The Motivation of Employees in

Organizations
Abstract

This paper reviews various academic theories regarding the motivation of employees in
organizations. Motivation is, by definition, anything that provides direction, intensity, and
persistence to behavior, especially positive behaviors that help the organization to achieve its
goals and strategy via its human capital. This is an important subject in organizational behavior
because management has to rely upon highly motivated and engaged staff to accomplish the
tasks or work of the organization. Motivation is thus an important function of management and
leadership. Where motivation is minimal or absent, various organizational problems arise such as
increased absenteeism and staff turnover, lowered organisational productivity, bad customer
service, and increased recruitment costs.

The theories of employee motivation examined in this paper include the following: Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs Theory, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, Equity Theory, and Expectancy
Theory of Motivation.

Introduction to Motivation

Motivation of employees is, undoubtedly, one of the most important management responsibilities
in organizations. Motivation of employees is important because of its effects on organizational
performance. For example, Wiley (1997) posited that low employee motivation can impact an
organisation negatively in terms of increased absenteeism and staff turnover, lowered
organisational productivity, bad customer service, and increased recruitment costs.

Definition of Motivation

But what exactly is motivation? It has been defined as “anything that provides direction,
intensity, and persistence to behavior” (Hughes et al., 2012, p. 333) and “the creation of stimuli,
incentives and working environments that enable people to perform to the best of their ability”
(Mullins, 2010, p. 289). Mullins (2010) also defines motivation as “the degree to which an
individual wants and chooses to engage in certain specified behaviours” (p.253). And, according
to Rollinson (2010) motivation is “a state arising in process that are internal and external to the
individual, in which the person perceives that it is appropriate to pursue a certain course of action
(or actions) directed as achieving a specified outcome (or outcomes) and in which the person
chooses to pursue those outcomes with a degree of vigor and persistence.”

Hence, the underlying concept of motivation is that of some driving force within an individual or
employee by which they attempt to achieve a certain goal in order to fulfil some need or
expectation.

Theories of Employee Motivation in Organizations

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory

One of the most well-known theories of motivation that is frequently applied to employees in
organizations is called the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory. In this theory, a person’s
motivation to pursue a certain course of action depends on how that course aligns with his or her
needs, and the power of such needs to motivate the person follows a hierarchical order, much
like a pyramid, from lower or basic to higher order needs on the part of the individual concerned.
A typical pyramid in Maslow’s theory is depicted below.

Source: Mullins (2010, p.261)

The various sections of this pyramid are described in Mullins (2010, p. 261) below:
“Physiological needs. These include homeostasis (the body’s automatic efforts to retain normal
functioning) such as satisfaction of hunger and thirst, the need for oxygen and to maintain
temperature regulation. Also sleep, sensory pleasures, activity, maternal behavior and, arguably,
sexual desire.

■ Safety needs. These include safety and security, freedom from pain or threat of physical
attack, protection from danger or deprivation, the need for predictability and orderliness.

■ Love needs (often referred to as social needs). These include affection, sense of belonging,
social activities, friendships, and both the giving and receiving of love.

■ Esteem needs (sometimes referred to as ego needs). These include both self-respect and the
esteem of others. Self-respect involves the desire for confidence, strength, independence and
freedom, and achievement. Esteem of others involves reputation or prestige, status, recognition,
attention and appreciation.

■ Self-actualization needs. This is the development and realization of one’s full potential.
Maslow sees this as ‘What humans can be, they must be’ or ‘becoming everything that one is
capable of becoming’. Self-actualization needs are not necessarily a creative urge and may take
many forms which vary widely from one individual to another”.

Describing how the pyramid works, Mullins (2010) states: “Based on Maslow’s theory, once
lower-level needs have been satisfied (say at the physiological and safety levels), giving more of
the same does not provide motivation. Individuals advance up the hierarchy as each lower-level
need becomes satisfied. Therefore, to provide motivation for a change in behavior, the manager
must direct attention to the next higher level of needs (in this case, love or social needs) that seek
satisfaction” (p.262). So, managers using this motivation theory need to study and understand
their employees’ feelings and needs. Doing so will help managers to use certain organizational
tools to respond to employees’ needs so as to motivate them or pay attention to the
organizational factors that affect employee motivation. Some of those factors are shared in the
figure below.
 Source: Mullins (2010, p.263)

Additionally, McShane and Von Glinow (2010, p. 135) explains Maslow theory in this way: “A
motivation theory of needs arranged in a hierarchy, whereby people are motivated to fulfill a
higher need as a lower one becomes gratified”. One point of critique against the theory is that
Maslow does not provide an answer to whether every staff’s needs are motivating in the same
order along the hierarchy or whether differences in culture, ethnicity, or gender between staff
may account for differences in levels of motivation using the theory. Along these lines, the
researcher French (2011) denied the universal application of Maslow's theory or model and
argued that individuals from different cultural backgrounds are likely motivated by different
needs. Further, Robins and Judge (2013, p. 205) raised a similar cultural application objection to
the hierarchy of needs theory put forth by Maslow, arguing that it aligns mostly with U.S.
culture, but “in countries like Japan, Greece, and Mexico, where uncertainty-avoidance
characteristics are strong, security needs would be on top of the hierarchy. Countries that score
high on nurturing characteristics—Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Finland—
would have social needs on top. Group work will motivate employees more when the country’s
culture scores high on the nurturing criterion”. Additionally, McShane and Von Glinow (2010, p.
138) objected to Maslow’s notion of a universal hierarchy of needs by emphatically stating that
“there is increasing evidence that ‘needs hierarchies’ are unique to each person, not universal,
because needs are strongly influenced by each individual’s self-concept, including personal
values and social identity”. Also, the same authors reported that: “Empirical studies have
concluded that people do not progress through the hierarchy as the theory predicts. For example,
some people strive more for self-esteem before their belongingness needs have been satisfied.
The theory also assumes that needs priorities shift over a long time, whereas in reality needs
priorities rise and fall far more frequently with the situation”. (McShane & Von Glinow (2010, p.
136).

From the perspective of the hierarch of needs theory, the satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction of the
employee’s needs depend to a great extent, though not entirely, on external process or events that
are largely out of the control of the individual and may thus be totally in the control of the
employer and/or others in the lives of the individual. These external events or processes affect
the individual’s internal state and his personal hierarchy of needs-motivation. Maslow also
opined that each person is a continuous state of motivation, implying that at any given time he is
being motivated by one of the varying types of physiological, belonging, safety, esteem, or self-
actualization needs in the pyramid or hierarchy (Andrew, 1991).

Some researchers have questioned the practicality of applying Maslow’s theory in the workplace.
A few problems have been identified in Mullins (2010, pp.262-263):

■ People do not necessarily satisfy their needs, especially higher-level needs, just through the
work situation; they satisfy them through other areas of their life as well. Therefore, the manager
would need to have a complete understanding of people’s private and social lives, not just their
behavior at work. There is doubt about the time that elapses between the satisfaction of a lower-
level need and the emergence of a higher-level need.

■ Individual differences mean that people place different values on the same need. For example,
some people prefer what they might see as the comparative safety of working in a bureaucratic
organization to a more highly paid and higher status position, but with less job security, in a
different organization.

■ Some rewards or outcomes at work satisfy more than one need. Higher salary or promotion,
for example, can be applied to all levels of the hierarchy.
■ Even for people within the same level of the hierarchy, the motivating factors will not be the
same. There are many different ways in which people may seek satisfaction of, for example, their
esteem needs.

■ Maslow viewed satisfaction as the main motivational outcome of behavior. But job satisfaction
does not necessarily lead to improved work performance”.

Despite the above problems with Maslow’s theory, it is still quite popular in helping managers to
understand how their employees are motivated by their needs.

Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Another theory of employee motivation is the two-factor theory. Researcher Frederick Herzberg
designed and proposed his two-factor theory in 1959 and continued to defend and develop it in
the many years that followed (Herzberg, 1987). In many respects, Herzberg’s theory is simple,
practical, and realistic in describing how employee motivation can be achieved via two sets of
factors – motivators and hygiene factors. Basically, Herzberg postulated that the following five
factors (motivators), when present or built into a job or task, can motivate an employee to exert
more than the usual effort to perform it:

 recognition (for work done),

 achievement,
 responsibility,
 advancement/growth, and
 the nature of the work itself.
A few real-world examples of motivators include pay-for-performance (PFP) systems;
succession planning systems; fair performance appraisal systems; promotion programs based on
performance; and badges, pins, or awards given in recognition of extra effort.

On the other hand, the following five other conditions (hygiene factors or satisfiers) in the work
environment, when perceived as good or acceptable by employees, prevent them from becoming
dissatisfied on the job, but cannot in themselves motivate employees to exert extra effort to
perform their duties:

 type of supervision,
  interpersonal relations,
 pay/salary/wages,
 working conditions, and
 company policies, rules, code of conduct, etc.

Some other examples of hygiene factors include provision of drinking water in the office;
providing access to toilet/bathroom facilities; occupational health and safety policy; and
providing breakfast items like coffee and snacks free of cost to staff. How dissatisfied staff can
become when these factors are not present in their work environment! A diagram of how the
two-factor theory of Herzberg is presented in Mullins (2010, p. 266), replicated below:
 Source: Mullins (2010, p. 266)

Motivators produce a willingness to exert extra effort or motivation; hygiene factors or satisfiers
prevent job dissatisfaction. Together, the provision of these two sets of factors should result in a
highly motivated and engaged workforce.
So, in short, Herzberg (2005) postulated that a specific set of motivators need to be attached to
jobs in organizations by management. In such cases, the manager would not have to analyze the
hierarchy or needs profile of the staff involved, as the manager would have to do using Maslow’s
approach. But, rather, to keep the employee motivated, the manager just has to ensure that
performance of the job itself supplies to the employee the things Herzberg identified as
‘motivators’, namely recognition, achievement, responsibility, advancement, and work that is
actually challenging, requires skill-variety, and is significant or important in itself (Herzberg,
2005; Gawell, 1997). Hence, for Herberg, is more a property of the job itself than a state of
mind, and it is equally important for management to understand how certain general aspects of
the work environment or employment situation may satisfy or dissatisfy the employee (hygiene
factors, to use Herzberg’s terminology), rather than become totally absorbed in analyzing
individual employee’s needs. In this respect, I think Herzberg’s model is more practicable and
simpler than Maslow’s theory. However, one has to acknowledge that Herzberg’s list of
motivators cannot be exhaustive or universal for every employee, in that some employees may
have motivators that did not make his list. In fact, a few researchers have argued some items
Herzberg classified as hygiene factors may actually be motivators for some individuals, such as
money or pay in some cases (Pardee, 1990).

Herzberg’s two-factor theory continues to have a considerable impact in how organizations today
endeavor to keep their employees motivated and satisfied. Quoting another author, Mullins
(2010) commented on the continued relevance of Herberg’s theory thus: “Herzberg’s work has
had a considerable effect on the rewards and remuneration packages offered by corporations.
Increasingly, there is a trend towards ‘cafeteria’ benefits in which people can choose from a
range of options. In effect, they can select the elements they recognize as providing their own
motivation to work. Similarly, the current emphasis on self-development, career management
and self-managed learning can be seen as having evolved from Herzberg’s insights” (p.266). I
personally consider Herzberg’s two-factor theory to be the most practical and relevant of all the
motivation theories, though a lot of insights can be gained from each about how to motivate
employees in organizations.

Equity Theory of Motivation

Another perspective on employee motivation is known as equity theory. Robins and Judge
(2013, p. 221) defined equity theory as “a theory that says that individuals compare their job
inputs and outcomes with those of others and then respond to eliminate any inequities”. That
response or desire to remove the inequities is the employee’s motivation. Once managers or
employers act to remove inequities, employees are motivated to offer good quality work and
extra effort in exchange for being treated and paid fairly or equitably. Mullins (2010, p. 275), on
the other hand, views equity theory as ‘exchange theory’ in that an exchange process exists in the
employment relationship whereby a staff may expect to be given a promotion in exchange for
her greater contribution to achieving a specific organizational objective. In exchange for
employee inputs such as their hard work, dedication, and skills, managers provide outputs such
as pay and benefits or some intangibles such as recognition. Under equity theory, the staff would
then compare her own position to that of her colleagues in the same organization or department.
It is at that point that her feelings regarding the equity or fairness of what she has gotten from her
exchange compared to that of her colleague become motivating or demotivating. So, the staff’s
level of motivation is affected by her perceptions of how the organization or managers treat
others for inputs and outcomes connected with efforts that are similar to her own (McShane and
Von Glinow, 2010). When inequity is perceived, the employee is motivated to act to correct the
inequity by, for example, working harder.

So, under equity theory, basically, employees are motivated when they perceive the reward is
equal to the work; that there is equity between what they give and what they get in return; and
that the persons who are giving less than them, by comparison, are not getting more than them in
comparison.

Expectancy Theory of Motivation

The Expectancy Theory of Motivation was developed by Victor H. Vroom in 1964 and extended
by Porter and Lawler in 1968 (Expert Program Management, 2018). It basically says that the
behavior an individual chooses will always be the one that maximizes his/her pleasure and
minimizes his/her pain. Managers using the expectancy theory encourage staff to only choose the
right behaviors (e.g., to work hard) if they perceive the outcome of choosing such is the most
desirable for them. It must be clear that the employee could expect to gain or lose from action or
inaction in the direction the manager wants him/her to go. In simple terms, that could mean that
they might gain someone or that they might not lose something. The three variables of
expectancy theory are as follows:

1. Expectancy – the belief that if he/she work hard (effort) he/she will be able to hit the targets
(performance) that have been set for him/her by your manager.

2. Instrumentality – the likelihood that he/she will receive the reward that has been promised or
that is available.

3. Valence – the perceived value of the reward or result to the employee, which if positive the
employee will be highly motivated to pursue, but if negative the employee would be highly
motivated to avoid.

The formula for the expectancy theory is as follows:

Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence

The formula basically means that “to be motivated you must think your targets are achievable,
you must clearly understand any reward you might receive, and you must actually value the
reward” (Expert Program Management, 2018). Below is a diagram of the expectancy model:
 Source: Expert Program Management (2018)

Another set of researchers, Robins and Judge (2013, p. 225), defined expectancy theory as “a
theory that says that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of
an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that
outcome to the individual.” In other words, under the expectancy theory, an employee expends
her best efforts on those behaviors she believes will secure desired outcomes. Staff are motivated
by outcomes that promise the highest or greatest expected payoff (McShane and Von Glinow,
2010).

Expectancy theory has been “tested in a variety of situations and predicts employee motivation in
different cultures” (McShane and Von Glinow, 2010, p. 145), but is only valid “where
individuals clearly perceive effort– performance and performance–reward linkages” and thus
may be of limited use as a universal theory of employee motivation. (Robins & Judge, p. 226).
Appendix A – Diagrams Used in Paper
Appendix B – Works Cited

Expert Program Management (2018). Expectancy Theory. Online:

https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/10/expectancy-theory/

Hughes, R. I., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2012). What do we mean by leadership? Leadership:
Enhancing the Lessons of Experience. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2-42.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2021). Essentials of organizational behavior. Pearson Education Limited.

Andrew, N (1991) Maslow’s Theory of Motivation, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31(3), pp.89-112

French, R. (2011). Organizational behavior. John Wiley & Sons.

Gawel, JE (1997). Herzberg's theory of motivation and Maslow's hierarchy of needs, Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(11), p.3

Herzberg, F (2005) Motivation-hygiene theory, J. Miner, Organizational Behavior I: Essential Theories of

Motivation and Leadership, pp.61-74

McShane, S.L., Von Glinow, M.A. and Sharma, R.R., (2010.) Organizational Behavior: Emerging
Knowledge and Practice for the Real World, 5th edition. Tata McGraw Hill.

Mullins, L J (2010) Management and organizational behavior, Pearson education.

Pardee, RL (1990) Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor & McClelland. A Literature
Review of Selected Theories Dealing with Job Satisfaction and Motivation.

Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A., (2013). Organization behavior, 15th edition, London: Prentice Hall.

Rollinson, D. (2010). Organizational behavior and analysis: An integrated approach. Pearson Education.
Wiley, C. (1997). What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation
surveys. International journal of manpower.
Appendix C – Bibliography
Akanbi, P. A. (2011). Influence of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employees’ performance. Retrieved
September, 18, 2016.

Anyim, C. F., Chidi, O. C., & Badejo, A. E. (2012). Motivation and employees' performance in the public
and private sectors in Nigeria. International Journal of Business Administration, 3(1), 31.

EYARE, D. E. (2012). The impact of motivation on employee’s job performance in an

organisation (Doctoral dissertation, CARITAS UNIVERSITY ENUGU).

Hitka, M., & Balážová, Ž. (2015). The impact of age, education and seniority on motivation of
employees. Business: Theory and practice, 16(1), 113-120.

Milne, P. (2007). Motivation, incentives and organisational culture. Journal of knowledge management.

Mamun, M. Z. A., & Khan, M. Y. H. (2020). A Theoretical Study On Factors Influencing Employees
Performance, Rewards And Motivation Within Organisation.

Robescu, O., & Iancu, A. G. (2016). The effects of motivation on employees’ performance in
organizations. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, 7(2), 49-56.

Taslim, M. (2011). Organisation Culture And Employee Motivation: An Emperical Study On Impact Of
Organisation Culture On Employee Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation At SBI. International Journal of
Management Prudence, 3(1), 84.

Tippet, J., & Kluvers, R. (2007). Modelling factors of motivation in a not-for-profit

organisation. International Journal of Business and Management, 2(5), 121-128.