The need for a better understanding of motivation and the role it plays in software development environments has been recognised for many years (Couger and Zawacki, 1980). However, previous research has not investigated how feedback affects software engineers, and theories of motivation do not consider the effect of different forms of feedback.
This chapter reviews the literature to identify the current understanding of feedback and its role affecting the motivation of software engineers. The definition of motivation is investigated, theories of motivation that include feedback as a factor are identified, and previous research investigating motivation in software
engineering environments is reviewed. The story emerging from the literature is one of uncertainty surrounding the definition of feedback, with theories of
motivation presenting feedback as a single entity, and findings in clinical education arguing that feedback is the combination of multiple characteristics. Feedback is
identified as a factor affecting the motivation of software engineers, but the affect received feedback has, and the impact of the values of different feedback
characteristics, is unclear.
The following sections present the definition of motivation and theories of
motivation (2.1), identify research investigating motivation in software engineering (2.2), identify and compare definitions of feedback (2.3), present findings of research investigating feedback (2.4), and finally provide a summary of the reviewed literature (2.5).
2.1 MOTIVATION
Motivation is a term that has been in use for over a century (James, 1884, reported in Berridge and Winkielman, 2003), but the definition of what motivation is and what constitutes ‘being motivated’ is disputed within and across disciplines. How motivation is viewed varies depending on the perspective being taken; to an individual it may be the drive that helps him/her continue to do his/her job, but to an employer it might be considered as a factor that can be influenced to improve the performance of an employee. Different disciplines and researchers have presented definitions of motivation, with a focus on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
The literature agrees that there is a distinction between two types of motivation, identified as intrinsic and extrinsic. Herzberg argues the importance of intrinsic factors:
“Motivation is a function of growth from getting intrinsic rewards out of interesting and challenging work” (Herzberg, 1987: 14).
Herzberg believes that true motivation is intrinsic, and not extrinsic. Ryan and Deci define intrinsic motivation as:
“the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 56).
Ryan and Deci continue to define extrinsic motivation:
“Extrinsic motivation is a construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome” (ibid: 60).
This is different from Herzberg, who doesn’t believe that extrinsic motivation is actually motivation, and he defines this as movement:
“Movement is a function of fear of punishment or failure to get extrinsic rewards.” (Herzberg, 1987: 14)
Baron defines motivation as something which is an internal process directing behaviour:
“the internal processes that activate, guide, and maintain behaviour (especially goal-directed behaviour)” (Baron, 1991: 1).
Robertson and Smith have a similar approach to Baron’s:
“Motivation is a psychological concept related to the strength and direction of human behaviour.” (Robertson and Smith, 1985: 2)
Baron and Robertson and Smith describe the definition of motivation using a human-centric approach, suggesting that motivation is a psychological state and includes an internal set of processes. Herzberg and Ryan and Deci focus on motivation using a managerial perspective, and propose that motivation is a drive to attain internal satisfaction or other intrinsic rewards from the work that people do. These different definitions of motivation illustrate the lack of a consensus on what motivation is and how motivation is defined.
Theories of motivation exist that attempt to identify and model how motivation is affected. These theories look at motivation at different points in time and at different levels of granularity. Broadly, the theories can be classified as either focusing on motivation “at a single point in time” (Couger and Zawacki, 1980: 76): content theory, or focusing on motivation “as a sequence or process of related activities” (Hall et al., 2009: 4): process theory. The following section discusses the theories of motivation relevant to this research.
2.1.1 THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
Most of the theories of motivation (Table 2.1) that are widely accepted and supported were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Some of the theories are adaptations or evolutions of previous theories, for example, Alderfer’s Existence- Relatedness-Growth theory builds on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory. Feedback is included as a factor affecting motivation in four theories of motivation listed in Table 2.1. Two of the theories of motivation that include feedback as a factor are ‘process theories’, and the other two theories of motivation that include feedback as a factor are ‘content theories’; feedback is identified as a factor that
can affect motivation during “a sequence of process related activities” (Hall et al., 2009: 4) and “at a single point in time” (Couger and Zawacki, 1980: 76). In the following sections, each of the four theories is presented, and their inclusion of feedback and its role in the theory is identified: Achievement theory, Goal Setting theory, Hygiene theory, and Job Characteristics theory.
TABLE 2.1 – THEORIES OF MOTIVATION1
Name
Author
Achievement Theory McClelland 1961
Activation Theory Berlyne 1967
Cognitive Evaluation Theory Deci 1975
Control Theory Wiener 1948, Miller, Galanter and Pribram 1960
Drive Theory Hull 1943
Equity Theory Adams 1963
Existence-Relatedness-Growth Theory Alderfer 1969
Expectancy Theory Vroom 1964
Goal Setting Theory Locke 1968
Hierarchy of Needs Theory Maslow 1954
Hygiene Theory Herzberg 1959
Internal-External Control Theory Rotter 1966
Job Characteristics Theory Hackman & Oldham 1976
Stimulus Response Theory Skinner 1976
Theory X and Y McGregor 1960
ACHIEVEMENT THEORY
Achievement Theory (McClelland, 1961) proposes that there are three key motivational needs that most people strive to satisfy: achievement, power, and affiliation.
McClelland defined an achievement-oriented activity as one in which the individual feels responsible for the outcome, has expectations of unambiguous feedback, and in which there is risk or uncertainty of the outcome. Individuals feel
motivated to pursue these tasks if the tasks are ones the individual wants to do, the outcome of the activity is seen as achievable, and the outcome is of value to the individual.
Atkinson (1964) discussing McClelland’s achievement theory describes the need for achievement as the:
“Capacity to experience pride in accomplishment” (Atkinson, 1964: 241).
Accomplishment could be described as the link between expectation and the incentive/value of the outcome.
McClelland argues that every individual has a need for power: the need to have impact on other people, either through personalised power or socialised power.
Personalised power is a type of power where individuals view situations as competitive, and where they can use their power to win the competitive situation. People with high personalised power are usually low on inhibition, and view relationships with other people as personal. McClelland claims that people with high personalised power are highly competitive and want to win or dominate someone else.
Socialised power is a type of power where individuals do not view situations as competitive, and where they use their abilities for the good of the group. They view relationships with others as impersonal, and carefully plan conflict with other people in advance because they recognise that for every win there is a loss.
McClelland identified that an individual’s need for power can be shown in three different ways:
– Through strong actions, such as assault and aggression, giving help or assistance, controlling others, influencing or persuading others, or trying to impress someone. – Through actions that produce strong emotions in others.
– Through actions that would enhance or preserve a person’s reputation. McClelland characterised people with a high need for power as people who
accumulate prestige possessions, play competitive one-to-one sports, like to belong to organisations and to take positions of power within them, and satisfy their need for power through thought and feeling.
McClelland argued that people have a need for affiliation; this is an individual’s need to feel and be affiliated with other individuals, such as creating and maintaining positive relationships. Conflict is often avoided due to fear of rejection, and people with high nAff work hard to be accepted.
Feedback is included in achievement theory as one of the three key factors defining an achievement-oriented activity. An individual will expect to receive
unambiguous feedback on the outcome of their actions.
GOAL SETTING THEORY
Goal Setting Theory (Locke, 1968) proposes that people are motivated to
successfully complete challenging goals. From his research, Locke concluded that:
Difficult goals produce a higher level of performance than easy goals.
Goals that are specific produce higher levels of performance than vague goals.
Individual behavioural intentions influence the choices that people make. Locke stated that the goals which result in the highest levels of performance are difficult specific goals that are accepted by the participant. Locke identified six incentives for goal-setting:
1. Money 2. Knowledge of score 3. Time limits 4. Participation 5. Competition 6. Praise or reproof
The following sections present Locke’s discussion on the effect of each of the identified incentives:
MONEY
From his research, Locke found that money was able to assist in encouraging commitment to a task to which the person may not otherwise have been committed. However, Locke found that money in itself did not motivate above a certain level of income, even in situations where there was a direct link between earnings and output.
KNOWLEDGE OF SCORE
Locke found that knowledge of score, provided through feedback, assisted motivation only when it was considered to be valid and where it could be used to set future goals. Knowledge of score received from someone who is not considered to be in a position to give feedback would not be regarded as valid feedback and would not affect motivation. Knowledge of score also had to be specific enough to be useful in the setting of future goals; otherwise it would not affect motivation. Locke warned that the level of the standard of knowledge of score feedback given can influence the level of goals that are motivating. For example, if positive feedback is received for a low-level standard (e.g., reading more papers than the minimum level), the goals that the individual will likely be motivated to achieve will be lower than in a situation where feedback was given only once a higher-level standard was met (e.g., reading more papers this month than the month before).
TIME LIMITS
Challenging time limits were found to increase the motivation to achieve a goal. But if a time limit were set that was unrealistic for the task, the task would likely take longer to complete than if a realistic but challenging time limit were set.
PARTICIPATION
An individual’s participation in the setting of goals was found to increase their motivation to achieve the goal, but it alone was not enough and required other factors for the task to be motivating. Locke reports “while subordinate participation in the goal-setting process had some effect on improved performance, a much more powerful influence was whether goals were set at all.” (ibid: 179) It would appear that participation is good at increasing motivation and commitment to a goal rather than being the initial impetus to complete the goal.
COMPETITION
Locke identified competition as a key motivator: when the performance of another individual or group is used to set a standard and to assess the success or failure of a goal. Locke believes that competition is a key factor in motivating people to continue to strive to meet higher levels of performance, especially when the high level is set by someone other than themselves. Locke argued that “If mile runners only ran against themselves or against a stopwatch, the 4-minute mile might never have been broken” (ibid: 180). Locke also believes competition is linked to
innovation, with the aim of eventually getting better performance through better procedures, better products etc.
PRAISE OR REPROOF
From his research, Locke identified a varying effect of praise or reproof on motivation. He found that praise was effective in improving overall performance, and that reproof appeared to improve the performance if feedback was provided in relation to a standard.
SUMMARY
Locke argued that six incentives have a varying level of influence on the setting of future goals. He reported that the most direct way of influencing goals is through time limits. Money, participation, praise and reproof are considered to be an indirect way of influencing goals, and knowledge of score and competition are seen as ways of suggesting a standard for future goals. Feedback is identified by goal setting theory and is used to provide an individual with the outcome of their actions (knowledge of score), and specific forms of feedback, praise and reproof, are identified as factors impacting performance.
HYGIENE THEORY
Hygiene Theory (Herzberg, 1959) proposes that there is a difference between what provides job satisfaction (intrinsic factors) and what avoids job dissatisfaction (extrinsic factors). Herzberg argues that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are separate, and that they are not the opposite of each other. Herzberg states that the opposite of satisfaction is no satisfaction, and the opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction.
The extrinsic and intrinsic factors identified by Herzberg are listed in Table 2.1.
Intrinsic factors (motivators) are aspects of a job which are satisfying, and efforts to improve them will improve motivation. Extrinsic factors (movement) are aspects of the job which avoid job dissatisfaction, and efforts to improve them will not improve motivation, but will avoid job dissatisfaction.
Salary was the only factor to appear on both the job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction lists, but Herzberg believed that the reason salary was mentioned as a job satisfaction factor was more to do with its links to recognition rather than salary itself, and subsequently he decided it was a movement factor rather than a motivator (Herzberg, 1959).
Overall, Herzberg’s empirical findings suggested that people are more satisfied by aspects of the job than by the environment with in which they work, and that personal life appeared to have no real effect on job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction.
Herzberg identified that job satisfaction was linked to turnover of staff, attitude towards the company, mental health and interpersonal relationships through the positive or negative impact on job attitude:
Turnover of staff: Dissatisfied people are more likely to quit, but Herzberg also discussed ‘psychological quitting’, when individuals will not leave the
company, but will lower their effort on the job, perhaps only putting in the effort required to keep them employed.
Attitude towards the company: Herzberg found a close link between job satisfaction and a positive attitude toward the company.
Mental health: Herzberg reported that people link poor mental health and job dissatisfaction, but not good health and job satisfaction.
Interpersonal relationships: Herzberg identified a minimal relationship between job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction and interpersonal relationships, and argued that this was because “the degree to which a person lets his feelings about his job spill over into the conduct of his interpersonal relationships is more a function of psychological dynamics as an individual than of anything else” (ibid: 93).
Herzberg concluded Hygiene Theory by claiming that if job satisfaction leads to greater productivity, motivators should lead to an improvement in performance, and he suggested that the work itself, responsibility and advancement bring about
the most long-term improvements to job satisfaction. Herzberg argued that jobs could be improved by increasing the opportunities available to the employee to achieve goals that are meaningfully related to the job, even if they are not interesting. Herzberg proposed that jobs should be “set up in such a way that, interest or no, the individual who carries them out can find that their operations lead to increased motivation” (ibid: 134).
Feedback is identified in Hygiene Theory as the most common way recognition is received. Recognition is reported as the second strongest motivator, and can be received by almost anyone: “supervisor, some other individual in management, management as an impersonal force, a client, a peer, a professional colleague, or the general public” (ibid: 45). Recognition is identified as when “some act of notice, praise, or blame” (ibid: 45).
JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY
Job Characteristics Theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1976) proposes that there is a relationship between five core job characteristics (Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance, Autonomy, Feedback) to three psychological states
(Meaningfulness of Work, Responsibility of Outcomes, Knowledge of Actual Results) which in turn lead to four personal and work outcomes (High internal work motivation, High quality work, High satisfaction with work, Low absenteeism and turnover). Hackman and Oldham found that all of this is moderated to some extent by each individual’s growth need strength. The job characteristics model is shown below in Table 2.2.
FIGURE 2.2 – JOB CHARACTERISTICS THEORY MODEL OF MOTIV ATION
PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES
The core of the Job Characteristics Model is the three psychological states. Hackman and Oldham argue that individuals experience “positive affect” when
they know (Knowledge of Actual Results) that they (Responsibility of Outcomes) have performed well on something they care about (Meaningfulness of Work). Hackman and Oldham argue that this positive affect is reinforcing for the individual, and provides an incentive for the individual to continue to try and perform well in the future. When the individual fails to perform well, they will not experience these internal rewards, which may lead to them trying harder to regain the internal rewards in the future through better performance. This results in a “self-perpetuating cycle of positive work motivation powered by self-generated rewards that is predicted to continue until one or more of the three psychological states is no longer present, or until the individual no longer values the internal rewards that derive from good performance.” (ibid: 256)
Hackman and Oldham define the three psychological states as:
“Experienced Meaningfulness of the Work: The degree to which the
individual experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable and worthwhile.
Experience Responsibility for Work Outcomes: The degree to which individual feels personally accountable and responsible for the results of the work he or she does.
Knowledge of Results: The degree to which the individual knows and understands on a continuous basis, how effectively he or she is performing the job.” (ibid: 256-257)
The following sections present and discuss the job characteristics that influence the three psychological states.
The three job characteristics (skill variety, task identity, task significance) that influence the psychological meaningfulness of a job are defined by Hackman and Oldham as:
“Skill Variety: The degree to which a job requires a variety of different
activities in carry out the work, which involve the use of a number of different skills and talents of the person.” (ibid: 257)
Tasks are almost always experienced as meaningful when they require the individual to engage in different aspects that challenge or stretch their skills and abilities. Hackman and Oldham believe that this is still true on jobs that draw upon multiple skills of individuals, even if the jobs are not that significant or important.
“Task Identity: The degree to which the job requires completion of a “whole” identifiable piece of work; that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible outcome.” (ibid: 257)
The individual should find jobs that require a complete product or a complete unit of service more meaningful than if they were only completing a small part of the