Motivation Theories

We can distinguish between content and process motivation theories. Content

theories focus on WHAT, while process theories focus on HOW human behaviour is
motivated. Content theories are the earliest theories of motivation. Within the work
environment they have had the greatest impact on management practice and policy,
whilst within academic circles they are the least accepted. Content theories are also
called needs theories: they try to identify what our needs are and relate motivation to
the fulfilling of these needs. The content theories cannot entirely explain what motivate
or demotivate us. Process theories are concerned with “how” motivation occurs, and
what kind of process can influence our motivation.
The main content theories are: Maslow’s needs hierarchy, Alderfer’s ERG theory,
McClelland’s achievement motivation and Herzberg’s two-factor theory.
The main process theories are: Skinner’s reinforcement theory, Victor Vroom's
expectancy theory, Adam’s equity theory and Locke’s goal setting theory (Figure 1).
No single motivation theory explains all aspects of people’s motives or lack of
motives. Each theoretical explanation can serve as the basis for the development of
techniques for motivating.

Figure 1. Motivation theories (Source: Author's own figure)

Maslow – hierarchy of needs
This is the earliest and most widely known theory of motivation, developed by
Abraham Maslow (1943) in the 1940s and 1950s.
This theory condenses needs into five basic categories. Maslow ordered these needs in
his hierarchy, beginning with the basic psychological needs and continuing through
safety, belonging and love, esteem and self-actualization (Figure 2). In his theory, the
lowest unsatisfied need becomes the dominant, or the most powerful and significant
need. The most dominant need activates an individual to act to fulfil it. Satisfied needs
do not motivate. Individual pursues to seek a higher need when lower needs are
fulfilled.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often shown in the shape of a pyramid: basic needs
at the bottom and the most complex need (need for self-actualization) at the top.
Maslow himself has never drawn a pyramid to describe these levels of our needs; but
the pyramid has become the most known way to represent his hierarchy.

Figure 2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Source: Author's own figure)

1. Physiological needs (e.g. food, water, shelter, sleep)
It includes the most basic needs for humans to survive, such as air, water and food.
Maslow emphasized, our body and mind cannot function well if these requirements are
not fulfilled.
 These physiological needs are the most dominant of all needs. So if someone is
missing everything in his/her life, probably the major motivation would be to fulfil his/her
physiological needs rather than any others. A person who is lacking food, safety, love
(also sex) and esteem, would most probably hunger for food (and also for money, salary
to buy food) than for anything else.
If all the needs are unsatisfied, and the organism is then overruled by the
physiological needs, all other needs may turn into the background. All capacities are put
into the attendance of satisfying hunger. Any other things are forgotten or got secondary
importance.
2. Safety and security (secure source of income, a place to live, health and well-
being)
If the physiological needs are relatively well contented, new needs will appear, the
so called safety needs. Safety needs refer to a person’s desire for security or protection.
Basically everything looks less important than safety and protection (the physiological
needs even sometimes). The healthy and fortunate adults in our culture are largely
satisfied in their safety needs. The peaceful, sure, safety and unwavering society makes
us feel in safety enough from criminal assaults, murder, unbelievable natural
catastrophes, and so on. In that case people no longer have any safety needs as first-
line motivators.
Meeting with safety needs demonstrated as a preference for insurance policies,
saving accounts or job security, etc., we think about the lack of economic safety.
Children have a greater need to feel safe. That is the reason why this level is more
important for children.
Safety and security needs include: Personal security; Financial security; Health and
well-being; Safety mesh against accidents, illnesses and their adverse impacts.
To tell the truth, in real dangers and traumas – like war, murder, natural
catastrophes, criminal assault, etc. -, the needs for safety become an active, first-line
and dominant mobilizer of human beings.
3. Belongingness and love (integration into social groups, feel part of a community
or a group; affectionate relationships)
If both the physiological and the safety needs are fulfilled, the affection, love and
belongingness needs come into prominence. Maslow claimed people need to belong
and accepted among their social groups. Group size does not mean anything: social
groups can be large or small. People need to love and be loved – both sexually and
non-sexually – by others. Depending on the power and pressure of the peer group, this
need for belonging may overbear the physiological and security needs.
Love needs involve giving and receiving affections (love is not synonymous with sex
– sex is a physiological need). When they are unsatisfied, a person will immediately
eliminate the lack of friends, peers and partner. Many people suffer from social
nervousness, loneliness, social isolation and also clinical depression because of the
lack of this love or belongingness factor.
 4. Esteem (respect for a person as a useful, honourable human being)
In our society most people long for a stable and high valuation of themselves, for the
esteem of others and for self-respect or self-esteem.
Esteem means being valued, respected and appreciated by others. Humans need to
feel to be valued, such as being useful and necessary in the world. People with low self-
esteem often need respect from others. Maslow divided two types of esteem needs: a
‘lower’ version and a ‘higher’ version. The ‘lower’ version of esteem is the need for
respect from others: for example attention, prestige, status and loving their opinion. The
‘higher’ version is the need for self-respect: for example, the person may need
independence, and freedom or self-confidence.
The most stable and therefore the healthiest self-esteem is based on respect from
others. External fame or celebrity and unwarranted adulation won’t cause self-esteem,
although you feel better for a while.
5. Self-actualization (individual’s desire to grow and develop to his or her fullest
potential)
‘What humans can be, they must be.’ (Maslow, 1954)
Self-actualization reflects an individual’s desire to grow and develop to his/her fullest
potential. People like opportunities, choosing his/her own versions, challenging
positions or creative tasks. Maslow described this level as the ‘need to accomplish
everything that one can, to become the most that one can be’. Maslow believed that
people must overcome their other needs – described above -, not only achieve them. At
this level, individual differences are the largest.

As each level is adequately satisfied, we are then motivated to satisfy the next level
in the hierarchy, always new and higher needs are coming. This is what we mean, when
the basic human needs are drawn like a pyramid, a hierarchy. Life experiences,
including divorce and loss of job, may cause an individual to fluctuate between levels of
the hierarchy. These five different levels were further sub-categorised into two main
groups: deficiency and growth needs.
Deficiency needs – The very basic needs for survival and security.
These needs include:
• physiological needs
• safety and security needs
• social needs – belongingness and love
• esteem needs
It may not cause a physical indication if these ‘deficiency needs’ are not fulfilled, but
the individual will feel anxious and tense. So the most basic level of needs must be
fulfilled before a person wants to focus on the secondary or higher level needs.
Growth needs – Personal growth and fulfilment of personal potential.
These needs include:
• self-actualisation needs
 This hierarchy is not as rigid as we may have implied. For example, there are some
humans for whom self-esteem or self-actualization seems to be more important than
love or belonging. The popularity of this theory of motivation rooted in its simplicity and
logic.

Alderfer – ERG theory: Existence needs, relatedness needs and growth needs
Alderfer (Furnham, 2008) distinguished three steps or classes of needs: existence,
relatedness and growth. Maslow’s physiological and safety needs belong together to
existence needs. Relatedness can be harmonised to belongingness and esteem of
others. Growth is the same as Maslow’s self-esteem plus self-actualization. Both
Maslow and Alderfer tried to describe how these needs, these stages of needs become
more or less important to individuals.
• Existence needs: These include needs for basic material necessities. In short, it
includes an individual’s physiological and physical safety needs.
• Relatedness needs: Individuals need significant relationships (be with family,
peers or superiors), love and belongingness, they strive toward reaching public fame
and recognition. This class of needs contain Maslow’s social needs and external
component of esteem needs.
• Growth needs: Need for self-development, personal growth and advancement
form together this class of need. This class of needs contain Maslow’s self-actualization
needs and intrinsic component of esteem needs.
Alderfer agreed with Maslow that unsatisfied needs motivate individuals. Alderfer
also agreed that individuals generally move up the hierarchy in satisfying their needs;
that is, they satisfy lower-order before higher-order needs. As lower-order needs are
satisfied, they become less important, but Alderfer also said: as higher-order needs
are satisfied they become more important. And it is also said that under some
circumstances individuals might return to a lower need. Alderfer thought that
individuals multiply the efforts invested in a lower category need when higher
categorized needs are not consequent.
For example there is a student, who has excellent grades, friends, and high standard
of living, maybe also work at the university. What happens if this individual finds that he
or she is frustrated in attempts to get more autonomy and responsibility at the
university, maybe also more scholarship that generally encourage individuals’ growth?
Frustration in satisfying a higher (growth) need has resulted in a regression to a lower
level of (relatedness) needs (‘I need just my friends, some good wine, I do not want to
go to the university anymore.’).
This event is known and called as the frustration-regression process. This is a more
realistic approach as it recognises that, because when a need is met, it does not mean
it will always remain met. ERG theory of motivation is very flexible: it explains needs as
a range rather than as a hierarchy. Implication of this theory: Managers must
understand that an employee has various needs that must be satisfied at the same
time. ERG theory says, if the manager concentrates only on one need at a time, he or
she won’t be able to motivate the employee effectively and efficiently. Prioritization and
sequence of these three categories, classes can be different for each individual.

McClelland – Need for achievement, affiliation and power

In the early 1960s McClelland – built on Maslow’s work – described three human
motivators. McClelland (Arnold et al., 2005) claimed that humans acquire, learn their
motivators over time that is the reason why this theory is sometimes called the ‘Learned
Needs Theory’. He affirms that we all have three motivating drivers, and it does not
depend on our gender or age. One of these drives or needs will be dominant in our
behaviour.
McClelland’s theory differs from Maslow’s and Alderfer’s, which focus on satisfying
existing needs rather than creating or developing needs. This dominant motivator
depends on our culture and life experiences, of course (but the three motivators are
permanent). The three motivators are:
• achievement: a need to accomplish and demonstrate competence or mastery
• affiliation: a need for love, belonging and relatedness
• power: a need for control over one’s own work or the work of others
These learned needs could lead to diversity and variety between employees. More
precisely, prioritization and importance of these motivational needs characterises a
person’s behaviour. As we wrote, although each person has all of these needs to
some extent, only one of them tends to motivate an individual at any given time.
Achievement motivation – a need to accomplish and demonstrate competence or
mastery. It pertains to a person’s need for significant success, mastering of skills,
control or high standards. It is associated with a range of actions. Individual seek
achievement, attainment of challenging (and also realistic) goals, and advancement in
the school or job.
This need is influenced by internal drivers for action (intrinsic motivation), and the
pressure used by the prospects of others (extrinsic motivation). Low need for
achievement could mean that individuals want to minimise risk of failure, and for this
reason people may choose very easy or too difficult tasks, when they cannot avoid
failure. In contrast, high need for achievement means that humans try to choose
optimal, sufficiently difficult tasks, because they want to get the chance to reach their
goals, but they have to work for it, they need to develop themselves.
Individuals with high need for achievement like to receive regular feedback on their
progress and achievements; and often like to work alone; seek challenges and like high
degree of independence.
Sources of high need for achievement can be: praise for success, goal setting skills,
one’s own competence and effort to achieve something, and it does not depend only on
luck; of course positive feelings and also independence in childhood. McClelland said
that training, teaching can increase an individual’s need for achievement. For this
reason, some have argued that need for achievement is not a need but a value.

Affiliation motivation – a need for love, belonging and relatedness

These people have a strong need for friendships and want to belong within a social
group, need to be liked and held in popular regard. They are team players, and they
may be less effective in leadership positions. High-need-for-affiliation persons have
support from those with whom they have regular contact and mostly are involved in
warm interpersonal relationships. After or during stressful situation individuals need
much more affiliation. In these situations people come together and find security in one
another. There are times when individuals want to be with others and at other times to
be alone – affiliation motivation can become increased or decreased. Individuals do not
like high risk or uncertainty.

Authority/power motivation – a need to control over one’s own work or the work of
others. These persons are authority motivated. There is a strong need to lead and to
succeed in their ideas. It is also needed to increase personal status and prestige. This
person would like to control and influence others. McClelland studied male managers
with high need for power and high need for affiliation and found that managers with a
high need for power tended to run more productive departments in a sales organization
than did managers with a high need for affiliation.
It is important to speak about gender differences in need for power. It is said that
men with high need for power mostly have higher aggression, drink more, act in
sexually exploitative manner, and participate in competitive sports, and also political
unrests. At the same time women with higher need for power show more socially
acceptable and responsible manner, are more concerned and caring. These types of
people prefer to work in big, multinational organisations, businesses and other
influential professions.
McClelland argues that strong need for achievement people can become the best
leaders – as we wrote it above. But at the same time there can be a tendency to request
too much of their employees, because they think that these people are also highly
achievement-focused and results-driven, as they are. Think about your teachers and
professors! I am sure they all want the best for you, they would like to develop you, but I
do not think you feel the same every time. McClelland said that most people have and
show a combination of these characteristics.

Herzberg – Two factor theory

It is also called motivation-hygiene theory.
This theory says that there are some factors (motivating factors) that cause job
satisfaction, and motivation and some other also separated factors (hygiene factors)
cause dissatisfaction (Figure 3). That means that these feelings are not opposite of
each other, as it has always previously been believed.

Opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather, no satisfaction. According

to Herzberg (1987) the job satisfiers deal with the factors involved in doing the job,
whereas the job dissatisfiers deal with the factors which define the job context.

Figure 3. Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory (Source: Author's own figure)

If the hygiene factors, for example salary, working conditions, work environment,
safety and security are unsuitable (low level) at the workplace, this can make individuals
unhappy, dissatisfied with their job. Motivating factors, on the other hand, can
increase job satisfaction, and motivation is based on an individual's need for personal
growth. If these elements are effective, then they can motivate an individual to achieve
above-average performance and effort. For example, having responsibility or
achievement can cause satisfaction (human characteristics) (Dartey-Baah, 2011).
Hygiene factors are needed to ensure that an employee is not dissatisfied.
Motivation factors are needed to ensure employee's satisfaction and to motivate an
employee to higher performance.

Table 1. Herzberg's Two Factory Theory (Source: Author's own table)

Dissatisfaction – Low level
No dissatisfaction-High level Hygiene factors
No satisfaction – Low level
Satisfaction – High level Motivating factors
 Herzberg’s five factors of job satisfaction (motivating factors):
• achievement
• recognition
• work itself
• responsibility
• advancement
Only these factors can motivate us. But at the same time we need the lack of
dissatisfactions (we need hygiene factors, "workpeace") to achieve more efficient work.
Herzberg’s five factors of job dissatisfaction (hygiene factors – deficiency
needs):
• company policy and administration
• supervision
• salary
• interpersonal relationships
• working conditions
Can we motivate with money, with higher salary? What did Herzberg and Maslow
say? Is it just the same or something different?
Herzberg addressed salary not a motivator in the way that the primary motivators
are, just like achievement and recognition. Salary can be a motivator, if you get always
higher and higher salary, but we cannot say that it is an incentive. Maslow said, money
or salary is needed to buy food to eat, to have some place to live and sleep, etc. It can
be a physiological need. Some differences between Herzberg and Maslow theory are
described in Table 2.

Table 2. Differences between Maslow’s and Herzberg’s theory (Source: Author's

own table)
Points of
view Maslow’s theory Herzberg’s theory
Date of the
theory in 1940’s in 1960’s
Study
group ordinary American people well-situated American people
Every level of needs give us
satisfaction and give the
About opportunity to move on to the Not every type of needs can give us
needs next level of needs. satisfaction, just motivating factors.

Limitations of this theory:

• This theory oversees situational variables.
• Herzberg supposed a correlation, linear between productivity, performance and
satisfaction.
• The theory’s reliability is uncertain.
 • No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used.
• The theory ignores blue-collar workers, only white-collar men’s opinion was
discussed.
However, Herzberg tried to bring more humanity and caring into companies’ life. His
intention was not to develop a theory that is used as a 'motivational tool’, but to provide
a guidance to improve organisational performance.
Table 3. Summary of Content Theories of Motivation (Source: Author's own table)
Maslow Alderfer McClelland Herzberg
Physiological
Safety and security Existence
Belongingness and love Relatedness Need for Affiliation Hygiene
Self-esteem Need for power
Self-actualization Growth Need for achievement Motivators
There are some critics for all need theories. Although, there is a consensus for the
general concept: human behaviour is motivated by the strong wish for fulfilling a human
need. Critics are:
• Universality: they do not care about gender, age, culture, religious or other factor
differences.
• Research support and methodology problems: these theories were not based on
reliable and creditable research results.
• Work focus: individuals have needs only at their workplaces, but not at any other
places of their life.
• Individual differences and stability over time.
• Process simplicity.

Skinner's reinforcement theory

The Reinforcement theory, based on Skinner's operant conditioning theory, says that
behaviour can be formed by its consequences (Gordon, 1987).
Positive reinforcements, for example praise, appreciation, a good mark/grade,
trophy, money, promotion or any other reward can increase the possibility of the
rewarded behaviours' repetition.
If a student gets positive verbal feedback and a good grade for his test, this
reinforcement encourages the performance of the behaviour to recur. If the teacher
doesn’t tell precisely what he expects, then the positive reinforcements can drive the
behaviour closer to the preferred. For example, when a student who is usually late to
class gets positive feedback when he arrives on time, the student becomes more and
more punctual. Positive reinforcement motivates to get the anticipated reinforcement of
required behaviour.
We use negative reinforcement when we give a meal to a hungry person if he
behaves in a certain manner/way.
In this case the meal is a negative reinforcement because it eliminates the
unpleasant state (hunger).
 Contrary to positive and negative reinforcement, punishment can be undesired
reinforcement, or reinforce undesired behaviour.
For example, if a student is always late to class and thus he gets negative verbal
feedback and also always has to tidy up the classroom at the end of the day, in this
case the undesirable behaviour is reinforced with an undesirable reinforcer. The
punishment declines the tendency to be late.
According to the theory, positive reinforcement is a much better motivational
technique than punishment because punishment:
• tries to stop undesirable behaviour and does not offer an alternative behaviour
• creates bad feelings, negative attitudes toward the activity, and the person who
gives the punishment
• suppresses behaviour, but does not permanently eliminate it.
Once certain behaviour has been conditioned through repetitive reinforcement,
elimination of the reinforcement will decline the motivation to perform that behaviour.
Therefore it is better not to give a reward every time. Reinforcement in the workplace
usually takes place on a partial or irregular reinforcement schedule, when reward is not
given for every response.
The reinforcement theory is included in many other motivation theories. Reward
must meet someone's needs, expectations, must be applied equitably, and must be
consistent. The desired behaviour must be clear and realistic, but the issue remains:
which reinforcements are suitable and for which person?

Vroom's expectancy theory

The expectancy theory places an emphasis on the process and on the content of
motivation as well, and it integrates needs, equity and reinforcement theories.
Victor Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory aims to explain how people choose from
the available actions. Vroom defines motivation as a process that governs our choices
among alternative forms of voluntary behaviour. The basic rationale of this theory is that
motivation stems from the belief that decisions will have their desired outcomes.
The motivation to engage in an activity is determined by appraising three factors.
These three factors are the following (Figure 4):
• Expectancy – a person’s belief that more effort will result in success. If you work
harder, it will result in better performance.
In this case the question is: "Am I capable of making a good grade on a math test if I
learn more?" Appraisal of this factor is based on the effort to learn math, on knowledge
of math, on the previous experience of math test results, on self-efficacy and specific
self-rated abilities.
• Instrumentality – the person’s belief that there is a connection between activity
and goal. If you perform well, you will get reward.
In this case the question is that: "Will I get the promised reward (a good mark) for
performing well on a math test?" Appraisal of this factor is based on the accuracy and
consistency of marking. If one day I get a good grade and another day I get a bad grade
for the same performance, then the motivation will decrease.
• Valence – the degree to which a person values the reward, the results of success.
In this case the question is that: "Do I value the reward that I get?" Appraisal of this
factor is based on the importance of its subject (math), the good mark, and the good
performance in general.
Vroom supposes that expectancy, instrumentality and valence are multiplied
together to determine motivation. This means that if any of these is zero, then the
motivation to do something will be zero as well.

Figure 4. Vroom's expectancy theory (Source: Author's own figure)

A person who doesn’t see the connection between effort and performance will have
zero expectancy. A person who can’t perceive the link between performance and
reward will have zero instrumentality. For a person who doesn’t value the anticipated
outcome, reward will have zero valence.
For example if I think:
- that no matter how hard I’m studying I can’t learn math due to lack of necessary
skills or
- that no matter how good I perform on the test I don’t always get good mark so the
reward is unpredictable, not dependent on my success or
- the good mark from math is not important for me, and I’m not interested in math, so
the reward is not attractive, then I won’t be motivated to learn for the exam.
The expectancy theory highlights individual differences in motivation and contains
three useful factors for understanding and increasing motivation. This theory implies
equity and importance of consistent rewards as well (Konig & Steel 2006).

Adams' equity theory

The equity theory states that people are motivated if they are treated equitably, and
receive what they consider fair for their effort and costs.
The theory was suggested by Adams (1965) and is based on Social Exchange
theory.
 According to this theory, people compare their contribution to work, costs of their
actions and the benefits that will result to the contribution and benefits of the reference
person. If people perceive that the ratio of their inputs-outputs to the ratio of referent
other's input-output is inequitable, then they will be motivated to reduce the inequity
(Figure 5).

Figure 5. Adams' equity theory (Source: Author's own figure)

At the workplace the workers put inputs into the job, such as education, experience,
effort, energy, and expect to get some outcomes such as salary, reward, promotion,
verbal recognition, and interesting and challenging work each in equal amounts (Figure
6).

Figure 6. Examples for the inputs and outcomes in the equity theory (Source:
Author's own figure)
 The equity theory works not just in the workplace, but at school as well. For
example, when for the same oral exam performance two students get different marks,
then inequity exists. In this case, the student who gets the worse mark may lose his/her
motivation to learn (reduce his/her efforts), or persuade the teacher to give him/her a
better mark, or change the perception of the reference person's performance ("I did not
know everything, but my classmate could answer all the questions"). At the school it can
demotivate students if someone who never studies or who never performs better than
the others always gets good mark. The greater the inequity the greater the distress an
individual feels, which will motivate the endeavour to make the outcomes and the inputs
equal compared to the reference person.
When inequity exists, a person might…
• reduce his/her inputs, efforts, quantity or quality of his/her work
• try to increase his/her outputs (ask for better mark, or pay raising)
• adjust his/her perception of reference person or his/her outcomes or inputs (re-
evaluate his/her or the reference person's effort or outcome)
• change the reference person
• quit the situation.
The problem with equity theory is that it does not take into account differences in
individual needs, values, and personalities. For example, one person may perceive a
certain situation as inequitable while another does not. Nevertheless ensuring equity is
essential to motivation.
Locke's goal-setting theory
Locke's (1990) goal setting theory is an integrative model of motivation just like the
expectancy theory.
It emphasizes that setting specific, challenging performance goals and the
commitment to these goals are key determinants of motivation. Goals describe a
desired future, and these established goals can drive the behaviour. Achieving the
goals, the goal accomplishment further motivates individuals to perform.
We can distinguish goals according to specificity, difficulty and acceptance. A
specific goal can be measured and lead to higher performance than a very general goal
like “Try to do your best!” A difficult, but realistic goal can be more motivational than
easy or extremely difficult ones. The acceptance of the goal is very important as well,
therefore involvement in the goal setting is recommended.
For example, if I decide to pass a medium level language exam in German in six
months – this goal is specific and difficult enough – because I want to work in Germany
– this goal is very important for me, therefore the goal commitment is high – then I will
be motivated to learn, and to pass the exam.
The following guidelines have been useful in the goal-setting (Figure 7):
• Set challenging but attainable goals. Too easy or too difficult/unrealistic goals don’t
motivate us.
• Set specific and measurable goals. These can focus toward what you want, and
can measure the progress toward the goal.
 • Goal commitment should be obtained. If people don’t commit to the goals, then
they will not put effort toward reaching the goals, even specific, or challenging ones.
Strategies to achieve this could include participation in the goal setting process, use of
extrinsic rewards (bonuses), and encouraging intrinsic motivation through providing
workers with feedback about goal attainment. Pressure to achieve goals is not useful
because it can result in dishonesty and superficial performance.
• Support elements should be provided. For example, encouragement, needed
materials, resources, and moral support.
• Knowledge of results is essential – so goals need to be quantifiable and there
needs to be feedback.
Goal-setting is a useful theory which can be applied in several fields, from sport to a
wide range of work settings. Sports psychology in particular has adopted its
recommendations. The concept of goal-setting has been incorporated into a number of
incentive programmes and management by objectives (MBO) techniques in a number of
work areas. Feedback accompanying goal attainment may also enhance a worker’s job
performance and ability to become more innovative and creative on the job through a
trial-and-error learning process. Since goal-setting is a relatively simple motivational
strategy, it has become increasingly popular.

Figure 7. Process of motivation according to goal-setting theory (Source: Author's

own figure)
The 7 Most Common Leadership Styles (and How to Find Your Own)

Are you using an effective leadership style that works best for you and your
team? Get an overview of seven common leadership styles and explore how to develop
your signature style.

At first glance, we may think that some leadership styles are better than others.
The truth is that each leadership style has its place in a leader's toolkit. The wise leader
knows to flex from one style to another as the situation demands.

Leadership styles are on a continuum, ranging from autocratic at one end, to laissez-
faire at the other, with a variety of styles in between.

The seven primary leadership styles are:

1. Autocratic Style
The phrase most illustrative of an autocratic leadership style is "Do as I say." Generally,
an autocratic leader believes that he or she is the smartest person at the table and
knows more than others. They make all the decisions with little input from team
members.

This command-and-control approach is typical of leadership styles of the past, but it

doesn't hold much water with today's talent.

That's not to say that the style may not be appropriate in certain situations. For
example, you can dip into an autocratic leadership style when crucial decisions need to
be made on the spot, and you have the most knowledge about the situation, or when
you're dealing with inexperienced and new team members and there's no time to wait
for team members to gain familiarity with their role.

2. Authoritative Style
The phrase most indicative of this style of leadership (also known as "visionary") is
"Follow me." The authoritative leadership style is the mark of confident leaders who
map the way and set expectations, while engaging and energizing followers along the
way.

In a climate of uncertainty, these leaders lift the fog for people. They help them see
where the company is going and what's going to happen when they get there.

Unlike autocratic leaders, authoritative leaders take the time to explain their thinking:
They don't just issue orders. Most of all, they allow people choice and latitude on how to
achieve common goals.
3. Pacesetting Style
"Do as I do!" is the phrase most indicative of leaders who utilize the pacesetting style.
This style describes a very driven leader who sets the pace as in racing. Pacesetters
set the bar high and push their team members to run hard and fast to the finish line.

While the pacesetter style of leadership is effective in getting things done and driving for
results, it's a style that can hurt team members. For one thing, even the most driven
employees may become stressed working under this style of leadership in the long run.

An agile leadership style may be the ultimate leadership style required for leading
today's talent.

Should you avoid the pacesetting style altogether? Not so fast. If you're an energetic
entrepreneur working with a like-minded team on developing and announcing a new
product or service, this style may serve you well. However, this is not a style that can be
kept up for the long term. A pacesetting leader needs to let the air out of the tires once
in a while to avoid causing team burnout.

4. Democratic Style
Democratic leaders are more likely to ask "What do you think?" They share information
with employees about anything that affects their work responsibilities. They also
seek employees' opinions before approving a final decision.

There are numerous benefits to this participative leadership style. It can engender trust
and promote team spirit and cooperation from employees. It allows for creativity and
helps employees grow and develop. A democratic leadership style gets people to do
what you want to be done but in a way that they want to do it.

5. Coaching Style
When you having a coaching leadership style, you tend to have a "Consider this"
approach. A leader who coaches views people as a reservoir of talent to be developed.
The leader who uses a coach approach seeks to unlock people's potential.

Leaders who use a coaching style open their hearts and doors for people. They believe
that everyone has power within themselves. A coaching leader gives people a little
direction to help them tap into their ability to achieve all that they're capable of.

6. Affiliative Style
A phrase often used to describe this type of leadership is "People come first." Of all the
leadership styles, the affiliative leadership approach is one where the leader gets up
close and personal with people. A leader practicing this style pays attention to and
supports the emotional needs of team members. The leader strives to open up a
pipeline that connects him or her to the team.
Ultimately, this style is all about encouraging harmony and forming collaborative
relationships within teams. It's particularly useful, for example, in smoothing conflicts
among team members or reassuring people during times of stress.

7. Laissez-Faire Style
The laissez-faire leadership style is at the opposite end of the autocratic style. Of all the
leadership styles, this one involves the least amount of oversight. You could say that the
autocratic style leader stands as firm as a rock on issues, while the laissez-faire leader
lets people swim with the current.

On the surface, a laissez-faire leader may appear to trust people to know what to do,
but taken to the extreme, an uninvolved leader may end up appearing aloof. While it's
beneficial to give people opportunities to spread their wings, with a total lack of
direction, people may unwittingly drift in the wrong direction—away from the critical
goals of the organization.

This style can work if you're leading highly skilled, experienced employees who are self-
starters and motivated. To be most effective with this style, monitor team performance
and provide regular feedback.

Choosing Leadership Styles

Knowing which of the leadership styles works best for you is part of being a good
leader. Developing a signature style with the ability to stretch into other styles as the
situation warrants may help enhance your leadership effectiveness.

1. Know yourself.
Start by raising your awareness of your dominant leadership style. You can do this by
asking trusted colleagues to describe the strengths of your leadership style. You can
also take a leadership style assessment.

2. Understand the different styles.

Get familiar with the repertoire of leadership styles that can work best for a given
situation. What new skills do you need to develop?

3. Practice makes a leader.

Be genuine with any approach you use.Moving from a dominant leadership style to a
different one may be challenging at first. Practice the new behaviors until they become
natural. In other words, don't use a different leadership style as a "point-and-click"
approach. People can smell a fake leadership style a mile away—authenticity rules.
4. Develop your leadership agility.
Traditional leadership styles are still relevant in today's workplace, but they may need to
be combined with new approaches in line with how leadership is defined for the 21st
century.

Today's business environments are fraught with challenges due to the changing
demographics and the employee expectations of a diverse workforce. This may call for
a new breed of leader who is an amalgam of most of the leadership styles discussed
here.

Why are leadership styles important?

As you develop leadership skills, you’ll likely use different processes and methods to
achieve your employer’s objectives and meet the needs of the employees who report to
you. To be effective as a manager, you might use several different leadership styles at
any given time.
By taking the time to familiarize yourself with each of these types of leadership, you
might recognize certain areas to improve upon or expand your own leadership style.
You can also identify other ways to lead that might better serve your current goals and
understand how to work with managers who follow a different style than your own.
Popular leadership styles
Here are 10 common leadership styles:
1. Coach
A coaching leader is someone who can quickly recognize their team members’
strengths, weaknesses and motivations to help each individual improve. This type of
leader often assists team members in setting smart goals and then provides regular
feedback with challenging projects to promote growth. They’re skilled in setting clear
expectations and creating a positive, motivating environment.
The coach leadership style is one of the most advantageous for employers as well as
the employees they manage. Unfortunately, it’s often also one of the most underutilized
styles—largely because it can be more time-intensive than other types of leadership.
Example: A sales manager gathers their team of account executives for a meeting to
discuss learnings from the previous quarter. They start the meeting by completing an
assessment together of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats regarding the
team’s performance. The manager then recognizes specific team members for
exceptional performance and goes over the goals achieved by the team. Finally, the
manager closes the meeting by announcing a contest to start the next quarter,
motivating the salespeople to reach their goals.
2. Visionary
Visionary leaders have a powerful ability to drive progress and usher in periods of
change by inspiring employees and earning trust for new ideas. A visionary leader is
also able to establish a strong organizational bond. They strive to foster confidence
among direct reports and colleagues alike.
This type of leadership is especially helpful for small, fast-growing organizations, or
larger organizations experiencing transformations or corporate restructuring.
Example: A teacher starts a group at work for colleagues who want to help resolve
anxieties and issues students have outside of school. The goal is to help students better
focus on and succeed at school. He has developed testing methods so they can find
meaningful ways to help students in a quick, efficient way.
3. Servant
Servant leaders live by a people-first mindset and believe that when team members feel
personally and professionally fulfilled, they’re more effective and more likely to produce
great work regularly. Because of their emphasis on employee satisfaction and
collaboration, they tend to achieve higher levels of respect.
A servant leader is an excellent leadership style for organizations of any industry and
size but is especially prevalent within nonprofits. These types of leaders are
exceptionally skilled in building employee morale and helping people re-engage with
their work.
Example: A product manager hosts monthly one-on-one coffee meetings with everyone
that has concerns, questions or thoughts about improving or using the product. This
time is meant for her to address the needs of and help those who are using the product
in any capacity.
4. Autocratic
Also called the authoritarian style of leadership, this type of leader is someone who is
focused almost entirely on results and efficiency. They often make decisions alone or
with a small, trusted group and expect employees to do exactly what they’re asked. It
can be helpful to think of these types of leaders as military commanders.
This leadership style can be useful in organizations with strict guidelines or compliance-
heavy industries. It can also be beneficial when used with employees who need a great
deal of supervision—such as those with little to no experience. However, this leadership
style can stifle creativity and make employees feel confined.
Example: Before an operation, the surgeon carefully recounts the rules and processes
of the operation room with every team member who will be helping during the surgery.
She wants to ensure everyone is clear on the expectations and follows each procedure
carefully and exactly so the surgery goes as smoothly as possible.
5. Laissez-faire or hands-off
This leadership style is the opposite of the autocratic leadership type, focusing mostly
on delegating many tasks to team members and providing little to no supervision.
Because a laissez-faire leader does not spend their time intensely managing
employees, they often have more time to dedicate to other projects.
Managers may adopt this leadership style when all team members are highly
experienced, well-trained and require little oversight. However, it can also cause a dip in
productivity if employees are confused about their leader’s expectations, or if some
team members need consistent motivation and boundaries to work well.
Example: When welcoming new employees, Keisha explains that her engineers can set
and maintain their own work schedules as long as they are tracking towards and hitting
goals that they set together as a team. They are also free to learn about and participate
in projects outside of their team they might be interested in.
6. Democratic
The democratic leadership style (also called the participative style) is a combination of
the autocratic and laissez-faire types of leaders. A democratic leader is someone who
asks for input and considers feedback from their team before making a decision.
Because team members feel their voice is heard and their contributions matter, a
democratic leadership style is often credited with fostering higher levels of employee
engagement and workplace satisfaction.
Because this type of leadership drives discussion and participation, it’s an excellent
style for organizations focused on creativity and innovation—such as the technology
industry.
Example: As a store manager, Jack has hired many brilliant and focused team
members he trusts. When deciding on storefronts and floor design, Jack acts only as
the final moderator for his team to move forward with their ideas. He is there to answer
questions and present possible improvements for his team to consider.
7. Pacesetter
The pacesetting leadership style is one of the most effective for driving fast results.
These leaders are primarily focused on performance. They often set high standards and
hold their team members accountable for hitting their goals.
While the pacesetting leadership style is motivational and helpful in fast-paced
environments where team members need to be energized, it’s not always the best
option for team members who need mentorship and feedback.
Example: The leader of a weekly meeting recognized that an hour out of everyone’s
schedule once a week did not justify the purpose of the meeting. To increase efficiency,
she changed the meeting to a 15-minute standup with only those she had updates for.
8. Transformational
The transformational leadership style is similar to the coach style in that it focuses on
clear communication, goal-setting and employee motivation. However, instead of
placing the majority of the energy into each employee’s individual goals, the
transformational leader is driven by a commitment to organizational objectives.
Because these types of leaders spend much of their time on the big picture, this style of
leading is best for teams that can handle many delegated tasks without constant
supervision.
Example: Reyna is hired to lead a marketing department. The CEO asks her to set new
goals and organize teams to reach those objectives. She spends the first months in her
new role getting to know the company and the marketing employees. She gains a
strong understanding of current trends and organizational strengths. After three months,
she has set clear targets for each of the teams that report to her and asked individuals
to set goals for themselves that align with those.
9. Transactional
A transactional leader is someone who is laser-focused on performance, similar to a
pacesetter. Under this leadership style, the manager establishes predetermined
incentives—usually in the form of monetary reward for success and disciplinary action
for failure. Unlike the pacesetter leadership style, though, transactional leaders are also
focused on mentorship, instruction and training to achieve goals and enjoy the rewards.
While this type of leader is great for organizations or teams tasked with hitting specific
goals, such as sales and revenue, it’s not the best leadership style for driving creativity.
Example: A bank branch manager meets with each member of the team bi-weekly to
discuss ways they can meet and exceed monthly company goals to get their bonus.
Each of the top 10 performers in the district receives a monetary reward.

10. Bureaucratic
Bureaucratic leaders are similar to autocratic leaders in that they expect their team
members to follow the rules and procedures precisely as written.
The bureaucratic leadership style focuses on fixed duties within a hierarchy where each
employee has a set list of responsibilities, and there is little need for collaboration and
creativity. This leadership style is most effective in highly regulated industries or
departments, such as finance, healthcare or government.
Example: Managers at a Department of Motor Vehicles office instruct their employees
to work within a specific, defined framework. They must take many steps to complete a
task with strict order and rules.
Remember, most leaders borrow from a variety of styles to achieve various goals at
different times in their careers. While you may have excelled in a role using one type of
leadership, another position may require a different set of habits to ensure your team is
operating most effectively.
By understanding each of these leadership types, and the outcomes they’re designed to
achieve, you can select the right leadership style for your current situation.