1Human motivation theories
Are they really human?
Understanding Herzberg’s extrinsic and intrinsic motivations
Back in 2008, I delivered a presentation at Harvard University.1 The title of this talk was “Human Motivation Theories: Are They Really Human?” I presented an analytical review of some of the most renowned theories on human motivations in organisations and justified why a majority of those theories seem not so human somehow. The lecture room was packed, and many of those in attendance conveyed their positive reaction and consideration to the basis of the talk. Among the participants was a Spanish MBA student who approached me and said, “I think your ideas are quite innovative and definitely on the money, but I think there is still something missing”.
I was surprised by this observation from the Harvard student, and it definitely piqued my interest. He followed up on his comment by agreeing that the framework of motivations I had presented was an improvement on others he had studied, especially when referring to the human perspective, but he insisted that a piece of the puzzle was still missing.
Because of those comments, I undertook a journey of development, which meant another year of research to produce the definitive Map of Human Motivations (Guillén et al., 2015), which is at the core of this book. I make the case in this book that, unless some of the most well-known past theories of motivation are reviewed and improved, they could lead to inappropriate and detrimental practices in organisations as predicted years ago, referring to the subjacent assumptions of many of the management theories that have been taught in business schools in recent decades (Ghoshal, 2005).
Let’s start this expedition together: imagine you are a business student and your management lecturer asks you what your motivations are. To begin with, why are you attending this class? The first answer from most students is quite simple: they want to pass the course and get the credits. This is an almost universal motivation for any student, no matter what they study. Even though you may find students interested in getting an A+ or just a C, what is clear is that every student in the world wants to pass the exams and, ultimately, the class.
As human beings, we do what we have to do in order to get a particular set of results, or to obtain items we consider good, as something essential, convenient, or just satisfying, and students are no exception to this. In fact, if you ask them to provide other reasons for passing the course, among their motivations they will include all kinds of rewards they may get from their parents if they pass their exams. For instance, money or presents such as a motorbike, a car, a holiday, etc.
At this point, it is logical to ask them if they have motivations other than external rewards. The answers, however, will probably depend on how much they care about the content of your course and which parts they are specifically drawn to, but it will also have a lot to do with their personal interests. Occasionally, you may have a good student saying that they are attending the class simply in order to learn. However, the reactions to this from the rest of the class might be quite diverse, including disbelief.
Young students, especially adolescents, are not typically enthusiastic about recognising their noble desires, or even talking about them in public, exposing themselves to the risk of being embarrassed. Then again, what is true, is that the desire for learning is a universal motivation, and one that is not contingent upon what you receive from someone, such as your lecturer or your boss, but of what you accomplish while in class or at work.
Learning is something that you attain through effort, your own effort. It’s a deeply personal engagement. Thus, when learning is the primary reason why students go to class, their interest is certainly higher than when their only motivation is just passing the course. This may seem obvious, but it is something that has always helped me explain the difference between our extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to my students. The former come from the outside (such as rewards), whereas the latter originate on the inside (such as learning).
It is at this point I like to ask them if they know who popularised such distinction. The reason for this is that, when I teach, I love to move seamlessly from common experience to general theories. Unfortunately, even though these two categories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are almost common knowledge, only a few recognise the individual responsible for them.
It was the American psychologist Frederick Irving Herzberg, one of the most influential names in business management, who first distinguished between what he called hygienic factors (extrinsic) and motivator factors (intrinsic) (Herzberg, 1968). The former refers to doing something because it leads to a distinct outcome, some external value that you expect to receive (like a good grade); the latter refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable, that is, it results in an internal reward (like learning something new).
You can distinguish intrinsic motivation when you gaze at the bright, attentive eyes of your students, looking at you, eager to know more about the topic. Intrinsic motivations are those reasons that move us to do things for their own sake, because we care about what we are doing, like learning something new. I must point out that, in an ideal world, learning should be the main motivation for any student.
As you almost certainly know, though, real life is always different and not so perfect. It seems that in real-world situations, students mostly care about passing the course, at least at the start of the academic year. Furthermore, such motivations are mainly extrinsic, meaning those reasons that move us to do things to obtain something from the outside.
What Herzberg found with his studies in organisational working environments was that extrinsic factors do not properly motivate an individual when they are present. Nevertheless, when these factors are absent, they can easily lower motivation. For many students, passing the course is an extrinsic factor but not a motivator. The possibility of not passing would surely produce dissatisfaction, but just passing only for the sake of passing would not be a factor in explaining a higher interest or motivation for taking the course or paying more attention to their lecturers.
Equally, in the opposite direction, Herzberg found that intrinsic factors do not necessarily lower motivation when they are absent, but they can be responsible for increasing motivation when present. If students are keen on studying in general, or the topic you are teaching is interesting or challenging, this will unquestionably lead to greater motivation.
It is a universal truth that to keep the attention of young undergraduates, you have to manage not only their extrinsic motivations but also their intrinsic. If you want to hold their attention, you need to ensure the class is interesting, challenging and worth their presence and effort.
That is precisely why, when teaching about human motivations, I try to challenge students by asking about their personal motives. I make an effort to present the topic in a way that engages them, starting a basic and real “conversation” with them. Accordingly, to check their understanding of the two-factor theory, I ask them to give me examples of these two kinds of motivations. For this exercise, I normally tell them to apply the theories to third parties, for instance, using their lecturers as examples.
I enquire about the kind of extrinsic motivation that a professor or lecturer could get from lecturing. The answer may vary depending on the group, but usually they all end up with one or all of three reasons: to make money, to get a better job or to move into a higher position at the university. Sometimes, they also suggest that we lecture to gain acknowledgement or a lasting interest from them, the students.
This is the moment when I tell them that these are really good examples of extrinsic motivations. I also ask them if they have ever asked their lecturers about their motivations or if they have just assumed them. This issue is quite relevant for management students; asking and listening is important when referring to the motivations of others, as we will consider again in Chapter 7.
The good news about their responses is that they really understand what extrinsic motivation implies. Their replies are genuine and sincere, and they are all reassuring reasons for teachers and educators to keep working how they do. This is not dissimilar to any job or organisation; extrinsic motivations are always related to receiving some type of external reward or appreciation from others, but these are not necessarily the main or only reasons why we teach.
Consequently, if you press the students further to tell you more about other teachers’ motivations, they will probably reach the conclusion that some just love teaching; they thoroughly enjoy it. In other words, some teach because, while doing so, they feel good in themselves and with what they do. This is definitely a great example of intrinsic motivation and is intrinsic because the reason you keep doing something is the positive effect that activity produces within yourself. While doing this activity, in this case teaching, you feel good.
I always feel regret when most students do not see intrinsic motivations as a main driver for some of their lecturers’ undertakings. That is a story for another time, though. The motivations of lecturers are not the important issue to reflect on right now, it just became part of the ongoing conversation with the students about human motivations in general.
The next question is usually, “If you had to choose, would you prefer lecturers motivated by extrinsic or intrinsic motivations?” As you can imagine, if they had to choose, they would rather have lecturers with strong intrinsic motivations. But why? Mainly because they feel that lecturers who love their job are regularly more fun, seem more knowledgeable and deliver their classes with exceptional ability.
Again, this observation from students is likely to be true for every profession. For some reason, when you perceive someone’s enthusiasm, you also become an enthusiast. I remember when I was young, the reason I originally wanted to study chemistry was the passion my chemistry teacher had for the subject. Intrinsic motivations seem to be contagious, but why would that be? Students don’t normally know how to answer that question directly, which is why I suggest they give it some thought and discuss it among themselves or in class later. We will explore this idea further in Chapter 7.
Afterwards, I tend to go further and ask them a new question: Would you rather lecturers be motivated only by intrinsic motivations, or also by the extrinsic? As you may guess, their answer is always the same; the more motivations, of any kind, they exhibit, the better. In fact, receiving a monthly salary is something you expect, but getting appreciation, interest and affection from your students is also very gratifying (both extrinsic motivations).
Moreover, if the lecturer loves teaching and learning from the interaction with the students (intrinsic motivations), motivation multiplies exponentially. Therefore, common sense seems to suggest that the greater the number and intensity of motivations at stake, especially intrinsic, the more motivated the person doing that job will be in any organisation.
Revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Now that the students understand the importance of having lecturers motivated by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Herzberg, 1968), it is time to return to their motivations. They have just established that they prefer having lecturers with both motivation types, so I then tell them that, as a lecturer, I also prefer having students moved by all positive motivations. If anyone is capable of doing their job better...
