Introduction
Measuring motivation
in a learning
organization
Maria C. Osteraker
The author
Maria C. Osteraker is a Researcher at the Swedish School
of Economics and Business Administration, Finland.
Keywords
Learning organizations, Motivation, Values
Abstract
Motivation constitutes a central element when going
through the process of human learning. If the organization
does not possess the ability to motivate its employees, the
knowledge within the organization is not practically used
to a maximum. Therefore, it becomes the aim of every
successful learning organization to find the factors that
enable it to motivate its employees to continuous learning
and to take advantage of this knowledge to ensure its
living. Many motivational theories have been constructed
to find these motivational factors, but the values of the
employees in the specific organization are seldom includ-
ed in the theories. Since a suitable combination of motiva-
tional factors only can be created through an understand-
ing of the values in the measured object (i.e. employees),
this can be seen as a risk for validity problems in the
measuring instrument. A closer survey of the measured
object, where such factors as society, organizational
culture and personality of the employee are taken into
account, is required. To respond to this requirement a
dynamic model for the application of existing motivational
theories based on needs is created in this article. In the
model the shortcomings, which result from an often non-
existing dialogue between the examiner and the exam-
ined, are removed.
Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · pp. 73–77
© MCB University Press · ISSN 1366-5626
73
Theories of motivation based on needs, which
exist to be used as guidance for management
in order to determine motivational factors
that contribute to a manner desirable to man-
agers, have been criticized (e.g. Maccoby,
1988; Yankelowich and Immerwahr, 1986;
Carr and Pihlanto, 1996). This is because of
their insufficient ability to take into considera-
tion the uniqueness of the employees and the
specific surroundings in which the organiza-
tion operates.
Comparing these theories one also finds
that they highly correspond with each other
regardless of year of appearance. Since
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the theories may
have been more detailed and put into concrete
form but generally the motivational factors
are the same, let it be in another classification
or under another term. Could the conclusion
therefore be drawn that the theories of moti-
vation have not changed at the same pace as
our society has? Are the theories too static to
explain effectively what motivates employees
of today?
However, the theories and derivations of
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs cannot probably
be rejected by such an assumption. This is
because a comparison between the theories
and today’s working values shows that it is
their method of application that is out of date,
not the theories themselves. If this is true the
search for new theories of motivation is not
justified since a new general theory never
overcomes the shortcomings for which the
existing theories have been criticized. The
dimensions of motivation can be regarded as
already ascertained and a focus on the
method of application is instead required. We
have to move on, not through creating new
theories but through adjusting the ones we
have to our dynamic surroundings.
Building reasoning around the concept
of motivation
When surveying motivation in specific organi-
zations one ought to question the way to
directly apply existing motivational theories.
This is not because of a failing correspon-
dence between the generation of new theories
and the changing circumstances which face
the organizations of today, but because of not
taking into consideration the value of includ-
ing the employees in the motivational process;
 Measuring motivation in a learning organization
Maria C. Osteraker
in other words, because of the failing imple-
mentation of existing motivational theories.
The theories should be included in the sub-
conscious of the examiner as a philosophical
thought and it should be considered that the
value related to different factors must be
understood from the context in which the
measured object exists (Ting, 1997).
The motivational factors that constitute
the conrnerstone of motivational theories
based on needs can be divided into a social, a
mental or a physical dimension. This group-
ing is based on whether the factors, which
influence the motivation of employee, can be
derived from social contacts at work, charac-
teristics of the work task or the physical and
material circumstances associated with the
work. The social dimension covers all con-
tacts the employee has with other people, both
inside the organization and in the environ-
ment of the organization – for example, cus-
tomers, suppliers, colleagues and managers.
Factors related to this dimension are commu-
nication, feedback, feelings of solidarity,
acceptance, leisure time, status, leadership,
power and the need to help others. The char-
acteristics of work itself constitute the motiva-
tional factors from the mental dimension.
The work should be seen to be meaningful
and part of a larger whole. Flexible tasks
where employees can use their knowledge and
see a result of their efforts are motivational,
together with such factors as demanding
work, advancements, autonomy, change and
security at work. Physical working conditions
and pay, together with other material com-
pensations, represent the physical dimension.
However, several studies (for example,
Hofstede 1991; Siu et al., 1997; Kiely 1986)
show that our needs constantly change within
the individual employee and between people,
departments, organizations, cultures etc.
Although Kiely talks about job satisfaction,
the dynamics ought to be combined also with
motivation. To motivate its employees effec-
tively the organization therefore needs infor-
mation about dynamics, which characterize
the motivation to work (Kiely 1986). The
dynamics result in the fact that employees,
depending on the situation in which they
exist, continually give different importance to
the motivational factors offered by the organi-
zation. Rauhala (1972; 1986) explains this
with the term “situationality” used in his
concept or the holistic individual.
Situationality emphasizes that an individual
74
Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77
exists not only “as such” or in some kind of
vacuum, but always in relation to reality with
its multitude of aspects.
These dynamics must be included in the
motivational process, and since our values
determine our needs and our needs determine
our acts (Christopher, 1980, p. 2), a dynamic
way of measuring motivation in a learning
organization should be to start with the values
of the employees. Values and attitudes are
based on information, which is provided both
through the experience of the individual and
through information provided by other indi-
viduals in their surroundings. When we
receive information, which is contradictory to
our earlier understanding of the world in
which we are a part, our values and attitudes
change.
Seen from an organizational point of view,
working life values and attitudes change on
three levels:
(1) They change on an individual level as the
employee receives further information
which concerns the situation.
(2) A change on the organizational level can
be seen through, for instance, new work-
ing conditions and restructuring in the
organization.
(3) For example new legislation can affect
what is seen as valued or not.
An examination of the values and attitudes, as
well as a general understanding of the needs
that influence motivation, help us to under-
stand the factors which motivate the employ-
ees of a specific organization. To clarify the
relation between needs and values, a dynamic
model for application of static motivational
theories based on need has been constructed
in this article (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 The dynamic triangle of motivation
SOCIAL
DIMENSION
IDENTITY
PHYSICAL MENTAL
DIMENSION DIMENSION
 Measuring motivation in a learning organization
Maria C. Osteraker
The dynamic triangle of motivation
The dynamic triangle of motivation (see Fig-
ure 1 ) contains the central elements needed to
understand motivation in a dynamic way , i.e.
needs and values. Because of their function as
indicators of potential motivational needs –
here represented in the physical, mental and
social dimensions – they have to be included in
the triangle. All individuals have these needs in
some proportion, but their importance to the
individual differs from person to person
according to which dimension is the most
dominant for that particular individual at that
specific time. This difference can also be seen
between organizations, cultures and so on and
it indicates that a dynamic force must be
included to describe accurately the motiva-
tional process in a specific organization.
As earlier discussions have shown, the
dynamic force can be represented by our
values and attitudes, which in the dynamic
triangle of motivation are presented in the
dimension identity. Identity could be seen as
the answer to the question “What is or who is
x?” (Waager, 1996) and in this answer is sum-
marized all the values and attitudes which
affect the priority of needs. Since identity is
not a static or a throbbing structure but con-
tinuously changing and developing, it could
also be seen as the model’s coefficient of
change, According to the identity of the mea-
sured object, it will overlap one of the dimen-
sions more than the other and in that way
show from which dimension factors that
motivate the individual will be taken.
Identity is influenced both by external and
internal factors. This requires an examination
of the concept on at least three different levels
– the individual level, the organizational level
(organizational culture) and the cultural level
(society). When, for example, a survey of the
motivational level of an employee is conduct-
ed, an examination of such factors as personal-
ity is not enough, since organizational culture
and society also will determine the prioritiza-
tion among motivational factors made by
employees.
One of the oldest concepts within research
on motivation is hedonism, where the individ-
ual tries to maximize pleasure and minimize
pain. A condition of hedonism being a tenet in
motivational research is nevertheless an accep-
tance of the individual difference between
persons (Manners et al., 1997). At the first
level of examination – the individual level –
75
Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77
identity is therefore internally influenced by
personality. Allport (1961) describes personal-
ity as the dynamic organization of psycho-
physiological systems within individuals, that
determine their thoughts and behaviour.
Personality consists of processes, which exist
within the consciousness of the individual, and
theories about personality try to explain why
attitudes, goals and acts are similar during a
longer period of time. We behave differently
from other individuals, because of our psycho-
logical processes and structures differ some-
what from others (Lester, 1995, p. 11).
Although values and attitudes are individ-
ual, they are also strongly affected by the social
and economic past of individuals and their
environment. The sum of values form the
collective behaviour in the organization
(Andersson, 1993, p. 22), which leads to an
examination of the second level, the organiza-
tional level. Mead’s (1967) description of
individual identity here explains the common
sharing of values and attitudes. The identity of
the individual employee cannot be seen as
something that exists only inside the individ-
ual, isolated from the social context. On the
contrary, identity starts and remains within
social interplay, which continually forms and is
formed mutually by relations with others. It is
not possible to get a satisfactory picture of
individuals and their needs only by describing
their characteristics, they must also be
described in their relations with others. Orga-
nizational culture could therefore represent
identity at the organizational level. The
requirement to structure the organization into
smaller parts as working teams, departments,
units and so on must also be understood at this
level. This is caused by the subcultures that
typically exist in an organization.
Many motivational theories appear to
ignore the very real constraints under which
most organizations operate and which may
severely limit the motivational factors that they
can provide for employees (Mumford, 1991).
To overcome this defective examination of
identity, a third level, the cultural level, must
be considered. Rules, laws and procedures in
our society, that affect the organization and its
employees, must be a part of the dynamic
whole. Family and other individuals that
influence the norms and values of the employ-
ee also affect identity at this level.
Existing motivational theories could
become more relevant through an acceptance
 Measuring motivation in a learning organization
Maria C. Osteraker
of an holistic view of the individual in the
organization (Carr and Pihlanto, 1996, p. 34).
Practical implications of the dynamic
triangle of motivation
An understanding of the specific character of
an organization can only be created through
physical and mental participation in the reality
of work (Gummesson, 1988). The following
study of a Finnish organization will show some
of the results, when changing from a static to a
dynamic motivational process.
A Finnish organization with 350 employees
has for four years conducted a motivational
survey. For the first three years the measured
motivational factors in the questionnaire used
were decided on in co-operation between the
personnel manager and an external consul-
tant, who had no understanding of the organi-
zation’s working conditions. In the last year an
interest to change the procedure of measuring
motivation in the organization was raised
because of several facts. First, motivational
factors are ranked differently at different levels
in the organization, leading to the fact that
what motivates the boss is not always motivat-
ing the secretary. Besides, supervisors tend to
have a very inaccurate perception of what
motivates their employees (Kovach, 1987).
This finding leads to the question if surveys
constructed by a personnel manager measure
the motivational factors held as the most
important by the employees. Second, the
ranking between offered motivational factors
seems to differ between organizations,
employees, departments and categories of
work. It also seems to vary over time. An
external consultant with no closer pre-under-
standing of the specific organization can there-
fore be suspected to have problems to under-
stand the specific conditions in the measuring
object, something that directly affects the
results of the survey. Third, a common
assumption is that employees better accept
decisions if they have had the possibility to be
involved in decision making. Maybe the prob-
lems with negative attitudes towards the survey
and low response rate could be solved through
this method?
A new motivational survey was constructed
with the help of two reference groups. The
members of the first group were employees
with different tasks in the organization and of
different ages. Both sexes were represented
and some of the employees had worked for a
76
Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77
long time in the organization while others had
just begun. The size of the organization
allowed us to observe only one group with
eight people. However, when the number of
employees increases the number of groups
should be added, not the number of members
in the group. As earlier mentioned, motiva-
tional factors seem to change at different levels
of the organization. Owing to this a reference
group, which consisted of individuals with a
higher position in the organization, was
required. We, therefore, constructed another
reference group that included the managers of
the employees in the first group. The same
question was asked of all the members: “What
motivates you in your work at x?”, “What do
you think would motivate you in your work at
x?” and “What demotivates you in your work
at x?”. A survey, which was approved of by the
reference groups, was conducted out of the
answers and discussions within the reference
groups. In the procedure motivational theories
were also included, not as a principle in sole
control, but more as a theoretical framework
in the mind of the examiner. The theories also
served as guidelines to direct discussions in the
groups. Tangible questions and specific factors
were constructed by the employees them-
selves, based on the comprehensive theories.
As an example, a member of the reference
group came up with the wish for the organiza-
tion to arrange happenings where the family
could join, for the employees. If the survey had
been based on literature only or discussions
only with the personnel manager, this motiva-
tional factor would not have come up, but
when a question based on this answer it turned
out to be the most important question in the
questionnaire. Most employees were dissatis-
fied with the way the organization handled this
issue and for the organization it was an easy
and cheap way of encouraging employees to be
satisfied in their work.
Besides receiving important information
about valued motivational factors the percent-
age of respondents increased by 10 per cent
and the answers directly pointed out what
ought to be done – something that can be
quite difficult to understand in some general
questionnaires with quite abstract questions.
We cannot see at this moment whether the
increase in respondent rate was due to the
possibility that participation could affect the
survey, but we think it would be more likely to
be caused by increased anonymity of respon-
dants. Despite this, the survey was a success
 Measuring motivation in a learning organization
Maria C. Osteraker
in the organization, no matter what was the
cause.
Conclusion
We have more than enough theories of moti-
vation and more than enough data on motiva-
tional phenomena. What is needed is a new
synthesis of both theory and data. We need to
be more clever with what we already have
(Landy and Becker, 1987).
In this article a model – the dynamic trian-
gle of motivation – has been created. The
model can be seen as a general theoretical
framework of the theories as it at the same
time reduces their shortcomings by making
out a need of a thorough examination of the
measuring object where such levels as society,
organizational culture and the personality of
employees are taken into account. By accept-
ing the participation of employees in the
motivational process and fostering a dialogue
between the examiner and the examined, the
values in the organization are allowed to
influence the whole motivational process.
One of the fundamental ideas in the learn-
ing organization is to involve employees in
processes at work, something that also should
improve motivation. Since the values of the
employees affect their priorities as regards
motivational factors offered by the organiza-
tion, these values should be the guidelines for
further attempts to increase the motivational
level among employees.
The example above can be seen as a start-
ing point for further research, since it shows
how the employee in a learning organization
through an understanding of the dynamic
motivational triangle can be involved in the
motivational process. All aspects of motiva-
tion were included in the earlier surveys con-
structed by the external consultant and per-
sonnel manager in the case organization, but
the ranking between the factors was unknown
since the employees were not involved in the
process.
Still further research must be done to
confirm the higher validity of motivational
surveys in which employees are involved in the
design of the survey. From earlier research
and practical findings we can, until then, be
quite sure to make the assumption that orga-
nizations which understand the dynamics
connected with motivation and have the
capability of letting this affect the
77
Journal of Workplace Learning
Volume 11 · Number 2 · 1999 · 73–77
motivational process both save money, time,
and have more motivated personnel.
References
Allport, G.W. (1961), Pattern and Growth in Personality,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Andersson, Å. (1993), 70-talister om värderingar förr, nu
och i framtiden, (People of the Seventies about
Values Then, Now and in the Future), Natur och
Kultur, Stockholm.
Carr, A. and Pihlanto, P. (1996), The Holistic Individual: A
Basis for a New Direction for the Field of Orgaization
Behaviour?, Series Discussion and Working Papers
10,Turku School of Economics and Business Admin-
istration, Turku.
Christopher, W. (1980), Management for the 80’s, Ama-
com, New York, NY.
Gummesson, E. (1988), Qualitative Methods in Manage-
ment Research, Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations, Paston
Press, Norfolk.
Kiely, J. (1986) “The dynamics of job satisfaction – a
longitudinal study”, Personnel Review, Vol. 15 No. 4.
Kovach, K. (1987), “What motivates employees? Workers
and supervisors give different answers”, Business
Horizons, September-October.
Landy, F.J. and Becker, W.S. (1987), “Motivation theory
reconsidered”, Research in Organizational Behav-
iour, Vol. 9.
Lester, D. (1995), Theories of Personality. A Systems
Approach, Taylor & Francis.
Maccoby, M. (1988), Why Work?, Simon & Schuster, New
York, NY.
Manners, G.E., Steger J.A. and Zimmerer T.W. (1997),
“Motivating your R&D staff”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 40 No. 6.
Mead, G.H. (1967), Main, Self and Society from the
Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, The University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL and London.
Mumford, E. (1991), “Job satisfaction: a method of
analysis”, Personnel Review, Vol. 20 No. 3.
Rauhala, L. (1972), “The hermeneutic metascience of
psychoanalysis”, Man and World, No. 5.
Rauhala, L. (1986), Ihmiskäsitys ihmistyössä, (The Concep-
tion of Human Being in Helping People), 3rd ed.
Gaudeamus, Helsinki.
Siu, V., Tsang, N. and Wong, S. (1997), “What motivates
Hong Kong’s hotel employees?”, Hornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 5
Ting, Y. (1997), “Determinants of job satisfaction of federal
government employees”, Public Personnel Manage-
ment, Vol. 26 No. 3.
Waager, M. (1996), “Kuka minä olen?”, (“Who am I?”),
Psykologia, Vol. 31.
Yankelowich, D. and Immerwahr, J. (1986), in Timpe. A.D.
(Ed.), Motivation of Personnel, Gower, Aldershot.