Fortunately, new cross-disciplinary research in fields like
neuroscience, biology, and evolutionary psychology has allowed us to peek under the hood, so to speak – to learn more
about the human brain. Our synthesis of the research suggests that people are guided by four basic emotional needs,
or drives, that are the product of our common evolutionary
heritage. As set out by Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria
in their 2002 book Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our
Choices, they are the drives to acquire (obtain scarce goods,
including intangibles such as social status); bond (form connections with individuals and groups); comprehend (satisfy our
curiosity and master the world around us); and defend (protect
against external threats and promote justice). These drives
underlie everything we do.
Managers attempting to boost motivation should take note.
It’s hard to argue with the accepted wisdom – backed by empirical evidence – that a motivated workforce means better
corporate performance. But what actions, precisely, can managers take to satisfy the four drives and, thereby, increase
their employees’ overall motivation?
We recently completed two major studies aimed at answering that question. In one, we surveyed 385 employees of two
global businesses – a financial services giant and a leading IT
services firm. In the other, we surveyed employees from 300
Fortune 500 companies. To define overall motivation, we focused on four commonly measured workplace indicators of it:
engagement, satisfaction, commitment, and intention to quit.
Engagement represents the energy, effort, and initiative employees bring to their jobs. Satisfaction reflects the extent to
which they feel that the company meets their expectations at
work and satisfies its implicit and explicit contracts with them.
Commitment captures the extent to which employees engage
in corporate citizenship. Intention to quit is the best proxy for
employee turnover.
Both studies showed, strikingly, that an
organization’s ability to meet the four fundamental drives explains, on average, about
60% of employees’ variance on motivational
indicators (previous models have explained
about 30%). We also found that certain
drives influence some motivational indicators more than others. Fulfilling the drive
to bond has the greatest effect on employee commitment, for
example, whereas meeting the drive to comprehend is most
closely linked with employee engagement. But a company
can best improve overall motivational scores by satisfying all
four drives in concert. The whole is more than the sum of its
parts; a poor showing on one drive substantially diminishes
the impact of high scores on the other three.
When it comes to practical implications for managers, the
consequences of neglecting any particular drive are clear. Bob
Nardelli’s lackluster performance at Home Depot, for instance,
can be explained in part by his relentless focus on the drive
to acquire at the expense of other drives. By emphasizing individual and store performance, he squelched the spirit of
camaraderie among employees (their drive to bond) and their
dedication to technical expertise (a manifestation of the need
to comprehend and do meaningful work). He also created, as
widely reported, a hostile environment that interfered with
the drive to defend: Employees no longer felt they were being
treated justly. When Nardelli left the company, Home Depot’s
stock price was essentially no better than when he had arrived six years earlier. Meanwhile Lowe’s, a direct competitor,
gained ground by taking a holistic approach to satisfying employees’ emotional needs through its reward system, culture,
management systems, and design of jobs.
An organization as a whole clearly has to attend to the four
fundamental emotional drives, but so must individual managers. They may be restricted by organizational norms, but employees are clever enough to know that their immediate superiors have some wiggle room. In fact, our research shows that
individual managers influence overall motivation as much as
any organizational policy does. In this article we’ll look more
closely at the drivers of employee motivation, the levers managers can pull to address them, and the “local” strategies that
can boost motivation despite organizational constraints.
The Four Drives That Underlie Motivation
Because the four drives are hardwired into our brains, the degree to which they are satisfied directly affects our emotions
and, by extension, our behavior. Let’s look at how each one
operates.
The drive to acquire. We are all driven to acquire scarce
goods that bolster our sense of well-being. We experience
delight when this drive is fulfilled, discontentment when it is
thwarted. This phenomenon applies not only
to physical goods like food, clothing, housing, and money, but also to experiences like
travel and entertainment – not to mention
events that improve social status, such as being promoted and getting a corner office or
a place on the corporate board. The drive
to acquire tends to be relative (we always
compare what we have with what others pos-
sess) and insatiable (we always want more). That explains why
people always care not just about their own compensation
packages but about others’ as well. It also illuminates why salary caps are hard to impose.
The drive to bond. Many animals bond with their parents,
kinship group, or tribe, but only humans extend that connection to larger collectives such as organizations, associations,
and nations. The drive to bond, when met, is associated with
strong positive emotions like love and caring and, when not,
with negative ones like loneliness and anomie. At work, the
