PART TWO – INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIORS AND PROCESSES IN
ORGANIZATIONS
Chapter Five – Motivating Behavior
Overview
Given the complex array of individual differences discussed in Chapter 3 (and extended later in this
chapter), it should be obvious that people work for a wide variety of reasons. Some people want money,
some want a challenge, and some want power. What people in an organization want from work and how
they think they can achieve it plays an instrumental role in determining their motivation to work. As we
see in this chapter, motivation is vital to all organizations.
Indeed, the difference between highly effective organizations and less effective ones often lies in the
motivations of their members. Thus, managers need to understand the nature of individual motivation,
especially as it applies to work situations. In this chapter we first explore various need-based perspectives
on motivation. We then turn our attention to the more sophisticated process-based perspectives. We
conclude with a discussion of learning-based perspectives on motivation.
Learning Outcomes
After studying this chapter, students should be able to:
1. Characterize the nature of motivation, including its importance and basic historical perspectives.
2. Identify and describe the need-based perspectives on motivation.
3. Identify and describe the major process-based perspectives on motivation.
4. Describe learning-based perspective on motivation.
Real World Challenge: Motivating Cast Members at Disney
Summary: The Walt Disney Company owns a cruise line, several television networks and eleven theme
parks, which are known to millions worldwide. The company strives to provide legendary customer
service in its theme parks and cruise ships.
Real World Challenge: How can Disney motivate its cast members to provide the four basic service
basics of projecting a positive image and energy, being courteous and respectful to all guests, staying in
character and play the part, and going above and beyond expectations?
Real World Response: To motivate case members at Disney theme parks to provide exemplary customer
service, the company begins by thoroughly training new hires in topics ranging from performance
expectations to how to dress to how to anticipate guests’ needs.
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
Chapter Outline
I. THE NATURE OF MOTIVATION
Motivation is the set of forces that causes people to engage in one behavior rather than some
alternative behavior.
From the manager’s viewpoint, the objective is to motivate people to behave in ways that are in the
organization’s best interest.
A. The Importance of Motivation
Job performance depends on ability and environment as well as motivation. This relationship
can be stated as follows:
P = M × A × E
where
P = performance, M = motivation, A = ability, and E = environment
A deficiency in any one of these areas hurts performance. A manager should thus strive to
ensure that all three conditions are met.
In most settings, motivation is the most difficult of these factors to manage.
For example, if a worker cannot complete a project without sales forecast data from marketing,
the manager can contact marketing and request that information. But if motivation is deficient,
the manager faces the more complex situation of determining what will motivate the employee
to work harder.
B. The Motivational Framework
We can start to understand motivation by looking at need deficiencies and goal-directed
behaviors. Figure 5.1 shows the basic motivational framework we use to organize our
discussion.
A need—something an individual requires or wants—is the starting point.
A need deficiency usually triggers a search for ways to satisfy it.
Next comes a choice of goal-directed behaviors, most effort is likely to be directed at one
option.
Next the person experiences either rewards or punishment as a result of this choice.
Finally, the person assesses the extent to which the outcome achieved fully addresses the
original need deficiency.
C. Early Perspectives on Motivation
Historical views on motivation, although not always accurate, are of interest because they
provide a foundation for contemporary thinking about motivation.
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
These views were generally based on common sense and intuition, an appreciation of their
strengths and weaknesses can help managers gain useful insights into employee motivation in
the workplace.
1. The Traditional Approach
One of the first writers to address work motivation was Frederick Taylor. Taylor developed
a method for structuring jobs that he called scientific management.
Taylor assumed that economic gain was the primary thing that motivated everyone.
Other assumptions of the traditional approach were that work is inherently unpleasant for
most people and that the money they earn is more important to employees than the nature
of the job they are performing.
Proponents of the traditional approach took too narrow a view of the role of monetary
compensation and also failed to consider other motivational factors.
2. The Human Relations Approach
The human relations approach supplanted scientific management in the 1930s.
The human relations approach suggests that fostering a sense of employees’ inclusion in
decision making will result in positive employee attitudes and motivation to work hard.
The approach assumed that employees want to feel useful and important, that employees have
strong social needs, and that these needs are more important than money in motivating
employees.
3. The Human Resource Approach
The human resource approach to motivation carries the concepts of needs and motivation
one step farther, making the assumption that people want to contribute and are able to make
genuine contributions.
Management’s task, then, is to encourage participation and to create a work environment
that makes full use of the human resources available. This philosophy guides most
contemporary thinking about employee motivation.
D. Individual Differences and Motivation
Simply put, different things motivate different people.
Because of these myriad differences, there is no one best way to motivate everyone.
An easy mistake to make when trying to motivate others is assuming that the same things that
motivate you also motivate them.
The starting point for motivated employees is hiring people whose individual characteristics
lead to high motivation on the job. A job requiring high-quality work will not be as motivating
to someone who lacks attention to detail as it will to a conscientious, detail-oriented person.
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
In addition to the various individual differences we have already discussed, one additional
element is often very specifically related to the motivation to perform a specific task.
A specific form of self-efficacy is especially related to employee motivation.
Task-specific self-efficacy is a person’s beliefs in his or her capabilities to do what is required
to accomplish a specific task.
Task-specific self-efficacy beliefs have three dimensions:
1. Magnitude: beliefs about how difficult a specific task can be accomplished.
2. Strength: beliefs about how confident the person is that the specific task can be
accomplished.
3. Generality: beliefs about the degree to which similar tasks can be accomplished.
Because task-specific self-efficacy perceptions are changeable, good managers proactively
enhance subordinates’ perceptions of their abilities. Managers can raise task-specific self-
efficacy through coaching and encouragement, assuming the employee really does have the
potential to perform better.
If you find yourself lacking the confidence that you can do a task, you can take steps to
eliminate the performance barriers you identify. Perhaps more practice, seeking a coach, or
watching others perform the task successfully will increase your task-specific self-efficacy and
motivation.
Global Issues: Motivating A Global Workforce
Summary: Effectively motivating employees located across the globe is a significant challenge.
Managers must be sensitive to cultural differences in values and needs and understand that what is
acceptable in one culture may be taboo in another. The American culture is more individualistic and
egocentric than many other cultures. Because American culture values individual achievement,
Americans often have a desire to be singled out and praised. In some cultures, people are embarrassed or
ashamed if they receive attention. However, some motivation principles, like treating people with
respect, apply equally well around the world. Fairness and respect resonate globally.
II. NEED-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON MOTIVATION
The basic premise of need-based theories and models is the assumption that need deficiencies
cause behavior.
Need theorists have attempted to identify and categorize the needs that are most important to
people. The best-known need theories are the hierarchy of needs and the ERG theory.
A. The Hierarchy of Needs
The hierarchy of needs, developed by psychologist Abraham Maslow in the 1940s, is the best-
known need theory. Maslow argued that human beings are “wanting” animals: They have
innate desires to satisfy a given set of needs. Furthermore, Maslow believed that these needs are
arranged in a hierarchy of importance, with the most basic needs at the foundation of the
hierarchy.
Figure 5.2 shows Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which assumes that human needs are arranged
in a hierarchy of importance.
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
The three sets of needs at the bottom of the hierarchy are called deficiency needs because they
must be satisfied for the individual to be fundamentally comfortable. The top two sets of needs
are termed growth needs because they focus on personal growth and development.
The most basic needs in the hierarchy are physiological needs. These include the needs for
food, sex, and air.
Next in the hierarchy are security needs: things that offer safety and security, such as adequate
housing and clothing and freedom from worry and anxiety.
Belongingness needs, the third level in the hierarchy, are primarily social. Examples include the
need for love and affection and the need to be accepted by peers.
The fourth level, esteem needs, actually encompasses two slightly different kinds of needs: the
need for a positive self-image and self-respect and the need to be respected by others.
At the top of the hierarchy are self-actualization needs. These involve a person’s realizing his or
her full potential and becoming all that he or she can be.
Maslow believed that each need level must be satisfied before the level above it can become
important. This escalation up the hierarchy continues until the self-actualization needs become
the primary motivators.
However, if a previously satisfied lower-level set of needs becomes deficient again, the
individual returns to that level.
In most businesses, physiological needs are probably the easiest to evaluate and to meet.
Adequate wages, and comfortable working conditions are measures taken to satisfy this most
basic level of needs.
Security needs in organizations can be satisfied by such things as job continuity (no layoffs), a
grievance system (to protect against arbitrary supervisory actions), and an adequate insurance
and retirement system (to guard against financial loss from illness and to ensure retirement
income).
Most employees’ belongingness needs are satisfied by family ties and group relationships both
inside and outside the organization. Managers can help satisfy these needs by fostering
interaction and a sense of group identity among employees.
Self-actualization needs are perhaps the hardest to understand and the most difficult to satisfy.
Working toward self-actualization, rather than actually achieving it, may be the ultimate
motivation for most people.
Research shows that the need hierarchy does not generalize very well to other countries.
Research has also found differences in the relative importance of different needs in Mexico,
India, Peru, Canada, Thailand, Turkey, and Puerto Rico.
Maslow’s needs hierarchy makes a certain amount of intuitive sense. And because it was the
first motivation theory to become popular, it is also one of the best known among practicing
managers. However, research has revealed a number of deficiencies in the theory.
Five levels of needs are not always present; the actual hierarchy of needs does not always
conform to Maslow’s model; and need structures are more unstable and variable than the theory
would lead us to believe. And sometimes managers are overly clumsy or superficial in their
attempts to use a theory such as this one.
B. The ERG Theory
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
The ERG theory, developed by Yale psychologist Clayton Alderfer, is another historically
important need theory of motivation. The E, R, and G stand for three basic need categories:
existence, relatedness, and growth.
Existence needs roughly correspond to the physiological and security needs of Maslow’s
hierarchy. Relatedness needs are similar to Maslow’s belongingness and esteem needs. Finally,
growth needs are analogous to Maslow’s needs for self-esteem and self-actualization.
In contrast to Maslow’s approach, ERG theory suggests that more than one kind of need may
motivate a person at the same time.
A more important difference from Maslow’s hierarchy is that ERG theory includes a
satisfaction-progression component and a frustration- regression component.
The satisfaction-progression concept suggests that after satisfying one category of needs, a
person progresses to the next level. The need hierarchy assumes that the individual remains at
the next level until the needs at that level are satisfied.
In contrast, the frustration-regression component of ERG theory suggests that a person who is
frustrated by trying to satisfy a higher level of needs eventually will regress to the preceding
level.
C. The Two-Factor Theory
Another important need-based theory of motivation is the two-factor theory, also called the
dual-structure theory. This theory identifies motivation factors, which affect satisfaction, and
hygiene factors, which determine dissatisfaction.
The two-factor theory once played a major role in managerial thinking about motivation, and is
still widely known and accepted among practicing managers.
1. Development of the Theory
Frederick Herzberg and his associates developed the two-factor theory in the late 1950s and
early 1960s.
Herzberg began by interviewing approximately 200 accountants and engineers in Pittsburgh
and asked them questions about motivation. Herzberg found that entirely different sets of
factors were associated with the two kinds of feelings about work. The findings led
Herzberg to conclude that the prevailing thinking about satisfaction and motivation was
incorrect.
As Figure 5.3 shows, Herzberg saw motivation as a two-factor phenomenon.
Figure 5.3 also illustrates the two-factor concept that there is one dimension ranging from
satisfaction to no satisfaction and another ranging from dissatisfaction to no dissatisfaction.
This theory proposed, employees might be either satisfied or not satisfied and, at the same
time, dissatisfied or not dissatisfied.
Figure 5.3 lists the primary factors identified in Herzberg’s interviews.
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
Motivation factors are intrinsic to the work itself and include factors such as achievement,
recognition, and the opportunity to plan and control their own work were often cited by
people as primary causes of satisfaction and motivation.
The other set of factors, hygiene factors, are extrinsic to the work itself and include factors
such as pay and job security. These factors came out in response to the questions about
dissatisfaction and lack of motivation.
To use the two-factor theory in the workplace, Herzberg recommended a two-stage process.
First, the manager should try to eliminate situations that cause dissatisfaction. According to
the theory, once a state of no dissatisfaction exists, trying to improve motivation further
through hygiene factors is a waste of time.
At that point, the motivation factors enter the picture. As a result, managers would be
helping subordinates feel satisfied and motivated.
Herzberg described explicitly how managers could apply his theory, “job enrichment”
(discussed in Chapter 6)
2. Evaluation of the Theory
The two-factor theory has been scientifically scrutinized more than almost any other
organizational behavior theory, with contradictory results.
In general, studies that use the same methodology as Herzberg did (content analysis of
recalled incidents) tend to support the theory.
However, this methodology has itself been criticized, and studies that use other methods to
measure satisfaction and dissatisfaction frequently obtain results quite different from
Herzberg’s. The theory may be “method bound.”
Critics say the original sample of accountants and engineers may not represent the general
working population. Furthermore, they maintain that the theory fails to account for
individual differences. In addition, the theory does not define the relationship between
satisfaction and motivation.
Research has also suggested that the two-factor framework varies across cultures. It is not
surprising, then, that the two-factor theory is no longer held in high esteem by
organizational behavior researchers.
D. The Acquired Needs Framework
Next, we will discuss one final need-based motivation perspective.
The acquired needs framework was advanced by David McClelland and centers on the needs
for achievement, affiliation, and power (these needs are also sometimes referred to as manifest
needs).
A key differentiating element of this framework is the argument that these needs are acquired,
or learned, from cultural, societal, and family influences.
1. The Need for Achievement
Griffin/Phillips/Gully
The need for achievement arises from an individual’s desire to accomplish a goal or task
more effectively than in the past.
Individuals who have a high need for achievement tend to set moderately difficult goals and
to make moderately risky decisions.
High need-achievers also want immediate, specific feedback on their performance.
Preoccupation with work is another characteristic of high need-achievers.
Finally, high need- achievers tend to assume personal responsibility for getting things done.
Although high need-achievers tend to be successful, they often do not achieve top
management posts. High need-achievers tend to do well as individual entrepreneurs with
little or no group reinforcement.
2. The Need for Affiliation
Individuals also experience the need for affiliation – the need for human companionship.
Individuals with a high need tend to want reassurance and approval from others and usually
are genuinely concerned about others’ feelings.
People with a strong need for affiliation most often work in jobs with a lot of interpersonal
contact, such as sales and teaching positions.
3. The Need for Power
The third so-called acquired need is the need for power – the desire to control one’s
environment, including financial, material, informational, and human resources.
People with a high need for power can be successful managers if three conditions are met.
First, they must seek power for the betterment of the organization rather than for their own
interests.
Second, they must have a fairly low need for affiliation because fulfilling a personal need
for power may well alienate others in the workplace.
Third, they need plenty of self-control to curb their desire for power when it threatens to
interfere with effective organizational or interpersonal relationships.