Mastering motivational theories.

Abstract

Management students often find motivation theories confusing, challenging to grasp, and difficult to apply to real-world situations. Often, students are reluctant to take basic motivation theories seriously, because students perceive them as "unrealistic." Therefore, motivation theories are best illustrated by example. We detail an exercise, grounded in active and experiential learning theory, that requires students to identify, perform, and explain a memorable situation when a motivational theory is revealed in their daily lives. The result is increased relevance, critical thinking, retention, and engagement.

Rationale for the Exercise

Motivation is a central theme in any organizational behavior course. While students have experienced their own motivational forces throughout their entire lives, they seem to have a difficult time codifying these experiences into the theoretical frameworks. This creates a paradox. Students who have never experienced chemistry readily embrace chemistry frameworks to explain phenomenon. However, precisely because students as naive psychologists experience motivation daily, they believe their unarticulated mental model construction is universal when it is, in fact, idiosyncratic. Motivation theory obviously provides a truly shared set of mental models through which students may apply their own experience. But therein lies the secret. They must apply the theory to their own experience. Under traditional passive lecture techniques, the models are read, memorized, regurgitated and forgotten days if not hours after the exam. Learning theorists Myers and Jones (1993) tell us that active learning requires students to apply course content, addresses students" varied learning styles, promotes better retention, expands students' thinking abilities, and draws on students' experiences, ultimately resulting in a superior learning environment.

Educational theorists contend that one of the stages of acquiring new knowledge is for students to make connections between the new material and something they already know (e.g., Chan, Burtis, Scardamalia, & Bereiter, 1992; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Smilkstein (1993) maintains that "learning occurs with the thoughtful and active processing of experience ..." (p. 4). In experiential learning, the student is an active, rather than a passive participant. Harvey and Brown (2001) describe experiential learning as founded on three concepts: 1) Students learn best when actively involved in the process; 2) Students need to experience the concepts in order to change behavior; and 3) Students are more committed to learning when they actively participate in the process. As explained below, students in groups discuss either real or fictional vignettes applying the motivational theories to their lives. This activity has the collateral outcome of facilitating a connection among the students. In either sharing their experiences or creating a new one, students learn about each other's diverse lives. In addition, this activity creates an energy and excitement in an active learning environment. The spectators- or what Augusto Boal (1979) calls "spect-actors" play an active participant as they have a defined active role to critically examine the theory being reified.

Both process and content motivational theories pose unique learning challenges. While process theories seem more intuitively obvious to students than the content theories, our experience is that students have more difficulty applying the process models correctly. The more difficult aspect of learning the content motivational theories for students seem to be their associated dynamic engines: Maslow's (1943; 1954) satisfaction progression; Alderfer's (1972) satisfaction progression as well as frustration regression; McClelland's (1961) notion that needs are learned rather than instinctive. Students also have a problem conceptualizing Herzberg's two-factor theory as a discontinuous continuum (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Vignettes invariably have plot lines that illustrate the subtleties of the process theories, dynamic engines of the content theories, as well as the dichotomous nature of Herzberg. Vignettes inherently have characters who develop. Students do not need special coaching to do this, they naturally orient to their characters need to "do something." These skits or vignettes provide students the opportunity to connect new theories to their own personal life experiences, thus making the learning active, and giving it realistic and memorable context.

Learning Goals

Upon the conclusion of the exercise and follow-up discussion, students will be able to: (1) Define each motivational theory. (2) Articulate an example of each theory. (3) Describe how an example illustrates the theory. (4) Apply a theory of motivation to explain a situation when the student was significantly unmotivated or motivated (optional). This exercise is designed for use in an undergraduate organizational behavior class, but is also appropriate as an introductory exercise for a more in depth graduate-level class. The instructor may use the exercise to teach a variety of motivational theories, including, but not limited to: Maslow's (1943; 1954) needs hierarchy theory, Alderfer's (1972) ERG Theory, Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), McClelland's (1961) theory of learned needs, expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), and equity theory (Adams, 1963).

This exercise requires little preparation or equipment. The lesson can be adapted to fit within a 50 minute or 135 minute class period. Small class sizes are easily facilitated, however, the lesson is effective with classes of up to 40 students. For larger classes, split the class into two groups and facilitate group discussion simultaneously with two instructors. Typically, we find college students don't possess inherent excitement and passion for studying motivational theory. In other words, ironically, students appear to have little intrinsic motivation to study the topic. What is the purpose of motivation theory? Before running the exercise it is important to addresses the "so what" question students are apt to ask. "Why should I care about these models?" First, explain that motivation theories help us predict and explain what energizes, directs and sustains behavior (e.g., Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 2003). Not surprising at a military academy, most students we've encountered have an appreciation for the importance of leadership. In fact, we find students hungry to study leadership, but not organizational behavior. So in the context of leadership, we examine motivation. How can one lead if one cannot predict and explain behavior not only of themselves, but of others as well? Only once we master prediction and explanation may we attempt to influence. Thus we establish relevance for the topic--understanding behavior is a necessary precursor to influencing it.

The Experiential Motivation Exercise

As a prerequisite, students must be briefly introduced to each motivational theory, either via lecture or pre-class reading. To initiate the exercise, break students into groups of four to five, and assign one motivational theory to each group. Direct students to choose a situation, preferably from their own lives, that illustrates their group's motivational theory. After 15 minutes, each team will perform a skit in front of the class enacting their chosen example. Next, the group will debrief their example by leading the class in a discussion of how their skit demonstrates the motivational theory. All students must participate either as an actor in the skit or as a contributor of the post-skit explanation. Remind students that no introductions to the skits are necessary. The action in the skit should speak for itself, and should be reflective of a real-life situation. Actors do not need to overtly point out aspects of the motivational theory during the skit itself. The debrief portion will allow for a discussion of how the example demonstrates the theory. Encourage student involvement through the use of props and costumes--students can use anything available within the classroom to portray their example. While students are working, walk around the class and make sure groups are on the right track. Students sometimes need to be reminded that the assignment is to illustrate how a character's motivation in a given situation can be explained by their group's theory. Have students perform and debrief the class by group. Clarify points that teams misinterpret, confuse or miss entirely. An "off the mark" skit provides an equal opportunity for learning as a perfectly articulated skit does, by demonstrating to students what the theory is not about. For these situations the instructor's feedback is essential to student learning. The performance and debrief portion can take from 5 to 15 minutes per group depending on the depth of the discussion.

It is important to keep the audience engaged. By having students create an example to be performed in front of an audience, students on both sides of the performance must think critically about the elements of the models. Obviously on the actor side, students must subject characters to the motivational force elements. But the additional benefit is that the students on the audience, or "spect--actor" side, must also critically evaluate the narrative. One option is to "pause" the action and ask the "spect--actors" to use the motivation theories to predict the next behavior of the characters. Then "play" the rest of the scene out and see if the predictions were as scripted. If there is an unexpected behavior, the class can engage in a healthy dialogue about which action would be more realistic. The exercise provides multiple rich examples of when motivation theory manifests itself throughout life. An optional post-viewing journal assignment is recommended to create an even more personal experience, to expand upon the students' critical thinking of motivation theories, and to offer time for reflection. Direct students to write about the following: Think of a time in your life when you felt significantly unmotivated or motivated. Do any of the motivational theories we discussed today explain your needs at that time? Do any of the motivational theories we discussed today explain your behavior that resulted from your lack of motivation?

Conclusion

This experiential exercise aids students' grasp of the sometimes challenging concepts of motivation theories. In addition, it allows students to actively participate in their own learning, as well as make connections between the motivation theories and their own life. In our experience, students not only enjoy this active learning environment, but from anecdotal evidence we found they retain more of the material, and score higher on tests of the material. In end of course evaluations students often comment on its effectiveness. Not only is this exercise effective, it is versatile as well. This technique can easily be adapted for use in other organizational behavior classes to facilitate students' cognitive differentiation of multiple theories on a given subject.

References

Adams, J.S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth. New York: Free Press.

Boal, A. (1979). Theater of the oppressed. New York, NY: Urizen Books.

Chan, C.K., Burtis, P.I., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1992). Constructive activity in learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 97-118.

Harvey, D. & Brown, D.R. (2001). An experiential approach to organization development. Upper Saddle River, N J: Prentice Hall.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Synderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370.

Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Myers, C. & Jones, T. B. (1993) Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Porter, L.W., Bigley, G.A., Steers, R.M. (2003). Motivation mad work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smilkstein, R.P. (Winter 1993). The natural human learning process. Journal of Developmental Education, 17, 2, 2-10.

Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Weinstein, C.G. & Mayer, F.G. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Witrock (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed). New York: MacMillan.

Erica Mohr, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, CT Laurel Goulet, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, CT Jonathan Heller, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, CT

Mohr, M.A., is the Acting Director of Institutional Research, and an instructor of Organizational Behavior in the Department of Leadership and Management. Goulet, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of Leadership and Management. Heller, MBA, is Assistant Professor in the Department of Leadership and Management.