Role of Needs, Expectations, Fairness, and Goal Clarity at Work

Introduction: The Architecture of Workplace Motivation

Work motivation is not a single emotion nor a fixed personality trait. It is a structured psychological process emerging from the interaction between internal human drives and organisational systems. When employees invest effort willingly and persist in the face of difficulty, it is because certain psychological conditions are aligned. When disengagement appears, it often signals misalignment.

Among the most influential determinants of motivation are four interrelated forces:

• Human needs

• Cognitive expectations

• Perceptions of fairness

• Clarity of goals

These forces operate like interconnected pillars supporting a building. If one weakens, the entire structure of motivation becomes unstable.

To understand their role fully, we must examine the theoretical foundations and observe how these principles operate within real organisations across the world.

I. Human Needs: The Energetic Core of Motivation

Conceptual Foundation

Human beings are fundamentally need-driven. Needs create internal psychological tension. Behaviour is directed toward satisfying that tension. In organisational life, work becomes a central medium through which needs are addressed.

If we imagine a theoretical diagram in words, it would appear as a layered pyramid:

At the base: Survival and Security Needs
Above that: Belonging and Social Acceptance
Then: Esteem and Recognition
At the top: Growth, Autonomy, and Self-Actualisation

This layered structure, inspired by Maslow’s theory, suggests that unmet lower needs can destabilise higher aspirations. However, modern research shows that needs do not always operate sequentially; rather, they fluctuate depending on context.

Comparative Analysis of Need Theorists

Maslow emphasised hierarchical progression, arguing that higher-level motivation becomes salient only after lower needs are reasonably satisfied.

McClelland, in contrast, rejected hierarchy and proposed that achievement, affiliation, and power needs are learned through life experiences. His perspective highlights individual differences rather than universal sequencing.

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan) shifted attention from hierarchy to psychological quality of motivation. It proposes three universal needs:

• Autonomy

• Competence

• Relatedness

Unlike Maslow’s pyramid, Self-Determination Theory can be visualised as three parallel pillars. If one pillar weakens, intrinsic motivation declines, even if others remain intact.

Thus, Maslow provides a developmental view, McClelland offers a personality-differentiated perspective, and Deci and Ryan present a universal psychological framework.

International Case Study: IKEA (Sweden)

IKEA’s organisational culture emphasizes simplicity, egalitarianism, and employee participation. Employees are encouraged to contribute ideas for improvement, regardless of hierarchical position.

This culture satisfies:

• Autonomy (employees participate in decision-making)

• Relatedness (strong team culture)

• Competence (continuous skill development)

As a result, IKEA consistently ranks high in employee engagement surveys across countries.

Japanese Model: Toyota’s Kaizen Philosophy

Toyota’s continuous improvement philosophy empowers workers on the production line to halt assembly if they identify defects. This practice signals trust and competence.

Rather than treating workers as mechanical labor, Toyota positions them as problem-solvers. This addresses esteem and competence needs, enhancing intrinsic motivation.

II. Expectations: The Cognitive Mechanism of Effort Allocation

Needs energise behaviour, but expectations determine whether energy is invested.

If we construct a conceptual diagram in words for Expectancy Theory, it resembles a three-step pathway:

Effort → Performance → Outcome → Satisfaction

Between each step lies a belief:

• Effort must be believed to improve performance.

• Performance must be believed to produce outcomes.

• Outcomes must be valued.

If any belief weakens, the motivational chain breaks.

Comparative Theoretical Perspective

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory views employees as rational decision-makers who evaluate probabilities before exerting effort.

Porter and Lawler extended this model, arguing that performance leads to satisfaction only when rewards are perceived as equitable. This integrates expectancy with fairness.

Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory further deepens the expectancy perspective by emphasizing belief in personal capability. Without self-efficacy, expectancy collapses.

Thus, expectancy theories highlight cognition, while need theories emphasise internal drives.

Case Study: Samsung Electronics (South Korea)

Samsung’s competitive corporate culture emphasizes measurable performance targets. Employees know clearly how performance links to bonuses and advancement.

However, during periods when internal promotion systems were perceived as politically influenced, employee morale declined. Once evaluation processes were clarified and leadership accountability strengthened, belief in the effort–reward connection improved.

This illustrates that expectancy depends not only on formal systems but on perceived credibility.

III. Fairness: The Emotional Stabiliser of Motivation

If expectancy theory represents rational calculation, fairness represents emotional evaluation.

Employees continuously compare themselves to colleagues. If we describe Equity Theory diagrammatically, it would show two individuals on opposite sides of a balance scale:

Inputs (effort, skills, time)
Outputs (salary, recognition, promotion)

If the scale tilts unfairly, psychological discomfort arises.

Employees restore balance through behavioural adjustments: reduced effort, increased demands, or withdrawal.

Organisational Justice Model

Modern justice research expands equity into three dimensions:

1. Distributive Justice – fairness of outcomes

2. Procedural Justice – fairness of decision processes

3. Interactional Justice – fairness in communication

Procedural justice often proves more influential than distributive justice because it shapes trust.

International Case Study: SAP (Germany)

SAP implemented a program to support neurodiverse employees, particularly individuals on the autism spectrum. By adjusting hiring procedures and providing structured communication channels, SAP enhanced procedural and interactional fairness.

Employees reported feeling valued and included. Engagement improved because fairness extended beyond salary to respect and opportunity.

Crisis Case: Uber (United States)

Allegations of discrimination and harassment within Uber damaged employee trust. Perceived injustice weakened internal commitment. Leadership changes and policy reforms were necessary to restore organisational justice.

This case demonstrates how quickly motivation deteriorates when fairness collapses.

IV. Goal Clarity: Directing Motivational Energy

Goals convert psychological energy into measurable action.

If we describe goal-setting theory visually in words, imagine a beam of light. Unfocused light spreads widely and weakly. When concentrated through a lens, it becomes powerful and precise.

Goals function as that lens.

Locke and Latham demonstrated that specific and challenging goals produce higher performance than vague or easy goals.

Goals enhance motivation by:

• Directing attention

• Mobilising effort

• Increasing persistence

• Encouraging strategy development

Comparative Perspective

Goal-setting theory differs from need and expectancy theories because it focuses not on why individuals act, but on how behaviour is structured.

While need theory energises behaviour and expectancy theory regulates investment, goal theory channels behaviour toward specific targets.

Case Study: NASA’s Apollo Program

The objective of landing a man on the moon before 1970 was specific, time-bound, and challenging. This clarity unified engineers and scientists under a shared mission.

The motivational impact extended beyond financial incentives; it created collective identity and purpose.

Ethical Misalignment Case: Wells Fargo

Aggressive sales quotas pressured employees into unethical practices. Goals were specific but unrealistic and disconnected from ethical standards.

This demonstrates that goal clarity alone is insufficient. Goals must align with fairness and realistic expectations.

V. Integrative Systemic Model

If we conceptualise these four forces together, imagine a four-pillar structure supporting motivation:

Pillar 1: Needs (energy source)
Pillar 2: Expectations (effort regulation)
Pillar 3: Fairness (emotional stability)
Pillar 4: Goal Clarity (directional focus)

When all pillars are strong, motivation is sustained.

When one weakens—for example, fairness collapses—emotional commitment declines even if goals remain clear.

Thus, motivation must be understood systemically, not in isolation.

Conclusion: A Systemic Perspective

The role of needs, expectations, fairness, and goal clarity at work extends far beyond theoretical abstraction. These factors determine whether employees merely comply or genuinely engage.

Needs energise behaviour.
Expectations regulate cognitive investment.
Fairness stabilises emotional commitment.
Goals channel effort into performance.

Organisations that align these psychological elements create environments where motivation becomes self-renewing.

Conversely, misalignment produces disengagement, ethical breakdown, or turnover.

Motivation, therefore, is not something imposed upon employees. It is cultivated through thoughtful organisational design, transparent leadership, and respect for human psychology.