A support manager in Cairo doubles the monthly bonus for the team that closes the most tickets. By the end of the month, closed tickets are up. So are reopened ones. Her most experienced analyst, who used to spend an afternoon fixing the cause of a repeat fault, now closes quick tickets like everyone else.
The bonus worked. It just bought the wrong thing.
The short answer: employee motivation is the energy people bring to their work and the reasons behind it. The theories that held up agree on the core. People work best when they have some say in how they work, feel they are getting better at it, and feel connected to the people around them, with clear, hard goals and feedback on progress. Incentives better predict the quantity of work; interest in the work better predicts its quality. And people differ, so ask what moves each person instead of guessing.
What employee motivation is
Motivation is how much effort someone puts in, and why. The usual split is intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation means doing the work because it is interesting or satisfying in itself. Extrinsic motivation means doing it for something outside the work: pay, a bonus, approval, avoiding trouble.
Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, adds a useful middle. Between "I do it because I enjoy it" and "I do it because I am paid or watched", there are two steps:
- Introjected: "I do it because I would feel guilty or ashamed if I did not."
- Identified: "I do it because I see why it matters, even if it is not fun."
A 2021 meta-analysis of 124 samples by Anja Van den Broeck and colleagues tested these types at work. Intrinsic motivation was the most important type for well-being, attitudes and behaviour. Identified motivation was the strongest predictor of performance and of helping beyond the job description. Working only for rewards or to avoid punishment had limited links with behaviour and came with costs to well-being.
The practical lesson: people do not need to love every task. They need to understand why it matters.
The obvious answer, and why to test it
The obvious answer is money: raise the bonus, add an incentive, run a competition. It is easy to announce and easy to measure.
Test it against the evidence. Christopher Cerasoli, Jessica Nicklin and Michael Ford (2014) combined 40 years of research from school, work and physical tasks: 154 sources, 183 independent samples and 212,468 people. Three findings matter for managers:
- Intrinsic motivation predicted performance whether or not incentives were present. It was a medium to strong predictor.
- Incentives and intrinsic motivation predicted different things. Intrinsic motivation explained more of the quality of performance. Incentives were the better predictor of quantity.
- Tying incentives directly to performance reduced the role of intrinsic motivation. When the reward was closely tied to output, intrinsic motivation mattered less. When the link was indirect, it mattered more.
The authors' conclusion is not "incentives are bad". It is that the two are not necessarily opposed and are best considered together. That fits the opening scene. A bonus for ticket counts gets more tickets. If you want fewer repeat faults, reward and protect the work that prevents them.
So keep pay fair and incentives clear. Just do not expect them to buy quality on their own.
Four theories that held up, and how strong the evidence is
Four theories come up in most HR courses. They do not have equal evidence behind them.
| Theory | Core claim | What the evidence shows | How much to rely on it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan) | People need autonomy, competence and relatedness at work | Meta-analysis of 99 studies, 119 samples: each need linked to higher job satisfaction and commitment and lower intention to quit | Strong; the best basis for daily management |
| Goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham) | Specific, difficult goals with feedback raise performance | Tested on more than 100 tasks with more than 40,000 participants in at least eight countries | Strong, with limits on complex tasks |
| Expectancy theory (Vroom) | People put in effort when they believe effort leads to results, results lead to rewards, and they value the rewards | Meta-analysis of 77 studies: average correlations somewhat lower than earlier reviews suggested | Useful logic for reward design; modest prediction |
| Two-factor theory (Herzberg) | Some factors create satisfaction; others only prevent dissatisfaction | Early tests called it "a grossly oversimplified portrayal" and found the same factors drove both | Weak; keep the insight, drop the model |
Self-determination theory. In the review by Van den Broeck, Ferris, Chang and Rosen (2016), each need was also positively related to task performance. Competence had the strongest link (a corrected correlation of .40, across 21 effect sizes and 5,261 people). The authors flag that some unique effects of each need are statistically significant but small in practice.
Goal-setting theory. Edwin Locke and Gary Latham (2002) summarised 35 years of research. Specific, difficult goals consistently beat "do your best", with effect sizes in meta-analyses from .42 to .80, and work better with feedback on progress. The effect is smaller on complex tasks (.41 for the most complex against .77 for the simplest), and on tasks that are new and complex for people, a learning goal can work better than an output target.
Expectancy theory. Victor Vroom's 1964 model says effort depends on three beliefs: that effort leads to performance, that performance leads to an outcome, and that the outcome is worth having. Wendelien van Eerde and Henk Thierry (1996) found the average correlations lower than earlier reviews had reported. The logic is still a good checklist for any reward: is the link from effort to reward visible and believable?
Herzberg's two factors. Frederick Herzberg argued that things like an annoying boss, low pay, a poor workspace and petty rules make people unhappy, but fixing them does not motivate anyone. Interesting work, challenge and growing responsibility do. When Marvin Dunnette, John Campbell and Milton Hakel (1967) tested this in six occupational groups, achievement, responsibility and recognition mattered more than working conditions, policies or security for both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. They recommended abandoning the theory. Keep its useful half, that the work itself motivates, and drop the two-list model.
What motivates people at work, and what a manager can do this month
The theories point to a short list. None needs a budget to start.
| Motivator | What it looks like at work | What a manager can do this month |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Choice in how the work gets done, not only what | Agree the outcome and the deadline, then let the person choose the method for one piece of work |
| Competence | Getting visibly better; work that stretches without breaking | Give each person one stretch task and a weekly five-minute check on progress |
| Relatedness | Colleagues who know and respect you; feeling part of the team | Start one team meeting by sharing what each person is working on and where they need help |
| Purpose (identified motivation) | Understanding why the work matters and who it helps | Before the next target or change, explain the reason in two sentences and take questions |
| Clear, hard goals with feedback | Knowing what good looks like and where you stand | Turn one "do your best" into a specific number or date, and show progress weekly |
| Fair, believable rewards | A visible link between effort, results and reward | Check one incentive: can people say what earns it, and does it reward quality as well as volume? |
| Recognition | Specific thanks for specific behaviour, soon after it happens | Each week, thank one person for one specific behaviour you want more of, in the way they prefer |
For a fuller design of the last row, see our employee recognition model.
People differ: ask instead of guessing
Every list above is an average, and averages hide the fact that the same offer moves one person and leaves another cold. A public bonus table may energise someone who wants to compete and win. It may embarrass someone who cares most about fairness and belonging.
One published way to map these differences is Beatriz Valderrama's Wheel of Motives (2018). It describes ten motives in two groups. The approach motives are power and status, achievement and excellence, exploration and learning, autonomy, and contribution and impact. The avoidance motives are belonging and acceptance, cooperation and fairness, comfort and enjoyment, security and stability, and conservation and financial security. Our employee's guide to evaluating a workplace describes each motive and how to spot it.
The guide's advice is to focus on the three to five motives that matter most to a person, not all ten. For a manager, that becomes a habit: find out each person's top three, then shape work, recognition and development around them. Ask in one-to-ones, or invite people to take the work environment check and share their results if they choose to.
Two cautions. Do not guess motives from age, gender or job title; ask. And the model was published in a Spanish journal. We know of no published validation in Egypt or the Gulf, so treat it as a structured conversation, not a diagnosis.
What the evidence says for Egypt and the Gulf
There is little direct evidence from the region on these theories. The autonomy finding, at least, seems to travel. Gavin Slemp and colleagues (2018) reviewed 72 studies (83 samples, 32,870 people) on managers who support autonomy: who take an interest in employees' views, offer choice and input, and encourage initiative. This style was strongly linked to self-driven motivation and unrelated to motivation driven by pressure, with similar results in countries classed as individualist and as collectivist. But the collectivist group was small (6 studies, 1,428 people in the basic-needs comparison), and the 2016 review said too few studies existed in other cultures to test culture properly.
Autonomy support does not mean removing hierarchy. It means explaining the reason for a decision, offering choice in how to deliver it, and listening before you decide, all of which fit inside a formal structure.
The regional engagement figures suggest there is room to improve. In Gallup's State of the Global Workplace 2026 report, 14% of employees in the Middle East and North Africa were engaged at work, against 20% globally in 2025. Gallup's regional figure combines three years of polling. Engagement is not motivation, but it is the outcome most companies measure, so it shows whether changes in how people are managed are reaching them. Our guide to what employee engagement is explains how the two connect.
Your next step
This week, in each one-to-one, ask two questions: what part of your work gives you the most energy, and what would make next month better? Write down the answers, pick one change per person that you can make yourself, and check back in a month.
Frequently asked questions
What are the main employee motivation theories?
The four most taught are self-determination theory (autonomy, competence and relatedness), goal-setting theory, expectancy theory and Herzberg's two-factor theory. The first two have the strongest evidence. Expectancy theory predicts modestly, and Herzberg's model has weak support.
What are examples of employee motivation?
An analyst who stays late to fix the cause of a fault because she cares about the result shows intrinsic motivation. A salesperson who pushes for a quarterly bonus shows extrinsic motivation. A nurse who completes dull paperwork because she knows it protects patients shows identified motivation, which research links strongly to performance.
How do you motivate employees?
Give people some choice in how they work, work that stretches them and a team they feel part of. Set specific goals with feedback, explain why the work matters, keep rewards fair and clear, and recognise specific behaviour. Then ask each person what matters most to them.
What is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation at work?
Intrinsic motivation is doing the work because it is interesting or satisfying in itself. Extrinsic motivation is doing it for something outside the work, such as pay, approval or avoiding trouble. A 40-year meta-analysis found intrinsic motivation better predicts the quality of work and incentives better predict its quantity.
What is the difference between employee motivation and engagement?
Motivation is the energy and the reasons behind someone's effort. Engagement, as surveys usually measure it, is how involved and committed people are in their work and workplace. The two overlap, so a good engagement survey also asks about the conditions behind motivation: autonomy, growth and relationships.
Sources
- Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M. and Ford, M. T. (2014), "Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis", Psychological Bulletin 140(4), 980-1008. doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
- Van den Broeck, A., Howard, J. L., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H. and Gagné, M. (2021), "Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis on self-determination theory's multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation", Organizational Psychology Review 11(3), 240-273. doi.org/10.1177/20413866211006173
- Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H. and Rosen, C. C. (2016), "A review of self-determination theory's basic psychological needs at work", Journal of Management 42(5), 1195-1229. doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058
- Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J. and Ryan, R. M. (2018), "Leader autonomy support in the workplace: a meta-analytic review", Motivation and Emotion 42(5), 706-724. doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y
- Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2002), "Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey", American Psychologist 57(9), 705-717. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
- van Eerde, W. and Thierry, H. (1996), "Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: a meta-analysis", Journal of Applied Psychology 81(5), 575-586. doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.575
- Herzberg, F. (2003), "One more time: how do you motivate employees?", Harvard Business Review, January 2003. hbr.org
- Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. P. and Hakel, M. D. (1967), "Factors contributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 2(2), 143-174. doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(67)90027-X90027-X)
- Valderrama, B. (2018), "La rueda de motivos: hacia una tabla periódica de la motivación humana" [The Wheel of Motives: towards a periodic table of human motivation], Papeles del Psicólogo 39(1), 60-70. doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2018.2855
- Gallup (2026), State of the Global Workplace: 2026 report, regional data. gallup.com
Know someone who should read this?
Share it on LinkedIn with a post that is already written. You can change it before you publish.
Follow GoldinKollar on LinkedIn