In
a synthesis of cross-disciplinary research in fields like neuroscience, biology
and evolutionary psychology, Lawrence and Nohria (2002) propose the “human
drives” theory, which states that employees are guided by four basic emotional drives
that are a product of common human evolutionary heritage: the drives to
acquire, bond, comprehend, and defend. The researchers survey a financial
service giant, a leading IT services firm and 300 Fortune 500 companies and
find these four drives led to high levels of engagement, satisfaction,
commitment and a reduced intention to quit, and ultimately better corporate
performance.
The
drive to acquire (Nohria et al., 2008) pertains to the acquisition of scarce
goods that support an employee’s sense of well-being. These goods include
physical items such as food, clothing, housing and money, and also experiences
like travel and entertainment. Social status, promotion, getting a corner
office or a place on the corporate board also fulfills the drive to acquire.
This drive tends to be relative in the sense that employees will always compare
what they have with others. Therefore, employees always care not only about
their own compensation packages, but also compensation packages relative to
others’.
The
drive to bond (Nohria et al., 2008) is associated with strong positive emotions
like caring. This bond accounts for the enormous boost in motivation when
employees feel proud of belonging to the organization, and for their loss of
morale when the organization betrays them. This drive explains why employees
become attached to their closest colleagues and find it hard to break out of
divisional or functional silos. It also explains the ability for employees to
form attachments to larger collectives and care more about the organization than
about their local group within it.
The
drive to comprehend (Nohria et al., 2008) centers around the need to satisfy
employee curiosity and mastering the world around them. Employees want to take
reasonable action and respond to organizational events as part of their desire
to make a meaningful contribution. These employees are motivated by jobs that
challenge them and enable them to grow, learn, innovate and contribute to their
organization and their society, but are disheartened by jobs that are boring or
lead to a dead end. Talented employees who feel trapped often leave their jobs
to find new challenges elsewhere.
The drive to defend (Nohria et al., 2008) is derived from the natural defense of personal property, accomplishments, family and friends, ideas and beliefs against external threats. The result is a quest to create institutions that promote equity and justice, that have clear goals and intentions, and that allow employees to express their ideas and opinions. Satisfying the drive to defend leads to employees feeling secure and confident. Without this drive, employees show strong negative emotions like fear and resentment. This drive explains employees’ resistance to change, and the devastation that they feel when experiencing a merger or acquisition.
The
drive to defend (Nohria et al., 2008) is derived from the natural defense of
personal property, accomplishments, family and friends, ideas and beliefs
against external threats. The result is a quest to create institutions that
promote equity and justice, that have clear goals and intentions, and that allow
employees to express their ideas and opinions. Satisfying the drive to defend
leads to employees feeling secure and confident. Without this drive, employees
show strong negative emotions like fear and resentment. This drive explains employees’
resistance to change, and the devastation that they feel when experiencing a
merger or acquisition.
Lawrence and Nohria (2002) showed that an organization’s ability to meet the four fundamental drives explain about 60% of employees’ variance on the motivational indicators of engagement, satisfaction, commitment and intention to quit. They also find that certain drives (i.e., the drive to acquire, bond, comprehend, or defend) influence some motivational indicators more than others. For example, fulfilling the drive to bond has the greatest impact on commitment, whereas meeting the drive to comprehend is most closely linked with engagement. They conclude that an organization can best improve overall motivation by satisfying all four drives together. At the same time, each of the four drives are independent in that they cannot be ordered hierarchically or substituted for one another. For example, you cannot pay employees a high salary and hope that they feel enthusiastic about their work when there is little bonding, or work seems meaningless, or when they feel defenseless. Therefore, to fully motivate employees, organizations and their managers must address all four drives. To fulfill all the four emotional drives, Nohria et al. (2008) suggest that each drive is best met by a distinctive organizational lever of motivation.
Reference
- Lawrence, P. R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How human nature shapes our choices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 78–83.
No comments:
Post a Comment