Behavioral Motivation Theory: Ethics, Law, Religion Research Paper

Introduction

The use of appropriate stimuli and motivating initiatives by business leaders is a common practice utilized not only due to loyalty to the workforce but also as an effective driver of productivity. These incentives, as a rule, are expressed in special approaches to creating conditions for favorable activities, be it material rewards or other forms of approval. The behavioral motivation theory is one of the many concepts designed to influence employee productivity and ensure an effective work environment. According to Cafferky (2017), this incentive model is based on positive and negative impacts, including both reinforcement and punishment. In other words, leaders who promote behaviorism as the main strategy for influencing employees seek to manipulate the behavior of subordinates through specific initiatives that imply not only rewards but also penalties.

While discussing such a theory, one should also consider the human dignity-centered framework as an algorithm to monitor ethically sound human resource management. In their research, Mea and Sims (2019) take a closer look at this framework and outline its key components, namely inputs, the ethical prism with relevant concepts, for instance, courage, control, or fairness, as well as results. By linking this framework with the aforementioned behavioral motivation theory, one can find commonalities and stimuli for implementation since coordinating subordinates’ behavior should not violate the ethical norms of professional interaction, whether in the context of Christian values ​​or labor law. This work aims to identify the ethical and legal foundations of the behavioral motivation theory, provide examples of the manifestation of this concept from a biblical perspective, and determine how the concept relates to the human dignity-centered framework.

Ethical and Legal Foundations of the Behavioral Motivation Theory

Behaviorism in motivation is an approach that involves influencing specific factors of conduct through appropriate incentives. As Cafferky (2017) notes, organizational behavior is an important aspect of the corporate culture that most modern firms promote and the ability to manipulate motives through the assessment of employees’ behaviors and their constituents, including actions, reactions, and other forms. The main idea of ​​behaviorism is to study not consciousness but behavior, which is viewed as a set of stimulus-response connections. In addition, according to Itri et al. (2019), behaviorism does not study the cause-and-effect pattern of motivational behavior but only notes the empirical links between specific stimuli and employees’ responses in a work situation. As a result, this concept helps leaders choose the most applicable motivational attitudes for which an effective motivation system with practical suggestions and recommendations can be quickly developed.

From a practical perspective, the behavioral motivation theory is a reasonable form of incentive. Asadullah et al. (2019) argue that “all behavior starts as oblivious conduct,” and any person, regardless of one’s status or position, acts on the basis of individual beliefs and vision (p. 50). As a result, by rewarding or punishing the employee based on this approach, the leader creates an environment in which this is challenging to imitate performance or other valuable qualities because any behavioral manifestations are often unconscious. In addition, this concept is a relatively simple formulation of motivation: changes in behavior do not occur due to variations in internal, psychological factors that govern it but due to changes in the system of influencing stimuli, as well as their connections with reactions and learning (Asadullah et al., 2019). Thus, by combining and adjusting such incentives, leaders can target specific operational tasks based on their subordinates’ responses. In this case, one of the critical nuances is to prevent subjective assessment, which can violate the ethical nature of behaviorism as a motivational theory.

The juxtaposition of behavioral aspects and motivational incentives is a phenomenon that can be analyzed from an ethical perspective in two contexts: justified, when both reinforcing and punishing initiatives are reasonable, and unjustified when there are no prerequisites for introducing appropriate incentives. When adapting behaviorism to motivation, Edwards et al. (2019) state the following: “motivating operations modulate the reinforcing or punishing effectiveness of particular kinds of events and the control of behavior by discriminative stimuli historically relevant to those events” (p. 6). Having a clear vision of the tasks and responsibilities in the company, the employee realizes that their productivity and dedication are direct markers that determine leadership initiatives. By associating stimuli with responses, a person adapts to relevant behavioral patterns, and subsequently, specific actions are performed unconsciously at the level of physiological reflexes (Edwards et al., 2019). This definition reflects an insufficiently high level of ethical relations between the leader and the subordinate since the former actually dominates the latter and controls any actions. However, this form of control at the organizational level allows for productivity and employee dedication.

Behaviorism in the context of motivation to work is often criticized not only from an ethical but also from a legal perspective. According to Galoob and Leib (2020), “any account of loyalty that attributes a motivational element to compliance with norms of (fiduciary) loyalty must explain why behaviorism is incorrect” (p. 44). This means that even if the employer sets objectively important tasks for subordinates, a form of coercion that involves influencing motivation through the requirement of loyalty may conflict with regulations that protect workers. For instance, a business owner may demand commitment from employees, motivating them through incentives based on a system of rewards and punishments. However, if basic employee rights are violated, such as the right to rest, disability leave, or other legal rights, this is a direct violation of labor laws. In an effort to ensure the profit and productivity of employees, employers may violate labor regulations. As a result, the behavioral motivation theory is associated with ambiguous manifestations of stimulating the work process, which, in the case of inadequate initiatives, may contradict legal norms and cause the inspections of the operating mode by supervising authorities.

Despite subordinates’ willingness to follow management’s requests and orders, not all leadership initiatives fit the legal definition. By following the behaviorism model, the business owner puts the interests of the enterprise above employees’ well-being, which, in addition to a weak ethical position, violates corporate norms that define freedom of labor relations. While analyzing this approach to the formation of motivation, Galoob and Leib (2020) argue that “behaviorism would deny the wisdom of the rebuttable presumption of appropriate motivation” (p. 59). By referring to the relevant legislative regulations, employees experiencing excessive pressure from management can report cases of violations of ethical interaction principles, for example, coercion through threats of punishment. This outcome testifies to the ineffectiveness of the behavioral model of influencing motivation and can bring significant difficulties to the company, damaging the reputation of it and its leaders. Therefore, when promoting such a principle of motivating subordinates, managers should take into account the methods of influence and assess whether they apply adequate methods.

The analysis of the behavioral motivation theory conventions proves that, despite the simple principles used to implement it, this concept is ambiguous from an ethical and legal perspective. The basic idea is logical: positive reinforcement encourages performance and increases the success of interventions, while negative reinforcement prevents and limits unwanted activities. However, such a form of control can create an unfavorable environment and lead to complaints of the violation of employee rights because too strict requirements and penalties may be contrary to labor laws. Therefore, when analyzing this concept of motivation, managers should maintain a stable balance of positive and negative incentives so as not to lose credibility in the eyes of subordinates and not become accused of violating the labor code.

Biblical Scripture Examples of the Behavioral Motivation Theory

The Biblical Scripture often includes different life stories and situations in which motivation is manifested as one of the tools of influence. Human dignity, being one of the basic values, is an integral part of the Christian teaching on equality and respect for one’s neighbor. Therefore, when analyzing what forms of motivation based on the model of behaviorism are found in the Bible, one should take into account that any mention of such a practice, be it positive or negative reinforcements, should not be considered a tool to suppress human will and must be utilized for the good goals.

In the Biblical Scripture, there are examples of how this motivational theory was applied. In the King James Version Bible, the king offers a reward to the man of God by saying as follows: “come home with me, and refresh thyself, and I will give thee a reward” (“1 Kings 13,” n.d., para. 7). This example reflects how a person with power seeks to influence the will and interests of the other one, less wealthy, through appropriate material incentives. This form of motivation is a classical technique used in accordance with the concept of behaviorism and emphasizes positive reinforcement.

Another biblical example of the application of such a theory of motivation is the punishment of the spies who submitted a fraudulent report. This incident is described in the New American Standard Bible and presents the spies’ report to Moses of what they saw during their scouting: “the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large” (“The spies’ reports,” n.d., para. 1). Nevertheless, Moses and his associates did not believe that God had prepared another test for them, and the spies were punished for their deception. This form of behavioral motivation theory reflects the idea of negative punishment when it becomes necessary to teach someone a lesson to prevent the repetition of offenses in the future. In case the offense is serious, the punishment is justified, which is emphasized more than once in the Biblical Scripture.

As an example of positive punishment, one can review the conflict between Joseph and his brothers. This example is presented in the New International Version Bible and shows how Joseph’s brothers dealt with him to ease his arrogance and tame his prideful disposition: “and they took him and threw him into the cistern. The cistern was empty; there was no water in it” (“Joseph’s dreams,” n.d., para. 18). In this context, putting into the cistern is seen as a positive punishment because it is associated with encouraging behavioral change rather than a punishment to restore justice. Thus, the brothers wanted to help Joseph rather than seek retribution.

Based on the aforementioned biblical examples analysis, one can note that the behavioral motivation theory is found in the Scripture and can be presented in different forms. Due to its simple nature, this concept, coupled with open and direct impacts, is in line with the Christian values of treating one another fairly and punishing deservedly. Therefore, such a theory cannot be called new due to its existence for many centuries.

Human Dignity-Centered Framework

To control and support ethically sound management activities, team leaders should be guided not only by individual knowledge but also by available practical tools to ensure a supportive environment in the team. One such instrument is the human dignity-centered framework, which Mea and Sims (2019) describe not as a model but as a system based on the “validated cause-and-effect workflow of relationships” (p. 57). This framework includes certain inputs (corporate strategy, organizational structure, and organizational renewal), which, when passing through an ethical prism, are transformed into specific practical results, namely, trust, profit, and sustainability, which are significant criteria for successful teamwork (Mea & Sims, 2019). The core of the ethical prism is human dignity, which is realized through the principles of the common good, right order, and solidarity (Mea & Sims, 2019). Such a tool is designed “to help leaders create an ethos in their firm where human dignity is of utmost concern” (Mea & Sims, 2019, p. 57). By following this framework in the operational process, managers can ensure ethically competent control over subordinates’ work and follow the principles of humanism when interacting with staff.

One of the critical features of the framework under consideration is its multi-vector background. According to Kabadayi et al. (2019), if this management work scheme is applied in long-term projects to improve productivity and enhance the business scope, its adequate application implies improving operational outcomes and team welfare. The humanistic principles underlying it allows the manager to maintain productive communication among colleagues and exclude conflict situations on a personal basis. Hill (2020) stresses the importance of human dignity as an idea that promotes improved decision-making, increases employee self-confidence, and helps achieve long-term goals. In turn, the lack of human dignity is fraught with psychological pressure on subordinates and, consequently, the loss of productivity and trust in the team (Hill, 2020). As a result, the framework in question addresses various crucial aspects, including both interpersonal relationships and operational nuances.

The human dignity-centered framework helps overcome communication challenges in the workplace by mitigating bias and prejudice. Dierksmeier (2016) states that by following this work pattern, the manager overcomes cultural stereotypes, be it religious, social, or other inevitable factors in diverse teams. The humanism of this framework is based on respect for the individual and human dignity, as well as the application of those working approaches that do not violate the boundaries of freedom and are fair. Management, according to these principles, “aims at the recognition, defense, and promotion of human dignity as preceding any other considerations and as an end of business in and for itself” (Dierksmeier, 2016, p. 27). Any motivation carries the task of development and growth and does not allow humiliation or any other form of belittling of human dignity. Thus, the framework in question addresses basic humanistic values that, despite their simple and understandable nature, are often ignored by leaders who are guided by distinctive incentive practices through authoritarian and punitive practices.

By correlating the human dignity-centered framework with the behavioral motivation theory, one can observe that motivation based on incentives through influencing conduct does not correspond to the ethical principles presented in the framework. As Koon (2021) argues, “humanism should not be confined to human motivation,” which means that focusing on creating an effective reward or punishment system does not always imply human nature. For instance, Latonero (2018) provides an example of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into a workflow to improve productivity. By promoting this approach, managers encourage subordinates to work more efficiently, sometimes threatening job losses for those whose performance does not match that demonstrated by AI (Latonero, 2018). However, this practice contradicts the idea of ​​respect for human dignity because the role of a person is key, and organizational renewal is carried out, first of all, by the efforts of personnel. Influencing behavior is often associated with the violation of the ethical norms of interpersonal interaction since leaders set ultimate development goals above employees’ well-being. These nuances indicate the inconsistency of the behavioral motivation theory with the provisions of the ethical framework under consideration.

In accordance with ethical management standards, a leader should not create a work environment in which subordinates are forced to behave in ways that are required by operational tasks. Pirson et al. (2019) give an example of social entrepreneurship when stigmatized or oppressed individuals are target consumers of products or services created through innovative practices that stimulate human dignity. In other words, the optimization of working regimes cannot imply humiliating interested parties’ honor since, in this case, the idea of ​​social entrepreneurship loses its essence. If a manager exerts pressure on subordinates and coordinates their behavior as required by the working environment, this is a convenient operating strategy but also not an approach. Moreover, by infringing on the personal dignity of colleagues, a leader who adheres to these tactics encourages conflict within the team because, according to Mea and Sims (2019), employees’ moral principles fade into the background under such conditions. Therefore, the human dignity-centered framework does not support the motivational theory of behaviorism.

Conclusion

As the assessment of the behavioral motivation theory shows, this concept is a convenient method to control the operational process through reinforcement and punishment, but from an ethical perspective, this approach does not correspond to the principles of the corporate culture. Moreover, in case of an excess of authority, legal violations may appear. The manifestations of this theory can be observed in some biblical stories, where the behavior of specific characters was regulated through positive or negative stimuli. The comparison of the motivational concept of behaviorism with the human dignity-centered framework shows that the former does not correspond to the ideas of the latter and cannot be regarded as an ethically grounded theory.

References

1 Kings 13. (n.d.). King James Version.

Asadullah, A. B. M., Juhdi, N. B., Islam, M. N., Ahmed, A. A. A., & Abdullah, A. B. M. (2019). The effect of reinforcement and punishment on employee performance. ABC Journal of Advanced Research, 8(2), 47-58.

Cafferky, M. E. (2017). Management & leadership theories in scripture narratives: An editor’s outline of opportunities for further study. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 20(2), 78-85.

Dierksmeier, C. (2016). What is ‘humanistic’ about humanistic management?Humanistic Management Journal, 1(1), 9-32.

Edwards, T. L., Lotfizadeh, A. D., & Poling, A. (2019). Motivating operations and stimulus control.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112(1), 1-9.

Galoob, S. R., & Leib, E. J. (2020). Motives and fiduciary loyalty.The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 65(1), 41-63.

Hill, R. P. (2020). Freedom of the will and consumption restrictions.Journal of Business Ethics, 164(2), 311-324.

Itri, J. N., Bruno, M. A., Lalwani, N., Munden, R. F., & Tappouni, R. (2019). The incentive dilemma: Intrinsic motivation and workplace performance. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 16(1), 39-44.

Joseph’s dreams. (n.d.). New International Version Bible.

Kabadayi, S., Alkire, L., Broad, G. M., Livne-Tarandach, R., Wasieleski, D., & Puente, A. M. (2019). Humanistic management of social innovation in service (SIS): An interdisciplinary framework.Humanistic Management Journal, 4(2), 159-185.

Koon, V. Y. (2021). Bibliometric analyses on the emergence and present growth of humanistic management.International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 37(4), 581-598.

Latonero, M. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Upholding human rights & dignity. Data & Society, 1-37.

Mea, W. J., & Sims, R. R. (2019). Human dignity-centered business ethics: A conceptual framework for business leaders.Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 53-69.

Pirson, M., Vázquez-Maguirre, M., Corus, C., Steckler, E., & Wicks, A. (2019). Dignity and the process of social innovation: Lessons from social entrepreneurship and transformative services for humanistic management. Humanistic Management Journal, 4(2), 125-153.

The spies’ reports. (n.d.). New American Standard Bible.