Introduction

It is imperative that we look at one more aspect of our present life, and its perceived purpose, in relation to our discussion of learning and knowledge. Motivation is very subtly associated with morality or ethics. Rand (1961, p13) has defined the definition of morality (or ethics) as a code of values to guide man’s (and woman’s) choices and actions-the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his or her life. In her concept of “objectivism” she has argued why values are perceived the way they are and why do we need them. It is a very stirring debate but may stretch out beyond the topic that we are discussing. I would just quote her to sum up, the objectivist ethics advocates and upholds rational selfishness-which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man-which means: the values required for human survival-not the values produced by desires, and emotions, and the aspirations, the feelings , the whims …(Rand, 1961, p31)

How one perceives his or her life would determine what course of action they have to take. However, things do not often happen as we plan them and seldom as we want them. A big issue of destiny and fate is ingrained in our lives as well. We might believe in different things but an inherent fear or love or realisation of some higher power or entity is always there. As it happens with all concepts and arguments, some people would argue here that there are those who do not believe in God and create their own destinies. I have the aid of the language, freedom of expression and I can nicely put it away by saying that “there are always exceptions”. However, not evading the argument, I would like to stress that there are very few things in one life that are not the results of some desire or intent. Believing in destiny or God is not the issue here; but the passion, reason, rationale or justification behind what we do is. Generally speaking, we tend to learn, create knowledge and do things that fulfil our objectives, ambitions or aspirations. That is where motivation comes into context; another driver of the human life. The idea of motivation rests on the primary question of the meaning of work. Why do we work in our lives? Are our societies and world systems designed in such a way that there is no escape from work? What is the justification of the entitlements, status, facilities and recogniztion in our lives? Are we doing the work or the work doing us?

4.1 Maslow, Herzberg and the Purpose of Life

Herzberg (1959) illustrated his theory of motivation by a biblical example. As explained in earlier parts (Chapter 2.2) he established that Man has two sets of needs; his need to avoid pain and his need as a human to grow psychologically. His work on human motivation separates the elements of a job into those serving animals or economic needs (‘hygiene’ or ‘maintenance’ factors) and those meeting deeper aspirations (‘motivation’ factors). Herzberg believed that individual needs and expectations ‘are shaped by the religious/philosophical system in which one lives’ (Kennedy, 1998, p83). In his theory, ‘Motivation’ is represented by Abraham, made in the image of God and capable of great achievements in self-development; ‘hygiene’ by Adam who was faced after the expulsion from Eden with the need to meet bodily requirements – food, warmth, safety, security, avoidance of pain. Herzberg argued that both are part of human condition at work and a lack in one cannot be compensated by fulfilment in the other.

Another key example of Motivation Theory is the model of Maslow’s “Need of Hierarchy” that has been discussed in detail (Chapter 2.2). Here, we shall further explore the concept. By taking these two examples (Maslow and Herzberg), I wish to illustrate the entire concept of motivation which, I believe, is related to our existence and purpose of life to some extent. More than that, motivation is attached to psychological aspects and thus allows me to continue with exploration of basic human nature. The human mind is always full of activity (perceptive; mainly influenced by spontaneous thoughts and memories) and there is no rule as to what can motivate whom (in general life). There is a good Greek parable. Socrates’ wife was not very pleased with his civic duties and used to scold him every time he left home for talks or social gatherings. One day as she was unwell, she failed to perform her usual unruly task. Socrates left home on that day with a sad face. His friends inquired why he was sad. He replied that his wife did not scold him as she was unwell.

“Well, you ought to be happy for not getting that unwelcome scolding,” remarked his friends. “Oh no! When she scolds me, I get an opportunity to practice patience. Today I missed that opportunity. That is the reason I am sad, “ answered the philosopher (adapted from Gems of Buddhist Wisdom, 1996).

Strange things motivate strange people. A soldier can be so motivated by his feelings for the nation or cause of the battle that he would sacrifice his life on the battlefield (Note: This is just an example because within an army or a military unit patriotism is not always a motivating factor). A personal spiritual experience may motivate a person to give up his material life and engage his or her life in search of truth. Empathy for human life may motivate a doctor to work in some underdeveloped area or slums. Love for her child may motivate a mother to sacrifice her own life. There are numerous such examples. The question is - what is there in life, which is not influenced by some cause or not ignited by some passion? Why we talk about motivation only at work? Even religious organisations do their charity and welfare works for the sake of religion or ideology. We pray for God’s grace and we meditate for salvation. If we look close enough, we will find that no action of ours is without an impulse or stimulation. If the stimulation (or reason) were not good enough, we would not be “interested” in the issue or exercise.

A general model of motivation theory is shown (Nadler and Lawler III, 1977, Readings in Managerial Psychology, p7) as under;

Fig.4.1 : The Basic Motivation-Behaviour Sequence

Herzberg’s two-factor theory emphasises the need to ‘avoid pain’ and ‘grow psychologically’. Maslow’s has gone a step further and tried to define the entire human nature and its needs into five components - psychological, safety, love, esteem and self-actualisation. There is no basic difference between both the theories, except the number of factors. The need to ‘avoid pain’ can be understood same as need for love and safely. Whatever Herzberg means by the need to ‘grow psychologically’, Maslow has tried to refine it with ‘self-actualisation’.

4.1.1 Is Motivation Good Enough?

It is not difficult to observe that both the theories are basically based on psychological assumptions of human behaviour. In explaining the ‘need for self-actualisation’, Maslow argues (Levitt et al, 1989, p28) that a musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This is what he terms as ‘self-actualisation’.

The argument raises some serious questions (especially in context of our discussion about “I” and basic human nature). Can a person really know what they “can” and what they “must” do? How many of us wanted to become fireman, pilot, writer or painter when we were children and how many of us have turned out the way we wanted ourselves to be? Not going back to even childhood, how many of us really, presently, doing what we actually want to do? What is the purpose of life? Were we born to do what we are doing now? The same questions may haunt a number of people but very few of us will ever get true answers. It may sound a strong and biased statement (because it attacks individual capabilities and perceived merits) but dilemma is deeply rooted in our existence. It comes from the natural, unknown side of life and we do not know how to deal with it. If one asks himself or herself the question, “Why am I living?”, hardly any answers will come. Perceptive or superficial answers will be many, such as, “for kids”, “family”, “love” or whatever. Here the “natural knowledge” (thoughtless & sensitive) comes in the context again. That is the natural side of us; the life force itself. We have developed a perceptive, illusory personality, we feed it with ambitions, reasons, motivation and aspirations and pride ourselves with the knowledge that we possess. In my view, all of this is superficial, for the length of human life in most cases is 100 years, though the average life expectancy differs from place to place. What happens to the personality or “me” when we die? Whatever happens in this world is of no relevance to us then. How can we, therefore, be satisfied by our trivial possessions and objectives? Let us look at the established motivation theories and analyse.

Maslow’s “need of Hierarchy” rates above all the present motivation theories. Not that there was enough support or evidence for Maslow’s theory as well. Lee (1982) has exposed lack of research and empirical evidences in Maslow’s model. He has quoted Maslow (1970) saying that [the theory] seems, for most people to have a direct personal, subjective plausibility. And yet it lacks experimental verification and support. I have not yet been able to think of a good way to put it to test…. (Lee, 1982, p63). Maslow seems to have simply attempted to encompass the human behaviour with all the components he could find in his time. If he had an insight into human nature, he would have discovered that self-actualisation cannot occur at logical level. If the knowledge of a person is superficial, what he “can” know will be highly ambiguous. If one goes beyond mind and superficial intelligence to discover the true answers, the process will culminate into a self-realisation activity and ‘motivation’ will just disappear. As mentioned many times in the course of this paper (and explained in detail in the last chapter), ego or “I” of a person is the barrier to true knowledge. As long as there is “me” or “I” that wants to know the truth, the truth will never be known. On the contrary, when “I” disappears, the truth is revealed on its own. If this concept is understood well, the motivation theory will lose its credibility. Like any other competency (and many others) theory, it is written from a logical perspective and lacks human substance.

Most serious and ambitious attempt to validate Maslow’s theory was made by Douglas T. Hall and Khalil E. Nougaim in 1963 (Lee 1982). They experimented with 49 young manager over a five-year time and produced data regarding job attitudes, superior, peer, and subordinate relationships, sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, career aspirations and strategies, and major occurrences during each year. They concluded that no strong relationships were found to support the hierarchy of needs we hypothesised. Furthermore, none of the correlations between need and satisfaction levels was high enough to support the existence of a hierarchical order different from one we tested (Lee, 1982, p69).

If nothing else, self-actualisation in itself is sufficient; for self-actualisation would bring the kind of serenity that would not require any motivation at all. If one considers self-actualisation as a motivation, the whole idea of self-actualisation is defeated in the first instance. I wish to reproduce a conversation between Zen master Hui-chung and his disciple Ling-chiao (Suzuki, 1972) ;

Q. “I have left my home to become a monk, and my aspiration is to attain Buddhahood. How should I use my mind?”

A. “Buddhahood is attained when there is no mind which is to be used for the task.”

Q. “When there is no mind to be used for the task, who can ever attain Buddhahood?”

A. “By no-mind the task is accomplished by itself. Buddha, too, has no mind.”

This is the key. The same issue was discussed in the last chapter. As long as there are conscious striving to accomplish a task, the very consciousness works against it, and no task is accomplished (absolute spiritual observation or insight). It is only when all the traces of this consciousness are wiped out that truth is revealed. This very truth is what basic human nature is all about. As long as there are ‘needs’ and striving, there cannot be any satisfaction. I wish to reproduce some words of Rumi, the sufi fakir, and that should eliminate all questions about motivation, psychological or otherwise;

The spirit and the body carry different loads
and require different attentions too often
we put saddlebags on Jesus and let the donkey run loose
in the pasture.
Don’t make the body do what the spirit does best,
and don’t put a big load on the spirit
that the body could carry easily.

(Marcic, 1997, p43)

What is our motivation to live? Do we live to satisfy any needs, the kinds described by Maslow and others? Is our life meant to be the way it is today? What are the things that are driving us today? Work, money, family, fame, religions? There are problems in asking such questions. Among us are some people who also consider spirituality as a “thing” or “concept” or something that “puts them above any other person in the world”. The arguments and counter attack will come from all sides. How easily we fall in the traps of words and terminologies that appeal to our minds. We are so much divided in our minds that we easily accept some theory such as motivation as something that ‘describes motivation for work’. We forget that we are human beings first and cannot divide the human life in any form; least of it work. A person is a person does not matter where they are or what they are doing. All the divisions are only in the mind. The mind creates separate personalities and we (actually mind-based personalities only) readily believe that different things in life need different treatments. Because we are divided inside, our view of the world and life is fragmented. The need is to look at the human life as one entity and try to find answers within us. The next chapters will throw more light on it.

***

Close Window