Reaching the summit has been great. Everyone has been bringing out their random flags, shirts, school paraphernalia, and other mementos to freeze the moment in time through photo. Emotions and adrenaline are high. Everyone feels good as the shed the weariness that now seemingly was left along the side of the mountain. As you pause and sit at the top of Mount Rainer you reflect a bit and come to a quick realization that everyone had their own reasons for getting there. Each of you had something motivating you to the top.
There’s little difference between this scenario and those that we find in the private or public realms of leadership. Context matters, but human behavior is inherently universal. We are all members of teams and organizations, but in the end we are all individuals amongst a group. What makes us human is that while we may be very similar in the grand scheme of things, we have unique characteristics, personalities, desires, etc. These idiosyncrasies play directly into how motivation slightly differs for each person.
Last week we discussed how to motivate each other from a theoretical perspective, focusing on content theories that addressed individual needs. This week we would like to present the other side of the motivation coin – theories that focus more on individual behavior. Process theories of motivation incorporate individual and environment interactions by showing how internal factors affect environment and vice versa
The first process theory is Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory. Simply put, people are motivated to behave in way that produces desired combinations of expected outcomes. This is influenced by self-esteem, self-efficacy, previous success, help from others and perceived resources available. Vroom defined expectancy as a perception of how your effort will lead to performance. Vroom’s theory breaks down into three parts:
Expectancy: A person’s belief regarding the link between his effort and performance.
Instrumentality: A person’s belief about the relationship between performing a behavior and receiving an outcome.
Valence: The importance of an outcome in relation to the amount of satisfaction an individual anticipates receiving from a particular outcome.
For leaders and mentors we must measure our follower’s expectations and honor, recognize and acknowledge the value they place on outcomes.
A second process theory to consider is John Adam’s Equity Theory. This theory holds that motivation is a function of fairness/justice in social exchanges or give and take relationships. Injustice or lack of fairness creates cognitive dissonance. In short, we simply ask ourselves “are my contributions & rewards equal to others?” Adam’s broke this theory into two distinct parts:
Individual vs. Organizational Exchange – Employee inputs (effort, education, skills, etc.) balanced by employer outputs (pay, benefits, promotions, etc.).
Negative vs. Positive Inequity – In comparison to others, does one receive worse or less outcomes (negative inequity) or greater or more benefit (positive inequity) for the same output?
Leaders and mentors must compare and contrast how we view and value what other’s bring to the table with how they view themselves, while also being cognizant of how they compare themselves to others amongst the team and organization.
A third theory to look at is Reinforcement Theory. There are many theorists involved, but they mainly agree that people are motivated to engage in behaviors because of the rewards associated with those behaviors. They also believe that people will repeat behaviors that are positively reinforced and will avoid behaviors with negative consequences. The type and timing of rewards and punishments associated with a behavior will either help to continue or stop that behavior. Three key takeaways are:
Thorndike’s Law of Effect: Behavior with favorable consequences tends to be repeated, while behavior with unfavorable consequences tends to disappear.
Punishment weakens a behavior. It can be negative (subtracting a ‘good’) or positive (adding a ‘bad’).
Reinforcement strengthens a behavior. It also can be negative (subtracting a ‘bad’) or positive (adding a ‘good’).
Leaders and mentors must recognize that punishment isn’t the only way to deal with behavior; reinforcement can be a very powerful motivator, especially when it’s positive.
A final theory behind motivation is Edwin Locke’s Goal Setting. Detailed, challenging goals can lead to higher performance as long as they aren’t unrealistic. Research shows that goals work because they direct attention, increase persistence, help regulate effort and help encourage the development of goal-attaining strategies. For this process to happen, people must receive feedback along the way. Together with Gary Latham, Locke believes that people must also be mostly intrinsically committed to the goals and the goals must be SMART:
S (Specific – the devil is in the details)
M (Measureable – able to be assessed)
A (Attainable – goal cannot be too hard)
R (Relevant – realistic to one’s big picture)
T (Timely – deadlines need to be associated)
For leaders and mentors, we must help shape the goals of our subordinates and teams so they meet SMART criteria, and then follow-up on their progress.
Putting It All Together (Again)
Leadership is about other people. We learned last week that how others are motivated is just as important as how you attempt to motivate them. This time we discussed four process driven (re: ‘behavior focused’) motivational theories. Leaders and mentors need to understand how to professionally and appropriately help their teams and mentees. Understanding different types of motivational theories and techniques will help both leaders and mentors do just that.
People recognize (un)fairness and (un)balance
People can be extrinsically reinforced and punished
Perceptions of equity and expectancy matter and they often develop as a result as what we see in our environment
Individual goals and the value placed on them influence behavioral outcomes
What does this mean for us as leaders and mentors?
Specific goals and desires trigger desired behaviors. How do we identify these wants?
Meaningful rewards and punishments matter. How can we maximize the motivational impact of the programs we design?
Offering appropriate rewards can optimize performance. How can we ensure that the rewards we offer are appropriate?
The goals and desires of an individual will not necessarily repeat themselves in regular patterns. How can we design our programs to satisfy changing desires?
Get everyone to the top of the mountain. Please let MilitaryMentors.org help you do so.
Start a conversation, spark a transformation!
Comments