The Evolution of the Various Theories
Motivation
on the subject of
A Paper presented to the MBA Class, Lansdowne Independent College,
London, June 1988.
Yusuf A. Nzibo
Introduction
Motivation at work is an important area of study that has over the
century continued to fascinate students of Organisational Behaviour.
Behavioural scientists have made enormous contributions to our
understanding
of
individual
motivation, group
behaviour,
and
interpersonal relationships at work, and this has enabled managers to
become much more sensitive and sophisticated in dealing with their
workers. Motivation remains an important area of concern for managers
and for all those involved in seeking to improve the productive element of
people in organisations. J. N. Harris and R. Woodgate define motivation
as "the processes or factors causing people to act in certain ways ...
consists of the identification of need, the establishment of a goal which
will satisfy that need and determination of the required action".1
However, students of motivation have not come to a general agreement
as to a uniform definition of motivation and not all of them base their
theories on needs. To help us out of this dilemma, T. R. Mitchell suggests
four common characteristics that can help define motivation. These are:
Motivation is typified as an individual phenomenon, to allow for
individual differences and unique ness;
™
Motivation is described, usually, as intentional, i.e. under a
person's control;
™
Motivation is multifaceted, with the two most important facets
being what gets people activated (arousal) and the force to
engage in desired behaviour (direction or choice), and
™
The purpose of motivational theories is to predict behaviour i.e.
it is concerned not with behaviour or performance themselves but
with action and with the forces that influence the choice of
action.2
Michael Argyle pointed out in 1972 that:
The problem of motivation has become particularly acute
now that many young people feel no great economic need to
work, and are not endowed with the motive to achieve,
which was particularly responsible for the industrial
expansion in previous periods of history. 3
It is the argument of this paper that the various theories developed by
social scientists concerning the subject have tended to be influenced by
the then general climate of opinion about man and his relation to work. In
the early days of industrialisation when conditions were harsh, man was
seen as a passive animal to be manipulated, motivated through wages,
and controlled for his own “good". The great depression and the war
experiences, and government intervention into the running of welfare
states, led to change of attitude and the rise of human concern. Thus man
began to be seen as a social man whose problems could no longer be
treated in isolation. The 1960s brought new changes in which money was
no longer seen as a primary motivator as the “quality of life issues" began
to dominate. Man was thus seen as self-actualising and motivated by a
number of complex factors. The study of motivation had thus to be
studied from an inter-disciplinary approach. Tools were thus borrowed
from all possible disciplines of the social sciences. Thus it is this under
standing of man from a wider perspective that has enriched the study of
the motivation theories.
THE EVOLUTION OF MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES
The Scientific Management School of Thought This school of thought
propounded by scholars such as Frederick Winslow Taylor 1856-1915),
Henry L. Gantt and Frank and Lillian Gilbreth were partly concerned with
the need to increase productivity at a time when there was a shortage
of skilled labour at the beginning of this century. Taylor developed
theories of work organisation that were meant to improve the effectiveness
of workers and thus raise their productivity. Some of his ideas were thus
to crystallise into a theory of industrial motivation which was considered
radical at that time.4 The ideas of Taylor and the others were based on
the then popular model of human behaviour that saw people as "rational
beings" motivated primarily by a desire for material gain. It was thus
assumed that workers would therefore act in a manner best suited to
satisfy their economic and physical needs. The theories thus epitomised
the Protestant ethics of master-servant relationship in which both
parties were for the most part economically motivated, competitive
and self interested.5 These theories were based on the assumptions (later
to be found wanting) that: people only try to satisfy economic needs at
work; the sole reward they seek is money; people's behaviour is always
rational in pursuit of that goal; they always try to maximise their rewards
in return for an instrumental and calculated amount of effort; emotional
needs do not enter the picture; and that the interests of the worker and
employer are mutual and as such no conflicts exist.
Taylor and the other theorists focused their efforts on finding ways of
improving workers' physical capabilities believing that workers were
2
motivated by high wages and salaries and the chance of improving their
lives. These two things, it was argued if they were properly taken care
of, workers would work continuously and effectively in a mechanically
pre-described manner, and thus production would be improved. The
theorists, however, overlooked the human desire for job satisfaction and
social needs of workers as members of groups that they worked in. They
also failed to consider the tension created when needs was frustrated.
They took too much granted believing that workers
Could be motivated by being offered better pay and being trained in more
efficient ways of completing their tasks, and since they saw the problem
from the perspective of increasing productivity, workers' social needs and
inputs were totally ignored. While we all admit that financial gain is
important to workers, managers have learnt through painful experience
that this is not the whole story. As people went on strike over their
working conditions in the post-War I period, and many found their jobs
unfulfilling new solutions had to be found, and the whole issue of
motivation had to be addressed afresh.
The Human Relations School of Thought
The "simplistic" view of motivation came under heavy criticism from a new
school of thought known as “The Human Relations School of Thought “.
Men like Elton Mayo6
argued that workers have other than purely
economic motives, and that there are many Incentives of which under
normal conditions, money is the list important. They argued that the
"carrot-and-stick" hypothesis about the relationship between behaviour
and reward was of doubtful validity. That the hypothesis of the previous
school of thought depended very much on a view of the worker as an
isolated individual rather than a social being engaged in, and deriving
satisfaction from, his reactions with his fellow beings. Thus new factors
had to be found to explain motivation. The new views centred on a view of
the Social Man seeking satisfaction primarily by membership of stable
work-groups.
The Hawthorne Experiments
Elton Mayo revealed some important consideration almost by accident.
Together with a group of fellow researchers investigating industrial
efficiency, he conducted a series of experiments at the Hawthorne plant of
the Western Electric Company near Chicago in the United States. The
famous "Hawthorne" experiments –
written by Roethlisberger and
Dickson (1939) – became an important landmark in the development of
behavioural theory. They conducted their experiments in two phases:
1924-27 they investigated the effects of changes in illumination on
productivity and showed that there were certain factors, apart from
physical ones, which affected the motivation and productivity of a group of
workers. Their investigations from 1927-1932 consisted of four main
3
experiments in relay assembly and mica-splitting test-rooms and in the
bank wiring observation room.7
The study in the relay assembly test-room involved five girls and
took two years and involved various changes in the working conditions,
style of supervision and pay incentives. The outcome
was
that
productivity was higher than in controlled groups, there was greater
group cohesion, better communication and working relationships. The
result of this study led to the "Hawthorne effect" theory that argued that
any group singled out as an object of interest acquires ego-satisfaction
which could have a positive effect on production.
In the other
experiments involving men, considerable social pressure was applied in
the form of various verbal censures was placed informally by the
group on members to conform to an accepted level of output. Out of the
confusion surrounding these studies a number of conclusions were
reached. Mayo held that motivation and productivity were as a result of
complex behaviour patterns, and could be influenced by numerous
factors. Mayo, influenced by the post-Depression and World War II
philosophies that emphasised the human element, argued that
Scientific Management as propounded by Taylor had paid insufficient
attention to the human factor in productivity. He held that the
economic motive that was so much stressed was unimportant as
compared with emotional and non-logical attitudes.
Mayo thus came to the following conclusion: work is a group activity; the
need for recognition, security and sense of belonging was more
important in determining a worker's moral and productivity than the
physical conditions which he works; his attitudes and effectiveness are
conditioned by social demands from both inside and outside his work
place; informal groups within the factory exercise strong social control
over the work habits and attitudes of an individual worker; and group
collaboration must be planned and developed to reach group cohesion in
order to improve productivity.
Though Mayo’s works came under heavy criticism, his ideas added a rider
to the previous simplistic views of the pre-War I period. Thus people
became aware that in order to motivate people, one must know the
incentives that people will respond to, the work environment must be
improved, and that opportunities must be provided to fulfil workers'
needs. The Human Relations techniques were criticised for not always
producing the desired effect especially on the techniques of supervision,
for lack of concern with extra-organisational factors and for ignoring
environmental factors, for adopting the belief that no conflict of interest
existed between workers and employers, and for under estimating the
"measure of genuine conflict between the satisfaction of individual needs
and the satisfaction of the organisation's goals of "efficiency".8 They were
4
accused of looking for easier answers in the form of techniques instead of
questioning the organisational structure which may have been at the root
of the problem. Psychologists committed to the multi-dimensionality of
the human personality need, criticise them for being so obsessed with
a Durkheimian emphasis on an individual's need which may be equally
or more important in structuring motivation.
The Post-Hawthorne Period: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
In the post-Hawthorne period students of motivation carried the subject
much further, Abraham Maslow taking the lead. Psychologists and
others argued that individuals should be seen as having "personality
needs" and/or "generalised motives. Maslow held that man should be seen
as a "perpetually wanting animal" motivated by the desire to satisfy certain
specific needs which can be arranged in a hierarchical order. Theorists
argued that needs and motives exert a direct influence upon behaviour;
that there is a basic conflict between the needs of individuals and the
goals of organisations; that this is resolved by changing the organisational
structure and not by the Human Relations techniques; and that the best
form of organisation is that which makes use of the potential of its workers
and involves them in decision making, encourages team-work, good
communication and expressive supervision.
Maslow arguing that nearly all individuals are motivated by the desire to
satisfy certain specific needs, classified them into five basic groups in
an hierarchical order (from lower to higher):
1. Physiological – these are the basic needs such as food and water
which are essential for survival;
2. Safety -- for a general ordered existence in a relatively stable,
threat- free environment;
3. Love -- the needs of affectionate relations with others, a sense of
belonging and acceptance as a member of a group.
4. Esteem -- a need or desire for a stable, firmly based high evaluation
of us, for self respect or self-esteem. This is the desire for prestige,
importance and attention, etc.
5. Self-actualisation -- the need for self fulfilment and to be able to
realise one's full potential.9
Maslow argued that the behaviour of a person is dominated by the lower
group of needs remaining unsatisfied. That one group must first be
satisfied before one move to another set, and when they have been
satisfied they cease to play an activating role. For him, “a satisfied need is
not a motivator". Maslow, point Blackler and Williams, is important
"because he directs attention to the point that motives may direct
behaviour, and that people may engage in activities simply because they
believe they are valuable and not because of other intrinsic motives".10
5
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was however tested by Wahba and Bridwell 11
who found that they did not exist in the workplace. The main problem
with Maslow's theory was that it took for granted that all human beings
were homogeneous in their behaviour, and failed to take into account
the impact different cultures, environment and education have on
people. People in general do not have similar aspirations, even those
within the same environment. Maslow's works main fault was the lack of
empirical data to back his assumptions.
The "ERG Theory"
Clayton P. Alderfer12 made an attempt to improve on this last weakness
by backing his theory in 1972 with hard data. He suggested that Maslow
hierarchy of needs be reduced down to three which he termed Existence,
Relatedness, and Growth. His approach was thus termed the "ERG
Theory". Existence needs included all forms of physiological and material
desires, and these included Maslow’s first two levels and also included
money. Relatedness needs included relationship with others, and Growth
needs which like Maslow's were concerned with the desire to be creative
and to achieve full potential in the existing environment. He, however,
rejected the concept of hierarchy and saw them as a continuum,
accepted that two needs could operate contemporaneously, and took
account of the environment. He suggested that extra reward at the lower
levels of needs could compensate for a lack of satisfaction at higher levels.
More pay could therefore make up for a lack of job satisfaction.
Three American psychologists, Douglas McGregor, Rensis Likert and
Chris Argyris improved on the work of Maslow in an effort to bring the
insights of psychology in the study of the subject.13 McGregor rejected
previous views on the attitude of workers which he termed "Theory X"
that held: the average human being has an inherent dislike for work
and will avoid it if he can; because of this human characteristic of dislike
of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, threatened
with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the
achievement of organisational objective; and that the average human
being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, and
has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all. He favoured
the integration of the individual and organisational goals based on the
assumptions he labelled as "Theory Y". This theory held that: There is no
inherent dislike
of work itself; man will exercise self-direction and self control in the
services of objectives to which he is committed; the degree of
commitment is a function of the rewards seen to result from meeting
these objectives. In this context the most
Significant rewards are the satisfaction of higher order of needs. Such
rewards are intrinsic to work, and not externally mediated; if the
conditions are right the individual will not only accept but seek
6
responsibility; a high proportion of the population is capable of
imagination, ingenuity and creativity in solving organisational problems;
and industrialisation has meant that such capacities are underutilised.14
He held that management method of organisation and control are the
once that need improvement, and that the task of management is to
arrange organisational conditions and methods of operation so that
people can achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts
toward organisational objectives. Likert (1961) on the other hand,
argues that managers who are prepared to take account of the "major
motivational forces" that govern behaviour, can assure "attitudes of
identification with the organisation and its objectives and a high
sense
of involvement in achieving them". He holds that where this is
done, both satisfaction and productivity will increase together.15
Frederick Herzberg sort to clarify the relative importance of money vis-àvis other factors and after various investigations with his colleague he
developed his famous "Hygiene Theory” that concluded that human beings
have two basic
Needs: the need to avoid pain and survive, and the need to grow, develop,
and learn. Thus the analysis of employee job satisfaction would
result in the formation of two separate continuums
rather
than
the
traditional
one of satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The first set of
needs, which he calls “the hygiene factors", range from dissatisfaction to
no dissatisfaction are affected by environmental factors over which
employees
have
limited
influence.
These
include
pay,
interpersonal
relations,
supervision,
company policy
and
administration, working conditions, status and security. These, he holds,
do not serve to promote job satisfaction but their absence
Create dissatisfaction. The second group of factors which he terms
"motivators" concern with the work rather than with its surrounding
physical,
administrative or social environment. This includes
achievement, the possibility of growth through self-development, and
responsibility leading to advancement, etc. Thus he holds that if workers
are to be motivated, their jobs are the source of that motivation.16
R. H. House and L. A. Wigdor.17 and R. Heller18 criticise Hertzberg’s two
factors ideas as being a too simplistic theory of motivation, and that it
ignores cognitive and co-native or effective differences as between
individuals. Heller also states that it is difficult to know about men's
motives as they change rapidly and people don't often admit their true
motives openly. Others also accuse him of not seeing money as an
important motivating factor. Despite of the criticism levelled, writers
acknowledge his contribution to the issue of job satisfaction and
enrichment, and his stimulation of further debate on the topic of
motivation.
7
The Expectancy Theory
Dissatisfaction with the motivation theories continued in the 1960s as
many of the theories failed to take into account their applicability in
different situations and under different cultural conditions. What was
required were theories that would allow not only for this but also for
the complexity and variability of man and his work set-up. The
traditional views of Maslow,
McGregor and Herzberg were thus found
inadequate. Researchers in the last two decades have used complex
models and in particular the expectancy theory to increase our knowledge
on the subject. The foundation of this theory were laid by Kurt Lewin in
the early 1950s and were developed a decade later by Victor Vroon19
and refined in particular by E. Lawler20 Expectancy is defined as a
belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act would be followed by
a particular outcome. The individual is seen as a being with beliefs and
expectations about future events in his life, and this includes expectations
about the outcomes of their own behaviour and preferences for particular
possible outcomes. Roger Bennett points out that "our expectations
about how much effort to put into a job, the likely rewards, the goals that
will achieve such rewards, how we will achieve those goals, and the
fairness or equity of the
rewards,
are important ingredients of
21
motivation". As the theory is all encompassing, it has become one of the
most influential theories on motivation among the academics. Despite
a
need
for conceptualisation and methodological refinement, the
expectancy theory has much to offer, especially in the area of individual
rewards.
Conclusion
While the subject of motivation has attracted a lot of academic debate,
and its development and refinement continues, the last eight decades has
allowed us a sufficient grasp of the subject as to be able to apply the
knowledge in the efficient running of organisations. However, as our
ideas of man and his work change and we continue to encounter
more complex technological problems, so too will our curiosity in
understanding "What Really Motivates MAN?" What we have learnt so far
is that money is not the only thing that motivates a man and that it can
even be secondary; the work environment, the job design, the style of
supervision, non-material incentives, all count in motivating workers. The
1960s also taught us that people partly work because of intrinsic
satisfaction, and Herzberg, Mc Clelland and Maslow drew our attention to
other needs such as the desire for achievement and recognition, and the
need of job enrichment. We have also learnt that achievement motivation
can be aroused by job challenges and target setting, and finally that
workers become committed to an organisation's goals through such
8
things as allowing them to take part in decision making especially
concerning the nature of their jobs and team work.
Footnotes:
1.
J. N. Harris & R. Woodgate, Making Sense of Management Jargon,
Granary Press, 1984.
2.
T.R. Mitchell, “Motivation--New Directions for Research, Theory and
Practice,” Academy of Management Review, 7, No. 1, January 1982, pp.
8-88.
3.
M. Arggyle, The Psychology of Work, Penguin, 1972.
4.
See F.W. Taylor, Scientific Management, Harper & Row, 1947.
5.
M. H. Bottomley, Personnel Management, Pitman, 1987, p. 14.
6.
See E. Mayo, The Human Problems of the Industrial Society, Harvard
University Press, 1945.
7.
See E. Mayo, "Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company" in
D.S. Pung, Organization Theory: Selected Readings, Penguin, 1984, pp.
279-292.
8.
D. Silverman, The Theories of Organizations, Gower, 1984, p.76.
9.
See A.H. Maslow, "A Theory of Human Motivation", Psychological
Review, 50, 1943, pp.370-96, and A.G. Cowling et al. Behavioural Sciences
for Managers, Edward Arnold, 1988, pp. 68-70.
10. See F.H.M. Blackler & A.R.T. Williams, "People's Motivation at
Work", in P. Warr, Psychology at Work, Penguin, 1971.
11.
See M.A. Wahba & L. G. Bridwell, "Maslow Reconsidered", in
Organisation Behaviour and Industrial Psychology, O.U.P., 1975.
12. C.P. Alderfer, "An Empirical Test of A Theory of Human Needs",
Organisational Behaviour And Human Performance, 4, 1969, pp. 142-175.
13. See D. McGregor, The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, 1960;
R. Likert, New Patterns of Management , McGraw-Hill, 1961; and
Chris Argyris, Integrating The Individual And Organisation, Wiley, 1964.
9
14. For details see D.S.
317-333.
Pung, Organization Theory, Pelican, 1984, pp.
15. D. Silverman, Op. cit., p. 73.
16 F. Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Co., 1966,
pp. 71-91.
17. See R. H. House & L.A. Wigdor, "Herzberg's Dual-Factor Theory of
Job
Satisfaction and Motivation:
A Review of the Evidence and
Criticism", Personnel Psychology, 20, 1967.
18. See R. Heller, The Naked Manager, Barrie & Jenkins, 1972.
19. V. Vroon, Work and Motivation, London, Wiley, 1964.
20. See for example E.E. Lawley, "Job Attitudes and Employee Motivation:
Theory, Research and Practice", Personnel Psychology, 23, 1970.
21. R.D Bennett, "Motivation at Work" in A.G. Cowling, et al., Op. cit.,
p.80.
10