EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION THEORIES

It is hard to argue with empirical evidence that motivated employees mean better organizational performance (Nohria et al., 2008). There are several major theories that provide understanding of employee motivation: motives and needs (Maslow, 1943), expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), equity theory (Adams, 1963), goal setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1971), work design (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), and reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1953). Table 1 summarizes each motivation theory and their principles.

Table 1 – Employee motivation theories

 

 

According to Maslow, employees have five levels of needs (Maslow, 1943): physiological, safety, social, ego, and self-actualizing. Maslow argued that lower level needs are first satisfied before the next higher level need would motivate employees. Herzberg’s work categorized motivation into two factors: motivators and hygienes (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Motivator or intrinsic factors, such as achievement and recognition, produce job satisfaction. whereas hygiene or extrinsic factors, such as pay and job security, produce job dissatisfaction. The interest in this theory peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). 

Vroom’s expectancy theory is based on the belief that employee effort will lead to performance and performance will lead to rewards (Vroom, 1964). Rewards may be either positive or negative. The more positive the reward the more likely the employee will be highly motivated. Empirical work on expectancy theory generated substantial interest in the 1960s but declined substantially in the 1990s (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). 

Adams’s equity and justice theory states that employees strive for equity between themselves and other employees (Adams, 1963, 1965). Inequity comparisons result in a state of dissonance or tension that motivates an employee to engage in behavior designed to relieve tension (e.g., raise or lower work efforts to re-establish equity, leave the situation that is causing inequity). 

Many reviews and meta-analyses of the goal-setting literature concluded that there is substantial support for the basic principles of goal-setting theory. Goal setting is most effective when there is feedback showing progress toward the goal. Specific difficult goals consistently lead to better performance than specific easy goals or no goals (e.g., Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, 1996). As an overarching theory, goal setting continues as a very active area of research (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). 

Cognitive evaluation theory (Deci, 1971) is designed to explain the effects of external consequences on internal motivation. That is, intrinsically motivated employees attribute the cause of their behavior to internal needs and perform behaviors for intrinsic rewards and satisfaction. However, external elements (e.g., the reward system) may lead the employee to question the true causes of his/her behavior. Therefore, employees should be most intrinsically motivated in work environments that minimize attributions of their behavior to “controlling” external factors (Deci & Ryan, 1980). A majority of research published using cognitive evaluation theory is during the 1970s and 1980s (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). 

Work design is based on Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristic theory, which incorporates five important job characteristics – skill variety, task identity, task significance, feedback, and autonomy – that result in positive employee and organizational outcomes, typically firm performance. Work design continues to be supported in empirical research and provides a useful framework for job design today (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). 

Skinner’s reinforcement theory (1953, 1969) simply states those employees’ behaviors that lead to positive outcomes will be repeated, and behaviors that lead to negative outcomes will not be repeated. Managers should positively reinforce employee behaviors that lead to positive outcomes (e.g., with extrinsic rewards). Managers should negatively reinforce employee behavior that leads to negative outcomes (e.g., with performance feedback and/or punishment). 

Each of these traditional theories informs researchers and managers about the specific elements and organizational levers used to motivate employees. For example, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs specifies pay as one of the levers that motivate employees. Equity theory refers to fairness and justice among employees, while work design (job characteristic theory) is essential for a motivated high-performing workforce. Yet they take a modular approach that only explains isolated pieces of the broader holistic relationship between employee motivation and performance. Although many researchers try to reconcile and find common implications from these traditional theories (e.g., Rainlall, 2004), they neglect taking a holistic or systems view for a comprehensive theory that should incorporate research from other disciplines.

References

• Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.
• Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231–292.
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299.
• Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 39–80.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.
• Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 5(2), 117–124.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
• Michael, T. L., Robyn, L. R.(2016). Understanding employee motivation and organizational performance: Arguments for a set-theoretic approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge.
• Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 78–83.
• Rainlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 9, 21–26.
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Simon and Schuster.
• Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work motivation. New York: Wiley.