Motivation is always a hot topic. Sometimes we’re all some sort of adventurous hunters searching for it, but it’s not that easy to find. Like the golden snitch, like the Holy Grail, like the birth certificate when you need it. No need to search any more. I found it. A theory so thorough it might be the best in explaining what motivation actually is. I call it Motivation 4.0.

Motivation 4.0, or no shortcuts.

Self-Determination Theory has been an unquestioned champion of training rooms around the globe. Who wouldn’t attend a training called „Motivation 3.0”?
 
Do you want to motivate your employees? Make sure they have the appropriate level of autonomy, competence and relatedness. Then they will be motivated and everything will work out. Everyone will come to the office with a big smile, and the air will even small better…

Problem with Motivation 3.0

Sounds beautiful, but it’s far from the truth, because it doesn’t take much to get out of this perfect harmony. You only need people with different temperature preferences sitting in the same room. Motivation 3.0 is perfect under perfect conditions, which are far from reality.
 
Scientists agree that motivation is a very complex topic, and we can’t explain it with a three-factor model. Even the scientists who invented such model, like Ryan and Deci[i]. By the way, it would be nice if you mentioned them during the catchy Motivation 3.0 training sessions :))

A broad view of motivation

If the Self-Determination Theory is not enough, what else is worth knowing? I do not have a clear answer to this. In my training, depending on the goals and contexts I also include:
  • Herzberg’s Theory,
  • Social Cognitive Theory,
  • SOMA Model,
  • WOOP,
  • Adams Equity Theory,
  • Attribution Theory,
  • Maslow’s Theory and
  • Eccles Expectancy-Value Theory.
All these models are still used and updated by scientists. They represent motivation from different perspective. We can’t say this Skinner’s theory, forgotten for decades in science, and still used in training.

Eccles Expectancy-Value Theory

What if we needed to pick one model? Then I’d suggest Eccles’ Expectancy-Value Theory updated in 2020[ii]. Researchers have revised it, considering other views of the complex world of motivation.
One of their conclusions was that many factors of motivation come from the situation we are in. Because of that they cannot be predicted in advance. This explains the low value of current results as a tool for predicting future work results. Motivation is NOW, not in six months.

Motivation factors in Eccles’s Expectancy-Value Theory 

You can find the current version of Situated Expectancy-Value Theory below. The factors on the left are more constant, rooted in our personality or culture. Those on the opposite side of the diagram depend more on the current situation.
 
Source: Own elaboration based on (Eccles, Wigfield 2020)

Example: Motivation to take part in the training

Subjective assessment of the Task Value is still one of the key factors influencing participation in training. 
 
In other words:
1) The subject of the training best be interesting.
2) The knowledge need to be useful.
3) Completing the training should open up new opportunities.
 
All this has to balance the cost we put into the implementation of the training.
 
All this is for nothing if we have low self-confidence, resulting from our school experiences. All this is for nothing if we attended a bad training in the past.

How to work with the Eccles model?

We need to apply this model in a specific context, since motivation depends on it. If Frank feels motivated to attend a training, he also can feel demotivated by the changes in the company. All this because of his personality, and cultural influences. In every situation, the motivation will be different for everyone.
 
This model is not as convenient as the self-determination theory and. It is suitable for seasoned managers who have already gone through simpler models. In your training, you can only use it if you have enough time to explore it with your trainees.
 
Managers need to gather a significant amount of information about individual colleagues. Thanks to this, they will better understand their perspective. It is a limitation, but also the greatest value of this model.
 
This model is suitable not only to motivating others. We can use it for understanding our own motivations, especially in the career area. This can help us eg. in career counselling. Some conclusions from such analysis may, however, be more suitable for deeper – coaching or even therapeutic work.

Conclusion

It’s time to be clear that there is no one simple formula for motivation that applies to everyone. There are no factors that we can apply equally to everyone to make them feel encouraged. It takes an empathetic approach to each of your co-workers today to catch what might help them at work. Eccles may have been the best in showing it, even though its complexity may be discouraging at first. This is where Motivation 4.0 starts. 

Sources

[i] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(2020), 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
 
[ii] Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(xxxx), 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
 
[iii] Bauer, K. N., Orvis, K. A., Ely, K., & Surface, E. A. (2015). Re-examination of Motivation in Learning Contexts : Meta-analytically Investigating the Role Type of Motivation Plays in the Prediction of Key Training Outcomes.