Understanding employee motivation is more important than ever. Research suggests up to 40% of performance can be attributed to levels of motivation among team members (Condly, Clark and Stolovitch 2003).
We are going through a period of unprecedented volatility with rapid technological change, greater focus on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, and shifting stakeholder requirements. This has brought an upheaval in the way people work, where they work and the way they interact with colleagues, employers and the system. On top of this, the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated trends towards hybrid working practices and digital communication.
Transitional periods in the social and economic environment are always turbulent and can be uncomfortable to navigate. Employees may become stressed by uncertainty, fear of change or frustration over lack of change, and information overload. This inevitably leads to de-motivation which hampers progress and impairs performance. Pressure for change is intense. Progress is being made in many areas but but there will inevitably be a time lag before the results are visible. The magnitude of change required will likely take a half-generation to be realised. Consequently, understanding motivation is more important than ever.
Understanding motivation in organisations and taking the appropriate measures to support employees will be crucial for navigating transition, encouraging innovation and ensuring sustainable growth.
There is a huge amount of work being done in areas such as inclusion, wellbeing, psychological safety, belonging, employee engagement and organisational culture, but ultimately these are all components of one overarching theme – human motivation. The winners from this period of transition will be the organisations which understand what motivates their employees, enabling them to communicate effectively and make smarter decisions.
The Motivation Metrics™ framework developed by MindAlpha is a groundbreaking approach to mapping motivation. We have looked at decades of research into the factors which underpin motivation and tested them in a variety of organisational contexts. From Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow 1943) and Hertzberg’s Dual Factor Theory (Herzberg 1968), through Deci and Ryan’s work on Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan 2018) to Carole Dweck on Growth Mindset (Dweck 2006) and Amy Edmondson’s work on Psychological Safety (Edmondson 2018), we have examined what underpins and drives motivation to deliver and sustain performance at the individual and group levels. Motivation Metrics enables managers to map motivational drivers and behaviour within their organisation, to identify challenges which may be holding them back and to design interventions to overcome hurdles and deliver superior results.
Motivation describes the velocity of an organisation: Individual motivation determines the speed at which it travels, while collective motivation determines the direction
The MindAlpha approach differs from other models because it recognises how motivation is contextual; the way the various components interact varies from industry to industry, from one organisation to another and even between groups or individuals within an organisation.
The model contains three key dimensions: the Foundations which support motivation; and two higher order dimensions of Individual Motivation, which drives performance; and Collective Motivation which ensures it is channelled in the right direction. We can think of motivation as the velocity of an organisation; individual factors determine the speed at which it travels while the collective factors determine the direction of travel.
The Foundations of Motivation are the platform on which performance is built. They include wellness across the spheres of physical, mental and social health; life-balance; and the support environment. The Foundations do not determine performance at higher levels but without them, the other motivational factors, either intrinsic, such as autonomy or belonging, or extrinsic such as financial rewards, are worthless.
The Foundations of Motivation span all areas of our lives, they are not confined to the workplace or the organisation. Things happening outside of the office can have a huge bearing on our performance at work and on the perceptions we hold about our employment.
Individual motivators are the fuel in the engine of performance, they are the factors which help people get the best out of themselves. The Individual Motivation factors in the model are autonomy, proficiency and job-satisfaction.
Autonomy is one of the basic psychological needs identified by Deci & Ryan’s Self Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan 2018). In our model it is defined as the freedom to act in line with our values and interests. Autonomy, in the Motivation Metrics model, has two conceptual components; the extent to which we have agency over what we do and how we do it, and second, the degree to which we can be ourselves. We have found the freedom to act naturally and be ourselves is universally motivating, however the extent to which we desire freedom of choice depends on our mindset and the extent to which we believe we can influence the outcomes of events.
Proficiency is the second individual motivation factor. Belief that we have the competence to accomplish the tasks we are required to do and to progress in our chosen career is a strong positive motivator. Any concern that we lack these skills is demotivating. It is not right, however, to assume that more is always better. Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi 1975) suggests we need to find a match between our skill level and the requirements of the tasks we are expected to carry out. Inadequate skill levels will induce stress but being asked to carry out tasks that do not challenge us or allow us to demonstrate our capability is likely to lead to boredom and frustration.
Job satisfaction is the third factor supporting individual motivation. This is linked to the first two factors, indeed, to some degree it is an outcome of them. We measure it because when autonomy and proficiency do not deliver job satisfaction, something is clearly wrong. Satisfaction comes in different forms and an imbalance between the type of rewards we receive from our endeavours can be demotivating. Like happiness, job satisfaction results from a combination of pleasure and purpose (Dolan 2014). Too much pleasure without purpose or all purpose with no pleasure are not productive states and do not support sustainable growth.
Collective Motivation speaks to the ability of a team or group of individuals to pull together towards a common goal and to leverage the breadth of skills and cognitive diversity within a group. In the Motivation Metrics model, Collective Motivation is predicted by group identity, psychological safety and organisational satisfaction.
Group identity describes the degree of connectedness one feels to an organisation and the people within it. Crucially, it also includes the extent to which we feel included by the group. It is more than just a sense of identity, it is a feeling of being a fully functioning and valuable part of something.
Psychological safety looks at how comfortable we feel about taking interpersonal risks. Google’s Project Aristotle identified it as the most important determinant of successful teams (New York Times 2016). Psychological safety defines the extent to which we feel safe to express different views and perspectives, safe to innovate, experiment and learn from our mistakes, safe to raise issues and have challenging conversations, and safe to open-up or ask for help without being taken advantage of.
Organisational satisfaction is the final factor in our collective motivation dimension. It comprises the extent to which employees feel that the organisation supports their longer-term interests and aspirations; their trust in the organisation’s ability to communicate effectively and make decisions; and the alignment of their values with those of the organisation.
The biggest challenge for most organisations isn't raising overall levels of motivation, it's correcting imbalances in the underlying motivational factors
The problem with many motivation models is they tend to view the driving factors as being linearly correlated. That is to say everything tends to move up or down together. Our research has shown this is not the reality.
There is a degree of internal correlation between the factors which drive the foundational, individual and collective dimensions and there is also some correlation between the three dimensions as well as with overall measures of life and work satisfaction and work performance. However, the dynamics of how these interact are where it gets interesting. Our research shows how, below a certain level, the foundations dominate and the impact of changes in the higher order dimensions is minimal. However, beyond a certain level, the importance of the foundations wanes and individual and collective motivation become the main drivers of performance.
The biggest challenge for most organisations is not raising overall levels across the three dimensions but correcting imbalances between them. Organisations which score poorly across the three dimensions usually know things are going wrong; they are typically failing on many metrics, not just motivation. However, many organisations display imbalances between dimensions, particularly the individual and collective motivation levels. These organisations often appear to be performing reasonably well on the surface but are, in fact, operating considerably below potential. An organisation which is high on individual but low on collective motivation may achieve short term goals, but is dysfunctional, often pulling in several different directions, experiencing unconstructive internal competition and will often have high staff turnover. An organisation high on collective motivation but low on individual motivation may seem like a nice place to work, but people are probably coasting and not fulfilling their potential.
The Motivation Metrics framework allows an organisation to map motivation across the three dimensions and their nine supporting factors. This enables it to identify the imbalances and the resulting behaviours which may be inhibiting progress and to design targeted interventions to drive superior results.
References
Condly, Steven J, Richard E Clark, and Harold D Stolovitch. 2003. “The Effects of Incentives on Workplace Performance: A Meta-analytic Review of Research Studies 1.” Performance Improvement Quarterly.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihalyi. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play.
Deci, Edward L, and Richard Ryan. 2018. Self-Determination: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness.
Dolan, Paul. 2014. Happiness by Design.
Dweck, Carol. 2006. Mindset: the New Psychology of Success.
Edmondson, Amy. 2018. The Fearless Organisation. Wiley.
Herzberg, Frederick. 1968. One More Time: How do You Motivate Employees.
Maslow, Abraham. 1943. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review.
New York Times. 2016. “What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Tean.” New York Times, February.
If you would like to learn more please leave your email below and member of our team will be in contact.
