measuring motivation in a learning organization

73

Introduction

Theories of motivation based on needs, whichexist to be used as guidance for managementin order to determine motivational factorsthat contribute to a manner desirable to man-agers, have been criticized (e.g. Maccoby,1988; Yankelowich and Immerwahr, 1986;Carr and Pihlanto, 1996). This is because oftheir insufficient ability to take into considera-tion the uniqueness of the employees and thespecific surroundings in which the organiza-tion operates.

Comparing these theories one also findsthat they highly correspond with each otherregardless of year of appearance. SinceMaslow’s hierarchy of needs, the theories mayhave been more detailed and put into concreteform but generally the motivational factorsare the same, let it be in another classificationor under another term. Could the conclusiontherefore be drawn that the theories of moti-vation have not changed at the same pace asour society has? Are the theories too static toexplain effectively what motivates employeesof today?

However, the theories and derivations ofMaslow’s hierarchy of needs cannot probablybe rejected by such an assumption. This isbecause a comparison between the theoriesand today’s working values shows that it istheir method of application that is out of date,not the theories themselves. If this is true thesearch for new theories of motivation is notjustified since a new general theory neverovercomes the shortcomings for which theexisting theories have been criticized. Thedimensions of motivation can be regarded asalready ascertained and a focus on themethod of application is instead required. Wehave to move on, not through creating newtheories but through adjusting the ones wehave to our dynamic surroundings.

Building reasoning around the conceptof motivation

When surveying motivation in specific organi-zations one ought to question the way todirectly apply existing motivational theories.This is not because of a failing correspon-dence between the generation of new theoriesand the changing circumstances which facethe organizations of today, but because of nottaking into consideration the value of includ-ing the employees in the motivational process;

Journal of Workplace LearningVolume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · pp. 73–77© MCB University Press · ISSN 1366-5626

Measuring motivationin a learningorganization

Maria C. Osteraker

The authorMaria C. Osteraker is a Researcher at the Swedish Schoolof Economics and Business Administration, Finland.

KeywordsLearning organizations, Motivation, Values

AbstractMotivation constitutes a central element when goingthrough the process of human learning. If the organizationdoes not possess the ability to motivate its employees, theknowledge within the organization is not practically usedto a maximum. Therefore, it becomes the aim of everysuccessful learning organization to find the factors thatenable it to motivate its employees to continuous learningand to take advantage of this knowledge to ensure itsliving. Many motivational theories have been constructedto find these motivational factors, but the values of theemployees in the specific organization are seldom includ-ed in the theories. Since a suitable combination of motiva-tional factors only can be created through an understand-ing of the values in the measured object (i.e. employees),this can be seen as a risk for validity problems in themeasuring instrument. A closer survey of the measuredobject, where such factors as society, organizationalculture and personality of the employee are taken intoaccount, is required. To respond to this requirement adynamic model for the application of existing motivationaltheories based on needs is created in this article. In themodel the shortcomings, which result from an often non-existing dialogue between the examiner and the exam-ined, are removed.

in other words, because of the failing imple-mentation of existing motivational theories.The theories should be included in the sub-conscious of the examiner as a philosophicalthought and it should be considered that thevalue related to different factors must beunderstood from the context in which themeasured object exists (Ting, 1997).

The motivational factors that constitutethe conrnerstone of motivational theoriesbased on needs can be divided into a social, amental or a physical dimension. This group-ing is based on whether the factors, whichinfluence the motivation of employee, can bederived from social contacts at work, charac-teristics of the work task or the physical andmaterial circumstances associated with thework. The social dimension covers all con-tacts the employee has with other people, bothinside the organization and in the environ-ment of the organization – for example, cus-tomers, suppliers, colleagues and managers.Factors related to this dimension are commu-nication, feedback, feelings of solidarity,acceptance, leisure time, status, leadership,power and the need to help others. The char-acteristics of work itself constitute the motiva-tional factors from the mental dimension.The work should be seen to be meaningfuland part of a larger whole. Flexible taskswhere employees can use their knowledge andsee a result of their efforts are motivational,together with such factors as demandingwork, advancements, autonomy, change andsecurity at work. Physical working conditionsand pay, together with other material com-pensations, represent the physical dimension.

However, several studies (for example,Hofstede 1991; Siu et al., 1997; Kiely 1986)show that our needs constantly change withinthe individual employee and between people,departments, organizations, cultures etc.Although Kiely talks about job satisfaction,the dynamics ought to be combined also withmotivation. To motivate its employees effec-tively the organization therefore needs infor-mation about dynamics, which characterizethe motivation to work (Kiely 1986). Thedynamics result in the fact that employees,depending on the situation in which theyexist, continually give different importance tothe motivational factors offered by the organi-zation. Rauhala (1972; 1986) explains thiswith the term “situationality” used in hisconcept or the holistic individual. Situationality emphasizes that an individual

exists not only “as such” or in some kind of

vacuum, but always in relation to reality with

its multitude of aspects.

These dynamics must be included in the

motivational process, and since our values

determine our needs and our needs determine

our acts (Christopher, 1980, p. 2), a dynamic

way of measuring motivation in a learning

organization should be to start with the values

of the employees. Values and attitudes are

based on information, which is provided both

through the experience of the individual and

through information provided by other indi-

viduals in their surroundings. When we

receive information, which is contradictory to

our earlier understanding of the world in

which we are a part, our values and attitudes

change.

Seen from an organizational point of view,

working life values and attitudes change on

three levels:

(1) They change on an individual level as the

employee receives further information

which concerns the situation.

(2) A change on the organizational level can

be seen through, for instance, new work-

ing conditions and restructuring in the

organization.

(3) For example new legislation can affect

what is seen as valued or not.

An examination of the values and attitudes, as

well as a general understanding of the needs

that influence motivation, help us to under-

stand the factors which motivate the employ-

ees of a specific organization. To clarify the

relation between needs and values, a dynamic

model for application of static motivational

theories based on need has been constructed

in this article (see Figure 1).

74

Measuring motivation in a learning organization

Maria C. Osteraker

Journal of Workplace Learning

Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77

SOCIALDIMENSION

IDENTITY

PHYSICALDIMENSION

MENTALDIMENSION

Figure 1 The dynamic triangle of motivation

The dynamic triangle of motivation

The dynamic triangle of motivation (see Fig-ure 1 ) contains the central elements needed tounderstand motivation in a dynamic way , i.e.needs and values. Because of their function asindicators of potential motivational needs –here represented in the physical, mental andsocial dimensions – they have to be included inthe triangle. All individuals have these needs insome proportion, but their importance to theindividual differs from person to personaccording to which dimension is the mostdominant for that particular individual at thatspecific time. This difference can also be seenbetween organizations, cultures and so on andit indicates that a dynamic force must beincluded to describe accurately the motiva-tional process in a specific organization.

As earlier discussions have shown, thedynamic force can be represented by ourvalues and attitudes, which in the dynamictriangle of motivation are presented in thedimension identity. Identity could be seen asthe answer to the question “What is or who isx?” (Waager, 1996) and in this answer is sum-marized all the values and attitudes whichaffect the priority of needs. Since identity isnot a static or a throbbing structure but con-tinuously changing and developing, it couldalso be seen as the model’s coefficient ofchange, According to the identity of the mea-sured object, it will overlap one of the dimen-sions more than the other and in that wayshow from which dimension factors thatmotivate the individual will be taken.

Identity is influenced both by external andinternal factors. This requires an examinationof the concept on at least three different levels– the individual level, the organizational level(organizational culture) and the cultural level(society). When, for example, a survey of themotivational level of an employee is conduct-ed, an examination of such factors as personal-ity is not enough, since organizational cultureand society also will determine the prioritiza-tion among motivational factors made byemployees.

One of the oldest concepts within researchon motivation is hedonism, where the individ-ual tries to maximize pleasure and minimizepain. A condition of hedonism being a tenet inmotivational research is nevertheless an accep-tance of the individual difference betweenpersons (Manners et al., 1997). At the firstlevel of examination – the individual level –

identity is therefore internally influenced bypersonality. Allport (1961) describes personal-ity as the dynamic organization of psycho-physiological systems within individuals, thatdetermine their thoughts and behaviour.Personality consists of processes, which existwithin the consciousness of the individual, andtheories about personality try to explain whyattitudes, goals and acts are similar during alonger period of time. We behave differentlyfrom other individuals, because of our psycho-logical processes and structures differ some-what from others (Lester, 1995, p. 11).

Although values and attitudes are individ-ual, they are also strongly affected by the socialand economic past of individuals and theirenvironment. The sum of values form thecollective behaviour in the organization(Andersson, 1993, p. 22), which leads to anexamination of the second level, the organiza-tional level. Mead’s (1967) description ofindividual identity here explains the commonsharing of values and attitudes. The identity ofthe individual employee cannot be seen assomething that exists only inside the individ-ual, isolated from the social context. On thecontrary, identity starts and remains withinsocial interplay, which continually forms and isformed mutually by relations with others. It isnot possible to get a satisfactory picture ofindividuals and their needs only by describingtheir characteristics, they must also bedescribed in their relations with others. Orga-nizational culture could therefore representidentity at the organizational level. Therequirement to structure the organization intosmaller parts as working teams, departments,units and so on must also be understood at thislevel. This is caused by the subcultures thattypically exist in an organization.

Many motivational theories appear toignore the very real constraints under whichmost organizations operate and which mayseverely limit the motivational factors that theycan provide for employees (Mumford, 1991).To overcome this defective examination ofidentity, a third level, the cultural level, mustbe considered. Rules, laws and procedures inour society, that affect the organization and itsemployees, must be a part of the dynamicwhole. Family and other individuals thatinfluence the norms and values of the employ-ee also affect identity at this level.

Existing motivational theories couldbecome more relevant through an acceptance

75


Maria C. Osteraker


Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77

of an holistic view of the individual in theorganization (Carr and Pihlanto, 1996, p. 34).

Practical implications of the dynamictriangle of motivation

An understanding of the specific character ofan organization can only be created throughphysical and mental participation in the realityof work (Gummesson, 1988). The followingstudy of a Finnish organization will show someof the results, when changing from a static to adynamic motivational process.

A Finnish organization with 350 employeeshas for four years conducted a motivationalsurvey. For the first three years the measuredmotivational factors in the questionnaire usedwere decided on in co-operation between thepersonnel manager and an external consul-tant, who had no understanding of the organi-zation’s working conditions. In the last year aninterest to change the procedure of measuringmotivation in the organization was raisedbecause of several facts. First, motivationalfactors are ranked differently at different levelsin the organization, leading to the fact thatwhat motivates the boss is not always motivat-ing the secretary. Besides, supervisors tend tohave a very inaccurate perception of whatmotivates their employees (Kovach, 1987).This finding leads to the question if surveysconstructed by a personnel manager measurethe motivational factors held as the mostimportant by the employees. Second, theranking between offered motivational factorsseems to differ between organizations,employees, departments and categories ofwork. It also seems to vary over time. Anexternal consultant with no closer pre-under-standing of the specific organization can there-fore be suspected to have problems to under-stand the specific conditions in the measuringobject, something that directly affects theresults of the survey. Third, a commonassumption is that employees better acceptdecisions if they have had the possibility to beinvolved in decision making. Maybe the prob-lems with negative attitudes towards the surveyand low response rate could be solved throughthis method?

A new motivational survey was constructedwith the help of two reference groups. Themembers of the first group were employeeswith different tasks in the organization and ofdifferent ages. Both sexes were representedand some of the employees had worked for a

long time in the organization while others hadjust begun. The size of the organizationallowed us to observe only one group witheight people. However, when the number ofemployees increases the number of groupsshould be added, not the number of membersin the group. As earlier mentioned, motiva-tional factors seem to change at different levelsof the organization. Owing to this a referencegroup, which consisted of individuals with ahigher position in the organization, wasrequired. We, therefore, constructed anotherreference group that included the managers ofthe employees in the first group. The samequestion was asked of all the members: “Whatmotivates you in your work at x?”, “What doyou think would motivate you in your work atx?” and “What demotivates you in your workat x?”. A survey, which was approved of by thereference groups, was conducted out of theanswers and discussions within the referencegroups. In the procedure motivational theorieswere also included, not as a principle in solecontrol, but more as a theoretical frameworkin the mind of the examiner. The theories alsoserved as guidelines to direct discussions in thegroups. Tangible questions and specific factorswere constructed by the employees them-selves, based on the comprehensive theories.As an example, a member of the referencegroup came up with the wish for the organiza-tion to arrange happenings where the familycould join, for the employees. If the survey hadbeen based on literature only or discussionsonly with the personnel manager, this motiva-tional factor would not have come up, butwhen a question based on this answer it turnedout to be the most important question in thequestionnaire. Most employees were dissatis-fied with the way the organization handled thisissue and for the organization it was an easyand cheap way of encouraging employees to besatisfied in their work.

Besides receiving important informationabout valued motivational factors the percent-age of respondents increased by 10 per centand the answers directly pointed out whatought to be done – something that can bequite difficult to understand in some generalquestionnaires with quite abstract questions.We cannot see at this moment whether theincrease in respondent rate was due to thepossibility that participation could affect thesurvey, but we think it would be more likely tobe caused by increased anonymity of respon-dants. Despite this, the survey was a success

76


Maria C. Osteraker


Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77

in the organization, no matter what was thecause.

Conclusion

We have more than enough theories of moti-vation and more than enough data on motiva-tional phenomena. What is needed is a newsynthesis of both theory and data. We need tobe more clever with what we already have(Landy and Becker, 1987).

In this article a model – the dynamic trian-gle of motivation – has been created. Themodel can be seen as a general theoreticalframework of the theories as it at the sametime reduces their shortcomings by makingout a need of a thorough examination of themeasuring object where such levels as society,organizational culture and the personality ofemployees are taken into account. By accept-ing the participation of employees in themotivational process and fostering a dialoguebetween the examiner and the examined, thevalues in the organization are allowed toinfluence the whole motivational process.

One of the fundamental ideas in the learn-ing organization is to involve employees inprocesses at work, something that also shouldimprove motivation. Since the values of theemployees affect their priorities as regardsmotivational factors offered by the organiza-tion, these values should be the guidelines forfurther attempts to increase the motivationallevel among employees.

The example above can be seen as a start-ing point for further research, since it showshow the employee in a learning organizationthrough an understanding of the dynamicmotivational triangle can be involved in themotivational process. All aspects of motiva-tion were included in the earlier surveys con-structed by the external consultant and per-sonnel manager in the case organization, butthe ranking between the factors was unknownsince the employees were not involved in theprocess.

Still further research must be done toconfirm the higher validity of motivationalsurveys in which employees are involved in thedesign of the survey. From earlier researchand practical findings we can, until then, bequite sure to make the assumption that orga-nizations which understand the dynamicsconnected with motivation and have thecapability of letting this affect the

motivational process both save money, time,and have more motivated personnel.

References

Allport, G.W. (1961), Pattern and Growth in Personality,Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.

Andersson, Å. (1993), 70-talister om värderingar förr, nuoch i framtiden, (People of the Seventies aboutValues Then, Now and in the Future), Natur ochKultur, Stockholm.

Carr, A. and Pihlanto, P. (1996), The Holistic Individual: ABasis for a New Direction for the Field of OrgaizationBehaviour?, Series Discussion and Working Papers10,Turku School of Economics and Business Admin-istration, Turku.

Christopher, W. (1980), Management for the 80’s, Ama-com, New York, NY.

Gummesson, E. (1988), Qualitative Methods in Manage-ment Research, Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations, PastonPress, Norfolk.

Kiely, J. (1986) “The dynamics of job satisfaction – alongitudinal study”, Personnel Review, Vol. 15 No. 4.

Kovach, K. (1987), “What motivates employees? Workersand supervisors give different answers”, BusinessHorizons, September-October.

Landy, F.J. and Becker, W.S. (1987), “Motivation theoryreconsidered”, Research in Organizational Behav-iour, Vol. 9.

Lester, D. (1995), Theories of Personality. A SystemsApproach, Taylor & Francis.

Maccoby, M. (1988), Why Work?, Simon & Schuster, NewYork, NY.

Manners, G.E., Steger J.A. and Zimmerer T.W. (1997),“Motivating your R&D staff”, Research TechnologyManagement, Vol. 40 No. 6.

Mead, G.H. (1967), Main, Self and Society from theStandpoint of a Social Behaviorist, The University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL and London.

Mumford, E. (1991), “Job satisfaction: a method ofanalysis”, Personnel Review, Vol. 20 No. 3.

Rauhala, L. (1972), “The hermeneutic metascience ofpsychoanalysis”, Man and World, No. 5.

Rauhala, L. (1986), Ihmiskäsitys ihmistyössä, (The Concep-tion of Human Being in Helping People), 3rd ed.Gaudeamus, Helsinki.

Siu, V., Tsang, N. and Wong, S. (1997), “What motivatesHong Kong’s hotel employees?”, Hornell Hotel andRestaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 5

Ting, Y. (1997), “Determinants of job satisfaction of federalgovernment employees”, Public Personnel Manage-ment, Vol. 26 No. 3.

Waager, M. (1996), “Kuka minä olen?”, (“Who am I?”),Psykologia, Vol. 31.

Yankelowich, D. and Immerwahr, J. (1986), in Timpe. A.D.(Ed.), Motivation of Personnel, Gower, Aldershot.

77


Maria C. Osteraker


Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77

measuring motivation in a learning organization

Documents