Our “4 Rules of Leadership” make no direct mention of Motivation, though a leader’s duties obviously include motivating staff (as well as peers, clients and others) to achieve organizational goals. Look carefully at the 4 Rules, and several implied references to Motivation are revealed. We are big fans of leaders who embolden their teams to accept decision-making authority and commensurate accountability for their own results. That’s a key building block for a motivated workforce.
Even so, “motivating others” is routinely described by technology-oriented people as a distasteful task, second only to “selling stuff.” It usually requires some Common Sense (see our March 2018 post), and often benefits from a bit of luck. But the truth is that effective Motivation isn’t especially difficult. And it seldom needs to be unpleasant.
Hundreds, probably thousands, of motivation theorists have published papers over the past century. No doubt the vast majority of that research has merit, but we believe the essence of motivation theory – sufficient for transforming the typical workplace – is explained in just two models: Victor H. Vroom’s (1964) Expectancy Theory and Frederick Herzberg’s (1966) Motivation-Hygiene Theory, both of which build logically on A.H. Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs. Apply these concepts within any organization and watch how enterprise goals get met and smiles grow!
Somewhere in our life experience – maybe even in high school – most of us have run across Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow argued that humans are motivated primarily by the satisfaction of their personal needs: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. The hierarchy describes the notion that higher-level needs become motivational only when a person’s more basic needs are reasonably satisfied. Put simply, someone who is hungry or cold will seek food or shelter, rather than being much concerned about social standing or professional achievement. But Maslow also notes that “a satisfied need is not a motivator.” So those whose home, health and finances are reasonably secure will inevitably seek love and acclaim, and eventually seek their full human potential. It’s a compelling and widely accepted concept, and it provides a solid foundation for theories with more direct application in the workplace.
For the mathematically-inclined among us, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation is quite intuitive and relatively easy to grasp. It boils down to a simple equation: Motivational Force is the product of Expectancy, Instrumentality and Valence [M = E x I x V], where:
Expectancy (E) describes the attitude and belief that one’s effort (e) will yield performance (p) toward attaining a goal, or (e → p). So Expectancy depends on one’s self-confidence and degree of control in executing a task, as well as the perceived obstacles to completing the task. Expectancy for an engineer tasked with delivering a design would typically be rather high, but it could be dramatically reduced if the project at hand involves unfamiliar or unclear technical requirements, a micromanaging boss, or an unrealistic deadline.
Instrumentality (I) describes the attitude and belief that performance (p) will routinely yield a particular outcome (o), (p → o). Instrumentality depends on the organization’s leadership and processes to deliver on the promise of a response, as well as the relative immediacy of that response. It’s grounded in one’s trust that “the boss” and “the system” will consistently recognize exceptional performance with timely and proportional rewards. In a work environment where rewards appear to be granted equally to everyone, or randomly, or only to the boss’s pals, or not at all, the (p → o) bond is certainly weakened and potentially broken.
Valence (V) describes the perceived value of the outcome (o) being offered, represented as a range from -1 to +1. A positive value means the outcome is welcomed as a reward; a negative value means the recipient would prefer to avoid the outcome; and a near-zero value means the recipient is indifferent toward the offer. The Valence of an outcome depends on the recipient’s value system and immediate circumstances, though some outcomes are almost universally perceived as positive – a cash bonus, for example.
Given all this, the equation [M = E x I x V] reveals some enlightening truths. First, if any one of E or I or V is zero, then M must equal zero. Conversely, a high level of Motivational Force requires all three elements to be relatively high. Also, since individuals’ perceptions drive each element, we aren’t likely to find a silver bullet solution for M. That said, effective leadership can certainly drive E and I higher, and V can be improved with good leadership plus a bit of empathy.
Building on and refining Maslow’s and Vroom’s ideas, Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory makes the point that a worker’s response to an outcome (as “satisfaction of needs” or “Valence”) depends in part on the nature of the reward itself. His research suggests that some positive outcomes (satisfiers) can serve as tools to improve employee motivation, while other outcomes (hygiene factors) may supply needed maintenance for one’s current level of satisfaction, but deliver no positive Motivational Force. Satisfiers include achievement, recognition for that achievement, work itself, responsibility, and advancement. On the other hand, hygiene factors – company policy and administration, technical supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, and working conditions – were found to act more as dissatisfiers, undermining employees’ long-term enthusiasm for their work.
It’s interesting to note that Herzberg’s satisfiers correlate closely to Maslow’s higher-level needs of esteem and self-actualization, while the hygiene factors relate to physiological and safety needs. An employee is sure to be dissatisfied – and may even be driven away – by unpleasantness or chaos in the workplace, uncompetitive pay and benefits, an overbearing or insensitive leader, etc. But even in a work environment where some of these weaknesses are evident, employees can be motivated to perform at a high level if they find satisfaction in their work and accomplishments (teachers, clergy, first responders and military members come to mind).
It’s our responsibility as leaders to minimize the dissatisfiers and maximize the satisfiers for each individual in our charge. That’s why we like Vroom’s model so much. Pay attention to a few key details while abiding by the “4 Rules of Leadership,” and a leader can reliably improve all three elements of Motivational Force. The engineer delivering that design wants to be entrusted with reasonably challenging projects, so “E” is highest in the happy middle between being micromanaged and being left out on a limb. And we can maximize “I” by verbally acknowledging the design effort at the time it is delivered, then providing tangible acknowledgment of exceptionally good work (and appropriately criticizing poor performance). And we maximize “V” by ensuring each reward is something the engineer actually desires (which may be the most difficult element to get right, as we must first know a bit about each employee’s personal values system and current level of satisfaction).
A final caution: Herzberg identified salary as a hygiene factor, not a satisfier. Specifically, he found that employees are prone to be dissatisfied with poor pay but unlikely to be motivated for long by a pay raise. That doesn’t diminish the Valence of a pay raise, but it does suggest that a one-time bonus, or a salary increase in conjunction with a promotion in title and responsibility, is likely a better solution. Let’s consider the (p → o) relationship: An employee is likely to perceive a raise in pay as deserved, past due and soon forgotten; whereas a timely bonus tied to a specific achievement yields comparable Motivational Force at lower cost, and a promotion (as opposed to a mere pay raise) has far more staying power in both the recipient’s freshly-motivated mind and the organization’s future performance.