Published in International Journal of Organizational Behaviour and

Management Perspectives, Volume-6, Issue-4, October-December, 2017, ISSN

(Print) 2279-0950, e-ISSN-2279-0969.

The Millennial and their Perception about Motivation and Self-motivation

Priyanka Singh* and Aanchal Jalan*

Dr. Indrajit Goswami**
Abstract

Getting employees to work smart or do their best is a prime concern in every business
organization. The organizations might have been using the traditional techniques for
motivating their employees in order to improve their performance. Those techniques
provide more importance to extrinsic motivational factors and largely depends on
the managers’ ability to effectively manipulate or influence those extrinsic factors.
The article attempts to explore the idea if maintaining a status quo would really help
manager to get the best output from the employees or could there be any other
suitable alternative to achieve business goals. Since the motivation driver and needs
of the work force have been changing a great deal in the contemporary business
scenario, we need to rethink and make an assessment of the millennial generation.
The article makes an attempt to review the scope of self-motivation and its role in
improving the performance of the employee. The assumption here is that intrinsic
motivation is a must to survive and grow and the management may have a very
residual role in it. The present paper is based on a course assignment.

Keywords: Motivation, Self-Motivation, Employee Engagement, Work

Commitment, Gen X, Millennial.

1
*Students of first year, MMS program, N. L. Dalmia Institute of Management
Studies and Research, Shristi, Sector-1, Mira Road (East), Mumbai-401 104.

**Corresponding Author, Professor and Head, Department of HR, NLDIMSR. E-

mail: indrajit.goswami@nldalmia.edu.in, Cell: 9786775136.

Introduction

Every organization or business wants to have long lasting progress and be

successful. One of the major goals of any business organization is earning profit. We
need to understand that unlike the distant past, when the employees were just
considered as an input for the production of goods and services, the contemporary
and emerging business organization believe that people are one of the important
assets they possess to remain meaningful and competitive in market. Consider the
example of Southwest Airlines which is arguably one of the most profitable airlines
in the industry, Co-founder of the Southwest Airlines said ‘employees come first’.
And if employees are rightly treated, the customers come back, and that makes the
shareholders happy. It is important to understand that unless and until the employees
of an organization are satisfied and motivated enough to perform towards the task
fulfillment and goal achievement of the organization it would be difficult for an
organization to achieve success and long lasting progress. The employees should be
motivated and be able to realize and make efficient use of their potential during the
employment process otherwise they may not be able to achieve the level of
performance desired by the organization.

Motivation has been defined as: the psychological process that gives behavior a
purpose and direction (Kreitner, 1995); a predisposition to behave in a purposive
manner to achieve specific, unmet needs (Buford, Bedeian, & Lindner, 1995); an

2
internal drive to satisfy an unsatisfied need (Higgins, 1994); and the will to achieve
(Bedeian, 1993); the way urges, aspirations, drives and needs of human beings direct
or control or explain their behavior (Appleby, 1994). Motivation here can be defined
as the force within employee which drives them to put energy and effort into what
they do. It also includes the intensity and persistence with which people use their
energy and effort and the directions they use them. This means that the motivation
should be goal directed and not random. Motivation is classified into two basic type
intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation is caused by
several external factors such as monetary rewards and verbal rewards. Workers act
with a sense of pressure, employing their energies into something which is
considered more like a duty rather than a fun (www.studocu.com/en/s/592515.
Accessed on October 9, 2017). Here satisfaction comes not from the activity itself
but rather from the extrinsic consequences to which the activity leads (Brundin,
2006; Gagne and Deci, 2005). Intrinsic motivation is driven by internally derived
incentives wherein people do an activity because they enjoy the activity and derive
spontaneous satisfaction from the activity itself. In this case employee found their
job satisfying as it contributes to self-interest and enjoyment (Brundin, 2006; Gagne
and Deci, 2005). Let us take the case of military personnel where predominantly, the
intrinsic motivation is known to be more powerful over extrinsic motivation. In the
armed forces – often for very modest pay – people are ready to do extraordinary
things. It’s an astonishing contrast. You can pay someone ₨18,000 a year to die for
you. But you may unwillingly pay someone ₨22,000 a year to sit in a room and fill
in forms. This tells us that motivation simply cannot be primarily extrinsic. People
can be moved by money, but they can be moved and motivated much more by other
things. The soldiers are self-motivated to serve and die for their nation as no amount
of money and no need satisfying theory can demystify such kind of motivation. The
soldiers are self-motivated because they believe what they are doing is right and
3
deeply important (http://www.thebookoflife.org/the-origin-of-motivation-at-work/.
Accessed on October 9, 2017).

Literature Review
Many different studies and researches have been carried out in the past to understand
the various factors that affect the motivation of an employee. Those studies lead to
evolution of a number of theories which illustrate different motivation techniques
for directing employees toward desired goals. However the challenge for the
management is to observe and understand the impact of different motivation
techniques on individual and group behavior in the organization. With the influx of
millennial (those born between 1980 and 1995) generation into the workforce, it
becomes essential to contemplate whether the conventional motivational techniques
and methodology which were primarily based upon Generation X (those born
between 1965 and 1980) are effective and practical for the millennial generation
because the millennial generation has been exposed to different historical events
than generation X and they come with different work values.

One of the conventional motivation techniques frequently referred to is Maslow’s

(1954) need hierarchy theory. The contemporary researchers such as George & Jones
(2012) contended that humans have diverse nature and it is unreasonable to describe
all humans with a limited predefined set of needs and also it is unrealistic to expect
that everybody will follow the same order of needs as arranged by the Maslow’s
need theory. Also we need to contemplate that in today’s competitive market, is it
feasible for the managers to identify and determine each individuals needs to
motivate them because every individual’s need is diverse in nature and the workforce
of today’s organizations is also diverse. Another aspect that needs to be considered
is that the conventional theories depend heavily on the manager’s ability to control
the outcomes that satisfying those needs. According to Martin (2005) the millennial

4
generation appreciates flexibility and freedom. So will these people, who are more
inclined towards freedom and flexibility, appreciate the micromanagement of the
managers in trying to motivate them?

Studies show that both extrinsic and intrinsic factors play an important role in
motivation of employees. Some researchers support the opinion that generational
difference plays a role in the motivational factors of employees in an organization.
Leahy et al. (2011) stated in their research that generation X has higher preference
for intrinsic motivation factors whereas the generation Y has mixed preferences for
both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Many researchers have noted that while money
is important for the millennial they do not consider it as their only source of
happiness and rather thrive on challenging work, freedom and flexibility (Martin
2005). This clearly challenges the traditional ideology of using high compensation
and bonuses as a reward in order to motivate employees. Alsop (2008) observed that
the tendency of millennial to count career achievements as well as community
service and impatience to speed up their career, defy the need theory of Maslow and
finds that only unsatisfied needs at the lowest level acts as a motivator at a time.
Hence it becomes important to reconsider and evaluate whether the conventional
techniques of motivation are appropriate for the millennial.

Objectives

 One of the major objectives of the study was to understand the difference
between how the Generation X and the millennial perceive motivation at work
place.
 An attempt is made to understand different motivation factors and how they
influence employee motivation.
 To contemplate the extent of contribution a manager must make in employee
motivation.
5
  To understand the role of self-motivation of employee at work.

Methodology:

Universe is comprised of people from the millennial and Generation x age groups.
The study was confined to Mira Road (East), Thane-401104. Hence the population
size is restricted to the area covered under the study. For making it convenient, 40
respondents were selected from private and public sector banks. The sample size
includes 20 respondents from millennial age group and 20 from Generation X. An
interview schedule was used to collect primary data. For analysis and interpretation
descriptive statistics was used.

Findings and Discussions:

Table – 1: Age wise distribution of respondents
Sr. No. Age Group N
1 Millennial 20
(18yrs-34yrs)
2 Gen X 20
(35yrs-50yrs)
Total 40

Table – 2: Gender wise distribution of respondents

Sr. No. Age Group Gender N
1 Millennial Male 8
(18yrs-34yrs) Female 12
2 Gen X Male 14
(35yrs-50yrs) Female 6
Total 40

Table – 3: Sector wise distribution of respondents

Sr. No. Age Group Sector N

6
1 Millennial Public 7
(18yrs-34yrs) Private 13
2 Gen X Public 11
(35yrs-50yrs) Private 9
Total 40

Table – 4: Respondents’ perception based on Age group and Gender

Sr. Age Group Questions Gender Response N
No.
1 Millennial Managers as motivators Male Yes 2
(18yrs-34yrs) No 5
No Answer 1
Female Yes 3
No 7
No Answer 2
Self-motivation Male Yes 6
No 2
No Answer 0
Female Yes 7
No 4
No Answer 1
2 Gen X Managers as motivators Male Yes 12
(35yrs-50yrs) No 2
No Answer 0
Female Yes 4
No 1
No Answer 1
Self-motivation Male Yes 2
No 11
No Answer 1
Female Yes 0
No 5

7
 No Answer 1
Total 40

Table – 5: Sector wise respondents’ perception

Sr. No. Age Group Questions Sector Response N
1 Millennial Managers as Private Yes 2
(18yrs-34yrs) motivators No 10
No Answer 1
Public Yes 3
No 4
No Answer 0
Self-motivation Private Yes 11
No 2
No Answer 0
Public Yes 4
No 2
No Answer 1
2 Gen X Managers as Private Yes 6
(35yrs-50yrs) motivators No 2
No Answer 1
Public Yes 9
No 2
No Answer 0
Self-motivation Private Yes 2
No 6
No Answer 1
Public Yes 3
No 7
No Answer 1

8
 Total 40

The findings give a fair idea about the diverse nature of perception and beliefs among
different age groups, gender and sector. During our interview with different age
groups, we observed that most of the Gen X population believed more in the
traditional work culture, which expects the manager to motivate the employees.
When we tried to dive deep by amalgamating Gen X age group and gender, we found
similar trait there as well; both males and females were in the support of managers
motivating employees. While we find exactly opposite thought process in millennial
population, irrespective of the gender, they believe in self-motivation. If we consider
sector-wise data, we found that though overall sentiments are same among the two
age groups, public sector employees preferred motivation by managers or seniors,
whereas private sector employees considered self-motivation to be the key to success
in today’s cut throat competition.
Above findings raised important questions in front of us: why do Gen X employees
believe in traditional theories of motivation? Why are millennial employees more
inclined towards self-motivation? And how different work environments affect
sentiment of employees? When we consider Gen X employees, they belong to the
era when Maslow’s need hierarchy theory was prevalent; they have learned from
their elders that following company rules and regulation is likely to secure their jobs
(Dougan, 2008). This generation cohorts usually place a high importance on
maintaining their work-life balance and constantly seeking for a balance between
family, life and work (Gursoy, 2008; Kaylene, 2010). Hence, they rank their families
and personal time very important to a level where they will least likely to sacrifice
their leisure hours to go for work. Generation X gives greater importance to extrinsic
motivation factors such as recognitions for their work and sense of achievements
received from their community.

9
On the contrary, millennial employees are more competitive and optimistic than their
elders. They have a high tolerance in diversity in age, ethnicity, and gender
orientation (Gursoy, 2008; Zemke, 2000). Millennial is found to be grown up with
advanced technology (Spiro, 2006). With aids of high technologies, they are
proficient in assimilating information quickly, grabbling for wider knowledge, and
have high capability in multitasking (Dougan, 2008). Thus, Tay (2010) pointed out
that millennial employees may prefer to stay longer in organizations that invest and
supplies sophisticated technologies and make their jobs interesting, challenging and
entertaining. Millennial employees are intrinsically motivated, mostly associated
with being more optimistically driven towards their goals; effectively working things
around for them instead of making compromises and trying to fit into previously
established patterns.
Modern private companies like Facebook, Google etc., have revolutionized the
concept of work culture. It was born out of the new beliefs, hopes and motivations
of a new generation of professionals, not so much as a revolution against the
established work culture, but as a natural evolutionary progress – a way forward for
‘work’ as we know it, designed by the generation that is destined to run it. They
provide better salary, new challenges and scope for innovation, no regulations on
dress codes, recreational facilities galore, co-worker relationship and they exercise
open door policy. Hence, we find private sector employees, especially the millennial
are intrinsically motivated. On the contrary, public sector even today mostly follows
the traditional hierarchical work culture; the slow salary growth and lack of
opportunities cripple the employee’s potential to earn. Also low level of ownership
and control makes it very difficult for the employees to self-motivate themselves and
start depending on their managers to motivate them.
The above discussions attract our attention to an important concept of self-
motivation. Self-motivation ‘is defined as a set of energetic forces that originate both
10
within as well as beyond an individual's being, to initiate work-related behavior, and
to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration’ (Pinder, 2008). There are
many theories of work motivation. Some focus on the content (needs and incentives),
while others focus on the process (how motivating variables operate and interact).
But what we need to retrospect is whether the managers are really responsible for
motivating their employees? The idea that a manager is responsible to motivate
employees may not be relevant today. Motivation is not a ‘thing’ that can be
extracted, given, taken, passed on or any other action from one person to another. It
is internal and so employees are to be responsible to motivate themselves. If a
manager fails to build in a culture of self-motivation, he or she may indulge
employees to be trapped in ‘dependency syndrome’. Instead of asking, how can I
motivate people? Manager should be asking, how can I create the conditions within
which people will feel motivated? It may look like a something unusual but its
implications are profound and could be long lasting. Managers must do everything
within their ability to end the conditions that foster lack of motivation in employees.
They must know what drives their employees. They should help employees to see
the alignment between their personal goals and the organizations goals.
Apart from managers, organization culture plays an equally important role in
enhancing and balancing the motivation equation of employees. Employee
motivation varies depending on various company processes such as role design,
organizational identity, career ladder, community, workforce and resource planning,
leadership, compensation, adaptive governance processes, performance review etc.
Companies famous for their strong work culture from Southwest Airlines to Trader
Joe’s, provide a framework to instill the good motives like performance, purpose
and potential of an employee while minimize the bad motives like emotional,
economic pressure and moment of inertia.

11
The managers and an organization together are responsible to construct a framework
to foster environment for employee’s self-motivation. Employees who are self-
motivated tend to be more organized, have good time management skills and more
self-esteem and confidence. They prove to be most suitable candidates for any job
requirement. Such candidates are in colossal demand as they keep the machinery
well-oiled and bring grains for the company. They are strategic assets for employers.
They are expected to have better commitment and greater focus on company goals
including higher productivity and increased performance. They may emerge as
change agents to reduce employee turnover, and this may save employer from
investing time and costs in hiring and training new employees. Little supervision and
directions to employees who are self-motivated allow their managers with more time
for critical jobs. Self-motivated employees tend to work longer than others, learn
new skills and take regular training courses to keep themselves up-to-date with
changing technology and policies; they take ownership of problems and go above
and beyond their job description.

Conclusion

Based on our learning, we would like to conclude that ‘motivation is a process, not
a task’. The process involves combined role of the employees, managers and
organization. Organizations and managers can only create conduit for motivational
environment, the actual responsibility lies with the employee himself or herself.
When we consider this changing trend in motivation culture, we observe significant
gap between the thought process and perception of Gen X employees and the
millennial. Millennial employees make an effort to realize their ultimate motive, try
to understand significance of a particular task, try to bring variety and innovation in
their working style, they are optimistic, ready to take risk and ownership of their
12
task, have high energy levels, and are more confident, flexible and adaptive in nature.
They believe in self-motivation. Such traits are difficult to find in Gen X. We are not
trying to criticize the prevalent gap; instead we are celebrating the unique difference
among the two generations due to evolution of technology and changing work
culture trends. Self-motivated employees can revolutionize the millennial era and
make the future work culture innovation driven rather than process based.

References:

Alsop, R. (2008). The trophy kids grow up: How the millennial generation is shaking
up the workplace. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Appleby, R. (1994). Modern business administration (6e). London: Financial Times

Management.

Bedeian, A. G. (1993). Management (3e). New York: Dryden Press.

Brundin, E., Holger Patzelt, Dean A. Shepherd (2006). Managers' emotional displays
and employees' willingness to act entrepreneurially. Journal of Business Venturing,
23(2), pp. 221-243.

Buford, J. A., Bedeian, A.G., & Lindner, J. R. (1995). Management in extension

(3e). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Extension.

Carolyn A. M. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers

need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1),
pp.39-44.

Gagné, M., Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work

motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), pp. 331-362

13
George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (2012). Understanding and Managing Organizational
Behaviour (6e). MA: Prentice Hall.

Gursoy, D., Maier, T. & Chi, C. (2008). Generational Differences: An Examination

of Work Values and Generational Gaps in the Hospitality Workforce. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27, pp. 448-58.

Higgins, J. M. (1994). The Management Challenge (2e). New York: Macmillan.

Kaylene, C.W., Robert, A. P., Alfred, R. P. & Edward, H. H. (2010). Multi-

Generational Marketing: Descriptions, Characteristics, Lifestyles, and Attitudes,
Journal of Applied Business and Economics, Vol. 11(2).

Kreitner, R. (1995). Management (6e).Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Leahy K., McGinley J., Thompson J., Weese T. (2011).Intelligence Community

Assessment: Generational Difference in Workplace Motivation. Intelligence Reform
and Transformation. Vol. 29, No. 1.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Pinder, C. C. (2008). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior (2e). New York:

Psychology Press.

Spiro, C. (2006), Generation Y in the Workplace. Defense AT&L, pp. 16-19.

Ugah, A.D. (2008). Motivation and productivity in the library. Library Philosophy
and Practice.

Zemke, R.; Raines, C. & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at Work: Managing the
Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, New York:
AMACOM.

14
15