Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation and the Effects of those Types on Employees

Employee Motivation in the Company PEL

Master's Thesis, 2014

102 Pages, Grade: A




Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background of Study
1.2 Main Issue
1.3 Research Question
1.4 Research Objectives
1.5 Research’s Strategic Position
1.6 About PEL

Chapter: 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Motivation
2.3 Theories regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
2.3.1. Drive Theory & the limitations involved in it
2.3.2 Extending Drive Theory
2.3.3. Self-identification theory
2.4 Two-Factor Theory by Hertzberg
2.4.1 Opponents of the factors of motivation and the hygiene theory of Herzberg
2.5 Intrinsic Motivation
2.5.1 Inspiring job
2.5.2 Opportunity of personal growth
2.5.3 Training and skill development
2.5.4 Recognition
2.5.5 More discussion on intrinsic motivation
2.6 Extrinsic Motivation
2.6.1. Physical atmosphere
2.6.2 Financial rewards
2.6.3 Job security
2.6.4 Empowerment
2.7 The interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors
2.8 Employee’s Performance
2.8.1 Job Performance
2.8.2. Impact of reward on efficiency
2.9 Conceptual conclusion of literature

Chapter: 3 Research methodology
3.0 Introduction
3.1. Research philosophy
3.2 Research approaches
3.3 Research Strategy
3.4 Comparison between the quantitative and qualitative method
3.5 Data collection
3.5.1 Primary collection of data
3.5.2 Secondary data collection
3.6. Ethics of Research
3.7 Research limitations
3.8 Conclusion

Chapter 4 Data Analysis
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Some General information about responders
4.2 Investigation of extrinsic motivation
4.2.1 Money as motivator
4.2.2 Job security
4.2.3 Physical work environment
4.2.4 Empowerment
4.3 Investigation of intrinsic motivation factors
4.3.1 Interesting task
4.3.2 Personal growth
4.3.3 Skill development
4.3.4 Recognition
4.4 Intrinsic versus extrinsic analysis
4.5 Identification of dissatisfied factor at PEL workplace
4.6 Analysis of managers interview
4.6.1 Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation
4.6.2 Extrinsic rewards impacts
4.6.3 Intrinsic motivation impacts
4.7 Discussion
4.7.1 Extrinsic rewards as basic needs
4.7.2 Intrinsic rewards impacts
4.7.3 Intrinsic and extrinsic relationship

Chapter: 5 Conclusion and recommendation
5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Recommendations
5.2.1. Advance approach
5.2.2 Various managerial approaches to motivation
5.2.3 Contemporary intrinsic motivation
5.2.4. Importance of intrinsic rewards for motivation
5.2.5. Rewards recognition, and why they are so popular
5.2.6 Motivation alternatives
5.2.7 Handling monotonous work
5.2.8 Best method
5.2.9 Utilizing various methods

Chapter: 6 Personal Development



Apprndix-1 Questionnaires

Employees questionnaires

Management questionnaire

Appendix 2 questionnaire response tables


The general aim of this research is to examine the differing effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the company PEL, Punjab, Pakistan. The findings can be used by the company in order to enhance the extent of motivation at their workplace. Both primary and secondary data will be used while looking at the various elements of the two types of motivation, and the differing effects they have on employees. Furthermore, the positive and negative sides of the two types of motivation will be discussed in the literature review. In order to gather primary data, sets of questions have been outlined and answers have been collected from the employees at the firm. The questions revolve around different elements of motivation, and hence allow that the effectiveness of both the methods is thoroughly examined. The main conclusion is that it is not one of the two types of motivation that gives fruitful results, nor is there a combination of the two that works universally. The research demonstrates that, in the short run, extrinsic motivation seems to deliver better results, while intrinsic seems to be better in the long run. In addition, the two seem to work best when combined, as intrinsic motivation will not set in before basic material needs of the employee have been fulfilled; on the other hand, it also appears that the extrinsic motivation techniques do not keep the employees motivated for a long time. Hence, it is recommended that the company use both the methods, primarily providing material benefits and allowing for intrinsic motivation to come at a later date. The reason for this is because extrinsic motivation can be said to be the starting motivation. The best way, therefore, for PEL to create a high level of motivation amongst its employees, is through a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic methods.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background of Study

According to Pink (2010), there is a widespread belief in human capacities, which is why intrinsic motivation can be thought of as the best method. The aim of this research is to find the most effective method in the offices of PEL. Priem and Butler (2001) underline the importance of motivation, by explaining that effective HR management can result in the company getting ahead of its competitors, and prove to be the company’s strongest quality. Schuler and Jackson (1987) also underline the importance of the human management. A high degree of motivation among employees also contributes to the fulfillment of the company’s broader goals, as employers can strive to direct their employees towards their desired outcomes [Snell et al, 1996]. In the competitive corporate world of today, the role of human resources is undeniable and immense. As both Ulrich (1990) and Williamson (1985) explain, this comes as no surprise, since the efficiency and fulfillment of employees is, ultimately, also a success for the company.

When it comes to motivation, financial goods have, from the beginning, held a special place, and were considered the best driving force of motivation [Dewhurst et al (2010)]. These may come in various shapes, such as provisions, rewards, incentives and stocks. Many firms, therefore, continue to regard material benefits as the most efficient driving force for motivation. However, keeping in mind today’s trends, it is questionable if material benefits have the same amount of influence on the employee’s motivation. There are many theories, such as Herzberg 2-factor Theory, and Oldham & Hackman Job Characteristic Model, that still place the greatest emphasis on money as the driving force. However, some, like the 2-factor Theory, acknowledge that, while its presence is necessary, the financial aspect of motivation does not yield long-term results [Buelens et al, 2010].

There is also a differing school of thought, which does not deny the influence of extrinsic motivators, but adds to it a negative connotation [Kohn, 1999; Greene and Lepper, 1978; Pink, 2010; Ryan and Deci, 1987]. According to these authors, such rewards ultimately have a negative impact on the employee’s motivation. When these impacts were taken into account, different theoretical approaches arose. Amabile (1996) addresses this issue by noting that if there is a need for a creative approach, extrinsic methods give differing results [McGraw, 1978; Pink, 2010; Glucksberg, 1962].

1.2 Main Issue

As Pink (2010) explains, a serious problem today is that many firms are adhering to old-fashioned, outdated principles that tend to result in a negative impact on the company’s business, and the extent of motivation in the workplace. Pink (2010), whose work Drive addresses these issues, emphasizes the negative impact of extrinsic motivation and goes on to conclude that use of extrinsic method may ultimately damage the organization [Pink, 2010]. His work has received wide appraisal, as it provides a logical and thorough analysis of current issues.

Executives must be able to comprehend the various effects of the influences of the two methods; they should be able to have a clear picture of how each of the techniques, as well as the two combined, affects employees. In this way, executives can ensure that they are able to create a productive, motivating atmosphere for their employees through the provision of different rewards [Pink, 2010]. In the subsequent paragraphs, the questions that need to be addressed in order to establish this will be outlined.

1.3 Research Question

The research question that lies at the core of this research is:

“How are the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation techniques different in the case of the PEL corporate environment?”

1.4 Research Objectives

The general goal is to pinpoint the most effective motivation technique that will result in greatest happiness of employees.

More specifically, the goals outlined below should be fulfilled:

- To examine and pinpoint the effectiveness of both methods in a coherent manner
- To decide on the most fruitful motivation method in an office-environment
- To compare and contrast the two methods, and outline their positive and negative sides
- To assess the extent of efficiency of both methods in terms of achieving desired productivity of the employees
- To methodically establish the detailed context in which each of the two methods will work best in the long run

In short, this investigation seeks to examine in detail both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and determine the best choice for the workplace of PEL, Pakistan with regard to their expertise of household appliances. Hence, it attempts to find a specific approach that would be best for the said company.

1.5 Research’s Strategic Position

Human resources constitute one of the most important factors in a company, primarily because the efficiency of employees ultimately leads to the efficiency of the entire firm [Priem and Butler, 2001]. Hence, in order to improve a company’s business, it is of vital importance that the labor force is in in best shape. Therefore, as Priem and Butler (2001) argue, companies must work on the employees’ motivation in order to improve their business. Finally, good and effective human-resource management can prove to be an indispensable strongpoint of a company, since it can give it an upper hand over its competitors and a better strategic starting point [Priem and Butler, 2001].

1.6 About PEL

Pak Elektron Limited, often abbreviated as PEL, is a leading brand in household electronic appliances in Pakistan. It was founded by the Malik brothers in 1956, and was a product of collaboration between Germany’s AEG and the founders for the production of electric motors, transformers and switchgear. However, towards the end of the decade, this collaboration stopped, and AEG’s shares went to the founders. In 1978, these shares were acquired by the Saigol Group. Today, the company’s production is more widespread, producing not only industrial power machines but also household electronics. This research will focus on the household sector of the company, which produces the appliances outlined below:

- Deep freezers
- Refrigerators
- Washing machines
- Water dispensers
- Air Conditioners
- Microwave ovens

Chapter: 2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

The second chapter will present the secondary data gathered during the research, and it will pertain to the focus of the research, which is the establishing of efficiency of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in the Pak Elektron Ltd. Offices. This chapter will provide basic information on the importance of both the methods in employee performance-improvement, and will outline some of the most important characteristics of the two approaches. Finally, this chapter will discuss the different techniques used for extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Ultimately, these discussed techniques will be examined through collection of primary data and their efficiency will be established based on the results. In addition, this chapter will also discuss the negative results and sides of different motivation techniques, and these, too, will be examined through primary data collection. Hence, the secondary data will serve to theoretically back up the suggestions that will be provided for Pak Elektron Ltd.

The importance of a literature review for the purposes of academic research was stressed by Hart (2003, p. 13).

2.2 Motivation

Motivation is generally understood as the desire to achieve or complete a given task or action. An unmotivated person, therefore, is one who does not feel inspired and driven to achieve something, while a motivated person is one who feels the opposite [Adam et al, 2007]. It is common that individuals keep in mind how motivated they are while interacting with others in any way. Because of this trend, it has also become common that businesses strive to create a highly motivating environment for their employees, and they seem to understand the importance of a motivated workforce. Motivation is generally looked at as a uniform concept, that can be measured in terms of extent; hence, there can be a total lack of motivation, low motivation or high motivation to carry out a particular task or achieve a desired goal [Barrs, 2005]. On the other hand, there are various indications that motivation should not be regarded in this way, as there is a unique way in which each person experiences motivation, and different methods result in different outcomes on an individual basis. In short, there are two factors that create differentiation in motivation: primarily, it is the nature of the motivation each person experiences, and secondly, the extent of motivation each technique leads to. Hence, companies base their strategies by keeping in mind their desired outcomes as well as the specific nature of motivation, that is, the main driving force of motivation [Carl, 2005].

2.3 Theories regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

2.3.1. Drive Theory & the limitations involved in it

This theory was put forward by Hull (1943), a behavioral psychologist, and it outlines the four major forces that motivate general human behavior; he named these forces the primary drives, and they are as follows: sex, thirst, hunger and avoidance of pain. His theory suggests that human behavior is shaped on satisfying these four desires, if there are no secondary motivating forces involved. These secondary forces arise when a usually non-driving force interacts with a primary drive, making the generally non-driving force a segment of the primary drive. Still, many shortcomings and oversights of this theory were expressed even before it was proposed; Dashiell (1925), for instance, notes that in rats, a preference for exploration over food. Furthermore, Nissen (1930) also noticed a behavioral pattern in rats that were willing to undergo pain of an electrical fence for the sake of exploration. Welker (1956), too, opposed the drive theory based on his observation of chimpanzees. Finally, Deci& Ryan (1987) concluded that there is a chance that the search for new experiences may be one of the major driving forces.

2.3.2 Extending Drive Theory

Hull’s theory was expanded from the time of its initiation by many scientists, such as Deci& Ryan (1987). These two scientists stressed the importance of avoiding anxiety in terms of motivating forces. Their idea is that another primary drive is the avoiding of anxiety, which is basically an addition to the avoiding of pain.

An additional area of this theory that was subsequently explored was in terms of the secondary drives. Deci& Ryan (1987) note that the newly observed tendency for exploration, if combined with relieving any primary drive, turns into a secondary force. On the other hand, Butler (1953) argued that the drive for new areas is more important and hence can be considered as primary behavior, mainly because it does not need a primary drive in order to be exhibited. Numerous academics proposed varying other additional factors, apart from anxiety avoidance, that can be considered primary. There were numerous factors that coincided in nature, but were termed differently, such as Montgomery’s ‘exploratory drive,’ that was named by Butler as the ‘drive for visual exploration,’ while many referred to it as the ‘drive of boredom,’ and Isaac coined the term ‘sensory drive’ [Deci& Ryan 1987].

This trend of simply putting forward newly found drives was condemned by White (1959), who believed that it is not only necessary to observe additional forces, but establish whether the characteristics they hold coincide with those of the primary forces. The main characteristic of these drives is that consequent acts are carried out in order to alleviate the drive. As White (1959) notices, the exploratory drive, therefore, cannot fall into this category, as “animals seek out stimuli that would, by the drive account, increase the exploratory drive [Deci& Ryan, 1987].” At the root of all these theories lies, in short, the influence of extrinsic returns: it is argued that the potential usefulness of these returns holds the potential to change the attitude of an individual about the completion of a task, as well as the amount of energy an individual is willing to put into completing it [Carson 2005]. This subchapter will, therefore, primarily outline the adverse effects of extrinsic returns on intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, it will examine how provision of such returns has the ability to alter the concentration of individuals and shift it from the assignment to the return itself, and can, therefore, be used as a method of control. It will also examine the resulting adverse effects on unique, lateral thinking of employees. Finally, the subchapter will compare the effects of extrinsic motivation in the long and short run, and examine if the reward/punishment system is, in fact, an extrinsic approach to motivation. Beck (2000) introduces a fresh point by suggesting that the extent of both types of motivation are less related to the employees as a whole, but rather individual nature of people employed at various positions. Beck (2000) goes on to propose that the nature of people can be divided into four types, which are: the Rational Economic Person, whose primary motivator are extrinsic, external rewards and whose focus is on being materially secured; the Social Person, whose job satisfaction depends on the atmosphere at the workplace, and who places great importance on the social aspect of their work; the Self-Actualization person, whose drive for achievement comes from within and whose high level of motivation results in them being willing to put in an immense amount of energy is their work; finally, the Complex Person is one who cannot be driven by a single force, or cannot be motivated at all, and whose degree of motivation depends on various factors and needs to, therefore, be addressed differently at different times.

2.3.3. Self-identification theory

The self-identification theory is focused on liberty at the workplace, through a limited amount of awards [Kohn (1999)]. This theory encompasses both the methods of motivation [Deci& Gagne (2005)]. The evaluation theory concludes that a combination of the two motivating methods is necessary for progress [Deci& Gagne (2005)]. According to this framework, there is no defined barrier for any of the two types of motivation, and it emphasizes the importance of liberty as well as deliberate motivation by the executives [Deci& Gagne (2005)].

There is a large difference in the extent of motivation amongst employees who have a degree of independence in their workplace, and those who are tightly managed. According to Deci& Gagne (2005), the lack of freedom in the workplace leads to less enthusiasm about the task. The strength of this theory lies in its diverse approach: the researchers, from experience, gathered that various extrinsic methods work with different individuals, and the theory suggests how the methods should be applied based on the individual [Deci & Gagne (2005)]. The theory, therefore, provides space for executives to determine which approach they should take on based on their individual employees [Deci & Ryan, 2000 and Deci& Gagne, 2005].

The aim of the theory is to demonstrate the positive impact of various extrinsic methods on the employee motivation. The graph below represents the ways in which returns can be used in order for the workers to feel a gain.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Source: adopted from (

In short, it is evident that the two types of motivation are not related to the entire worker body of a company, but rather to the character of each person. Beck classified the types of people into four categories. The rational economic type is motivated by financial means, and considers high income and financial possibilities as most important. The social type is driven by a comfortable, pleasant working atmosphere and values a good working surrounding the most. The self-actualization type is naturally driven from within, is generally enthusiastic and willing to work and likes stimulating, unique jobs. The last type is the complex type, whose driving force depends largely on changeable factors, and hence their motivation differs from situation to situation. This kind of classification is the main reason why the theory proposes that different motivating techniques should be used with different individuals [Deci & Ryan (2000) and Deci& Gagne (2005)].

2.4 Two-Factor Theory by Hertzberg

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Herzberg (1968) put forward a theory stating that two forces, which are closely related to the nature of the job, always drive motivation. According to him, if these two conditions are successfully fulfilled, motivation will inevitably follow, while it is not certain that, if the two factors are not fulfilled, there will be a lack of thereof. The two factors lead to a feeling of achievement and knowledge among the employees. However, as it has been mentioned, it is not definite that, without these factors, employees will be absolutely unhappy with their job. In fact, the theory suggests that the level of satisfaction can vary from minimum to maximum, but cannot completely be missing [Irlenbusch 2006].

Herzberg (1968) coined the term ‘hygiene factor,’ which is closely related to various incentives provided by the workplace, and has a significant effect on the happiness of employees. In simple terms, a bad wage given by an employer will leave the employee with less satisfaction, while a better wage will definitely contribute to the employee’s happiness with the job. Therefore, these factors directly contribute to the level of contentment with the job [Hennessey and Amabile 2005 Elsa 2009].

In addition, there is an evident link between the ‘hygiene factor’ and the extrinsic approach; this is because both revolve around a sense of bonus or award [Elsa (2009), Clegg et al (2005), Deci and Gagne (2005), Tremblay et al (2005), Hennessey and Amabile (2005) and Sansone and Harachiewicz (2000)]. However, the hygiene framework is not universally applicable, as a great role is also played by the obvious desire of the company to motivate its employees [Buelens et al (2010), Wilson (2010) and Boldman and Deal (2003)]. It comes as no surprise, though, that there is no single force that entirely affects the degree of motivation [Deci and Gagne, 2005]. The drive from within an individual, that results in particular actions to reduce one’s wants is referred to as extrinsic motivation [Clegg et al, 2005].

Because Herzberg links some of the main drivers of motivation to the job itself, it is important to note the nature of the job. Some jobs are simply more attractive to individuals, who cherish them and are inspired to gain new knowledge and skills and improve their overall performance. Such jobs, hence, tend to increase the employee devotion [Tremblay et al 2005]. While hygiene factors also hold some importance, it cannot be said that their impact is present in the long run, as the desire of employees for rewards tends to decrease over time.

The two sets of factors came about as a result of thorough research on workers’ opinions [Herzberg et al, 1959]. Satisfaction and other positive mindsets were a result of the one group of factors, all related to the job itself. Negative mindset on the job, on the other hand, comes from the other group of factors, and it usually pertains to the work surrounding rather than the job. The positive set was termed motivation, or job factors [Deci and Gagne, 2005]. An example of a motivator element is the feeling of achievement, and is closely related to a specific action. Hygiene factors are, on the other hand, examples like the social dynamics in the workplace, which have more to do with the atmosphere than the nature of the job [Deci and Gagne, 2005].

2.4.1 Opponents of the factors of motivation and the hygiene theory of Herzberg

Regardless of the evident utility of the theory, in that it points to some very important aspects of motivation, is useful for executives wishing to motivate their workforce, and provides a simple framework that is not theoretical in nature, but tackles realistic issues, it has endured some criticism. The theory has received wide appraisal because of its resemblance to McGregor’s and Maslow’s theory [Armstrong, 2001:165]. It was criticized mostly because of the inaccuracy and inability to actually determine the exact correlation between the employee’s happiness and their performance on the job [Armstrong (2001:164)]. Armstrong (2001) notes that the theory does not effectively tackle this issue, as well as that the sample size from which the conclusions were drawn is too small for such general conclusions. Finally, Armstrong (2001) stresses the lack of concrete evidence of correlation between job happiness and performance of employees. The theory focuses entirely on the workplace and does not take into account or consideration the other personal issues employees may be experiencing, and whose impacts are visible in their job. The theory is somewhat rigid, and does not regard the complexity of human behavior, but provides a simplistic explanation of only fulfilling the hygiene factors, which will definitely lead to the highest level of satisfaction. This kind of approach does not seem practically feasible and misses the wider context of progress over time, while simultaneously degrading the complexity of a human being to a systematic list of needs that need to be met [Armstrong and Brown 2005]. The intrinsic aspect pertains to the nature of the job, like the previously mentioned sense of achievement, while the extrinsic aspect is associated with external factors such as the social dynamics of the workplace, which has little relation with the nature of the job [Armstrong and Brown 2005].

2.5 Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is most closely related to the inner desires of a person, or their self-realization [Clegg et al, 2005]. This type of motivation differs from its extrinsic counterpart in terms of the origin of the motivating force. According to Amabile (1996), the motivation that drives an individual to focus on the experience rather than the practical outcome, it is intrinsic; when, on the other hand, the carrying out of the action is the focus, it is extrinsic motivation.

- Stimulating job
- Possibility for growth
- Acquiring of new abilities
- Acknowledgment

Source : (Clegg et al, 2005, Deci, 1971, Clegg et al (2005), Armstrong and Brown 2005, Elsa (2009), Deci and Gagne 2005, Tremblay et al 2005, Wilson (2010), Buelens et al (2010), and Boldman and Deal 2003, Herzberg 1968)

2.5.1 Inspiring job

An experiment demonstrating the importance of this factor has been carried out by both Pink (2010) and Edward Deci (1971). Deci’s experiment was named the Soma Puzzle Experiment, and Pink carried out the same kind of experiment at the University of Rochester, with the aid of the university students. The students were divided into two groups, out of which the first was provided a material bonus for the completion of work, while the other was given nothing. Soon, it was demonstrated that the group with the financial bonus showed much less interested task compared to those who did not receive anything.

2.5.2 Opportunity of personal growth

According to Kohn (1999), it is expected that group, as opposed to individual, work yields better results, because individuals of various backgrounds and with different skill join and gain knowledge from each other. Board (2007) adds that, when employees work in an environment that favors equality in terms of growth and ideas, there is an improvement in their performance, and the employees tend to be more open. Finally, it is argued that, if employees perceive a possibility for growth and career advancements, the end result is that they work much better and contribute to the success of the organization.

The reason why numerous career opportunities have a positive impact is because the effect of this practice is two-fold: on the one hand, individuals are able to increase their own skills, while, on the other, they are simultaneously contributing to the well-being of the entire company [(Roda, 2011)]. Many theoreticians argue that the willingness of employees to continue working in particular companies is largely shaped by their possibilities of improvement in their current workplace; when there is space for personal growth, the employees tend to demonstrate willingness to take up this opportunity and ultimately contribute to the improvement of the company [Burke et al 2006]. Numerous researches show that personal growth takes up the top positions when it comes to retaining of employees. The factors influencing the employee’s desire to stay at a particular job are graphically represented in the figure below.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The graph above is a product of a survey carried out by Burke et al (2006), which aimed to determine the main reasons individuals stay at a job (for more details, see Appendix 1 and 2). The study demonstrated that the most important factor was the possibility of professional growth, while the second one was a feeling of achievement. Providing an opportunity for growth to its employees is, according to [Hause and Wiley 1996, Taylor and Finegan 2004, Colquitte and Macey 2005, Hilllmer and McRoberts 2004, Deci and Ryan 1989, Frank) in (Burke et al 2006)], one of the best steps for the company, as the goals of the worker and the organization intertwine and the two ultimately work for mutual benefit.

2.5.3 Training and skill development

Apart from the previously mentioned factors, La Motta (1995) underlines the importance of skill-acquisition and employee training in companies that wish to provide long-term work. According to Jashapara (2011), there is a strong correlation between the provision of training, and a company’s interest in providing long-term employment. The reason for this is obvious: if a company is willing to invest in its employees, it demonstrates a clear intention to improve their performance and train them better, which ultimately is good both for the company, as the improved employee performance directly contributes to the success of the company. Kew and John (2013) expressed their dilemma as to why companies choose to engage in such training and development programs; it was replied to by Robbins, who explained that, due to constant improvement and evolution of the world, companies are in constant need to adapt in terms of dealing with customers. Instead of constantly replacing workers with new ones, companies choose to opt for training and development [Kew and John 2013].

2.5.4 Recognition

The last factor that plays a great role in employee motivation is acknowledgement [Kew and John 2013]. While recognition may not play a massive role individually, it can be very fruitful in the case where other needs of the employee are satisfied [Spicer and Holmqvist 2013]. Acknowledgment, though, does not yield miraculous results; if there is already a lack of motivation for the carrying out of a particular task, it is very rare that recognition will induce a drastic change; when, however, the employee is already motivated, recognition is very important. Dubois (2004), on the other hand, takes a middle ground, and argues that the importance of acknowledgment is individual and unique to each employee: while some may find it very important, others may not consider it important at all. Furthermore, the efficiency of recognition is more easily detectable in minor aspects of a job, rather than the whole employee performance, such as in the example where appreciation of arriving on time may result in the employee striving to be on time every day [Dubois 2004]. However, it is unlikely that it will affect his performance throughout the work hours [Dubois 2004].

2.5.5 More discussion on intrinsic motivation

While there are numerous techniques used to describe and analyze intrinsic motivation, there are two that are used most frequently. Deci (1971), coined the term ‘free choice gauge,’ which is one of the two most common methods for assessing the extent of intrinsic motivation through experiments. In practice, it means that, before the experiment, participants are divided and informed of different conditions (e.g. being given some and no financial bonus). After a designated amount of time, participants come to know that their time is up and their work will no be taken from that point onward; they are, however, left to remain in the room with the task they were given as well as numerous distractions. This time is referred to as the free choice gauge, as it is during this time that the participants decide if they wish to continue performing the task, regardless of the lack of extrinsic bonus. It is considered that the longer the period of time they are left with the task at hand, the larger their level of intrinsic motivation. This kind of tool has been the basic evaluation method of intrinsic motivation and has been used extensively to examine its nature. In addition, intrinsic motivation was commonly assessed through reports written by the employees themselves, where they could outline their shortcomings and satisfaction. These were commonly used by various researchers, such as Ryan (1982) and Harackiewicz (1979). Most of these studies were examining the motivation of a general nature, rather than workplace-specific, such as the intrinsic drive to go to class [Ryan, 1982]

One of the most important features that needs to be taken into account is the fact that motivation occurs as part of a usual process, because individuals are naturally endowed with the desire to achieve new things, and turn those into skills and information. The importance of child-like motivation and desire for exploration of new concepts is very important for a person’s overall well-being, and it plays a great role in their progress, persistence and satisfaction in all areas of life [Ryan and LaGuardia, in press]. It is also important to note that while intrinsic motivation is, on the one hand, associated with the internal state of a person, it is also commonly related to interactions between a person and his environment. Hence, there is a higher level of intrinsic motivation for some daily actions, and lower some, while some people lack intrinsic motivation for particular actions altogether. Because intrinsic motivation is generally examined from the perspective of its corresponding with an industry, there is few references to intrinsic drive as an interesting duty. More commonly, it is described as the pleasure derived from performing tasks after being driven by intrinsic motivation. The two different approaches came about as a result of the purpose of the theories of intrinsic motivation; this theory was a direct response to the two main behavioral psychology theories that emerged between 1940 and 1960, and which argued that the primary driving force for any type of action is a distinct reward, such as food or money [Skinner (1953)]. Intrinsic motivation, therefore, supports the idea that the activity as such is the reward. Therefore, different tasks have commonly be examined in order to establish their individual attractive qualities for people. When the theory of learning is kept in mind, psychological drives can be said to be the backdrop of each action, and those that give pleasure to basic psychosomatic needs can be said to be the intrinsically motivated actions [Hull, 1943]. There have, therefore, been many studies that discuss elementary people’s wants that arise as a product of intrinsic drive and satisfy some elementary intrinsic needs. Hence, this research, too, will focus on some of the elementary needs of people: the hereditary need to belong, work and be independent, and how these needs are met by performing stimulating tasks. Hence, when the research refers to intrinsic action, it in fact refers to what generally satisfies intrinsic drives, and the tasks that are motivated by it. Hence, it is important to stress characteristics of different actions and how they would be intrinsically attractive, as these can be used in order to improve projects and increase driving forces.

Even in the cases where extrinsic motivation is considered superior, the significance of intrinsic motivation is impossible to deny. Researchers such as Deci and Gagne (2005) and Tremblay et al (2009) have, during their extensive research, come to understand the importance of both types. According to Tremblay et al (2009), there is a direct relationship between self-purpose and loyalty and confidence for a job or company, and the pleasure associated with working. Deci and Ryan (2000) note that this kind of feeling of purpose is closely related to intrinsic drives; hence, extrinsic motivation is not a mandatory requirement, and intrinsic motivation is a strong enough force on its own.


Excerpt out of 102 pages


Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation and the Effects of those Types on Employees
Employee Motivation in the Company PEL
University of Sunderland  (MBA)
Catalog Number
ISBN (eBook)
ISBN (Book)
File size
1994 KB
intrinsic, versus, extrinsic, motivation, their, effects, employees, employee, company
Quote paper
Muhammad Naeem (Author), 2014, Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation and the Effects of those Types on Employees, Munich, GRIN Verlag,


  • No comments yet.
Look inside the ebook
Title: Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Motivation and the Effects of those Types on Employees

Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book
- High royalties for the sales
- Completely free - with ISBN
- It only takes five minutes
- Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free