. Cognitive analyses, behavioral anticipation, and affective devices are often used to account for motivation in terms of expecting an end-state or goal.

Motivation psychology is a study of how biological, psychological, and environmental variables contribute to motivation. That is, what do the body and brain contribute to motivation; what mental processes contribute; and finally, how material incentives, goals, and their mental representations motivate individuals.

Psychologists research motivation through the use of two different methods. Experimental research is usually conducted in a laboratory and involves manipulating a motivational variable to determine its effects on behavior.

Correlational research involves measuring an existing motivational variable to determine how the measured values are associated with behavioral indicators of motivation.

Whether you think you can, or think you can’t, you’re right.

Henry Ford, 1863–1947

To be motivated means to be moved into action. We are induced into action or thought by either the push of a motive or the pull of an incentive or goal toward some end-state. Here a motive is understood as an internal disposition that pushes an individual toward a desired end-state where the motive is satisfied, and a goal is defined as the cognitive representation of the desired outcome that an individual attempts to achieve.

While a goal guides a behavior that results in achieving it, an incentive is an anticipated feature of the environment that pulls an individual toward or away from a goal. Incentives usually enhance motivation for goal achievement. Emotions act like motives as well. They motivate an individual in a coordinated fashion along multiple channels of affect, physiology, and behavior to adapt to significant environmental changes.

See our discussion of the motivation cycle and process in the blog post entitled What is Motivation .

In short, content theories explain what motivation is, and process theories describe how motivation occurs.

There are also a large number of cognitive theories that relate to motivation and explain how our way of thinking and perceiving ourselves and the world around us can influence our motives.

From self-concept, dissonance and mindset to values, orientation and perceived control, these theories explain how our preference toward certain mental constructs can increase or impair our ability to take goal-directed action.

Theories of motivation are also grouped by the field of human endeavor they apply to. Several theories relate to motivating employees where incentives and needs take a central stage as well as theories used in sports and performance psychology where affect is considered a more prominent driver of human behavior. Some of these theories are also applied to education and learning.

Read our insightful post on motivation in education .

The self-concordance model of goal setting differentiates between four types of motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). These are:

External motivation

Goals are heavily guided by external circumstances and would not take place without some kind of reward or to prevent a negative outcome.

For example, an individual who clocks extra hours in their day job purely to receive a bigger paycheck.

Introjected motivation

Goals are characterized by self-image or ego-based motivation, reflecting the need to keep a certain self-image alive.

For example, our worker in the example above staying longer in the office so that they are perceived as a ‘hard worker’ by their manager and co-workers.

Identified motivation

The actions needed to accomplish the goal are perceived as personally important and meaningful, and personal values are the main drivers of goal pursuit.

For example, the worker putting in extra hours because their personal values align with the objective of the project they are working on.

Intrinsic motivation

When a behavior is guided by intrinsic motivation, the individual strives for this goal because of the enjoyment or stimulation that this goal provides. While there may be many good reasons for pursuing the goal, the primary reason is simply the interest in the experience of goal pursuit itself.

For example, the worker spends more time at their job because they enjoy and are energized by using their skills in creativity and problem-solving.

Goals guided by either identified or intrinsic motivation can be considered self-concordant. A self-concordant goal is personally valued, or the process towards the goal is enjoyable and aligns with interests. Self-concordant goals are associated with higher levels of wellbeing, enhanced positive mood, and higher levels of life satisfaction compared to non-self-concordant goals.

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs, Alderfer’s ERG theory, McClelland’s achievement motivation theory, and Herzberg’s two-factor theory focused on what motivates people and addressed specific factors like individual needs and goals.

Maslow’s theory of the hierarchy of needs

The most recognized content theory of motivation is that of Abraham Maslow, who explained motivation through the satisfaction of needs arranged in a hierarchical order. As satisfied needs do not motivate, it is the dissatisfaction that moves us in the direction of fulfillment.

Needs are conditions within the individual that are essential and necessary for the maintenance of life and the nurturance of growth and well-being. Hunger and thirst exemplify two biological needs that arise from the body’s requirement for food and water. These are required nutriments for the maintenance of life.

The body of man is a machine which winds its own spring.

J. O. De La Mettrie

Competence and belongingness exemplify two psychological needs that arise from the self’s requirement for environmental mastery and warm interpersonal relationships. These are required nutriments for growth and well-being.

Needs serve the organism, and they do so by:

• generating wants, desires, and strivings that motivate whatever behaviors are necessary for the maintenance of life and the promotion of growth and well-being, and
• generating a deep sense of need satisfaction from doing so.

Maslow’s legacy is the order of needs progressing in the ever-increasing complexity, starting with basic physiological and psychological needs and ending with the need for self-actualization. While basic needs are experienced as a sense of deficiency, the higher needs are experienced more in terms of the need for growth and fulfillment.

Alderfer’s ERG theory

Alderfer’s theory of motivation expands on the work of Maslow and takes the premise of need categories a bit further. He observes that when lower needs are satisfied, they occupy less of our attention, but the higher needs tend to become more important, the more we pursue them.

He also observed a phenomenon that he called the frustration-regression process where when our higher needs are thwarted, we may regress to lower needs. This is especially important when it comes to motivating employees.

When a sense of autonomy or the need for mastery is compromised, say because of the structure of the work environment, the employee may focus more on the sense of security or relatedness the job provides.

McClelland’s achievement motivation theory

McClelland took a different approach to conceptualize needs and argued that needs are developed and learned, and focused his research away from satisfaction. He was also adamant that only one dominant motive can be present in our behavior at a time. McClelland categorized the needs or motives into achievement, affiliation, and power and saw them as being influenced by either internal drivers or extrinsic factors.

Among all the prospects which man can have, the most comforting is, on the basis of his present moral condition, to look forward to something permanent and to further progress toward a still better prospect.

Immanuel Kant

The drive for achievement arises out of the psychological need for competence and is defined as a striving for excellence against a standard that can originate from three sources of competition: the task itself, the competition with the self, and the competition against others.

High need for achievement can come from one’s social environment and socialization influences, like parents who promote and value pursuit and standards of excellence, but it can also be developed throughout life as a need for personal growth towards complexity (Reeve, 2014).

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory

Herzberg’s two-factor theory, also known as motivation-hygiene theory, was originally intended to address employee motivation and recognized two sources of job satisfaction. He argued that motivating factors influence job satisfaction because they are based on an individual’s need for personal growth: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement.

On the other hand, hygiene factors, which represented deficiency needs, defined the job context and could make individuals unhappy with their job: company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relationships, and working conditions.

Motivation theories explained in 10 minutes – EPM

Process theories like Skinner’s reinforcement theory, Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory, Adams’ equity theory, and Locke’s goal-setting theory set out to explain how motivation occurs and how our motives change over time.

Reinforcement theory

The most well-known process theory of motivation is the reinforcement theory, which focused on the consequences of human behavior as a motivating factor.

Based on Skinner’s operant conditioning theory , it identifies positive reinforcements as promoters that increased the possibility of the desired behavior’s repetition: praise, appreciation, a good grade, trophy, money, promotion, or any other reward (Gordon, 1987).

It distinguished positive reinforcements from negative reinforcement and punishment, where the former gives a person only what they need in exchange for desired behavior, and the latter tries to stop the undesired behavior by inflicting unwanted consequences.

See our articles on Positive Reinforcement in the Workplace and Parenting Children with Positive Reinforcement .

Other process motivation theories combine aspects of reinforcement theory with other theories, sometimes from adjacent fields, to shine a light on what drives human behavior.

Adams’ equity theory of motivation

For example, Adams’ equity theory of motivation (1965), based on Social Exchange theory, states that we are motivated when treated equitably, and we receive what we consider fair for our efforts.

It suggests that we not only compare our contributions to the amount of rewards we receive but also compare them to what others receive for the same amount of input. Although equity is essential to motivation, it does not take into account the differences in individual needs, values, and personalities, which influence our perception of inequity.

Vroom’s expectancy theory

Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964), on the other hand, integrates needs, equity, and reinforcement theories to explain how we choose from alternative forms of voluntary behavior based on the belief that decisions will have desired outcomes. Vroom suggests that we are motivated to pursue an activity by appraising three factors:

• Expectancy that assumes more effort will result in success
• Instrumentality that sees a connection between activity and goal
• Valence which represents the degree to which we value the reward or the results of success.

Locke’s goal-setting theory

Finally, Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal-setting theory, an integrative model of motivation, sees goals as key determinants of behavior. Possibly the most widely applied, the goal-setting theory stresses goal specificity, difficulty, and acceptance and provides guidelines for how to incorporate them into incentive programs and management by objectives (MBO) techniques in many areas.

Lock’s recipe for effective goal setting includes:

• Setting of challenging but attainable goals. Too easy or too difficult or unrealistic goals don’t motivate us.
• Setting goals that are specific and measurable. These can focus us toward what we want and can help us measure the progress toward the goal.
• Goal commitment should be obtained. If we don’t commit to the goals, then we will not put adequate effort toward reaching them, regardless of how specific or challenging they are.
• Strategies to achieve this could include participation in the goal-setting process, the use of extrinsic rewards (bonuses), and encouraging intrinsic motivation through providing feedback about goal attainment. It is important to mention here that pressure to achieve goals is not useful because it can result in dishonesty and superficial performance.
• Support elements should be provided. For example, encouragement, needed materials and resources, and moral support.
• Knowledge of results is essential. Goals need to be quantifiable, and there needs to be feedback.

There are several articles on effective goal setting in our blog series that cover Locke’s theory and it’s many applications.

They address specific cognitive phenomena that can influence motivation, represent a particular factor of motivation, describe a form of expression of motivation, or explain a process through which it can occur or be enhanced.

The list of cognitive phenomena is by no means comprehensive, but it does give us a taste of the complexity of human motivation and includes references for those who want to read further into more nuanced topics:

• Plans (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1998)
• Goals (Locke & Latham, 2002)
• Implementation intentions (Gollwitzer, 1999)
• Deliberative versus implementation mindsets (Gollwitzer & Kinney, 1989)
• Promotion versus prevention orientations (Higgins, 1997)
• Growth versus fixed mindsets (Dweck, 2006)
• Dissonance (Festinger, 1957; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999)
• Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986)
• Perceived control (Skinner, 1996)
• Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
• Learned helplessness theory (Miller & Seligman, 1975)
• Mastery beliefs (Diener & Dweck, 1978)
• Attributions (Wiener, 1986)
• Values (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)
• Self-concept (Markus, 1977)
• Possible selves (Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006)
• Identity (Eccles, 2009)
• Self-regulation (Zimmerman, 2000)
• Self-control (Baumeister & Tierney, 2011)

There are also several different approaches to understanding human motivation which we have discussed in greater detail in our article on Benefits and Importance of Motivation which amass a large body of motivational studies and are currently attracting a lot of attention in contemporary research in motivational science, namely intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and the flow theory (Csíkszentmihályi, 1975).

In addition to the Two Factor theory and equity theory, some theories focus on autonomy, wellbeing, and feedback as core motivational aspects of employees’ performance; theories X, Y and Z, and the Hawthorne effect, respectively.

Theory X and Theory Y

Douglas McGregor proposed two theories, Theory X and Theory Y, to explain employee motivation and its implications for management. He divided employees into Theory X employees who avoid work and dislike responsibility and Theory Y employees who enjoy work and exert effort when they have control in the workplace.

He postulated that to motivate Theory X employees, the company needs to enforce rules and implement punishments. For Theory Y employees, management must develop opportunities for employees to take on responsibility and show creativity as a way of motivating. Theory X is heavily informed by what we know about intrinsic motivation, and the role satisfaction of basic psychological needs plays in effective employee motivation.

In response to this theory, a third theory, Theory Z, was developed by Dr. William Ouchi. Ouchi’s theory focuses on increasing employee loyalty to the company by providing a job for life and focusing on the employee’s well-being. It encourages group work and social interaction to motivate employees in the workplace.

The Hawthorne Effect

Elton Mayo developed an explanation known as the Hawthorne Effect that suggested that employees are more productive when they know their work is being measured and studied.

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

There are also several theories on motivation that are used in sports and performance psychology. The core concept in understanding motivation from the performance perspective is how physiological and psychological arousal accompanies behavior.

Arousal is basically a form of mobilization of energy and activation either before or while engaged in the behavior. Arousal occurs in different modes. Physiological arousal refers to the excitement of the body, while psychological arousal is about how subjectively aroused an individual feels.

When we say that our palms are sweaty or our heart is pounding, it implies physiological arousal. When we feel tense and anxious, it signifies psychological arousal.

Robert Thayer (1989) evolved the theory of psychological arousal into two dimensions: energetic arousal and tense arousal, composed of energetic and tense dimensions. Energetic arousal is associated with positive affect, while tense arousal is associated with anxiety and fearfulness.

Tense arousal can be divided further into two types of anxiety: trait anxiety and state anxiety. One refers to the degree we respond to the environment in general negatively and with worry, while state anxiety refers to feelings of apprehension that occur in response to a particular situation.

Arousal originates from several sources. It can be generated by a stimulus that has an arousing function and a cue function. But background stimuli that do not capture our attention also increase arousal.

Thayer found that arousal varies with time of day, for many of us being highest around noon and lower in the morning and evening. Coffee, for example, can boost arousal, as can an instance of being evaluated during exams, music performance, or sports competitions.

Arousal also depends on more complex variables like novelty, complexity, and incongruity. The interaction of various stimuli explains why sometimes arousal increases behavioral efficiency and in other instances, decreases it.

Optimal functioning hypothesis

The zone of optimal functioning hypothesis in sports psychology identifies a zone of optimal arousal where an athlete performs best (Hanin, 1989). As arousal increases, performance on a task increases and then decreases, as can be seen on the inverted-U arousal–performance relationship diagram below.

According to the zone of optimal functioning hypothesis, each individual has her preferred area of arousal based on cognitive or somatic anxiety. The Yerkes–Dodson law explains further that the high point of the inverted-U or arousal–performance relationship depends on the complexity of the task being performed.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the relationship between the inverted-U nature of the arousal–performance relationship.

Hull–Spence drive theory

The classic Hull–Spence drive theory emphasizes how arousal affects performance with little regard for any cognitive awareness by the individual. Also known as drive reduction theory, it postulates that human behavior could be explained by conditioning and reinforcement.

This oversimplification is part of the reason why more nuanced and complex cognitive theories have largely replaced the theory. The cusp catastrophe model in sports psychology, arousal-biased competition theory, processing efficiency theory, and attentional control theory are more concerned with the cognitive aspects of arousal and how this affects behavioral efficiency.

Arousal-biased competition theory

Mather and Sutherland (2011) developed an arousal-biased competition theory to explain the inverted-U arousal–performance relationship. It suggests that arousal exhibits biases toward information that is the focus of our attention.

Arousal effects and therefore increases the priority of processing important information and decrease the priority of processing less critical information. The presence of arousal improves the efficiency of behavior that concerns a crucial stimulus, but it is done at the expense of the background stimuli.

Two memory systems theory

Metcalfe and Jacobs (1998) postulated the existence of two memory systems that influence the level of arousal we experience: a cool memory system and a hot memory system, each in a different area of the brain. The cool system, located in the hippocampus, serves the memory of events occurring in space and time and would allow us to remember where we parked our car this morning.

The hot system in the amygdala serves as the memory of events that occur under high arousal. Metcalfe and Jacobs theorized that the hot system remembers the details of stimuli that predict the onset of highly stressful or arousing events, such as events that predict danger and is responsible for the intrusive memories of individuals who have experienced extremely traumatic events.

Processing efficiency theory

The processing efficiency theory of Eysenck and Calvo theorized on how anxiety, expressed as worry, can influence performance. Preoccupation with being evaluated and being concerned about one’s performance turns to worry, which takes up working memory capacity and causes performance on cognitive tasks to decline (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992).

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Here are a suggested book references for tertiary-level study of motivation for those who want to dive deeper into some of these topics:

1. Understanding Motivation and Emotion – Johnmarshall Reeve

IT provides a toolbox of practical interventions and approaches for use in a wide variety of settings.

Available on Amazon .

2. Motivation: Theories and Principles – Robert C. Beck

It covers a broad range of motivational concepts from both human and animal theory and research, with an emphasis on the biological bases of motivation.

3. Motivation – Lambert Deckers

How motivation is the inducement of behavior, feelings, and cognition.

4. Motivation and Emotion Evolutionary Physiological, Developmental, and Social Perspectives – Denys A. deCatanzaro

5. Motivation: A Biosocial and Cognitive Integration of Motivation and Emotion – Eva Dreikurs Ferguson

These include hunger and thirst, circadian and other biological rhythms, fear and anxiety, anger and aggression, achievement, attachment, and love.

6. Human Motivation – Robert E. Franken

7. The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior – Peter M. Gollwitzer and John Bargh

These programs are effectively mapping the territory, providing new findings, and suggesting innovative strategies for future research.

8. Motivation and Self-Regulation Across the Life Span – Jutta Heckhausen and Carol S. Dweck

9. Reclaiming Cognition: The Primacy of Action, Intention, and Emotion (Journal of Consciousness Studies) – Rafael Nunez and Walter J. Freeman

This leads to the claim that cognition is representational and best explained using models derived from AI and computational theory. The authors depart radically from this model.

10. Motivation: Theory, Research, and Applications – Herbert L. Petri and John M. Govern

The book clearly presents the advantages and drawbacks to each of these explanations, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions.

11. Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance – Carol Sansone and Judith M. Harackiewicz

12. The Psychobiology of Human Motivation (Psychology Focus) – Hugh Wagner

It starts from basic physiological needs like hunger and thirst, to more complex aspects of social behavior like altruism.

There is no shortage of explanations for what constitutes human motivation, and the research on the topic is as vast and dense as the field of psychology itself. Perhaps the best course of action is to identify the motivational dilemma we’re trying to solve and then select one approach to motivation if only to try it out.

By annihilating desires you annihilate the mind. Every man without passions has within him no principle of action, nor motive to act.

Claude Adrien Helvetius, 1715–1771

As Dan Kahneman argues, teaching psychology is mostly a waste of time unless we as students can experience what we are trying to learn or teach about human nature and can deduce if it is right for us.

Then and only then, can we choose to act on it, move in the direction of change, or make a choice to remain the same. It’s all about experiential learning and connecting the knowledge we acquire to our own experience.

What motivational theory do you find most useful?

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

• Image 1 : Maslow pyramid adapted from “Renovating the Pyramid of Needs: Contemporary Extensions Built upon Ancient Foundations” by D. T. Kenrick et al., 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–314 (see p. 293), and from “A Theory of Human Needs Should Be Human-Centered, Not Animal-Centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010)” by S. Kesebir et al., 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 315–319 (see p. 316), and from “Human Motives, Happiness, and the Puzzle of Parenthood: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010)” by S. Lyubormirsky & J. K. Boehm, 2010, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 327–334.
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology  (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. In D. Marks (Ed.), The health psychology reader (pp. 23-28). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Sage.
• Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New York, NY: Penguin.
• Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance . New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 267-283.
• Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of play in work and games. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (5), 451-462.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Balantine Books.
• Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44 (2), 78-89.
• Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53 (1), 109-132.
• Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6 (6), 409-434.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54 (7), 493-503.
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative and implemental mind-sets on illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (4), 531-542.
• Gordon, R. M. (1987). The structure of emotions . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hanin, Y. L. (1989). Interpersonal and intragroup anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An international perspective (pp. 19-28). New York, NY: Hemisphere.
• Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (Eds.). (1999). Science conference series. Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300.
• Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 292-314.
• Kesebir, S., Graham, J., & Oishi, S. (2010). A theory of human needs should be human-centered, not animal-centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 315-319.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717.
• Lyubomirsky, S., & Boehm, J. K. (2010). Human motives, happiness, and the puzzle of parenthood: Commentary on Kenrick et al.(2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 327-334.
• Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (2), 63-78.
• Mather, M., & Sutherland, M. R. (2011). Arousal-biased competition in perception and memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (2), 114-133.
• Metcalfe, J., & Jacobs, W. J. (1998).  Emotional memory: The effects of stress on “cool” and “hot” memory systems.  In D. L. Medin (Ed.),  The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 38, pp. 187-222). New York, NY: Academic Press.
• Miller, W. R., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Depression and learned helplessness in man. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 84 (3), 228-238.
• Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (1), 188-204.
• Reeve, J. (2014). Understanding motivation and emotion (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 68-78.
• Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3) , 482–497.
• Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (3), 549-570.
• Thayer, R. L. (1989). The experience of sustainable landscapes. Landscape Journal, 8 (2), 101-110.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964).  Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Wiener, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 281–312). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Hi Nicole, I love this site! I am a PhD student but in international development, not psychology and my methodology is multi-disciplinary, but that is quite difficult I am finding now I am looking at psychology! I have been sent down a path by an Australian academic about the role of action to motivation to action – do you have any good references to recommend on this? Thx, Sue Cant, Charles Darwin University

It sounds like you’re delving into an exciting interdisciplinary study! The role of action and motivation is indeed a key topic in psychology and relevant to international development too.

First, you might find “ Self-Determination Theory ” by Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci interesting. It delves into the relationship between motivation, action, and human behavior, exploring how our needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness influence our motivation and actions.

Another reference to consider is “ Mindset: The New Psychology of Success ” by Carol S. Dweck. It explores the concept of “growth mindset” and how our beliefs about our abilities can impact our motivation to act and overcome challenges.

These references should provide a good starting point for understanding the psychological aspects of action and motivation. I hope they prove useful for your research!

Best of luck with your PhD journey!

Kind regards, Julia | Community Manager

I enjoyed the fact that there is plenty information, if I were to write an essay on Motivation.

It’s so informative and inclusive! I just wonder if there are relevant theories on how to motivate communities (e.g. residents, companies, experts) to participate in decision-making (e.g. protection of cultural heritage)? Thank you!

Glad you liked the article! I’m not sure if there are theories that specifically cover this (they may be more in sociology and a bit beyond my expertise). But I’d recommend having a read of my article on positive communities. If you follow some of the references throughout, I suspect you’ll find some great resources and advice, particularly on participative decision-making: https://positivepsychology.com/10-traits-positive-community/

Hope this helps a little!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Deci and Ryans Self Determination Theory needs to be discussed… NOT just given an afterthought. Their argument that human behaviour is driven by the 3 fundamental needs of 1) Affiliation 2) Competence and 3) Self Determination is supported by developmental science (attachment theory, Tomosello’s cross species work, developmental work on competence and learning, and finally the huge body of work on intrinsic motivation and self-regulation.

This overview is well written but appears to have a big hole in it.

Hi Dr. Martin,

Thanks for your comment. We agree SDT is a powerful theory, and it has many different applications. We’ve addressed these in depth in some of our other articles on the topic:

Self-Determination Theory of Motivation: Why Intrinsic Motivation Matters – https://positivepsychology.com/self-determination-theory/ 21 Self-Determination Skills and Activities to Utilize Today: https://positivepsychology.com/self-determination-skills-activities/ Intrinsic Motivation Explained: 10 Factors & Real-Life Examples: https://positivepsychology.com/intrinsic-motivation-examples/

Hey Nicole. This summary is amazing and pin points what I’m looking for. In the case where I have to evaluate this theory for example Maslow’s hierarchy theory in relation to an organization’s needs. How do I go about that or what’s the best way to do so?

Hi Deborah,

So glad you enjoyed the article. Could you please give a little more information about what you’re looking to do? For instance, are you looking for a theory you can apply to assess individual employees’ motivation at work? Note that not all of the theories discussed here are really applicable to an organizational context (e.g., I would personally avoid Maslow’s hierarchy for this), so it would be helpful to have a little more information.

Yes. Precisely that. I am looking for theories that I am adapt to do an intervention , implementation and evaluation of employee motivation in an organization. And how exactly these theories are implemented.

Thank you Nicole. Excellent summary of available theories. Could you tell me please which may be the best theory to explain involvement in extremism and radicalization?

Glad you liked the article. Research on motivations underlying extremism and radicalization tend to point to our beliefs having a central role. This paper by Trip et al. (2019) provides an excellent summary of the thinking in this space. It looks at the factors from an REBT perspective. It addresses a whole range of motivational perspectives including uncertainty-identity theory and integrated threat theory.

I hope this article is helpful for you.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Motivation is vital to beginning and maintaining healthy behavior in the workplace, education, and beyond, and it drives us toward our desired outcomes (Zajda, 2023). [...]

SMART Goals, HARD Goals, PACT, or OKRs: What Works?

Goal setting is vital in business, education, and performance environments such as sports, yet it is also a key component of many coaching and counseling [...]

How to Assess and Improve Readiness for Change

Clients seeking professional help from a counselor or therapist are often aware they need to change yet may not be ready to begin their journey. [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (49)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (20)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (18)
• Positive Parenting (15)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (43)
• Resilience & Coping (37)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

14.3 Need-Based Theories of Motivation

Learning objectives.

• Explain how employees are motivated according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
• Explain how ERG theory addresses the limitations of Maslow’s hierarchy.
• Describe the difference between factors contributing to employee motivation and how these differ from factors contributing to dissatisfaction.
• Describe the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation, and how these needs affect work behavior.

The earliest answer to motivation involved understanding individual needs. Specifically, early researchers thought that employees try hard and demonstrate goal-driven behavior to satisfy needs. For example, an employee who is always walking around the office talking to people may have a need for companionship and his behavior may be a way of satisfying this need. There are four major theories in the need-based category: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, ERG theory, Herzberg’s dual factor theory, and McClelland’s acquired needs theory.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Abraham Maslow is among the most prominent psychologists of the 20th century and the hierarchy of needs, accompanied by the pyramid representing how human needs are ranked, is an image familiar to most business students and managers. Maslow’s theory is based on a simple premise: Human beings have needs that are hierarchically ranked (Maslow, 1943; Maslow, 1954). There are some needs that are basic to all human beings, and in their absence, nothing else matters. As we satisfy these basic needs, we start looking to satisfy higher-order needs. Once a lower-level need is satisfied, it no longer serves as a motivator.

The most basic of Maslow’s needs are physiological needs . Physiological needs refer to the need for air, food, and water. Imagine being very hungry. At that point, all your behavior may be directed at finding food. Once you eat, though, the search for food ceases and the promise of food no longer serves as a motivator. Once physiological needs are satisfied, people tend to become concerned about safety . Are they safe from danger, pain, or an uncertain future? One level up, social needs refer to the need to bond with other human beings, to be loved, and to form lasting attachments. In fact, having no attachments can negatively affect health and well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The satisfaction of social needs makes esteem needs more salient. Esteem needs refer to the desire to be respected by one’s peers, feeling important, and being appreciated. Finally, at the highest level of the hierarchy, the need for self-actualization refers to “becoming all you are capable of becoming.” This need manifests itself by acquiring new skills, taking on new challenges, and behaving in a way that will lead to the satisfaction of one’s life goals.

Figure 14.5 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Source : Adapted from Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . New York: Harper.

Maslow’s hierarchy is a systematic way of thinking about the different needs employees may have at any given point and explains different reactions they may have to similar treatment. An employee who is trying to satisfy her esteem needs may feel gratified when her supervisor praises her. However, another employee who is trying to satisfy his social needs may resent being praised by upper management in front of peers if the praise sets him apart from the rest of the group.

So, how can organizations satisfy their employees’ various needs? By leveraging the various facets of the planning-organizing-leading-controlling (P-O-L-C) functions. In the long run, physiological needs may be satisfied by the person’s paycheck, but it is important to remember that pay may satisfy other needs such as safety and esteem as well. Providing generous benefits, including health insurance and company-sponsored retirement plans, as well as offering a measure of job security, will help satisfy safety needs. Social needs may be satisfied by having a friendly environment, providing a workplace conducive to collaboration and communication with others. Company picnics and other social get-togethers may also be helpful if the majority of employees are motivated primarily by social needs (but may cause resentment if they are not and if they have to sacrifice a Sunday afternoon for a company picnic). Providing promotion opportunities at work, recognizing a person’s accomplishments verbally or through more formal reward systems, job titles that communicate to the employee that one has achieved high status within the organization are among the ways of satisfying esteem needs. Finally, self-actualization needs may be satisfied by providing development and growth opportunities on or off the job, as well as by assigning interesting and challenging work. By making the effort to satisfy the different needs each employee may have at a given time, organizations may ensure a more highly motivated workforce.

ERG theory of Clayton Alderfer is a modification of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Alderfer, 1969). Instead of the five needs that are hierarchically organized, Alderfer proposed that basic human needs may be grouped under three categories, namely, Existence , Relatedness , and Growth (see the following figure). Existence need corresponds to Maslow’s physiological and safety needs, relatedness corresponds to social needs, and growth need refers to Maslow’s esteem and self actualization.

Figure 14.7 ERG Theory

Source : Based on Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 , 142–175.

ERG theory’s main contribution to the literature is its relaxation of Maslow’s assumptions. For example, ERG theory does not rank needs in any particular order and explicitly recognizes that more than one need may operate at a given time. Moreover, the theory has a “frustration-regression” hypothesis, suggesting that individuals who are frustrated in their attempts to satisfy one need may regress to another one. For example, someone who is frustrated by the lack of growth opportunities in his job and slow progress toward career goals may regress to relatedness needs and start spending more time socializing with one’s coworkers. The implication of this theory is that we need to recognize the multiple needs that may be driving an individual at a given point to understand his behavior and to motivate him.

Two-Factor Theory

Frederick Herzberg approached the question of motivation in a different way. By asking individuals what satisfies them on the job and what dissatisfies them, Herzberg came to the conclusion that aspects of the work environment that satisfy employees are very different from aspects that dissatisfy them (Herzberg, et. al., 1959; Herzberg, 1965). Herzberg labeled factors causing dissatisfaction of workers as “hygiene” factors because these factors were part of the context in which the job was performed, as opposed to the job itself. Hygiene factors included company policies, supervision, working conditions, salary, safety, and security on the job. To illustrate, imagine that you are working in an unpleasant work environment. Your office is too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. You are being harassed and mistreated. You would certainly be miserable in such a work environment. However, if these problems were solved (your office temperature is just right and you are not harassed at all), would you be motivated? Most likely, you would take the situation for granted. In fact, many factors in our work environment are things that we miss when they are absent, but take for granted if they are present.

In contrast, motivators are factors that are intrinsic to the job, such as achievement, recognition, interesting work, increased responsibilities, advancement, and growth opportunities. According to Herzberg’s research, motivators are the conditions that truly encourage employees to try harder.

Figure 14.8 Two-Factor Theory of Motivation

Source : Based on Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work . New York: Wiley; Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology , 18 , 393–402.

Herzberg’s research, which is summarized in the figure above, has received its share of criticism (Cummings & Elsalmi, 1968; House & Wigdor, 1967). One criticism relates to the classification of the factors as hygiene or motivator. For example, pay is viewed as a hygiene factor. However, pay is not necessarily a contextual factor and may have symbolic value by showing employees that they are being recognized for their contributions as well as communicating to them that they are advancing within the company. Similarly, quality of supervision or relationships employees form with their supervisors may determine whether they are assigned interesting work, whether they are recognized for their potential, and whether they take on more responsibilities. Despite its limitations, the two-factor theory can be a valuable aid to managers because it points out that improving the environment in which the job is performed goes only so far in motivating employees.

Figure 14.9

Plaques and other recognition awards may motivate employees if these awards fit with the company culture and if they reflect a sincere appreciation of employee accomplishments.

phjakroon – Pixabay – CC0 public domain.

Acquired Needs Theory

Among the need-based approaches to motivation, Douglas McClelland’s acquired needs theory is the one that has received the greatest amount of support. According to this theory, individuals acquire three types of needs as a result of their life experiences. These needs are need for achievement, need for affiliation, and need for power. All individuals possess a combination of these needs.

Those who have high need for achievement have a strong need to be successful. A worker who derives great satisfaction from meeting deadlines, coming up with brilliant ideas, and planning his or her next career move may be high in need for achievement. Individuals high on need for achievement are well suited to positions such as sales where there are explicit goals, feedback is immediately available, and their effort often leads to success (Harrell & Stahl, 1981; Trevis & Certo, 2005; Turban & Keon, 1993). Because of their success in lower-level jobs, those in high need for achievement are often promoted to higher-level positions (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1982). However, a high need for achievement has important disadvantages in management. Management involves getting work done by motivating others. When a salesperson is promoted to be a sales manager, the job description changes from actively selling to recruiting, motivating, and training salespeople. Those who are high in need for achievement may view managerial activities such as coaching, communicating, and meeting with subordinates as a waste of time. Moreover, they enjoy doing things themselves and may find it difficult to delegate authority. They may become overbearing or micromanaging bosses, expecting everyone to be as dedicated to work as they are, and expecting subordinates to do things exactly the way they are used to doing (McClelland & Burnham, 1976).

Individuals who have a high need for affiliation want to be liked and accepted by others. When given a choice, they prefer to interact with others and be with friends (Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991). Their emphasis on harmonious interpersonal relationships may be an advantage in jobs and occupations requiring frequent interpersonal interaction, such as social worker or teacher. In managerial positions, a high need for affiliation may again serve as a disadvantage because these individuals tend to be overly concerned about how they are perceived by others. Thus, they may find it difficult to perform some aspects of a manager’s job such as giving employees critical feedback or disciplining poor performers.

Finally, those with high need for power want to influence others and control their environment. Need for power may be destructive of one’s relationships if it takes the form of seeking and using power for one’s own good and prestige. However, when it manifests itself in more altruistic forms, such as changing the way things are done so that the work environment is more positive or negotiating more resources for one’s department, it tends to lead to positive outcomes. In fact, need for power is viewed as important for effectiveness in managerial and leadership positions (Mcclelland & Burnham, 1976; Spangler & House, 1991; Spreier, 2006).

McClelland’s theory of acquired needs has important implications for motivating employees. While someone who has high need for achievement may respond to goals, those with high need for affiliation may be motivated to gain the approval of their peers and supervisors, whereas those who have high need for power may value gaining influence over the supervisor or acquiring a position that has decision-making authority. And, when it comes to succeeding in managerial positions, individuals who are aware of the drawbacks of their need orientation can take steps to overcome these drawbacks.

Key Takeaway

Need-based theories describe motivated behavior as individual efforts to meet needs. According to this perspective, the manager’s job is to identify what people need and then to make sure that the work environment becomes a means of satisfying these needs. Maslow’s hierarchy categorizes human needs into physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization needs. ERG theory is a modification of Maslow’s hierarchy, where the five needs are collapsed into three categories (existence, relatedness, and growth). The two-factor theory differentiates between factors that make people dissatisfied on the job (hygiene factors) and factors that truly motivate employees. Finally, acquired-needs theory argues that individuals possess stable and dominant motives to achieve, acquire power, or affiliate with others. Each of these theories explains characteristics of a work environment that motivate employees.

• Many managers assume that if an employee is not performing well, the reason must be lack of motivation. What is the problem with this assumption?
• Review Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Do you agree with the particular ranking of employee needs?
• Review the hygiene and motivators in the two-factor theory. Are there any hygiene factors that you would consider to be motivators and vice versa?
• A friend of yours is competitive, requires frequent and immediate feedback, and enjoys accomplishing things. She has recently been promoted to a managerial position and seeks your advice. What would you tell her?
• Which motivation theory have you found to be most useful in explaining why people behave in a certain way? Why?

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4 , 142–175.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 , 497–529.

Cummings, L. L., & Elsalmi, A. M. (1968). Empirical research on the bases and correlates of managerial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 70 , 127–144.

Harrell, A. M., & Stahl, M. J. (1981). A behavioral decision theory approach for measuring McClelland’s trichotomy of needs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 , 242–247.

Herzberg, F. (1965). The motivation to work among Finnish supervisors. Personnel Psychology , 18 , 393–402.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work . New York: Wiley.

House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg’s dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology, 20 , 369–389.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 , 370–396.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality . New York: Harper.

McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 , 737–743.

McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great motivator. Harvard Business Review, 25 , 159–166.

Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 439–455.

Spreier, S. W. (2006). Leadership run amok. Harvard Business Review, 84 , 72–82.

Trevis, C. S., & Certo, S. C. (2005). Spotlight on entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 48 , 271–274.

Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 184–193.

Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation and daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 154–164.

Principles of Management Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

Use motivation theory to inspire your team’s best work

5 frameworks for understanding the psychology behind that elusive get-up-and-go.

Get stories like this in your inbox

5-second summary

• Motivation theories explore the forces that drive people to work towards a particular outcome.
• These frameworks can help leaders who want to foster a productive environment understand the psychology behind human motivation.
• Here, we’re outlining five of the most common motivation theories and explaining how to put those theories into practice.

A huge part of a leader’s job is creating an environment where productivity thrives and teams are inspired to do their best work. But that uniquely human brand of motivation can be quite slippery – hard to understand, inspire, and harness.

An academic foundation on motivational theory can help, but opening that door exposes you to enough theoretical concepts and esoteric language to make your eyes glaze over.

This practical guide to motivation theories cuts through the jargon to help you get a solid grasp on the fundamentals that fuel your team’s peak performance – and how you can actually put these theories into action.

What is motivation theory?

Motivation theory explores the forces that drive people to work towards a particular outcome. Rather than accepting motivation as an elusive human idiosyncrasy, motivation theories offer a research-backed framework for understanding what, specifically , pushes people forward.

Motivation theory doesn’t describe one specific approach – rather, it’s an umbrella category that covers a slew of theories, each with a different take on the best “recipe” for motivation in the workplace.

CONTENT THEORIES VS. PROCESS THEORIES

At a high level, motivation theories can be split into two distinct categories: content theories and process theories . 

• Content theories focus on the things that people need to feel motivated. They look at the factors that encourage and maintain motivated behaviors, like basic needs, rewards, and recognition. 
• Process theories focus on individuals’ thought processes that might impact motivation, such as behavioral patterns and expectations.

5 motivation theories to inspire your team

Celebrate those little wins to keep your team motivated

A quick Google search will reveal dozens of different approaches that promise to unlock relentless ambition on your team. 

It’s not likely that a single motivation theory will immediately ignite human-productivity hyperdrive. But the psychology happening behind the scenes gives unique insight into the components that influence human motivation. Leaders can then build on that foundation to create an environment that’s conducive to better focus and enthusiasm. 

Let’s get into five of the most common and frequently referenced theories.

1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

One of the most well-known motivation theories, the hierarchy of needs was published by psychologist Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper “ A Theory of Human Motivation .” 

The gist is that Maslow’s hierarchy outlines five tiers of human needs, commonly represented by a pyramid. These five tiers are: 

• Physiological needs: Food, water, shelter, air, sleep, clothing, reproduction
• Safety needs: Personal security, employment, resources, health, property
• Love and belonging: Family, friendship, intimacy, a sense of connection
• Esteem: Status, recognition, self-esteem, respect
• Self-actualization: The ability to reach your full potential

As the term “hierarchy” implies, people tend to seek out their basic needs first (which make up the base of the pyramid). After that, they move to the needs in the next tier until they reach the tip of the pyramid.

In this same paper, however, Maslow clarifies that his hierarchy of needs isn’t quite as sequential as the pyramid framework might lead people to believe. One need doesn’t necessarily have to be fully met before the next one becomes pertinent. These human needs do build on each other, but they’re interdependent and not always consecutive. As Maslow himself said , “No need or drive can be treated as if it were isolated or discrete; every drive is related to the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other drives.”

The iconic pyramid associated with Maslow’s theory wasn’t actually created by Maslow — and is even considered somewhat misleading, as you don’t need to “complete” each level before moving forward. The pyramid was popularized decades later by a different psychologist who built upon Maslow’s work along with other management theories.

Maslow’s theory was originally focused on humans’ fundamental needs generally, but in the intervening decades, it’s frequently been adapted and applied to workplaces. 

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in practice

The biggest lesson for leaders here is that you need to have the basics in place before anything else. Because Maslow’s tiers build on each other, a promotion won’t do much to motivate your team members if they’re concerned about the safety of their work environment. 

Do your team members feel that they have some level of job security? Are they adequately paid? Do they have safe working conditions? Those are the base requirements you need to meet first. 

The hierarchy of needs can support a more holistic approach to management, so you can confirm basic needs and then evolve a more nuanced idea of what people need to thrive. Do they have solid connections with you and their colleagues? Do they receive adequate recognition? Do they have some autonomy in their position?

2. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory (AKA dual-factor or two-factor theory)

Frederick Herzberg, a behavioral scientist, created the motivation-hygiene theory in 1959. The theory is a result of his interviews with a group of employees, in which he asked them two simple questions: 

• Think of a time you felt good about your job. What made you feel that way?
• Think of a time you felt bad about your job. What made you feel that way? 

Through those interviews, he realized that there are two mutually exclusive factors that influence employee satisfaction or dissatisfaction – hence, this theory is often called the “two-factor” or “dual-factor” theory. He named the factors:

• Hygiene encompasses basic things like working conditions, compensation, supervision, and company policies. When these nuts and bolts are in place, employee satisfaction remains steady – it’s the absence of them that moves the needle. When they’re missing, employee satisfaction decreases. 
• Motivators are things like perks, recognition, and opportunity for advancement. These are the factors that, when present, increase employee motivation, productivity, and commitment.

Here’s the easiest way to think of this theory: Hygiene issues will cause dissatisfaction with your employees (and that dissatisfaction will hinder their motivation). Motivators improve satisfaction and motivation – but only when healthy hygiene is in place.

Herzberg’s theory in practice

Herzberg’s two-factor theory is often described as complementary to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, as both place an emphasis on ensuring an employee’s basic needs – like security, safety, and pay – are being satisfied. 

Maslow’s theory is more descriptive, and gives you a comprehensive understanding of the human needs that drive motivation. Herzberg’s theory focuses specifically on prescriptive takeaways for the workplace, giving managers a simple, two-part framework they can use to confirm the presence of hygiene factors before trying to leverage any motivators. 

3. Vroom’s expectancy theory

The premise behind Vroom’s expectancy theory , established by psychologist Victor Vroom in 1964, is pretty straightforward:  We make conscious choices about our behavior, and those choices are motivated by our expectations about what will happen. In other words, we make decisions to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. 

The nuance lies in Vroom’s finding that people value outcomes differently. To unpack that added layer of complexity, Vroom dug a little deeper to explain two psychological processes that influence motivation: 

• Instrumentality: People believe that a reward will correlate to their performance.
• Expectancy: People believe that as they increase their effort, the reward increases too.

Vroom’s theory indicates that people need to be able to anticipate the outcome of their actions and behaviors. And, if you want to boost motivation, they need to care about those outcomes. 

Vroom’s expectancy theory in practice

The one thing your career development plan is missing

Remember that everyone on your team might not be motivated by the same rewards, so your first step is to understand what each of your team members value so you can create opportunities for corresponding outcomes. From there, you can set clear expectations that connect performance to their desired rewards. (This is also what a career development plan does, by the way).

Of course, not every single expectation has a reward directly attached to it. Employees are required to fulfill the responsibilities of their jobs simply because…it’s their job.

Vroom’s theory is all about seeking pleasure and minimizing pain. So, in situations where a reward isn’t relevant, make sure employees are in the loop on what the consequences are if expectations aren’t met.

4. Reinforcement theory

The reinforcement theory is a piece of a broader concept called operant conditioning , which is often credited to psychologist, B.F. Skinner. However, Skinner’s work builds on the law of effect , established by Edward Thorndike in 1898. 

Despite its convoluted origins, this is another theory with a simple premise: Consequences shape our behaviors. We’ll repeat behaviors that are reinforced, whether that means they lead to a positive outcome (positive reinforcement) or they end or remove a negative outcome (negative reinforcement).

This theory doesn’t focus on our internal drivers – it’s all about cause and effect. If we do something and like the result, we do it again. 

Reinforcement theory in practice

Because this theory is so strongly correlated to human nature (hey, you probably weren’t eager to touch a hot stove again after it burned you once, right?), it’s one of the most intuitive to apply on your team.

When an employee does something desirable, reward that behavior – whether in the form of well-deserved recognition,  taking a dreaded task off their plate, or offering a more tangible perk like an extra day off.

5. Self-determination theory

5 questions about motivation with Daniel Pink

The self-determination theory , introduced by psychologists Richard Ryan and Edward Deci in their 1985 book , focuses on finding motivation within yourself.

Ryan and Deci argue that motivation shouldn’t necessarily be derived from dangling carrots or waving sticks at people. That type is what they refer to as controlled motivation , in which people choose their behaviors based on external results. 

Far more powerful than that, the psychologists argued, is autonomous motivation (also known as intrinsic motivation). Under these circumstances, people feel motivated when their choices are aligned with their internal goals and beliefs. Their behaviors aren’t directed by external approval, rewards, and punishments. Instead, their behaviors are self-determined. 

Autonomous motivation doesn’t happen on its own. To get there, people need to have three psychological needs met:

• Autonomy: The feeling that they have a choice and some ownership over their behavior
• Competence: The feeling that they are knowledgeable and capable 
• Relatedness: The feeling that they are connected to others

When those three boxes are checked, people are better equipped to pull motivation from within, rather than relying on the external factors that are central to so many other motivation theories. 

Self-determination theory in practice

You might guess that meeting those three core psychological needs is crucial for this theory – and there’s no need to overcomplicate it.

Here are a few ideas:

• Autonomy: Give employees flexible schedules and the ability to decide for themselves when and where they do their best work.
• Competence: Offer additional trainings and learning opportunities to continue to refine their skills.
• Relatedness: Provide outlets – whether it’s designated Slack channels or team outings – for team members to bond and get to know each other on a more personal level.

That’s not an exhaustive list. You have room to get creative and find other ways to boost your employees’ sense of ownership, proficiency, and connection. 

Motivation doesn’t have to be a mystery

Motivation can feel fickle – like a fleeting phenomenon that magically happens when conditions are just right .

But, as your team’s leader, it’s your responsibility to conjure that “just right” environment where people can perform their best work. 

You don’t need to be a mind reader to make that happen. Motivation theory can help you identify methods among the madness and create an environment where a high-level motivation is a constant – not a fluke.

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

6.9: Assignment- Motivation in the Workplace

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 48667

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

In a meeting with members of Informational Systems operations area, you ask middle managers about the recent sub-par performance in the department and their thoughts about the reasons behind it. They state that their performance goals are set too high, with the vast majority of their employees missing their individual targets across the board.

In your education and training to be an organizational behavior consultant, you studied various needs-based motivational theories:

• Maslow’s hierarchy and the five categories of basic human needs
• The ERG theory which compressed Maslow’ five categories to three;
• The Two-Factor theory, which describes factors that either motivate people or make them dissatisfied
• The Acquired-Needs model, which describes stable and dominant characteristics in human beings that drive behavior

Which of the motivational theory/theories do you think is best for describing human behavior in the workplace? Based on that, how would you construct a work environment using reward strategies, work-life balance considerations, and other approaches outlined in the module?

Grading Rubric

Contributors and attributions.

• Assignment: Motivation in the Workplace. Authored by : Robert Danielson. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Incentive Theory of Motivation

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

• How It Works

Some psychologists feel that we are motivated to do things because of our internal desires and wishes (e.g., going to the gym every day because it makes us feel better). Others say that our actions are driven by external rewards (working out daily to win a cash prize).

Incentive theory is one of the psychological theories of motivation that suggests that behavior is motivated by outside reinforcement or incentives versus internal forces. Understanding how incentive theory works can help you better recognize what might be motivating you to act a certain way or engage in specific behaviors. It also enables you to put your own incentives in place, potentially making it easier to reach your desired goals.

History of Incentive Theory

The idea that our behaviors are influenced or reinforced by external factors is credited largely to psychologist B. F. Skinner . In Skinner's 1938 book Behavior of Organisms , he argued that people are not driven to act by internal states, such as acting aggressively due to feeling angry. Instead, we are driven or incentivized to act based primarily on three environmental events: deprivation, satiation, and aversive stimulation.

Incentive theory continued to be revised in the 1940s and 1950s. During this time, its development was influenced by several drive theories, such as those established by psychologist Clark Hull .

Hull contended that behavior is driven by biological deprivation, which thereby creates motivation to act.

In the late 1950s, Frederick Herzberg expanded this ideology even more, creating what is known as the two-factor incentive theory. This theory is based on a study that Herzberg conducted on employees to learn what contributed to or took away from their feelings of job satisfaction.

This study involved asking employees what made them feel good about their job and what made them feel bad. Based on their answers, Herzberg proposed that job satisfaction was based on two factors:

• Motivators , such as the desire for recognition, achievement, or advancement
• Hygiene , which includes company policies, salary, working conditions, etc.

How Incentive Theory Works

In contrast with other theories that suggest we are pushed into action by internal or intrinsic forces of motivation , incentive theory proposes that we are pulled into action by outside incentives. More specifically, people are pulled toward behaviors that lead to outside rewards and pushed away from actions that lead to negative consequences.

Incentive theory can be likened to operant conditioning , where behaviors are performed to either gain reinforcement or avoid punishment.

What type of rewards might we want to gain? Good grades are an incentive that can motivate students to study hard and do well in school. Gaining esteem and accolades from teachers and parents might be another. Money is also an excellent example of an external reward that motivates behavior.

Rewards must be obtainable in order to be motivating. For example, a student will not be motivated to earn a top grade on an exam if the assignment is so difficult that it is not realistically achievable. Rewards must also be important or they won't be powerful enough to spur a person into action.

In many cases, external rewards can motivate you to do things that you might otherwise avoid, such as chores, work, and other tasks you find unpleasant. They can also be used to get you to stop performing certain actions, such as quitting smoking to prevent the negative consequence of developing lung cancer.

Types of Incentives

In psychology, an incentive is defined as "an external stimulus, such as a condition or an object, that enhances or serves as a motive for behavior." Incentive theory includes two different types of incentives:

• Positive incentives . These are the rewards received from taking certain actions, such as receiving a commission if you make a specific number of sales.
• Negative incentives . These are punishments received from taking certain actions, such as getting a speeding ticket if you drive faster than the law allows.

Examples of Incentive Theory

You can probably think of many different situations where your behavior was directly influenced by the promise of a reward. Perhaps you studied for an exam in order to get a good grade, ran a marathon to receive a ribbon, or took a new position at work to get a raise. All of these actions involve being influenced by an incentive to gain something in return for your efforts.

Or maybe your behavior was more incentivized by avoiding punishment . Examples of incentive theory in this context include turning in a big assignment to avoid failing the class, eating a salad instead of a burger to not gain more weight, or biting your tongue in an argument to keep from getting into a fight.

Challenges of Incentive Theory

Not all incentives are created equal, and the rewards that you find motivating might not be enough to inspire another person to take action. Physiological, social, and cognitive factors can all play a role in what incentives you find motivating.

For example, you are more likely to be motivated by food when you are actually hungry versus when you are full. Additionally, while one teenager might be motivated to clean their room by the promise of a coveted video game, another teen could find such a game completely unappealing, thereby not motivating them into action.

Incentives can also change depending on the situation. In Psychology: A Discovery Experience , author Stephen L. Franzoi gives an example: "When you are home, your parents' praise may be a positive incentive. However, when your friends visit, you may go out of your way to avoid receiving parental praise, because your friends may tease you."

Two people may act differently in the same situation based on the type of incentives that are appealing to them at that time.

Incentive Theory vs. Other Motivational Theories

Incentive theory is just one of several theories of motivation. Other motivational theories include:

• Arousal theory : our motivation to act is based on trying to achieve our desired level of physiological arousal, such as jumping out of a plane to feel more alive or listening to soothing music to relax
• Drive-reduction theory of motivation : our behaviors are a result of our desire to reduce certain biological drives, such as putting on a coat if we feel cold
• Instinct theory : our actions are a result of our inborn need to engage in certain actions for survival, such as getting something to eat when you are hungry to avoid starvation

How to Use Incentive Theory to Improve Motivation

Setting up your own incentives can increase your motivation to reach your desired goals . Here are a few tips to do this effectively:

• Create a reward that is important to you . If your reward isn't strong enough, it likely won't compel you to take action consistently over time. If you have a favorite show, for example, only let yourself watch it after you've done your daily workout.
• Develop a list of reward options . Since incentives can change based on situation or time, it can help to have a list of rewards from which to choose. This helps motivate you to take your desired action based on what is important to you at the time.
• Engage in visualization . Take a few moments and sit with your eyes closed while visualizing how good the reward feels once it is received. Use all your senses. The more you can "feel" what it would mean to have the reward, the more this motivates you into action.
• Set realistic guidelines for receiving the reward . If you have to have to run 20 miles to earn a reward and you can't even run one, your feelings of overwhelm are likely to be strong enough to reduce your motivation to lace up your shoes. Keep your guidelines realistic so they don't stop you from even getting started.

A Word From Verywell

Consider what motivates you as you work on your goals. Are you trying to gain an incentive or do you want to avoid a negative consequence? Understanding the forces behind your actions can help you determine how to best motivate yourself to reach your specific goals.

Sundberg ML. Thirty points about motivation from Skinner's book Verbal Behavior . Anal Verbal Behav . 2013;29(1):13-40. doi:10.1007/bf03393120

Heckhausen J, Heckhausen H (Eds). Motivation and Action, Third Edition .

Syptak JM, Marsland DW, Ulmer D. Job satisfaction: Putting theory into practice . Fam Pract Manag . 1999;6(9):26-30.

American Psychological Association. Incentive .

Franzoi SL. Psychology: A discovery experience .

Bernstein DA. Essentials of psychology .

Silverman K, Jarvis BP, Jessel J, Lopez AA. Incentives and motivation .  Transl Issues Psychol Sci . 2016;2(2):97-100. doi:10.1037/tps0000073

Wong L. Essential study skills .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Resources: Discussions and Assignments

Assignment: motivation and emotion.

STEP 1: Using a stimulus of your choosing (not one found in your text) demonstrate the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer, and cognitive-mediational theories of emotion. Describe each in just a few sentences.

• Theories of Emotion Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

Resources: Course Assignments

Assignment: Motivation and Emotion

Theories of emotion.

STEP 1 : Using a stimulus of your choosing (not one found in your text) demonstrate the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer, and cognitive-mediational theories of emotion. Describe each in just a few sentences.

CC licensed content, Original

• Theories of Emotion Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.15: Assignment- Motivation and Emotion

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 59817

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Theories of Emotion

STEP 1 : Using a stimulus of your choosing (not one found in your text) demonstrate the James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer, and cognitive-mediational theories of emotion. Describe each in just a few sentences.

Licenses and Attributions

CC licensed content, Original

• Theories of Emotion Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution