Job Motivation and Culture. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Germany and the United States

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

List of Figures

List of Tables

List of Graphs

List of Abbreviations

1 Introduction - A first Glance
1.1 Aims of this Work
1.2 Limitations
1.3 Structural Overview

2 Background of Motivation and Culture
2.1 Motivation
2.1.1 Measurement
2.1.2 Intrinsic Motivation
2.1.3 Extrinsic Motivation and Over-Justification
2.1.4 Theory X and Y
2.2 Introduction of Influential Motivation Theories
2.2.1 Law of effect and Operant Conditioning
2.2.2 Equity Theory by John Adam
2.2.3 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
2.2.4 Two Factor Theory by Frederick Herzberg
2.2.5 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
2.2.6 Questioning the Validity of Motivation Theories
2.3 Culture
2.3.1 The Cross-Cultural Model by Edward Hall
2.3.2 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions
2.3.3 Questioning the Validity of Cultural Classification
2.4 Intermediate Summary

3 The Application of Key Concepts
3.1 Cultural Classification
3.1.1 Germany
3.1.2 United States
3.1.3 Cultural Comparison
3.2 Statistical Data Analysis
3.2.1 Job Satisfaction
3.2.2 Important values
3.2.3 Employee Engagement

4 Personal Interpretation and Recommendation
4.1 Summary and Conclusion
4.2 Recommendation

References

Abstract

Outstanding leadership performance of today’s very culturally diversified workforce is, if not the, one of the most important challenges for organizations. One very important aspect of leadership is the ability to motivate; this is a much needed skill in order to allow co-workers and subordinates to use their full potential.

Motivation is an essential part of any profession, not only for the employer or leader but also for the employee. This paper researches the differences in job-motivation that exist across cultures, particularly the cultural differences between Germany and the United States and presents a comparative analysis of these two cultures. Not every cultural difference seems directly linked to job-motivation, but on a deeper level many inconspicuous differences do affect motivation after all. The aim of this work is to find the discrepancies and similarities of values, beliefs and attitudes in the work- place and to come to an explanation of these influences and to conclude the implica- tions they have.

In pursuance of demonstrating the implications of culture on motivation, understanding of the concepts behind motivation and culture is absolutely necessary. Therefore, this paper will introduce the key concepts in the field of motivation and culture before analyzing the key differences, in the American and German culture as well as the differences in motivation.

The scope of this work is broad; different industries and subcultures are mentioned, but are not the focus of the research. The aim is to draw a generalized and extensive picture of both cultures on a national level, and to subsequently introduce a guideline of intercultural management for companies and managers in the field of international business.

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to dedicate a major part of the acknowledgements to Professor Joseph T. Cooper, Ph.D., of the college of business at the University of Toledo (former at the University of Wyoming) who has not only provided me with ac- ademic knowledge and extraordinary helpfulness during my undergraduate studies , but also with very valuable life-lessons that helped me to grow personally. It is unde- niable that his classes have strongly influenced the selection of this paper’s topic, and I want to thank him for the inspiring insights and enriching discussions.

Second, I would like to thank my advising professor, Dr. Mirjam Schönert of the faculty of business at the Heilbronn University of Applied Sciences for her constant support, guidance and constructive feedback that made this thesis possible. She consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me into the right direction whenever she thought I needed it. As to that, I would also like to acknowledge Professor Dr. Susanne Wilpers of the faculty of business at the Heilbronn University of Applied Sciences, as the second reader of this thesis, and I am gratefully indebted to her for her very valuable comments on this paper.

Moreover, I want to sincerely thank the president and CEO of Handel Information Technologies and lecturer at the University of Wyoming, Even Brande who encour- aged me in widening my horizon, inspired me to explore alternative possibilities for the future and always supported me; his entrepreneurial spirit has been enriching and contagious.

Lastly, I would like to express my very profound gratitude to my relatives, friends and to my fiancée for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This achievement would not have been attainable without them. Thank you.

I hope that this academic work will motivate readers to learn more about the subject and will inspire to conduct more research. It was satisfying to learn more about moti- vation and culture and to write this paper, as I have been employed in Germany and the U.S. and subjectively felt differences in management and motivation techniques.

List of Figures

Figure 1: Structural Overview

Figure 2: Motivation Outline

Figure 3: Operant Conditioning

Figure 4: Original Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid

Figure 5: Vroom's Expectancy Theory

Figure 6: Personality, Culture and Human Nature

List of Tables

Table 1: National Values

Table 2: Most Important Aspects of Attracting Prospective Employees

Table 3: Most Important Aspects of Job Satisfaction and Retention

List of Graphs

Graph 1: Herzberg's Two Factor Theory

Graph 2: Cultural Dimensions of Germany

Graph 3: Cultural Dimensions of the U.S

Graph 4: Comparison of Dimensions

Graph 5: Comparison of Employee Satisfaction

Graph 6: Comparison of Overall Employee Engagement

Graph 7: Comparison of Employee Engagement

Graph 8: Influence of Engagement on ROS

List of Abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1 Introduction - A first Glance

What makes people do what they do - is it acting out of self-interest, following simple routine or chasing justifiable purpose? What is the difference between a loafer and a goal-setter? While some just cannot get things started, others are unstoppable. Why is that so? Are the reasons purely based on whether a skillset for doing desired things is sufficient, or is there more than what meets the eye? The answer to all these questions can be found in the field of psychology within the theories of motivation.

At times, behavior appears to be explicable in terms of unconscious stimulus, such as the drive to survive or other inflexible qualities. This might lead to a conclusion that behavior must be motivated by self-sustaining purposes that lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, but this simple explanation does not take the emotional part of motiva- tion into account, since individuals are often motivated to do things that go beyond the fulfillment of basic needs. Therefore, motivation is more than the desire to fulfill basic needs, it is a term that describes a particular process that promotes and sus- tains certain behavior. A fitting definition of motivation that covers emotions well is:

“To be motivated means to be moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 54).

Complex cultural and social influences often lead to behavior that differs from the fulfillment of own needs to satisfying the needs of others. A deep understanding of this phenomenon is an important part of leadership and organizational behavior and is essential for every manager, because the knowledge of how to motivate others is often being reflected in the performance of the same people and this again will reflect how successful a manager is in his or her job.

Globalization proceeds and unifies more aspects of different cultures every day, such as the similar marketing of products and services that are offered worldwide. It seems that cultures become less diversified and more influenced by each other, resulting in a blending of cultures; therefore paying attention to differences seems less relevant. However, there are many minor cultural differences that often add up to creating a culture gap that will influence organizational behavior (Treven, Mulej, & Lynn, 2008).

1.1 Aims of this Work

The objective of this work is to analyze differences in job motivation between employees working in the United States and Germany that are based on cultural influences. The aims are to find existing differences in values and beliefs, to explain the origins and impacts of these on performance, and to construct a guideline for people in an intercultural work-environment.

The first half of this paper “Background of Motivation” will explain the different existing theories of motivation and culture. Different theories and views of the subject matter will be compared and contrasted to provide and understanding and to allow the reader to form his or her own opinion.

The second half “The Application of Key Concepts” will introduce real life statistics and studies on which theories will be applied on. This part will explain the outcomes of the cultural differences on motivation. Approving but also opposing data -if appli- cable- will be presented to help the reader form an individual view of the situation and create a conclusion.

The last part will come to a conclusion, explain the cultural context and provide recommendations for social developments and future research.

1.2 Limitations

This paper will not introduce empirical research data, but will present a literature re- view and compare existing research. The decision, not to conduct research is based on the limitation of reliability that the findings would represent and might distort any conclusion. The general limitation of this work lies in the diversity of the statistics, surveys and questionnaires, which disagree in demographics, answer options and timeframe. Any specific limitation will be discussed in chapter 3 within the discussion of the data. In order to be comprehensive, reliable and for ethical reasons, only statis- tics that have minor differences in all of the aspects mentioned before and that meet scientific requirements of valid research will be compared to each other. Besides en- suring quality by all means, the reader is ought to read this paper with a critical view and pay close attention to the differences in the data presented.

1.3 Structural Overview

This paper is comprised of four chapters, as can be seen in Figure 1.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1: Structural Overview (Author’s own, 2016)

As shown, chapter 1 introduces the matter that is motivation and culture; additionally it provides a glance over the structure and the aims of this academic work. The Second chapter shapes a theoretical framework that will be used in later chapters to explain how specific cultural values affect outcomes in performance.

Chapter 3 presents the analysis of Germany’s and the American culture through applying theoretical knowledge and by comparing real-life data.

The analysis will lead to the last chapter and help drawing a profound conclusion paired with recommendations for organizational behavior and future research.

2 Background of Motivation and Culture

The following chapter will introduce theoretical background to the reader in order to apply it in later chapters to the specific cases. Motivation is a key subject in this chap- ter and will be defined and segmented in its various aspects. Theories that approach motivation and the original research behind these theories as well as criticism will also be part of this chapter. Moreover, theoretical constructs that do address value assignment, psychological needs and other renowned models will be introduced. Af- ter that, the theory behind culture will be defined and discussed, approaches to ex- plain, define and classify culture as well as possible issues, but also justified criticism will be introduced to provide a broader picture of the social phenomenon.

First, motivation will be defined by explaining the differences in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as how they are perceived through the scope of Theory X and Y. Following up the definition, the theories of motivation will be presented, which can be divided into the process theories and content theories. Process theories generally address how behavior is created, while content theories address what exactly creates behavior.

Second, a description of culture and an introduction of the cross-cultural model by Edward Hall and the cultural dimensions of Hofstede will be given. This will be followed by an intermediate summary and will end chapter 2.

2.1 Motivation

Motivation is a generally known term, but everybody has his or her own definition based on personal experience and perception. Generally, to motivate means to move and originates from the Latin expression ‘movere’, which has similarities to the nouns motor and motif that belong to the same word family.

It is obvious that to move someone or something, force must be used; this concept applied to work means that a force can not only move and direct, but also inspire and arouse people to act. Work motivation therefore refers to the desire to perform well in a job related task and also describes the continuity and intensity with which an individual functions (Rainey, 2014).

Motivation theory urges to explain the origins of actions taken by many living entities; being the drive that one feels from time to time and the incentive to refrain from miscellaneous activities, it represents the basis of a person’s needs, actions and desires (Elliot & Covington, 2001).

Figure 2 illustrates how motivation will be explained throughout the following chap- ters.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2: Motivation Outline (Author’s own 2016)

2.1.1 Measurement

The idea to motivate employees has numerous roots, such as the aim for employee retention or the desire to implement work ethics, but all these benefits lead to one greater goal that is to enhanced job-performance. Motivation is one of three major factors of individual performance, these are: effort expended¹, individual ability to work and organizational support (Mathis & Jackson, 2011). Thus, a widely acknowl- edged equation in management that expresses the idea stated above is as follows (Whetten & Cameron, 2011):

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Motivation is a critical part that will lead to performance, but will not be sufficient without have the opportunity and ability to perform. Ability is important, because it is the extent to which an employee’s skillset is sufficient enough to complete his or her tasks; it is obvious that a person will very likely not be able to create quality output without having the right expertise in the field (Whetten & Cameron, 2011).

Opportunity describes the organizational support that is given to an employee by putting him or her into a position or assigning tasks that are challenging enough. A challenging task in this sense is one that is fitting to the person’s job position and skillset. This factor can describe the organizational support, but is also applicable to other determinants, such as providing proper training and equipment for the task, as well as putting the person into a fitting job position in the first place.

Motivation cannot be measured by evaluating traditional numbers, such as these of performance, but high performance can imply high motivation based on the principle of causality. Since performance is based on the three factors mentioned above, eval- uating the other two can isolate the motivational factor to a certain extent, but a more commonly used tool to measure motivation is self a self-report through question- naires. It is important to recognize that any measurement that can be interpreted as a sign of high or low motivation can have several other reasons (Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2014).

2.1.2 Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation is the inside ambition to seek out activities out of curiosity or en- joyment of the activity itself; it is the manifestation of the human desire toward learn- ing and creating, and represents the contrast to extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Intrinsic, or internal motivation is only indirectly linked to outside influences and de facto possible in the absence of any rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).

Intrinsic motivation is a strong internal drive that surpasses the effects of external motivation; that is because external motivation needs constant incentives to continue while intrinsic motivation can have a self-sustaining aspect. The issue with intrinsic motivation on the other hand is that it is hard to stimulate and even if possible needs a lengthy procedure to be achieved (Delong & Winter, 2002).

2.1.3 Extrinsic Motivation and Over-Justification

Extrinsic motivation is the contrasting impulse to intrinsic motivation; it targets the quality of an action with the purpose of modifying the outcome in a positive way; in other words: extrinsic motivation can be defined as whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome (Mirabela-Constanta & Maria-Madela, 2011). The important difference to intrinsic motivation is that extrinsic motivation refers to an influence outside of the affected individual, such as rewards, competition, or encour- agement. Rewarding leads partly to reinforcement theory, because rewards can be used in a positive, negative or punishing way to increase or decrease the probability of certain behavior to reoccur; this will be discussed in Chapter 2.2.1. “Law of effect and Operant Conditioning”.

In colloquial speech the reference to extrinsic motivation is a bit different: the terms money and motivation are mostly used interchangeably, which from a scientific point of view is incorrect (Deci, 1973). It is true, that one way to motivate extrinsically is to provide money for the execution of certain behavior, but there are many other re- wards that can support extrinsic motivation. The reward of money can be obs erved in employer-employee relationships, whereas the employer provides money to extrinsi- cally motivate the employee.

Edward L. Deci, in his “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation” and “Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement and equity”, both published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, states that higher external rewards can decrease intrinsic motivation of various individuals, such as children, employees or students (Deci, 1971). He also has observed that an increased focus on structuring situations towards a person’s personality and hereby make him or her more intrinsi- cally supportive and interesting leads to higher motivation overall (Deci, 1972).

The phenomenon of a negative correlation between the value of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation is commonly referred to as the over-justification effect. This effect describes the idea that being externally rewarded diminishes internal drive. The reason behind this theory is that an individual feels that he or she is behaving in a certain way only to get an external reward and not because out of the simple pleas- ure of it (Griggs, 2012). A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found evidence to support the hypothesis of the over-justification theo- rem. The field experiment showed, that participants, which already showed a base- line interest in the assignment, rewarded with money and closely related tangible re- wards experienced a decrease in subsequent interest in that task. The study not only shows that the over-justification effect exists, but also finds that this effect only takes place if the individual anticipated a reward before engaging in the activity itself. Thus, if an individual would receive an unforeseen reward after completion of the task, the preexisting intrinsic motivation would not suffer (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).

Other scientific research partially contradicts the generalization that the theory of the over-justification effect contains: David Rosenfield and other researchers at the Southern Methodist University published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology to present their findings of a study they had conducted to explore the over-justification effect in depth. The study was carried out with 188 female col- lege students taking part in a cognitive game, whereas the first group was told that they would receive a reward based on competence and the second group was told that the reward was based on completing the experiment regardless of the perfor- mance. Participants of the first group expressed greater interest and performed better then participants of the second group.

In addition, the researchers observed that if an individual - who would receive an unconditional reward - was told that he or she over-performs, his or her interest and precipitation in the game subsequently dropped, while a subject of the group with conditional rewards showed even greater interest. The research team therefore con- cluded that the over-justification effect is applicable if a reward does not reflect per- formance and will indeed lessen intrinsic motivation, but when a reward does reflect competence, the overall motivation will be heightened (Rosenfield, Folger, & Adelman, 1980).

Even though intrinsic motivation suffers from any extrinsic reward, the extent to which it does is often negligible. This conclusion is supported by the fact that an external reward subjective to the quality of performance does lessen intrinsic motivation only to a minor extent (Rosenfield et al., 1980). The over-justification theory has an inner consistency and also shows its limitations, but fails to take several real-life scenarios into account; therefore the over-justification effect is controversial amongst researc h- ers. E. Deci, D. Rosenfield and colleagues, have not taken the widespread practice and the observed positive results in these cases into consideration. The set of stud- ies was limited in its basis to participants with an initial high interest. With the focus on classroom or workplace settings, extrinsic incentives are mostly used at a point of low intrinsic motivation; therefore the laboratory manufactured circumstances do not reflect the true appliance of extrinsic motivators (Cameron, 2001).

Extrinsic motivators tend to boost the feeling of autonomy and competence, if linked to high quality output. If applied under the right circumstances, external rewards can lead to higher performance and are useful to create an environment of motivated employees (Gerhart, Rynes, & Fulmer, 2009).

2.1.4 Theory X and Y

The concept of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation has led to the Theory X and Theory Y of human motivation and management and is the work of Douglas McGregor; these theories are contingency theories, because they are contingent to specific situations (Avolio, 2007). These two theories are two opposing extremes, each on the opposite end of the spectrum. Theory X is rather a pessimistic approach to human motivation and emphasizes that an employee has no internal drive and ambition to work, no demand for responsibilities and works only to earn external rewards (Sorensen & Yaeger, 2015). Theory Y on the other hand highlights the basic internal motivation of employees as well as willingness to work, drive to excel and acquiring of responsibil- ity (Sager, 2008).

There are links between the Theory X/Y construct and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory: Maslow believed self-actualization is the highest human need to be achieved, and this this is reflected in Theory Y by highlighting the internal drive to cooperate, perform and succeed, and thus self-actualize (Pardee, 1990).

Theory X and Theory Y subsequently reflect managerial styles, that can be chosen based on evaluating the workforce, it is most likely that circumstances will lead to a combination of both, which might be more appropriate (Kerr, Schriesheim, Murphy, & Stogdill, 1974).

2.2 Introduction of Influential Motivation Theories

Following up the definitions, this chapter introduces the most influential models that approach motivational and cultural issues. These theories are crucial to the understanding of Chapter 3, since these models will be applied to the cultures that exist within the United States and Germany.

2.2.1 Law of effect and Operant Conditioning

Reinforcement history begins with E. Thorndike and his “Law of Effect” is a psychological principle that states that behavior that causes satisfaction in a specific situ a- tion will more likely to be repeated in that certain situation and behavior that leads to discomfort is less likely to be repeated; this is often referred to as behavior is the function of its consequences (Gray, 2011).

Clark Hull and B.F. Skinner extended and refined the principles² that where set up by E. Thorndike, which are often referred to as Reinforcement Theory. The four principles behind the research of Clark Hull and B.F. Skinner are positive and negative reinforcement, which both increase the probability of a behavior to be repeated, and positive and negative punishment, which both decrease the probability of the behavior re-appearing again (Griggs, 2012).

Positive reinforcement uses a reward system and is a pleasant or beneficial cons e- quence that occurred out of previously shown behavior; it is the end result of having a positive and pleasing experience (Wood, Wood, & Boyd, 2008).

Negative reinforcement is commonly mistaken for punishment in colloquial speech, but reinforcement is always referring to pleasure; in this case, the adjective “negative” is implying that something is ought to be removed. To create pleasure by the removal of something, the entity to be removed needs to be unpleasant and creating a state of discomfort (Griggs, 2012).

Negative Reinforcement is therefore the end result of having the desire to get rid of distressful feelings, which is also a positive and pleasing experience; it is also be- lieved to be the strongest form of reinforcement, because removing something un- pleasant is more urgent than, and not as optional as receiving a reward (Wood et al., 2008).

Punishment follows the same context, in which positive punishment introduces a stimulus that is unpleasant, such as a state of physical or psychological discomfort, while negative punishment removes a pleasant stimulus that was present before e.g. taking something away that someone had before and still desires to have (Hockenbury, Nolan, & Hockenbury, 2015).

The graphical interpretation of the whole construct can be seen below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Operant Conditioning (Author’s own following Catania, 1989)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.2.2 Equity Theory by John Adam

Being a psychologist with a specialization in behavior and work-related issues, John Adams developed a concept that deals with the psychological process of equity. A d- am’s Equity Theory revolves around fairness and equality in the workplace and the perception of equity by employees (Hatfield, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978).

In detail, his theory, which highlights the relevance of social processes in organizations, depends on the assumption that employees strive to maximize the outcome of their efforts. According to Adam’s Equity Theory, the goal for every person is to obtain a balance in which the ratio of outcomes and input of oneself relate to the same ratio of a reference person (Scholz, 2000). In simpler words: Employees evaluate what they receive (outcomes) from the relationship to what they invest in it (inputs) and compare this ratio to coworkers in a similar position.

If Workers perceive inequity they are likely to adjust their own input or output and possibly that of others in order to get back to a state of equity. This result in a positive or negative adjustment, for example, if an employee feels that he or she is underpaid, and thus does not have an equitable output, then there are a number of options that he or she can pursue (Adams, 1965). For once, the worker could realize, that he or she is not working as hard as he or she thought and simply decrease the value that this person had assigned to his or her input, or alternatively he or she could convince his or herself that coworkers are actually working harder (Whetten & Cameron, 2011). Two more events that are more likely are that the worker will request a raise and therefore increase the outcome, or that the worker will start to withdraw and de- crease input, for example by leaving a few minutes early every day, not completing an optional training or finding excuses to avoid difficult assignments (Banks, Patel, & Moola, 2012).

Although the perception of fairness is subjective, the key message behind Adam’s Equity theory is: “be fair and equitable” (Whetten & Cameron, 2011, p. 348).

2.2.3 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Another and possibly the most prevalent theory in the field of motivation is the hierar- chy of needs, created by the American psychologist and professor, Abraham Maslow; This theory is targeting the humanistic view of self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). The hierarchy of needs theory approaches the question how humans behave in general, based on the two basics needs “safety and physiological needs”, the two psychologi- cal needs “social and esteem needs” and the self-fulfillment need “self-actualization”. These needs sort from basic needs, to psychological needs, to self-fulfillment needs. The needs are categorized in the following order of: Physiological needs, safety, s o- cial needs, esteem and self-actualization as can be seen in Figure 4 (Latham, 2012). Maslow refers to the lower four needs as deficiency needs, while everything above these are growth needs.

Figure 4: Original Hierarchy of Needs Pyramid (Author's own, following Maslow & Frager, 1987)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Maslow’s theory suggests that the most basic needs on the bottom of the pyramid need to be fulfilled before any of the higher order needs can be achieved, because the strong desire to fulfill these basic needs will shift the focus from any higher order need to the lower deficiency needs (Goble, 2004).

Maslow has later on expanded the theory by adding aesthetic, cognitive and transcendence needs that all fall under the growth needs category. Transcendence describes the need to help others to achieve self-actualization. Aesthetic needs are the search for balance, beauty and the appreciation for the latter. Needs that are cognitive are understanding and knowledge, exploration, curiosity and the need for pr e- dictability and meaning (Maslow, 2014).

American psychologist and professor at Yale University, Clayton Alderfer took the theory of Maslow to develop it further into the ERG³ Theory. This concept describes the same needs, but categorizes them into existence, relatedness and growth (Alder- fer, 1972).

One main difference is taking into consideration that needs from different levels can motivate people at the same time and do not have to be fulfilled or pursued in a s e- quence. The ERG theory also acknowledges that if a higher need remains unsatis- fied, one might become frustrated and will go back to pursuing a need on a lower level again. Alderfer also acknowledges that the importance of needs can vary for each person and that the priority of needs might change due to changes of circum- stances (Alderfer, 1972).

[...]

---

¹ Effort Expended goes beyond motivation, by combining motivation, work ethics, and attendance.

² The term principles is appropriate because reinforcement is an evolutionary-based process in the idea that living organisms are hedonic, - meaning that they pursue pleasure - and behavior with intrinsic hedonic capacity will be repeated, thus behavior is predictable.

³ Existence, Relatedness and Growth