The individualism of motivation

Published date10 June 2019
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-03-2019-0016
Date10 June 2019
Pages96-103
AuthorAndrew Mayo
Subject MatterHr & organizational behaviour,Employee behaviour
The individualism of motivation
Andrew Mayo
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine thecomponents that drive employee engagement
and show how important it is to understand the individualism of motivation as against generic
assumptions.
Design/methodology/approach This paper defines employee engagement and takes four drivers
that influence it in turn. Theseare analysed and discussed, particularly as to the individualisticelements
of them. Two approachesto understanding individual goals and prioritiesare illustrated.
Findings There are four drivers of engagement, namely, the absence of dissatisfaction or irritation
factors,intrinsic motivation (inner driven) and extrinsicmotivation (external stimulation)and personal well-
being. Each of these have highly individualistic elements, and models based on a generic human
conditiondo not work effectively. Two instruments for understandingthis individualism are illustrated,one
based on goal theoryand another based on the psychological contract.
Practical implications Many motivational efforts fail because of an assumed commonality in what
motivatespeople. The reality is that different personalitiesand different personal goals andvalues require
individual approaches. Successful engagement demands that leader/managers make it a priority to
understandeach one of their people in these terms.
Originality/value This paperis based mostlyon the writing, models and experience of the author.
Keywords Employee engagement, Leadership, Wellness
Paper type Conceptual paper
The continuing challenge
The consultancy and polling firm Gallup brought a new dimension to the study of motivation
by bringing global attention to a new term in organisation-speak: “engagement”. This was
via a book published in 1999 by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman: First Break All the
Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently. The “engagement” word was
added to a crowded lexicon of describing how people felt about their work and employer,
such as satisfaction, motivation, dedication, organisational citizenship and commitment.
This new term captured the nuance of feeling “connected” to the organisation one worked
for. The Gallup Organisationdeveloped the research in the book into a simple questionnaire
for testing engagement, which became known as the “Q12” and has made a very
successful business from that.Each year they summarise what the overall global results are
from its use. The profile has changed very little over the past 18 years. The proportion of
“highly engaged” in the USA has increased from 26 per cent in 2000 to 34 per cent in
2018 a positive and steadytrend but not startling.
It is no surprise that motivation remains a key management challenge, as human nature
does not change and every manager/leader has to learn for themselves the skills of getting
the best from those they lead and manage. There is however another important ingredient
that is often overlooked. Herzberg’s classic (1966) “One More Time, How do you Motivate
Employees” is an illustration of a general assumption that one employee reacts in the same
way as another, and that there is a universaltruth to be found about motivating them. This is
one of many examples where the “average is the enemy of truth” in this case, a lack of
recognition that every individual has a different mix of the factors that cause them to be
Andrew Mayo is based at
Middlesex University,
London, UK.
PAGE 96 jSTRATEGIC HR REVIEW jVOL. 18 NO. 3 2019, pp. 96-103, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1475-4398 DOI 10.1108/SHR-03-2019-0016

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT