Abstract
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are simple concepts that our students seem to quickly understand, yet few of our students grasp the complexity of sustaining intrinsic motivation. This exercise aims to help students better understand that complexity. Students are given a two-part scenario. In Part 1, the individual motives to innovate are intrinsic (e.g., to have societal impact); in Part 2, the individual is faced with realities that constrain the impact of the innovation (e.g., policies to protect idea ownership and profit). The scenario is purposefully based on an important topic unfamiliar to students (childhood cancer research), which provides an opportunity for inductive learning, and keeps student perceptions between Part 1 and Part 2 separate. The exercise allows for discussion of motivation theory, incentives, ethical decision making, and transformational leadership. In advanced entrepreneurship classes the exercise may help students understand intrapreneurship and technology commercialization. The exercise pairs well with Kerr’s classic article, “The folly of rewarding A . . . ,” on the juxtaposition between goals and incentives. Suggestions for an article and video on childhood cancer research are also provided for the instructor to use to increase perceptions of validity of the scenario. Target audiences for this exercise include undergraduate, graduate, and executive groups.
Keywords
There are organizational problems that require such creativity, expertise, and commitment that they cannot be solved by people motivated merely by extrinsic reward. Conventional incentives may even reward behaviors that are counterproductive in solving the problems (Kerr, 1995). As the nature of work becomes increasingly creative and complex, it is important that students recognize and support, not to mention become intrinsically motivated workers (Amabile, 1996).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivated behavior is a key component of motivation theory (Amabile, 1996; Katz, 1964; Pinder, 1998). Intrinsically motivated behavior is behavior performed regardless of extrinsic reward. Extrinsically motivated behavior is behavior performed in order to gain some social or material reward (Amabile, 1996; Pinder, 1998). For example, self-determination theory (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017) assumes that all employees have needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In self-determination theory, autonomous motivation arises either from intrinsic motivation or from fully internalized external motivation, whereas controlled motivation arises from externally or internally controlled extrinsic motivation. The former is liberating; the latter is constraining. In Kerr’s (1995) classic article, “On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B,” numerous examples are given in which organizations hope for one behavior, yet the organizational rewards encourage a different behavior, resulting in undesirable outcomes. Although these concepts appear simple, we find ourselves challenged to depict the passion that underlies intrinsically motivated work or the tension that arises when intrinsically motivated work does not correspond with what is extrinsically rewarded.
We created this exercise to help students better understand intrinsically motivated work and the limits imposed on intrinsic motivation by organizational constraints. The exercise consists of a two-part scenario describing the role of a physician in a research organization, but the scenario can be generalized to any creative activity that requires significant drive and dedication. The scenario is purposefully based on an important topic typically unfamiliar to students so that the exercise becomes an opportunity for inductive learning (Prince & Felder, 2006). Consequently, students seldom bring prior knowledge to inform the discussion, allowing for better separation between Part 1 and Part 2 of the scenario. The exercise as a whole can be used as a foundation for other management and organizational behavior topics including motivation theory, ethical decision making, transformational leadership, and intrapreneurship. Supplements are provided to add validity to the scenario.
Learning Objectives
Explain differences between intrinsically and extrinsically motivated behavior
Recognize that individual goals can conflict with organizational goals
Describe the complexity of providing incentives associated with intrinsically motivated work
Materials
Copies of the scenarios for class participants. Note that participants need to read Part 1 (Appendix A) separate from Part 2 (Appendix B). Appendixes A and B are also provided online as Supplemental Material.
Whiteboard and marker, or presentation equipment if a structured debrief is preferred.
(Optional) Internet access and video equipment.
Time Allocated
Can be delivered as a 30-minute segment or expanded to fit a longer class period.
Preparation
Determine number of participants. Prepare materials.
Consider outcomes relevant to the class, then structure the introduction and debrief accordingly. In an introduction to management class, the discussion and debrief may be tailored to discuss basic incentives. In an advanced course, the discussion may be tailored to recommendations that encourage commercialization.
Given the outcomes and the information available to students, consider assigning an article on motivation theory. Also consider including information in the exercise debrief to reinforce the importance of the issue. See Appendix C for suggestions.
Instructions
Students first receive Part 1 of the scenario (Appendix A), which primes them to recognize the intrinsic reward associated with a research program on the brink of tremendous societal impact. After discussion of intrinsic motivation, students then receive Part 2 of the scenario (Appendix B), which reveals the complexities of taking the idea to market, given limitations imposed by the organization to protect profit.
Step 1: Distribute Part 1 (6-7 Minutes)
Encourage students to get into the “role” described in the scenario. Urge them to consider not only the potential outcomes of the scenario but also the feelings and motives of those involved. Emphasize that students are to read the scenario independently and then consider the question posed at the end.
Step 2: Discussion of Part 1 (5-15 Minutes)
Break the class into small groups. Prompt students to discuss the questions posed at the end of the scenario. After a few minutes, transition to class discussion. Be sure to record ideas on a whiteboard as these ideas will be labeled later in the exercise. After reading Part 1, most students support commercializing the idea and provide reasons for commercializing that are mostly intrinsic.
Ideas that often surface in class discussion include the following:
Personal fulfillment associated with research that is personal in nature or associated with creating a treatment for a common disease.
Potential for the researcher to earn money and prestige by commercializing.
Potential for the university to earn money and prestige by commercializing.
If personal fulfillment is not mentioned by the students, prompt them by asking, “Why did you go into a career researching childhood cancer?” “How would you feel about producing work that has impact on a disease that affects so many families?”
Step 3: Distribute Part 2 (5 Minutes)
Again tell students to read through the scenario on their own and begin considering the questions posed at the end. Encourage them to note other information that they would like to have before making a decision.
Step 4: Discussion of Challenges With Commercialization (5-10 Minutes)
Ask students to discuss the scenario in small groups; then transition to class discussion. After reading Part 2, most students recognize that commercializing the research might not be extrinsically rewarded and thus see commercialization as less attractive. Record the problems highlighted with commercialization on a whiteboard.
The following problems are often surfaced by students:
Time taken to file a patent causes a delay in the research of the idea.
Time is lost from the doctor’s treatment of patients or interaction with students.
Researcher may fail to meet other goals in order to pursue the research.
Risk of violating university commercialization rules.
Recognition of potential loss for society if the patent is sold and “shut-down” so that a larger company can profit from a competitive treatment.
Students may also state other information that they would like to have before making a decision (e.g., How robust was the research from the lab? How many years will it take before patients can actually receive the treatment?). Note that these are important questions but also note that they rarely have concrete answers.
In our experience, many of our students have little awareness that many important and gut-wrenching problems (e.g., childhood cancer, fuel-efficient energy) are underfunded for research. As a result, they protest and ask whether the scenario is valid. To help students better understand and feel inspired by the scenario, share an article or video highlighting the deficiency of treatments for childhood cancers in comparison to the surge of treatments for adults. Suggestions are provided in Appendix C.
Step 5: Further Discussion of Intrinsic Motivation and Other Topics (5-25 Minutes)
Lead a discussion of the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1996; Kerr, 1995). Previously in Step 2, students stated reasons to commercialize. Ask students to identify which of the reasons to commercialize are intrinsic, which are extrinsic, and which might be a mixture of the two. Note student responses on the board. In Step 4, students stated challenges with pursuing commercialization. Ask students to also identify which of the challenges are most related to intrinsic reward and which are most related to extrinsic reward.
Note that in the example, the organization’s rules, metrics for rewards, and environmental circumstances constrained the researcher’s likelihood of taking a research idea to market in order to help the intended population. This is unfortunately not unusual in organizations. Understanding this juxtaposition helps students better navigate as workers and leaders in environments where there is tension between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Basic Motivation and Incentive Theories
The exercise illustrates common motivation theories. Using Herzberg’s (1966) motivator-hygiene theories, ask students to highlight portions of the case that are relevant to hygiene factors (e.g., receiving a portion of the profits if the university commercializes; basic communications about decisions involving the patents; salary for clinical and teaching work) and portions of the case that are relevant to motivator factors (e.g., opportunity to have impact on students and patients; opportunity to pursue meaningful work).
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model and theories of job enrichment can also be incorporated into the discussion. Highlight the job characteristics model using factors from the case: skill variety (e.g., clinical, research, teaching), task identity (e.g., bringing treatment to market), task significance (e.g., helping save the lives of children), autonomy (e.g., choosing to spend extra time with families and doctoral students rather than spending all spare time working on commercialization), and feedback (e.g., seeing progress of work). Highlight the fluctuating nature of work motivation by asking whether the researcher currently can choose the decisions to make about commercializing the research (i.e., high autonomy) contrasted by whether she can make decisions about commercializing the research if she pursues patent via the university’s resources (i.e., low autonomy).
Both these theories highlight that extrinsic rewards (Herzberg’s “hygiene” factor; Hackman and Oldham’s “context” factor) are important for an individual to feel intrinsically motivated at work, yet satisfaction and engagement come from the work itself rather than its reward. Ask the students questions to highlight the subtle distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic reward (e.g., “Given that you identified that the research is primarily driven by intrinsic motivation, should the university remove the profit-sharing agreement in its commercialization policies?”).
The exercise can segue to discussion of other motivation theories, including Maslow’s (1962) higher order needs; Alderfer’s (1972) need for growth; Vroom’s (1964) components of expectancy theory; or self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2014).
Ethical Decision Making
In our experience, students recognize that the outcomes of the decision affect multiple stakeholders differently, and thus, they are dealing with an ethical dilemma. Be prepared to apply the ethical decision-making principles presented in your textbook; in absence of available principles, apply Kidder’s (1995) ends-based thinking (e.g., do what is right for the most number of people), rule-based thinking (e.g., consider whether the same decision could be applied as a rule in every scenario), and care-based thinking (e.g., respond in a way that corresponds with how you would like to be treated). Applying each principle results in a different outcome; this variety leads to a rich discussion of the challenges with pursuit of intrinsic motivations at work.
Commercialization and Tech Transfer of University Research
In advanced entrepreneurship courses, the exercise leads to a broader discussion about the Bayh-Dole Act (Public Law 96-517), the evolution of commercialization in universities (Grimaldi, Kenney, Siegel, & Wright, 2011), the role of technology transfer offices (Council on Government Relations, 2015), and discussion of the impact of these changes on commercialization within institutions (Thursby & Thursby, 2011). The exercise can also be discussed from the standpoint of Lam’s (2011) analysis of whether academic scientists are pursuing “gold” (financial rewards), a “ribbon” (reputation or career rewards), or “puzzle” (the intrinsic satisfaction arising from finding an answer). A side-effect of this discussion is that it raises student awareness of the importance of supporting basic research (O’Neil, 2015).
Summary
In summary, this exercise helps students understand the underlying motives that drive intrinsic motivation and the contrast between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The exercise can also be used as an introduction to other motivation theories. The fact that two of the suggested readings are from U.S. scholars (Amabile, 1996; Kerr, 1995) whereas the other is from a Norwegian/Swiss team (Kuvaas, Buch, Weibel, Dysvik, & Nerstad, 2017) also makes the point that interest in intrinsic/extrinsic motivation crosses international borders. The exercise can be used to help students understand rules of ethical decision making, and in advanced entrepreneurship classes it can be used to introduce concepts related to commercialization in universities and other large institutions. The exercise might also be brought into future discussions of the role of transformational leadership in reinforcing intrinsic motivation.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
