Back • Return Home
MOTIVATIONAL INTERACTION BETWEEN LIVING SYSTEMS
Lane Tracy
Department of Management Systems
Copeland Hall
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Keywords: motivation, living systems, interaction, stimuli, needs, valence, expectancy, instrumentality, force, goals, action plans, behavior, outcomes, feedback.
ABSTRACT
Motivation is often treated as a characteristic of animal organisms, but Tracy [13] has shown that the concept applies to other levels of living systems as well. Indeed, any two living systems, such as a psychologist and a pigeon or a business firm and an employee, may be seen as interacting in order to motivate each other. Thus motivational influence, far from being unidirectional as it is often pictured, is usually reciprocal both simultaneously and serially. Furthermore, such interaction subjects motivation to a variety of influences that cause it to shift in intensity and direction.
In this paper Tracy's [13] dynamic living-systems model of motivation is extended to show the motivational interaction of two interdependent systems. Each system may affect the motivation of the other at several points: stimulating needs, influencing the valences of anticipated outcomes, moderating expectancies and instrumentalities of acts, establishing goals, suggesting action plans, and interpreting outcomes. In many cases the actual behavior of the two systems merges to become joint behavior, but with different outcomes for each system.
By realizing the interactional nature of motivation, managers and others who are concerned with motivating behavior may be able to do a better job of it. Motivational research should gain from measuring the effects of interaction on all parties, not just the "subject."
Motivation is usually treated as an attribute of animal organisms. The behavior of such organisms is considered to be motivated; that is, it is aroused, directed, and sustained by a process which connects information inputs (stimuli) to behavior. Behavior may consist of overt action or it may involve internal processes such as learning or recalling from memory. Stimuli may be internal, external, or a combination of the two. For instance, an animal may be motivated to eat by internal hunger signals, by the scent of food, or both.
Motivation is often discussed from the standpoint of "How can individual X motivate individual Y" to perform some act. In other words, what stimuli can X provide that will motivate Y in a direction desired by X? Sometimes it is a group or organization that provides the stimulus for individual behavior, through such processes as reward, punishment, and goal setting. But little consideration is given to the reciprocal effect of Y on X, nor is there any acknowledgment that the behavior of groups and organizations is motivated and subject to influence by individual members.
The common conceptualization of motivation is unduly limited. What is lacking is a realization, first, that the concept may be applied to all living systems [9]. Living systems in general are capable of receiving stimuli and acting upon them. When the management of a business organization, for example, perceives that the firm is losing part of its share of the market, the entire organization may be mobilized to correct the situation. A complaint of sexual harassment from a single employee may spur changes in procedure throughout the organization. These are examples of motivated behavior of an organization.
Second, there is a failure to realize that interacting systems almost inevitably motivate each other, both simultaneously and serially. Motivation is not a one-way street. If a supervisor praises a subordinate's work in order to motivate continued good performance, we may also say that the supervisor's praise has been motivated by the employee's actual and expected behavior. If a business firm provides financial rewards for cost-saving ideas from employees, we may say that the rewards stimulate ideas from employees and their ideas motivate the employer to offer rewards. No current theory of motivation adequately models this interaction. Miller [9], for instance, treats motivation strictly as a within-system process.
The purpose of this paper is to present a model representing how living systems motivate each other. Current models of motivation will first be noted briefly. One model will then be extended to show interaction between systems. Conclusions will be drawn concerning practical implications and areas for research.
Single-System Models of Motivation
Models purporting to show how stimuli are linked to behavior have been in existence for nearly a century. Some models posit direct activation of a pattern of learned or instinctual behavior (a drive), with the stimulus acting simply as a trigger mechanism [5, 10, 11, 12]. Other models assume the existence of cognitive processes, such as perception of the stimulus, recognition of a need, and deliberate choice of goals and behavior [1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14]. It is likely that each of these models is correct in at least some situations. However, only Tracy's [13] cognitive model, shown in Figure 1, is designed to apply to all levels of living systems.
Figure 1. Model of single-system motivation [13].
Briefly, the model indicates that external stimuli, as well as feedback from outcomes of prior behavior, alter or activate needs. Needs, as well as external inputs, determine the valences (i.e. attractiveness or worth, as well as cost) of prospective outcomes from various behavioral options. (Each behavioral option consists of a set of goals and action plans.) At the same time each of these prospective outcomes is associated with an expectancy that it will occur and, perhaps, an instrumentality toward additional valued outcomes. These expectancy and instrumentality estimates are influenced by external inputs and by feedback from prior outcomes. Valences of specific outcomes are discounted according to their degree of expectancy and instrumentality. A net discounted valence (force) is calculated or estimated for each behavioral option, and the behavior which has the greatest force is chosen. Implementation of the behavioral choice leads to outcomes that provide feedback, not only to needs and associations but also to the formulation of goals and action plans. Goals, action plans, and outcomes are also subject to external input.
An example may help to show how the model works. Suppose that feedback from the outcomes of X's current behavior has temporarily reduced the needs toward which it is directed. At the same time, Y is suggesting another activity, such as a game of tennis. The suggestion causes X to reassess the valences of outcomes associated with this new activity, in order to see whether it now has greater force than the old behavior. Y may try to influence X's choice by pointing out that the weather is beautiful or that X won last time. X may consider other options (e.g. going to the cinema) at the same time, and may also consider various sets of goals and plans for the new activity (e.g. playing for fun or to win, playing one or two sets). If X chooses to play one set of tennis and proposes a friendly game, Y may still suggest that they play two sets and may propose a wager on the side. After playing a few games X may decide to modify his goal and play to win. Supposing that X loses the first set, he may decide that he wants to play another set after all. Y may attempt to modify X's assessment of the outcome by saying that X played a great game.
Thus far we have looked at the motivation of X under the influence of Y. The same scenario may be used to show that Y is also being motivated by X. Let us assume that Y's initial motivation is that she is attracted to X and wants to engage him in mutual activity. This motivates her to suggest a tennis match. When she perceives that X is not immediately enthusiastic, she is motivated to point out that the weather is just right for it. When X proposes that they play one set, Y may be motivated to suggest two sets so that they can be together longer. When X starts to play hard, apparently trying to win, Y may be motivated to let him win in the hope that he will then offer to play a second set.
Motivational Interaction between Systems
Note that motivational interaction between systems may occur at each of the points that are open to external input. When the two systems are acting in parallel but independently, the single-system model is sufficient, provided that it is applied to both systems. But in a tennis game, as in many other interactions between systems, the behavior is interdependent. How hard X must play in order to win depends on how hard and well Y plays. At the, point of actual behavior, therefore, the two systems merge into a dyad. The outcomes for each system individually are dependent on the behaviors of both systems together. This situation may be modeled as in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Model of motivational interaction between systems.
In Figure 2 the motivational models of each system have been broken out and placed in parallel, with points of influence indicated and behavior merged. This model also represents the motivational interaction between systems at different levels, such as an organization and one of its members. In a business firm the outcomes of an employee's work are dependent on the Joint behavior of the employee and the firm. Productivity will suffer and the employee will be poorly paid if the employee fails to exert effort and skill or the firm fails to provide proper instructions, the right tools, and good materials.
The model of motivational interaction contains several practical implications. First, unlike traditional models it emphasizes that motivation is a two-way street. For instance, just as an organization may seek to motivate individual and group performance, the members individually and collectively may seek to motivate the organization to provide better pay and working conditions. Managers who fail to take this into account are likely to fail in their motivational attempts.
Second, the model makes clear that the performance of two interdependent systems depends on the motivation and behavior of both systems. A tennis player cannot improve her game by practicing against inferior players. A worker who tries to do quality work in a firm that demands only quantity and provides inferior tools is no more likely to succeed than a firm that expects high quality from ill-trained and disinterested employees. Managers, in trying to motivate a greater input of effort from employees, often overlook the fact that poor supervision or poorly maintained machinery is wasting much of the existing effort. Recent innovations in management such as Quality Circles and Quality of Work Life experiments are based on tapping the expertise of employees to reduce such waste.
The force of motivation toward any set of behaviors is based on the system's calculations of discounted valences of prospective outcomes. Another system can influence these calculations at several points. For example, an organization may increase the motivation of members toward organizational goals through coaching and clarification of instructions so that the goals may be attained with less effort (i.e. greater net valence). The instrumentality of task performance may be strengthened by a firm promise of reward for performance and consistent fulfillment of that promise. Clarifying goals and obtaining commitment to them is another way of increasing motivation.
Many of these same insights are provided by the path-goal theory of leadership [3, 4]. But path-goal theory fails to distinguish clearly between organizational goals and individual goals. The path is seen as organizationally determined. The leader's role is to smooth and clarify the path, provide rewards for good performance, and emphasize the value of those rewards. In contrast, the model of motivational interaction suggests that defining and clarifying the path, smoothing it, and determining appropriate and equitable rewards is a mutual process between employees and organizational leaders. To the extent that leaders try to make this a one-way process, they are likely to shut off valuable inputs and adversely affect employee motivation.
For research on motivation the import of the model is to focus attention on the need for recording interactions and measuring change in both systems during any attempt to influence motivation. For example, in stimulus-response experiments what is the effect on the experimenter of the subject's performance from trial to trial? In a goal-setting experiment how does the experimenter respond to various goal levels set by different individuals or to individual reactions to goals set by the experimenter? Such interactions may have a lot to do with the outcomes of research on motivation.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, J.S. (1963) Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.
2. Alderfer, C.P. (1972) Existence, Relatedness, and Growth. New York: Free Press.
3. Evans, M.G. (1970) The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 277-298.
4. House, R.J. (1971) A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
5. Hull, C.L. (1943) Principles of Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6. Locke, E.A. (1968) Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189.
7. Maslow, A.H. (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 379-396.
8. McClelland, D.C. (1961) The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
9. Miller, J.G. (1978) Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
10. Murray, H.A. (1938) Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford.
11. Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
12. Thorndike, E.L. (1911) Animal Intelligence. New York: Macmillan.
13. Tracy, L. (1984) A dynamic living-systems model of work motivation. Systems Research, 1; 191-203.
14. Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
