Motivation for Board Members

What motivates board members to serve?

I was recently asked to facilitate a vision planning board of directors retreat in Colorado. The nonprofit has 13 board members, including two new members after the first rotation from the founding board since the organization's launch five years ago. 

In preparation for my board retreat, I've researched motivation theory as a basis to understand why non-executive board (NED) members serve. 

The motivation of serving as a NED reflects both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Thus, proposing a steward theory (intrinsic) reflects a contribution of a strong relationship between satisfaction and organizational success. In comparison, agency theory (extrinsic) reflects the principles that determine the work and rely on agents as managers who do the job. Though these theories reflect a parallel of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation though may be viewed as the bi-polar, thus an incomplete view. 

Self-determination theory reflects continuous controlled and autonomous motivations holding pressure or tension of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Early research on intrinsic motivation related to self-determination (SDT) highlights the benefit of autonomy, competence, and relatedness compared to controlled motivation toward accomplishing goals (O'Hara, 2017). In a gateway, the study included 54 NEDS results in 369 codable moments from the interviews. Regarding controlled motivations, 278 coded external regulators reveal the reasons for either reward, market-level compensation, or reputation from status or prestige from being on the board. Autonomous motivation revealed opportunities for learning, development, and contribution of expertise to benefit the organization. 

Tenure on board revealed self-identification with a mission for good. Finally, motivations were satisfied in connection, shared passion, and fun as a fellow board member. The case study concluded that motivation as a NED is sourced from material incentives, reputation, meaningfulness, congruence with firm goals, and enjoyment. The result of the case study revealed a person-centered approach to determining controlled-autonomous and controlled motivations needs of board member engagement (Walther et al., 2017). 

A holistic approach to understanding NED motivation may inform further research based on the types of boards and the organization's purpose. Further understanding the person-centered approach reveals differences in what motivates individuals, reflecting the strength and success of boards based on their member's diversity.

Reference 

O'Hara, D. (2017). The intrinsic motivation of Richard Ryan and Edward Deci. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/members/content/intrinsic-motivation

Walther, A., Möltner, H., & Morner, M. (2017). Non-executive director's motivation to continue serving on boards: A self-determination theory perspective. Corporate Governance (Bradford), 17(1), 64-76. https://10.1108/CG-05-2016-0120

Foundations of Motivational Theory

Maslow, Herzberg, and McClelland’s research concluded that every person is intrinsically motivated. How people are motivated can be conditioned on external circumstances or opportunities to self-actualize. Maslow’s hierarchy builds from a baseline of needs. Maslow’s pyramid to understand motivation compares to Herzberg’s continuum of dissatisfaction to satisfaction. He uses fourteen points as criteria to determine how individuals are satisfied with their work. Like Maslow’s base model for the physical needs of shelter or the next level for safety, these base levels are met by financial means. Herzberg concluded, “money is a hygiene factor and does not motivate” (Bassett-Jones & Lloyd, 2005, p. 932–933). Extrinsic rewards meet a baseline expectation that work earns a wage meeting basic needs but is not the leading motivator for workplace satisfaction. Instead, workers are motivated, thus satisfied by achievement, recognition, productivity, the opportunity to take responsibility, and the opportunity for advancement (ibid).

McClelland’s model supports self-actualization and advancement at a higher leveler of motivation. He distinguishes between three motivations: achievement, power, and affiliation (Dinibutun, 2012, p. 135). His conclusion agrees with Maslow and Herzberg for intrinsic motivation at a higher level beyond base deficiency or hygiene needs. McClelland’s three motives give all expressions of self-actualization. 

Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation provides the internal horsepower for getting stuff done or abandoning work altogether. Yet, understanding motivation which raises questions regarding what challenges motivations. New Year’s resolutions are primarily well-intended and highly motivated, starting with little to follow thru. One of the primary and significant challenges today in motivation is confidence. The feeling of confidence (or lack) has been labeled self-efficacy by Bandura and is still relevant today in most modern theories of work motivation. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capacity to perform a specific task or reach a specific goal (Bandura, 1965). Bandura’s theory promotes the belief that competence influences choice, performance, and persistence. The four sources contribute to an individual belief: accomplishments, vicarious learning or modeling, emotional stimulation (anxiety), and social persuasion and encouragement (Anderson & Betz, 2001). Throughout this course, I look forward to learning about motivations, but also the undermining challenges today of lack of confidence that prevent people from achieving their goals and potential. 

References

Anderson, S. L., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and relation to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 98-117. https://10.1006/jvbe.2000.1753

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(6), 589-595. https://10.1037/h0022070

Bassett-Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power? The Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929–943.

Dinibutun, S. (2012). Work motivation: Theoretical framework. Journal on GSTF Business Review, 1(4), 133–139

Neher, A. (1991). Maslow's theory of motivation: A critique. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 31(3), 89–122.