Day 11: Motivation Theories – Maslow, Herzberg, and Vroom - CivicNote

Organizational Performance Begins with Human Motivation

An organization is made up of people. And people move only when they have a reason. When the reason is vague, action slows; when the reason is strong, momentum accelerates. This is the essence of motivation. It is often said that the very nature of management lies in understanding and directing human behavior. At the core of a manager’s role is the question: How can we inspire people to act? This is not simply a matter of technique or orders, but a deeply psychological question—one that examines the human inner world. Thus, motivation theory occupies a central place in the study of organizational behavior.

The same applies to public organizations. In bureaucratic settings where laws, procedures, and manuals define much of the work, much activity may seem merely mandated. But the era when command alone was sufficient is over. In today’s environment of complex policies, diverse stakeholders, and rapid change, organizations cannot afford to stagnate. Proactive, voluntary engagement has become the key energy that allows public organizations to pursue both public value and operational efficiency. The benchmark is no longer “who can give the best orders,” but rather “who can make people want to act.”

Why do people work? Is it purely for pay? For recognition? For the promise of advancement? Or out of a sense of mission to create social value? To answer these questions, organizational behavior has sought to systematically analyze the inner workings of human motivation. Humans are complex, and their motives are never uniform. Organizational experience has long shown that no single form of reward moves everyone. This is why theory is necessary. Motivation theories offer structured answers to the fundamental question: What makes people act?

This article focuses on three of the most influential motivation theories that are highly applicable to public organizations: first, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which conceptualizes human needs in five ascending levels, with higher needs emerging only after lower ones are satisfied. Second, Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, which distinguishes between factors that cause dissatisfaction and those that drive true motivation—showing that simply removing dissatisfaction does not generate motivation. Finally, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory, which takes a pragmatic approach by positing that humans choose actions based on their expectations and the perceived value of outcomes.

These theories have profoundly shaped how we view human nature, design organizations, and develop motivation strategies. Especially in the public sector, where the challenge is not merely compliance but inspiring voluntary engagement, they offer practical insights. Higher pay alone does not suffice; nor do praise or appeals to a sense of duty always succeed. These theories are not just academic frameworks but essential tools for effective management and policy.

Ultimately, motivation determines the performance of public organizations, intersecting with leadership, organizational culture, reward systems, and job design. Today’s public organizations are asked to strike a delicate balance between autonomy and accountability, performance and fairness, duty and meaning—with human beings at the center of it all. The future of organizations depends not on technology, but on people—and people move according to their inner needs. Therefore, motivation is not optional but indispensable. An organization that does not understand people cannot move them.
Now, let us delve into the world of motivation theories.

① Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Exploring the Levels of Human Motivation

1. Background of Maslow’s Theory

American psychologist Abraham Maslow argued that the key to understanding motivation lay in human needs. He criticized the prevailing psychological focus on pathology and problematic behavior and instead emphasized the growth and self-actualization of healthy individuals. This perspective became the foundation of humanistic psychology, which also influenced organizational behavior by redefining employees as beings who seek inner meaning and fulfillment, not just mechanical compliance.

Maslow proposed that human needs are structured hierarchically and that unmet needs drive behavior. Importantly, higher-level needs only emerge as active motivators once lower-level needs have been sufficiently satisfied.

2. The Five Levels of Needs

Maslow identified the following five levels of needs, often depicted as a pyramid:

Level	Name of Need	Description
1	Physiological Needs	Basic survival needs such as food, water, sleep, and air
2	Safety Needs	Physical and psychological safety, including housing, job security, and rule of law
3	Social Needs	The need for belonging, love, and relationships such as family, friends, and community
4	Esteem Needs	Self-respect and recognition from others, including achievement and autonomy
5	Self-Actualization	Realizing one’s full potential, pursuing creativity, meaning, and personal growth

This hierarchical structure implies that higher-order needs are more sophisticated but also harder to satisfy, and lower needs must be addressed first for higher needs to become motivational drivers.

3. Key Assumptions of the Theory

Maslow’s hierarchy is built on several assumptions:

• Human needs are organized in a hierarchy.

• Lower-level needs must be sufficiently satisfied before higher-level needs can motivate behavior.

• Needs that have already been satisfied cease to motivate.

• Motivation always originates from unmet needs.

• Humans are ultimately driven by the pursuit of self-actualization.

These assumptions highlight that motivation is not one-size-fits-all and that effective organizational strategies must account for the differing needs of individuals.

4. Application in Public Organizations

Maslow’s theory can be practically applied in public organizations as follows:

• Levels 1–2: Ensure basic pay, job security, pension systems, health insurance, and safe working conditions to satisfy physiological and safety needs.

• Level 3: Foster a sense of belonging through team-based projects, trust-building among colleagues, and a supportive organizational culture.

• Level 4: Offer fair evaluations, recognition of achievements, opportunities for promotion, and autonomy to fulfill esteem needs.

• Level 5: Emphasize the mission and social value of public service to enable employees to experience self-actualization through their work.

Since higher needs only motivate after lower needs are met, human resources and organizational development strategies must align incentives and structures accordingly.

5. Criticisms and Modern Interpretations

Maslow’s theory has faced several criticisms:

• Rigid hierarchy: Not all individuals pursue needs in the prescribed order. For example, some prioritize self-actualization even before safety or belonging.

• Cultural bias: The theory reflects a Western individualistic perspective, often neglecting communal and collective motivations.

• Empirical validation: The theory is more conceptual and less rigorously tested than later models.

Nevertheless, Maslow’s insight that human motivation is multi-layered remains influential. Modern adaptations reinterpret the hierarchy more flexibly and incorporate cultural and contextual factors.

6. Summary

Maslow’s theory teaches us to view people not merely as recipients of rewards but as beings who find meaning through the satisfaction of progressively higher needs. Organizations that understand and address these levels can foster voluntary engagement and high performance. In essence, asking “why does this person want to work?” is the first step toward designing effective motivational strategies. Maslow’s model provides a structured framework for managers and policymakers to gain that insight.

② Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory: Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Come from Different Sources

1. Background and Problem Statement

In the late 1950s, American psychologist Frederick Herzberg raised a critical question about the effectiveness of traditional reward-centered motivation strategies. Many organizations assumed that improving salaries, benefits, and working conditions would automatically increase employee satisfaction. However, reality often fell short: while such improvements reduced complaints, they rarely inspired enthusiasm or commitment.

Herzberg proposed the central idea that “the factors that eliminate dissatisfaction are not the same as those that create satisfaction.” Based on this insight, he distinguished between two categories of workplace factors: motivators and hygiene factors. His findings, presented in his influential 1959 book The Motivation to Work, revolutionized approaches to job design and organizational management.

2. Core Structure: Motivators vs. Hygiene Factors

Herzberg interviewed more than 200 accountants and engineers about their most satisfying and most dissatisfying work experiences. His analysis revealed two distinct sets of factors:

Category	Factors	Description
Motivators	Achievement, recognition, the nature of the work itself, responsibility, growth, promotion	These create satisfaction and engagement, but their absence does not necessarily cause dissatisfaction.
Hygiene Factors	Salary, working conditions, relationships with supervisors, job security, organizational policies	Their absence causes dissatisfaction, but their presence does not generate motivation or satisfaction.

The key insight is this:

• Improving hygiene factors eliminates dissatisfaction but does not inherently motivate employees.

• True motivation comes from enhancing motivators, which give employees a sense of meaning and ownership in their work.

3. Why Higher Salaries Alone Fail to Motivate

Herzberg’s theory challenges the assumption that monetary incentives alone can inspire performance. For example, raising wages may reduce discontent, but it does not necessarily spark creativity, initiative, or commitment. Salary is classified as a hygiene factor—it prevents dissatisfaction but does not foster intrinsic motivation.

To genuinely engage employees, organizations must enrich jobs with elements that satisfy higher-level psychological needs—such as recognition, autonomy, and opportunities for personal development.

4. Application in Public Organizations

Public sector workplaces often overemphasize hygiene factors because they operate within legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee stability, fairness, and job security. While this ensures a baseline of employee satisfaction, it can also result in stagnation if motivational factors are ignored. For example:

• Granting employees greater decision-making autonomy in policy implementation.

• Involving staff in the early stages of project planning to foster ownership.

• Recognizing individual and team contributions publicly.

Such approaches transform public organizations from rigid bureaucracies into collaborative environments where employees feel their work is meaningful.

5. Job Redesign and Job Enrichment

Herzberg’s theory inspired practical strategies for increasing motivation by altering job structure:

• Job Enrichment: Adding depth to jobs by providing more responsibility, autonomy, and opportunities for growth.

  • Example: Empowering front-line service staff with decision-making authority rather than limiting them to routine tasks.

• Job Enlargement: Expanding the variety of tasks to reduce monotony. While helpful, this is generally less effective than job enrichment for fostering motivation.

Public organizations can implement these strategies to create environments where employees internalize the value of their work.

6. Criticisms of Herzberg’s Theory

Despite its influence, Herzberg’s theory has been criticized:

• Ambiguity in categorization: The same factor (e.g., promotion) may be perceived differently by different individuals.

• Neglect of individual and situational differences: Personal values and organizational culture can influence how factors are experienced.

• Methodological concerns: His research relied heavily on self-reported experiences, which can introduce bias.

Even so, Herzberg’s distinction between removing dissatisfaction and generating motivation remains a foundational insight in organizational behavior.

7. Summary

Herzberg’s theory highlights that eliminating employee complaints does not automatically result in motivation. Public organizations, therefore, must move beyond providing fair pay and safe conditions to creating meaningful, fulfilling work experiences. By designing jobs that promote achievement, recognition, and personal growth, managers can inspire employees to engage not merely out of obligation, but out of genuine commitment.

③ Vroom’s Expectancy Theory: Motivation as the Product of Expectancy, Instrumentality, and Valence

1. Background and Core Premise

In 1964, Canadian psychologist Victor Vroom introduced a groundbreaking theory that shifted the focus of motivation research toward the cognitive process of decision-making. Unlike Maslow and Herzberg, who emphasized needs and job characteristics, Vroom argued that motivation results from a rational evaluation of effort, performance, and outcomes. His theory belongs to the process theories of motivation, which explain how individuals choose actions based on their expectations about future results.

At its core, the theory posits that individuals make conscious decisions to exert effort based on the anticipated likelihood of success and the perceived attractiveness of the outcomes.

2. Key Components of the Theory

Vroom expressed his theory in a simple yet powerful formula:

$$\text{Motivation} = \text{Expectancy} \times \text{Instrumentality} \times \text{Valence}$$

Each component represents a distinct aspect of the motivational process:

a) Expectancy

The belief that a certain amount of effort will result in desired performance.

• Example: “If I put in the work, I can achieve good results.”

• Ranges from 0 (no belief) to 1 (absolute certainty).

b) Instrumentality

The belief that achieving the performance goal will lead to a specific reward.

• Example: “If I perform well, I will receive recognition or a bonus.”

• In many public organizations, instrumentality tends to be perceived as low due to opaque promotion and reward systems.

c) Valence

The subjective value the individual places on the reward.

• Example: “Is the reward personally meaningful or desirable?”

• Valence varies greatly among individuals, depending on personal goals and values.

3. The Multiplicative Effect: Why All Components Matter

A distinctive feature of Vroom’s theory is the multiplicative relationship between the three components. If any of the components is zero, motivation becomes zero. This means:

• Even if rewards are attractive (high valence) and linked to performance (high instrumentality), a person who doubts their ability to succeed (low expectancy) will not be motivated.

• Conversely, someone confident in their abilities (high expectancy) will also not act if they believe the organization does not reward performance fairly (low instrumentality).

• If the reward itself has little personal value (low valence), motivation will remain low regardless of other factors.

4. Challenges in Public Organizations

Public sector organizations often face structural challenges that suppress one or more of these components:

• Weak performance-reward linkage (instrumentality): Employees may believe that good performance does not meaningfully affect promotion or recognition.

• Limited advancement opportunities: Career paths are often rigid and slow-moving.

• Standardized rewards: Uniform pay scales diminish the perceived value of exceptional performance.

These realities can foster cynicism and erode employee motivation.

5. Strategies to Enhance Motivation Using Expectancy Theory

Organizations can improve motivation by systematically addressing all three components:

Enhancing Expectancy:

• Provide training and development to build skills and self-confidence.

• Clearly communicate performance standards and success criteria.

• Offer regular feedback and support to reduce uncertainty.

Strengthening Instrumentality:

• Create transparent and fair evaluation systems.

• Publicly recognize and reward high performers.

• Introduce measurable and meaningful performance-based incentives.

Increasing Valence:

• Diversify rewards beyond monetary compensation, including flexible schedules, professional growth opportunities, and meaningful assignments.

• Understand individual employee preferences and tailor rewards where possible.

6. Strengths and Criticisms

Vroom’s theory has been praised for its logical, pragmatic explanation of motivation and its adaptability to organizational policy design. However, it is not without limitations:

• It assumes individuals behave entirely rationally, overlooking emotional and social influences.

• It may underestimate the role of organizational culture and informal norms.

• It does not fully account for intrinsic motivation, such as commitment to public service values.

7. Summary

Vroom’s expectancy theory teaches us that employees carefully weigh effort, likelihood of success, and personal value before acting. It underscores the importance of aligning organizational systems with employees’ perceptions of fairness, feasibility, and relevance. Public organizations can benefit greatly from applying this framework to redesign their evaluation, reward, and development practices—ensuring that employee expectations are met, performance is recognized, and rewards truly matter.

Rethinking Motivation in Public Organizations - Beyond Rewards Toward Meaning

Motivation theory addresses the most fundamental and human question in organizational behavior: Why do people work? What conditions inspire action, and how is that action sustained and amplified? Understanding the mechanisms of motivation is not a luxury but a necessity for effective organizational management. This is particularly true in public organizations, where tensions between performance and fairness, autonomy and accountability, and duty and meaning constantly shape the workplace.

The three foundational theories explored here - Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg’s two-factor theory, and Vroom’s expectancy theory — each illuminate distinct dimensions of motivation. Maslow emphasizes the progressive satisfaction of human needs, illustrating that higher aspirations emerge only when lower-level needs are addressed. Herzberg distinguishes between eliminating dissatisfaction and fostering genuine engagement, highlighting the need to go beyond hygiene factors. Vroom focuses on the cognitive calculation individuals make when deciding whether to act, underlining the importance of aligning effort, performance, and rewards in a transparent and meaningful way.

Taken together, these theories remind us of a common truth: humans are not machines. Motivation arises at the intersection of external conditions and internal aspirations. Simply improving salaries or benefits is insufficient. Nor can appeals to mission or duty succeed in isolation. Instead, effective motivation requires organizations to meet basic needs, foster growth, ensure fairness, and create a sense of purpose.

Applying Theory to Practice: Bridging the Motivation Gap

Public organizations often face structural and cultural barriers to motivation. Promotions are limited, rewards are standardized, and institutional inertia discourages innovation. As a result, even highly capable and committed employees can become disengaged. The challenge is to design systems that activate not just compliance, but commitment.

From Maslow’s perspective, this means addressing higher-level needs for esteem and self-actualization by creating opportunities for recognition, autonomy, and meaningful contribution. From Herzberg’s viewpoint, it means moving beyond eliminating complaints to enriching jobs and empowering employees. From Vroom’s model, it means ensuring that employees believe their efforts matter, that performance is recognized, and that rewards are personally valuable.

Toward a New Understanding of Motivation

Today’s workforce is more diverse and more value-conscious than ever. Generational differences, cultural shifts, and evolving expectations challenge organizations to rethink traditional motivation strategies. Rigid hierarchies, opaque rewards, and one-size-fits-all approaches are no longer effective. Instead, organizations must embrace more emotional, equitable, and individualized approaches to motivation — considering not only what employees earn, but how they feel and what they believe about their work.

Ultimately, organizations move at the speed of their people’s willingness to act. And people move when their needs are met, their contributions are valued, and their work feels meaningful. Motivation, then, is not merely about driving results, but about nurturing the human spirit at the heart of public service.

In the end, an organization that understands and respects its people — their needs, perceptions, and aspirations — is far more likely to inspire performance and sustain excellence. The future of public administration depends not on better systems alone, but on better ways to move and inspire the people who keep those systems alive.