Threats and Rewards as Motivation

Motivation can be classed into two aspects, Intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is seen as the internal cause which leads people to undertake a certain task because of their interest in it and the satisfaction and pleasure they receive from doing the job, while extrinsic motivation is generated thorough external inputs, such as incentives, punishment or threats, which makes anyone do a task asked of them.
J. Strickler (2006) implies that the sensible knowledge and understanding of human motivation is said to be rooted in 20th century behaviorism, which is an idea made popular by Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner in the 1930s, who theorized that human behavior is motivated by some form or another by way of external stimuli ( i.e. rewards, incentives, threats or punishments), this theory helps us see how Incentives and threats can be seen as stirring techniques and tools in motivating and moving people towards a specific goal which can possibly be measured, but finding the needs of individuals and what motivates individuals to behave in the ways required to produce the desired outcome is not a clear straightforward path which has been fully understood, this is supported by F. Wilson (2010) stating that motivation is not simply about identifying a set of requirements associated to an individual or presuming that there is a straightforward correlation between the requirements of the individual and the efficiency of output, unlike Maslow hierarchy theory which tends to suggest people satisfy one need or desire at a time, so if that need is met at that time motivation can be accomplished.

The use of threats and incentive in specific industries and organizations vary depending on the type of organization, the work force and the kind of people in the organization which reflects on the entire culture of the organization and the goals of the organization. In the case of incentives as motivator, the use of measurable performance based incentive systems have been core elements of private and public sector operation (C. Heinrich et al; 2009), predominantly performance related pay systems (PRP) as monetary incentives in motivation. The basic theoretical foundation for PRP’s, as motivators in motivation theory can be identified in the theories of Maslow (1943; 1954) and Herzberg (1968), Where they draw on pay as a necessary human requirement for work and the satisfaction of this need in turn leads to some form of motivation at work (S. Pilbeam; 2006), PRP is also a direct link that can be seen between the employer and employee in an employment contract, where an assessment of performance is made based on some perceived contribution or value from the employee to the organization within a specific time frame or period (S. Pilbeam; 2006), for example M. McGee et al (2006) performance improvement experimentation shows how incentives like monetary incentives can affect individuals and groups of individuals differently, testing and showing scenario’s where it did seem to increase peoples’ productivity, especially when based on individual efforts solely and when it also had an adverse effect when it came to group performance, also O. Bandiera (2010) work analysis of incentives in the work place shows that although social incentives reduced individual productivity of some employees, it had on overall positive effect which benefited the organization .
O. Richard et al (2009) defines psychological contract as a set of mutual reciprocating promise or commitment linking the individual and organization, based on the individual’s opinion and perception. So In the case of motivation of employees, if a sound psychological contract is present and some form of reward is anticipated by the employee, for example monetary or punishment reward is implied by the employer in regard to the quantity or quality of work done, then it is easy to see how incentives especially can motivate employee, but to what motivating capacity is another factor which varies in result based on individual circumstances, S. Pilbeam (2006) shows how this assumption can be made based on the early expectancy and equity theories work done by researchers,” equity theory ( Adams, 1965 ) and expectancy theories ( Vroom, 1964; Porter and Lawler, 1968)” , even though these theories had limitation , for example, competitiveness in the organization may arise, which is not generally welcomed or suitable for all organization, leading to adverse effects or employees comparing incentives and rewards and judging them unfair, which may lead to them reducing their work effort.
In the case of threats as motivators, threats of punishment might petrify employees and staff into completing the task at hand as quick as possible but unknowingly to a low standard of quality as they usually would have produced, E. Deci’s earlier research highlights how threats of punishment and sometimes offers of rewards distract employees and hinders their abilities to deliver tasks to a high quality (J. Strickler; 2006). Threats can be used to motivators even though they might also result in producing some distraction or stress factor in the work environment, for example, this may result in less productivity or reduced production quality, this form of motivator may also induce some form of passive response or resistance to the work at hand, which in return results in extending and dragging on of tasks longer than usual as some subconscious or conscious rebellion, this is highlighted by T. Holmås (2010) et al shows how threats of punishments might have an adverse effect on their recipients.
Theories like McGregor’s X and Y theories, believe humans’ need to be lead and directed because the dislike and avoid work, so threats must be used to direct the individuals to get the work done, (McGregor; 1957; 1960), this helps us see that threats and incentives come in different forms which may be intertwined at the same time, like incentives which actual come which threats as well, T. Dohmen (2005) shows how a task which comes with considerable incentives actually results in a threat to the employee or person, which when examined impacts severely on the employees, increasing psychological pressure which in turn builds stress resulting in the opposite of the required result.
In conclusion, I believe that incentives and threats as extrinsic motivators do work in motivating employees but only in a short run of term. It doesn’t seem to be a suitable form of long term motivation, which is what most people and organization need. Extrinsic incentives like these results in employees doing their tasks for as long as there is an incentive or threat looming ahead, which suggests they are partly motivated but not fully intrinsically motivated, focusing their attention on the reward or threat and not work. For those people who are actually motivated through extrinsic incentives, a regular increase in the incentive used may be the only way to keep their motivation, so finding a way to fully motivate people to want do things for their own personal gain and development intrinsically is the main goal, which in turn benefits the organization.

Strickler, J. (2006) ‘What Really Motivates People?’ Journal for Quality & Participation; Vol. 29 Issue 1, p26-28

Bandiera, O., Barankay, I. and Rasul, I. (2010) ‘Social Incentives in the Workplace’ Review of Economic Studies; Vol. 77 Issue 2, p417-458

Pilbeam, S. and Corbridge, M. (2006) People resourcing: HRM in practice, 3rd ed. Harlow: England; New York : Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Myilibrary [online] Available at: http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=60215&loc=&srch=undefined&src=0 (Accessed 24 October 2010)

McGee, H., Dickinson, A., Huitema B. and Culig K. (2006) ‘The Effects of Individual and Group Monetary Incentives on High Performance’ Performance Improvement Quarterly; Vol. 19 Issue 4, pages 107–130. Wiley [online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2006.tb00387.x/abstract (Accessed 22 October 2010)

Wilson, F. (2010) Organizational behavior and work, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford press

Heinrich, C. and Marschke, G. (2010) ‘Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management; Vol. 29 Issue 1, pages 183–208. Wiley [online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20484/abstract (Accessed 24 October 2010)

Holmås, T., Kjerstad, E., Lurås, H and Straume, O. (2010) ‘Does monetary punishment crowd out pro-social motivation? A natural experiment on hospital length of stay’ Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization; Vol. 75 Issue 2, pages 261–267. Business source complete [online] Available at :(Accessed 24 October 2010)

Dohmen, T. (2005) ‘Do professionals choke under pressure?’ Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization; Vol. 65 Issue 3/4, pages 636-653. Business source complete [online] Available at :( Accessed 24 October 2010)

Richard, O., McMillan-Capehart, A., Bhuian, S., and Taylor, E. (2009) ‘Antecedents and consequences of psychological contracts: Does organizational culture really matter?’ Journal of Business Research; Vol. 62 Issue 8, pages 818-825. Business source complete [online] Available at :( Accessed 24 October 2010)