IB Business Management HL Motivation Deep Dive

The Theories They Don't Teach Everyone: HL Motivation Deep Dive

Right, whilst your SL mates are relaxing with just Taylor, Maslow, and Herzberg, you've got four more motivation theories to wrap your head around. Lucky you.

What can I say about these "extra" theories? Well, they're actually the most interesting ones. They explain why some people are absolutely dying to lead projects whilst others would rather eat glass, why your mate quit their job even though they were earning well above minimum wage, and why that bonus your boss promised you doesn't actually motivate you as much as you thought it would.

Let's get stuck in.

McClelland: The "What Actually Drives You?" Theory

Dr David McClelland was an American psychologist who basically said: "Listen, people aren't all motivated by the same stuff. Some of you are achievement junkies, some of you are power-hungry, and some of you just want everyone to like you."

His acquired needs theory argues that everyone has three motivational needs, but we're all wired differently in terms of which one dominates. These needs aren't innate - they're acquired through life experiences and cultural background.

The Three Needs:

1. Need for Achievement (n-Ach)

These are your classic overachievers. They need to feel like they've accomplished something brilliant, and they thrive on challenges - but not just any challenges.

People with high n-Ach:

• Want realistic but challenging goals (not too easy, not impossible)

• Love personal responsibility for outcomes

• Need constant feedback on their performance

• Prefer moderate risks (high reward but achievable)

Think about it: these are the students who'd rather do a challenging A-level project they might get a B on, than coast to an easy A on something simple. The process and challenge matter more than the guaranteed positive outcome.

Where you'll find them: Entrepreneurs, salespeople, consultants, anyone in roles where they can see direct results from their efforts.

2. Need for Power (n-Pow)

Before you imagine Tony Soprano here or some villain in a suit, hold up. n-Pow isn't necessarily about being evil - it's about wanting to influence outcomes and direct others.

People with high n-Pow:

• Want to be in charge and make decisions

• Are motivated by leadership positions

• Enjoy organising and directing others

• Want higher status and responsibility

This can be positive (wanting to lead a team to success) or negative (wanting power for power's sake). The best managers often have high n-Pow combined with high n-Ach - they want to achieve things and lead others to do the same.

Where you'll find them: Management positions, politics, senior leadership roles, anywhere with authority and decision-making power.

3. Need for Affiliation (n-Aff)

These are your people-people. They're motivated by relationships, social acceptance, and working in teams.

People with high n-Aff:

• Want to be liked and accepted

• Prefer collaborative work to solo projects

• Avoid conflict and value harmonious relationships

• Are motivated by social interactions and teamwork

They're brilliant in customer service, HR, marketing teams - anywhere that needs strong interpersonal skills and the ability to build relationships.

Where you'll find them: Customer service, HR, marketing departments, any role involving teamwork and client relationships.

IB Business Management Real-World Application

The point is: you can't motivate everyone the same way.

Imagine you've got three employees:

• Ahmed (high n-Ach): Give him a challenging project with clear metrics. He'll smash it.

• Sarah (high n-Pow): Put her in charge of the team. She'll thrive.

• James (high n-Aff): Make sure he's working collaboratively with others. He'll be buzzing.

Now imagine you do the opposite:

• Make Ahmed work in a team with no individual accountability → He'll be frustrated

• Give Sarah repetitive tasks with no authority → She'll be bored senseless

• Stick James in a solo role with no social interaction → He'll be miserable

The criticism: Can people really be categorised into just three needs? Probably not that simply. Most people have elements of all three, just in different proportions. Plus, your dominant need can change over time or depending on the situation.

Deci & Ryan "Give People Autonomy FFS" Theory

American psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan developed self-determination theory in 1985, and it's become absolutely key when understanding modern workplace motivation, especially post-pandemic.

Their basic argument? People need to feel in control of their own lives to be truly motivated.

Self-determination means having the ability to think independently, manage yourself, and make expert decisions. When you've got it, you're intrinsically motivated - you do stuff because you genuinely want to, not because someone's making you or paying you.

The Three Universal Psychological Needs:

1. AUTONOMY

This is the desire for independence and self-control. Research shows that when employees perceive they are free to perform their work in their own way within an autonomy-supportive context, they're more likely to find work engaging, possess more favorable evaluations of their jobs, and proactively engage with their tasks.

In practice, this means:

• Empowering workers to make independent decisions

• Letting people choose how they achieve their goals, not just telling them what to do

• Giving flexibility over when and where work happens

Google is famous for this - they use a collaborative, people-driven style where employees are empowered to be self-directed and creative, with teams transparent about their work. This autonomy-focused approach won them a Best Company Culture Award and fuels their ability to develop and scale new products.

2. RELATEDNESS

This is about feeling connected to others and experiencing a sense of belonging. Humans are social creatures, right? We need to feel part of something bigger.

Businesses can boost motivation by:

• Encouraging and supporting teamwork

• Creating opportunities for social connection

• Building a genuine sense of community

Spotify's "scaled autonomy" model has become famous enough to inspire academic papers - it's based on making each independent team accountable for their work whilst fostering collaboration at scale, uniting functionally similar employees into "guilds" that standardise practices without becoming bureaucratic.

3. COMPETENCE

This is the desire to feel proficient and capable of tackling challenges. Nobody wants to feel like they're rubbish at their job.

You can meet this need by:

• Providing proper training and development

• Avoiding tasks that are too complex or impossible

• Giving people opportunities to master skills

• Offering regular, constructive feedback

Research applying Self-Determination Theory consistently shows that when these three psychological needs are fulfilled, employees are more likely to feel empowered, engaged, and intrinsically motivated, reducing maladaptive behaviours and increasing wellbeing and performance.

Why Is This Relevant in 2025?

Post-pandemic, autonomy has become THE dealbreaker for loads of workers. Employees now look for flexible shifts and opportunities to participate in different training and self-improvement programs - offering more flexibility and better work-life balance has become critical for attracting and retaining top talent, particularly those who value autonomy.

Think about the whole return-to-office debate. Companies saying "you MUST be in the office 5 days a week" are violating the autonomy need. Workers who've proven they can be productive at home feel their competence is being questioned and their autonomy is being stripped away. No wonder so many people are leaving.

Research from 2025 found that job autonomy positively impacts both work engagement and innovative behaviour, supporting the fundamental role of autonomy in employee motivation and performance - though this can be constrained when combined with high performance pressure.

The criticism: Not everyone wants or needs the same level of autonomy. Some people prefer clear direction and structure. Also, autonomy without proper support or resources can feel like being thrown in the deep end rather than empowering.

Adams: "That's Not Fair!"

Right, here's a theory that'll explain every single workplace moan you've ever heard.

John Stacey Adams developed equity theory in 1963, and it's dead simple: people want fairness. They're constantly comparing what they put into their job (inputs) with what they get out of it (outputs), and then - crucially - comparing that ratio to everyone else.

The Equation:

My Inputs vs My Outputs... compared to... Your Inputs vs Your Outputs

Inputs include:

• Effort you put in

• Time worked

• Experience and qualifications

• Loyalty

• Adaptability

• Commitment

• Skills you bring

Outputs include:

• Salary

• Benefits

• Recognition and praise

• Job security

• Responsibilities

• Promotional opportunities

• Credibility/reputation

The Three Scenarios:

1. EQUITY (Balanced) Your input-to-output ratio feels fair compared to others → You're motivated and satisfied

2. UNDER-REWARDED (Unfair to you) You're working harder than your colleague but getting paid the same (or less) → You're demotivated and probably fuming

3. OVER-REWARDED (Unfair to them) You're getting paid more than colleagues for the same work → You might feel guilty or try to work harder to justify it

Reality In 2025: Pay Transparency

Equity theory gets REALLY interesting in 2025, because loads of places are now legally required to be transparent about pay.

By 2025, around 15 US states have pay transparency laws requiring employers to disclose salary ranges in job postings, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Vermont, with the central theme being to provide clear, accessible pay information to promote equity in the workplace.

Why is this relevant? Because once you can see what everyone else earns, equity theory kicks in hard.

The push for pay transparency comes from multiple sources - employees, job seekers, media, politicians, and interest groups demanding a more level playing field and fairness in employment. It's increasingly viewed as part of corporate responsibility, and companies that engage with transparency as part of inclusion and fairness build stronger cultures.

In 2024, women working full-time in the US earned only 82.7% of what men earned, and if current trends continue, the pay gap won't close until 2067. Pay transparency laws are trying to fix this by making inequity impossible to hide.

Over half of organisations surveyed said they're now proactively conducting pay equity studies to identify outliers, and 53% reported making pay adjustments - because when you have to show people what you're doing, you need to be confident it's actually fair.

What Happens When Equity Is Violated?

Adams argued that the extent of demotivation is generally proportional to the perceived inequity. In other words: the more unfair it feels, the more demotivated you become.

When people feel under-rewarded, they might:

• Reduce their effort ("Why should I work this hard if they're not paying me fairly?")

• Leave the company

• Demand more pay or better conditions

• Convince themselves the comparison isn't valid ("Well, she's got more experience than me")

In the end, you know that feeling when you and your mates study loads for an exam, but they get an A and you get a B? That's equity theory in action. You're comparing inputs (study time) with outputs (grades) and feeling hard done by.

The criticism: Perceptions of fairness are massively subjective. What feels "fair" to you might not feel fair to me or to shareholders who risk and put their money on the table. Also, people are terrible at accurately assessing their own performance - most of us think we're above average (which is mathematically impossible, but here we are).

Vroom: "Will This Actually Be Worth It?"

Last but not least, we've got Professor Victor Vroom's expectancy theory from 1964. This one's about whether people actually believe their effort will lead to the outcome they want.

Vroom's argument: motivation depends on whether you think you can actually achieve something AND whether that achievement is worth it.

It's got three components that all need to work together:

The Three Elements:

1. EXPECTANCY

"Can I actually do this?"

This is your belief in your ability to complete a task to the required standard. If you think there's no way you can do it (or do it in time), you won't be motivated to try.

Example: If your boss asks you to learn Japanese in a week for a client meeting, your expectancy is zero. You're not going to be motivated because you know it's impossible.

2. INSTRUMENTALITY

"If I do this, will I actually get the reward?"

This is about trust. Do you believe that completing the task will actually result in the promised reward? It's about confidence that there's a clear link between your actions and the outcome.

High instrumentality means employees recognize a clear link between their actions and rewards and have confidence they'll receive those rewards for achieving targets - which is why understanding how performance-based bonuses are calculated is critical for both businesses and employees.

Example: If your company has a history of promising bonuses and then not paying them, your instrumentality is low. You won't be motivated by future bonus promises because you don't trust they'll materialise.

3. VALENCE

"Do I actually want this reward?"

This represents how much you value the outcome. Valence is positive if you prefer the outcome to not achieving it, zero if you're indifferent, and negative if you'd actually prefer NOT to get it.

Typical bonus percentages range from 1% to 15% of salary depending on role and industry, with finance and banking offering 20-50%, whilst retail might only offer 2-5% - but the motivational power depends entirely on whether the employee actually values that bonus.

Example: Your boss offers you a "reward" of being team leader on the next project. If you hate managing people (low valence), this won't motivate you at all, even if you could definitely do it (high expectancy) and you'd definitely get the role (high instrumentality).

The Formula:

Motivation = Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence

Notice it's multiplication, not addition. That means if ANY of these three is zero, motivation drops to zero. You need all three to actually motivate someone.

IB Business Management Real-life Example: Performance Bonuses

Let's say your company offers a 10% bonus for exceeding sales targets by 20%.

High Motivation Scenario:

• Expectancy: High (you've done it before, you know you can do it again)

• Instrumentality: High (company always pays bonuses on time)

• Valence: High (you really want that money for a holiday) → Result: Proper motivated

Low Motivation Scenario:

• Expectancy: Low (targets increased by 50% this year, feels impossible)

• Instrumentality: Medium (company's been weird about bonuses lately)

• Valence: Low (you'd rather have extra holiday time than cash) → Result: Can't be bothered with this!

In 2024, organisations faced tightening salary budgets and increasingly relied on bonuses to retain talent, but this only works when all three elements of expectancy theory are high - workers need to believe they can achieve targets, trust they'll be paid, and actually want the reward.

The 2025 Reality Check

Target announced in March 2025 that employees would only receive 87% of their potential bonuses for fiscal year 2024 - a considerable drop from 100% the previous year. What is the effect of this on instrumentality? simple... Employees start thinking, "Even if I hit my targets, they might just cut the bonus anyway."

According to Deloitte's research, firms offering performance-based bonuses had a 31% lower employee turnover rate - but only when those bonuses are actually paid as promised and valued by employees.

The criticism: This theory assumes people are really rational about calculating their motivation, but humans are emotional and often make decisions based on feelings rather than logical calculations. Also, it's hard to measure these three elements accurately - how do you quantify someone's valence?

Bringing It All Together: The HL Toolkit

Right, so you've now got SEVEN motivation theories floating around your head (three from SL, four from HL). Here's how they all fit together:

Taylor → "Pay them more"

Maslow → "Meet their hierarchy of needs"

Herzberg → "Fix hygiene factors, then add motivators"

McClelland → "Different people want different things: achievement, power, or affiliation"

Deci & Ryan → "Give them autonomy, help them feel competent, and let them connect with others"

Adams → "Make sure it's fair compared to everyone else"

Vroom → "Make sure they think they can do it, trust they'll get rewarded, and actually want the reward"

In reality, none of them are "right" or "wrong" - they're all pieces of the puzzle. The best managers use bits from all of them depending on the situation and the people they're working with.

Your IB Business Management Exam Wants You To Know (HL Edition):

McClelland's Acquired Needs Theory:

• Three types of needs: Achievement (n-Ach), Power (n-Pow), Affiliation (n-Aff)

• Different people have different dominant needs

• You can't motivate everyone the same way

• Needs are acquired through experience, not innate

Deci & Ryan's Self-Determination Theory:

• Focuses on intrinsic motivation (doing things because you want to)

• Three universal psychological needs: Autonomy, Relatedness, Competence

• When these needs are met, motivation and wellbeing increase

• Explains why autonomy and flexibility are so important in modern workplaces

Adams' Equity Theory:

• People seek fair balance between inputs (effort) and outputs (rewards)

• They compare their input/output ratio with others

• Perceived inequity leads to demotivation

• Explains the importance of pay transparency and fairness

Vroom's Expectancy Theory:

• Motivation = Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence

• Expectancy: "Can I do this?"

• Instrumentality: "Will I get the reward?"

• Valence: "Do I want the reward?"

• All three must be high for motivation to occur

Key Insight: Modern workplaces need to consider all these theories - pay fairly (Adams), give autonomy (Deci & Ryan), match work to people's needs (McClelland), and ensure rewards are achievable and valued (Vroom).

Stay well,