Historical Approach to Motivation

Historically, managers took a common sense view to motivation and while many of
the views they had are now outdated, many of the modern motivational approaches
that are used today evolved from the early approaches that were adopted with
modern approaches incorporating different aspects of these early approaches. The
three main approaches that have been utilised over the last century are the
Traditional Approach, the Human Relations Approach and the Human Resource
Approach.

The Traditional Approach

The Traditional Approach was developed over a century ago by Fredrick Taylor. [2]
This approach was very narrow minded in the sense that it determined that
employees were motivated solely by financial gain. Taylor believed that work was an
unpleasant task for employees and that management knew more about the tasks
that the workers were performing than the workers did themselves. Even in modern
times, financial reward is a major motivator of employees but it is incorrect to place a
total emphasis on this as a sole source of reward for employees.

The Human Relations Approach

The Human Relations Approach came to prominence in the 1930’s and took the view
that employees have strong social needs that need to be satisfied and that they want
to feel appreciated for their efforts in the workplace. [2] Very often this approach was
quite deceptive as management would make employees feel that they were
participating in a decision making process when in reality, very often the decision
had already been made by management. Management believed that this type of
deception would lead to increased motivation among employees.
The Human Resource Approach

The Human Resource Approach was first implemented in the 1950’s and in many
regards is quite similar to the human relations approach. The main difference with
this approach is that management actually believed that employees should
participate in decision making processes where reasonable, and eliminated the
deception that existed in the Human Relations Approach. The role of management
was to encourage employees to participate and to contribute to decisions in the work
environment. Many of the modern motivational techniques that are currently
employed are based on this approach. [2]

Need Versus Process Based Theories

Need-Based Theory

Motivation is very often driven by the needs of an employee. A need is quite simply
something that an individual desires and is the starting point in this process. [3] A
need that is not met can drive a desire in a person to change their behaviour. This
change in behaviour that occurs can have a positive effect by motivating an
employee. Perhaps an employee wishes to purchase a new house but they realise
that they cannot afford to do so without first obtaining a pay rise. This employee will
likely be motivated to improve their performance at work and perhaps will adjust their
behaviour in order to improve their chances of gaining the reward that they desire, ie:
promotion. At this point the person will reassess their needs and will focus on ways
to achieve their next goal.

If a person doesn’t feel that their needs have been met after they adjust their
behaviour, very often this lack of a positive result or reward can in fact feel like a
punishment. This person in turn will reassess their need deficiencies and will again
search out new ways to satisfy their needs. An example of this would be that the
employee may look for promotion opportunities in other companies. Figure 1 below
shows this Motivational Framework loop for Need-Based Theory.
 Figure 1: Motivational Framework Loop [2]
Need-based Theory can be classified into three main subgroups. They are Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs, the ERG theory, and Herzberg’s Dual-Structure Theory. We will
now examine each of these theories in more detail to gain a better understanding of
each of them.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

This theory was developed in the 1940’s by a psychologist called Abraham Maslow
who theorised that humans have a set of needs that are arranged into a hierarchy of
importance with the most basic needs placed at the foot of this system. It consists of
five basic needs, the first being ‘Physiological needs’. These physiological needs are
the basic needs of humans in order to survive, such as access to food. The second
step in the hierarchy of needs is ‘security needs’, which again would cover basic
human needs such as clothing and housing. The next step is known as
‘Belongingness Needs’ and deals with social acceptance and also with love. This is
the first step in the hierarchy of needs that deals with needs that aren’t essential for
survival. The fourth step in the hierarchy of needs is ‘Esteem Needs’, which is the
need to have self-respect but also to be respected by others. The final step in the
Hierarchy of Needs is ‘Self-Actualisation Needs’. [4] This step is essentially when a
person is satisfied with their life and that they feel they have fulfilled their potential.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is shown in Figure 2 below.
 Figure 2: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [4]

The interesting aspect of Maslow’s theory is that he states that each level of need
must be satisfied before a person can progress to the next level. He also states that
people can move down through the system if circumstances in their life change. The
first four steps in the Hierarchy of Needs can be achieved by most people who are in
a fulfilling job however achieving self-actualisation can be quite difficult. For many
people, this final step is something they always strive for but often never achieve
fully. Human nature dictates that many people set themselves new goals and their
expectations and needs change as they achieve different milestones in their career.
For this reason for many ambitious people, self-actualisation is a goal that is always
on the horizon. [2]

The ERG Theory

The ERG theory can be considered to be a more refined version of Maslow’s

Hierarchy of Needs. The letter ‘E’ stands for Existence Needs and is closely related
to physiological and security needs which are the first two needs on Maslow’s table.
The letter ‘R’ stands for Relatedness Needs which are similar to the third and fourth
needs on Maslow’s table (belongingness and esteem needs). The ‘G’ stands for
Growth needs which would be closely related to self-actualisation.

In many respects, this theory is very similar to Maslow’s theory as a person

progresses through the three different needs. The major difference however is that
unlike with Maslow’s theory, a person who remains at one level of need for too long
can become frustrated and can regress while Maslow states that for a person to
regress, circumstances in their life must change dramatically.[2]

The Dual Structure Theory

This theory was developed by Herzberg in the early 1960’s. He carried out a survey
of two hundred accountants and engineers in order to identify what led to satisfaction
and dissatisfaction among these employees. He discovered that although a factor
such as low pay could lead to dissatisfaction, it was not necessarily the case that
higher pay would automatically lead to a sense of satisfaction with that same
employee. He identified that there were dual factors at play when it came to
satisfaction levels and consequently motivation levels among employees.

Herzberg identified that there were motivation factors that could lead to satisfaction
such as achieving a goal or receiving credit for work carried out but that if these
motivating factors were not present then the employee would experience no
satisfaction, as opposed to dissatisfaction. He also identified Hygiene Factors such
as work environment, pay and job security and company policies as factors that
could lead to dissatisfaction if they were not deemed adequate, but that when
deemed adequate do not lead to satisfaction, rather they lead to no dissatisfaction.
[5]

Herzberg believed that to increase motivation, management should first ensure that
the Hygiene Factors in place are such that there is no dissatisfaction. When this has
been achieved, motivation can be further increased by focusing on improving the
implementation of the Motivation Factors.[2] The Dual Structure theory is displayed
in Figure 3.
 Figure 3: The Dual Structure Theory [2]

Process Based Theory

Process based theories try to establish what causes motivation in a person. These
theories do not focus on methods to motivate people but rather they focus on the
behaviour patterns that people choose to satisfy their needs. It also deals with how
people assess their levels of satisfaction after their goal has been achieved. [2]

The main Process based theories such as the Equity theory, the Basic Expectancy
Model, the Porter-Lawlor Model, Reinforcement Theory, Organisational Behaviour
Modification and the Job Characteristics Theory will all be discussed in some more
detail.

Equity Theory

This is a relatively simple motivation theory and deals with people’s perceptions
within an organisation regarding whether they are being treated fairly or not. For an
employee to determine if they are being treated in a fair manner this theory suggests
that they must analyse their situation within the organisation by going through a four
step process. The first step in this process is where they evaluate if they feel they
are being treated in an equitable manner by the organisation. The second step is
then to focus on another employee or another group of employees within the
organisation to observe how fairly they are being treated. The third step is to then
compare their treatment to those they observed and to form an opinion about how
equitable their treatment is in comparison to this group. Finally, the employee may
make decisions or change their behaviour based on how they analysed their
treatment by their employer. [2]

Feelings of inequity may motivate the employee to change their behaviour in order to
reduce the inequity, to change their perceptions of themselves or others, to change
the group that they compared themselves to or possibly they may decide to leave the
organisation if they feel that the situation will not change. Feelings of equity can
motivate an employee to maintain their current situation.

Basic Expectancy Model

This model is based on the theory that motivation levels are determined by the
degree a person wants something and also by the likelihood of them getting it.
People are motivated to different degrees depending on their perception of their
effort-to-performance expectancy. [2] If for example a person is doing repetitive work
that does not require much effort to achieve a high level of performance, then they
are unlikely to put more effort into the task if the performance is unlikely to improve.
Alternatively with performance-to-outcome expectancy, if a person perceives that
improved performance will lead to a favourable outcome (such as a pay rise), they
are likely to be motivated to perform better as there is a direct link between their
performance and the outcome (the payrise). In an opposite manner, if every
employee was simply getting a standard incremental pay rise each year regardless
of performance, then there is very little motivation for that employee to improve their
performance based solely on their salary as it is a predetermined outcome.
The Porter-Lawlor Model

The conventional view prior to this model was that satisfaction leads to improved
performance. Porter and Lawlor however argued that if the rewards received by
employees were adequate, then high levels of performance will be achieved which in
turn will lead to employee satisfaction. This model argues that effort, performance
and satisfaction are all linked in a feedback loop where satisfaction can actually
result in an increase in effort and performance, which in turn again lead to
satisfaction. This theory is more complex than the previous theories discussed and it
is therefore more difficult to test its validity. Figure 4 below shows the Porter-Lawlor
model.

Figure 4: Porter-Lawlor Model [6]

Reinforcement Theory

This theory suggests that people’s behaviour is determined by the consequences of

their behaviour. It is a simple theory that suggests that behaviour that results in a
positive outcome is more likely to be repeated while behaviour that results in a
negative outcome is less likely to be repeated. It suggests that future behaviour is
affected by the consequences of past behaviour. There are four main types of
reinforcement that can be used.

1. Positive Reinforcement - This is a positive outcome or reward following a

particular behaviour and will motivate the employee to repeat that behaviour.
2. Negative Reinforcement/Avoidance – This type of reinforcement motivates
an employee towards a particular behaviour by allowing them to avoid
unpleasant consequences, rather than rewarding them.
 3. Extinction – This is a method that is used to eliminate a behaviour that may
have been previously rewarded. By removing the reward, the behaviour that
previously lead to the award will eventually cease.
4. Punishment – This is an unpleasant consequence following a behaviour that
is not desirable and like extinction aims to eliminate the behaviour but in a
more direct and aggressive manner. [2]

Organisational Behaviour Modification

Organisational Behaviour Modification is an extension of reinforcement theory

whereby it is applied by management to modify behaviours within an organisation.
While this approach has without doubt been successful in improving productivity in
some organisations, it can also only have a temporary effect as the novelty of being
positively reinforced often eventually dies.

The Jobs Characteristics Approach

This theory identifies three key psychological states that can lead to increased or
decreased motivation levels among workers. The first is the experienced
meaningfulness of the work. This essentially means that a worker will be more
motivated if they feel that their work is meaningful and worthwhile. The second
critical psychological state is the employees experienced responsibility for work
outcomes. This is essentially means that motivation increases if employees feel that
they are personally responsible for their work. Finally knowledge of results is a key
motivator of employees. This is the degree of feedback that the worker receives and
helps them understand how well they are carrying out their work. [2]