4.1 Motivation to work
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 4.1
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
4.1.1Need theories• 4.1.1 Need theories- Maslow's hierarchy of needs including five needs, including a study, e.g. Saeednia (2011).- McClelland's theory of achievement motivation including need for achievement, affiliation and power.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, individual and situational explanations, cultural differences, determinism versus free-will, validity.4.1.2Cognitive theories• 4.1.2 Cognitive theories- Latham and Locke's goal-setting theory including goal-setting principles- SMART goals.- Vroom's VIE (expectancy) theory.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: individual and situational explanations, cultural differences, reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free-will, idiographic versus nomothetic.4.1.3Motivators at work• 4.1.3 Motivators at work- extrinsic motivators at work: types of reward systems including pay, bonuses, profit-sharing, performance-related pay.- intrinsic motivators at work: non-monetary rewards including praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and a sense of belonging.- Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory including competence, autonomy and relatedness (exemplified by the following key study).- Key study for applying self-determination theory to motivational rewards: Landry et al. (2019), focus on study 1, specifics of methodology from study 2 will not be needed.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: individual and situational explanations, reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free-will, idiographic versus nomothetic, generalisations.
Need theories explain what workers seek, but disagree about order
| Maslow level (low to high) | Need at work |\n|---|---|\n| Physiological | Pay, breaks and conditions sufficient for food, rest and shelter |\n| Safety | Physical protection, predictable employment and clear procedures |\n| Love/belonging | Acceptance, supportive colleagues and group membership |\n| Esteem | Competence, achievement, recognition, responsibility and status |\n| Self-actualisation | Realising personal potential through meaningful growth/creative work |
Maslow proposed a hierarchy of relative prepotency: when a more basic need is sufficiently satisfied, a higher need can become more influential. This is not an all-or-nothing staircase; several needs may operate together, and culture or circumstances may change their priority. A manager therefore cannot assume the same benefit motivates every worker.
| Saeednia (2011) scale study | Evidence |\n|---|---|\n| Aim/design | Develop a reliable measure of basic-need satisfaction for young children using exploratory mixed methods |\n| Phase 1 | Open-ended interviews with 13 children and their parents/educators informed the scale |\n| Phase 2/result | The scale was administered to 300 participants and judged reliable and relatively valid |\n| Limit | It operationalises reported need satisfaction, but children are not employees and scale validity does not prove a fixed workplace hierarchy |
| McClelland need | What motivates at work | Best-fit opportunity |\n|---|---|---|\n| Achievement (nAch) | Master a challenging task and succeed through effort | Clear responsibility, attainable challenge and concrete feedback |\n| Affiliation (nAff) | Be accepted and maintain warm relationships | Cooperative work, belonging and interpersonal contact |\n| Power (nPow) | Influence or direct other people and outcomes | Leadership, persuasion and responsibility for impact |
McClelland's three needs are not a hierarchy: people can show all three in different strengths. Both theories risk deterministic or culturally narrow predictions if they ignore choice and situation; qualitative individual evidence may reveal personal priorities, while large-sample measures seek general patterns.
Goals motivate when workers know the target and expect effort to matter
| Latham and Locke principle | Why it can improve performance | Boundary |\n|---|---|---|\n| Specific, difficult but attainable goal | Directs attention and effort toward a clear standard | Excessive difficulty weakens acceptance/self-efficacy |\n| Goal commitment | Sustains effort and persistence | A target imposed without ownership may not be accepted |\n| Feedback | Shows the gap between current and target performance | Feedback must be timely and usable |\n| Ability and task strategy | Converts effort into effective action | On a complex/new task, a learning goal may be better than immediate output pressure |
SMART makes a target operational: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound. Example: ‘During the next month, each online-sales employee will contact eight grocery-store buyers and record each response.’ The target names the action and audience, gives a count, is feasible for the period, serves store expansion and has a deadline. SMART improves clarity; it does not by itself guarantee commitment, skill or feedback.
Motivationalforce=Expectancy×Instrumentality×Valence
| VIE link | Worker's question | Example of a broken link |\n|---|---|---|\n| Expectancy: effort → performance | ‘If I try, can I perform at the required level?’ | No training/resources makes effort unlikely to reach target |\n| Instrumentality: performance → outcome | ‘If I perform, will the promised outcome follow?’ | Bonus rules are inconsistent or not trusted |\n| Valence: value of outcome | ‘Do I value that reward or outcome?’ | Extra pay has little value compared with lost time/autonomy |
Because the links multiply, a near-zero link can collapse motivation even when the others are strong. Expectancy is not instrumentality: the first connects effort to performance; the second connects performance to outcome. VIE is cognitively broad across three perceptions, but still reduces a changing social workplace to an individual decision model.
A reward's meaning can support or control motivation
| Motivator | Workplace form | What links behaviour to value |\n|---|---|---|\n| Extrinsic | Pay; one-off bonus; share of profit; performance-related pay | An external consequence follows employment, group results or measured individual performance |\n| Intrinsic/non-monetary | Praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and belonging | The work or social context itself supports interest, meaning, agency, competence or connection |
| Self-determination need | Supported when a worker… | Frustrated when… |\n|---|---|---|\n| Autonomy | Experiences meaningful choice and volition | Feels pressured, coerced or micromanaged |\n| Competence | Can master the task and receives informative feedback | Feels incapable or judged without useful guidance |\n| Relatedness | Feels respected, included and connected | Feels rejected, isolated or treated impersonally |
Self-determination theory predicts a causal chain: reward presentation → psychological-need satisfaction or frustration → quality of motivation → performance. Therefore the same cash reward may convey supportive information (‘your contribution is valued’) or controlling pressure (‘perform to our standard’). The amount alone does not determine its effect.
| Landry et al. (2019), Study 1 | Evidence |\n|---|---|\n| Sample/design | 123 French-speaking Canadian university students, mean age 23, 60% women; randomly assigned to autonomy-supportive/informational (65) or controlling (58) reward framing |\n| Manipulation/task | Both groups could receive a $10 coffee-shop gift card; wording framed it as appreciation or as pressure to meet standards; participants solved 25 four-letter anagrams in two minutes |\n| Measures | Need satisfaction/frustration and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation self-reports; performance scored correct minus wrong answers relative to possible correct answers |\n| Results | Conditions differed significantly in predicted directions for need satisfaction/frustration, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and performance; supportive framing produced better performance |
The study supports functional meaning, not ‘money always motivates’ or ‘money always undermines motivation’. Random allocation strengthens causal inference for the brief task, but student volunteers, self-report mediators, a small gift card and timed anagrams limit generalisation to employees, cultures, complex work and long-term reward systems.