In a school setting, a students intrinsic motivators maybe a sense of self worth and achievement. Extrinsic motivation comes into the fore when a student is compelled to perform or act a certain way because of factors external to them, like a good grade or even financial enticement. ‘Because students are not always internally motivated, they sometimes need situated motivation, which is found in environmental conditions that the teacher creates.’ (Wikipedia 2009). An example of this may include the incentive of going early if they perform to a certain level. It is a useful tool in persuading pupils to learn.
There is a feeling that extrinsic reward power can wane, Jarvis (1999) contends, ‘Extrinsic rewards typically lose their reinforcement power more quickly than intrinsic reward.’ In essence cups, certificates, medals etc, lose their rewards power more quickly, however feelings of competence, self worth and satisfaction are self fuelling rewards and foster intrinsic motivation.
The subject of motivation has been exposed to a vast amount of academic study in the last century. Many theorists’ proposals are still valued and influential today. There are numerous competing theorists who attempt to explain the nature of motivation.
There are masses of academic papers on the subject of motivation. Perhaps the one best known theorist today is Abraham Maslow, whose paper, ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, published in 1943, suggests we (as human beings) have an order to our needs. He purported that certain needs must be met before other needs are considered.
He theorised a hierarchy of needs. This hierarchy ranged through five levels from the lowest level, Physiological/Basic needs; primitive and basic requirements for survival, food, shelter as touched on earlier, (payment in a work situation). Until these basic needs are achieved the next level won’t figure in our minds. Safety needs; am I protected, am I in danger? (Do I have a safe working environment?) Social/Love needs; friendships, the giving and receiving of affection, (with fellow employees in the work situation.), Self esteem needs; am I wanted, do I feel I belong, (is there recognition of a job well done?), to the top level of Self-Actualisation; this where one’s full potential is achieved, (a sense of self-fulfilment in a work situation).
Maslow suggested, ‘Individuals only advance up the hierarchy as each lower level need is satisfied.’ (L, Mullins 1996 p54). Therefore once a lower need had been satisfied it no longer acts as a motivator, the next level of the hierarchy becomes the primary motivating influence. Maslow revels that a ‘satisfied need is no longer a motivator.’ Because we are all different individuals we all act and behave differently, therefore it is plausible for individuals to engage this hierarchy in a different order, or join it at a higher level than others.
Maslow’s framework is adopted by both the business and sports worlds. However his work wasn’t originally intended for use in either field, but his hierarchy has found place in both.
Motivation in the business environment is a vast and complex field, with varying opinions and schools of thought. The adoption of theories such as Maslow’s saw a development of a more humanist approach to management. The watershed moment came after the Hawthorne experiments, a set of ground breaking experiments conducted in America in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. Emanating from these studies was a set of inspiring results and a new branch of people management.
Up until and during those experiments, organisations adopted a so called ‘Classical’ approach to people management, a scientific, pragmatic, management knows best approach, sterile with the contention that people are motivated by financial gains, and will do as they are told, and will achieve their goals through financial incentives. This only works to a certain point, one of its flaws is it assumes we are all alike.
An exponent of the classical theory of motivation at work, was F. W. Taylor, his work surmised that, ‘high pay acted as the prime motivator and ignored morale and other influences emphasised by the human relations framework.’ (Paraphrased, D. Floyd, 1990 p120). Fundamentally the classical theory of motivation believed workers would always act in the organisations interests, and money is the key motivator to this belief. The classical approach to motivation at work still exists today, however more commonly, readily accepted and practiced is the Humanist or Human Relations theory of motivation, (Maslow’s theory being a key text in the formulation of (human relations) motivation policy.)
Essentially the human relations theory suggests people’s individual needs need to be fulfilled, this then will result in a more rounded motivated employee. It suggests that pay isn’t necessarily the prime motivator. The emergence of the humanist approach challenged the notion ‘pay is the only motivator’ theory, and ascribed certain non-monetary influences as being a key to motivation i.e. adequate training for the job to be carried out competently, is the job stimulating enough.
The original premise to the Hawthorne experiments was to ascertain how changes in the environment and task led to people becoming more or less productive. It was based upon a classical approach of people management. Though what actually occurred was an interesting by-product. They found that changes in working conditions, for example, to a poorer standard actually resulted in an increased production level. Mullins (1996) suggests, ‘the level of production was clearly influenced by factors other than changes in physical conditions of work.’ The result prompted more investigation to the phenomenon.
In summary the Hawthorne experiments lauded that when people are shown an interest in, they respond, that they feel recognised and wanted. Because workers were being watched and monitored they felt important, that they mattered. This for many organisations led to a sea change in people management policy.
The classical approach always saw the planning of material resources of an operation as the priority. However the emergence of the humanist approach to management recognised that, in a climate where if competing concerns have the same access to infrastructure, such as non-identical (material) resources such as raw materials, technology, hard/software, similar capital resources and similar logistical options, the differences between like organisations performance maybe ascribed to its once overlooked resources, its people. It suggests that people are fundamental to success, therefore a highly motivated workforce equals a profitable enterprise. (Though a question levelled by critics of this school of thought contend, how measurable is motivation?)
Wherever there is this awareness of the importance of people as a resource to the organisation rather than just the hired labour, managers have had to deal with the human aspects of management and give equal time and attention to employees needs. The vogue of a humanist strategic approach to managing employees led to the idea people could be invested in, that they are assets, and that training and developing employees is an enriching process which can engender motivation. The traditional classical school of thought considered employees were a cost to the organisation.
Tyson and Fell (1992), assert that, ‘human relations philosophy emerges whenever people are perceived not as a cost for doing business but as the only resource capable of turning inanimate factors of production into wealth. People provide the source of creative energy in any direction the organisation dictates and fosters.’
If you take an interest in the needs of your employees you build harmony and bonds, these are essential tools in motivating employees to perform. The humanist approach to motivation isn’t without its critics though. There are those who suggest, ‘Maslow’s work lack of empirical evidence to back up his claims are its downfall.’ (Paraphrased, Farnham et al 1997, p343).
Though both schools of thought will to a certain extent dictate compliance, the humanist approach identifies factors which can enhance an employee’s motivation to work. Through this approach employee’s needs should be constantly reviewed and monitored.
We have considered and found that motivation is a subjective concern and that we are all different and respond in different ways to various stimuli. As mentioned there are numerous competing theories which seek to decipher the workings of motivation Though all the theories fall somewhat short of a definitive explanation, resultantly because of people’s individuality, they do harbour partial truths and do to some extent explain the behaviour of certain people at certain times. (In a business context). Regardless any theory that assists in the understanding of the nature of motivation of individuals should be considered helpful, when formulating strategy for motivation
Mullins (1996, p487) proposes, ‘Because of the complexity of motivation and the fact that there is no single answer to what motivates people, that the different theories are important to management. They show there are many motives which influences people’s behaviour and performance.’
Ultimately the different frameworks of theory enable decisions to be made in trying to solve the problem of how best to motivate individuals more effectively. Motivation is one’s drive to achieve, most people have a desire for more, more money, more friends, more recognition more status, more success. What drives us on to try to achieve our goals is motivation. We may use internal or external influences to spur us on. We have seen how it is based on our individual needs and goals, and how it can be broken it into different areas. We can predict that in a business environment, high levels of motivation equals increased chance of success and are critical for the nirvana of the ‘competitive advantage’.
Bibliography
Beardwell, I. & Holden, L. (1997) Human Resource Management
A Contemporary Perspective (4th Edition)
UK- London, Pitman Publishing
Biddle, S. J. (1989) Introductory Concepts in Sports Psychology
UK, Routledge
Cox, R. et al. (1994) Sport Psychology- Self Help Guide
UK, Pitman Publishing
Farnham, D. & Pimlott, J. (1997) Understanding Industrial Relations (5th Edition)
Great Britain, Cassell Publishing
Floyd, D. (1994) Letts Study Guide A Level Business Studies
West Midlands-UK, Letts Education Lld
Hollinshead, G. Nicholls, P. & Tailby, S. (1999) Employee Relations
London-UK, Pitman Publishing
Jarvis, M. (1999) Sport Psychology
London – New York, Ruttildge
Mullins, L. (1996) Management & Organisational Behaviour (4th Edition)
London- UK, Pitman Publishing
Sharp, B. (1992) Acquiring Skill in Sport. Sports Dynamics
UK, Routledge
Tyson, S. & A, Fell. (1992) Evaluating the Personnel Function (Personnel management)
UK, Nelson Thornes Ltd
Journal Cited in Mullins 1996:
Maslow, A. (1943) A Theory of Motivation, Psychological Review, 50, July 1943 pp 370-96
Websites:
Unknown Author (2009) Search: Motivation Available from: [Accessed 29th March 2009]
Unknown Author (2009) Search: Motivation Available from: [Accessed 29th March 2009]