Practical guide
Team management
What drives motivation at work
Rédigé le
What drives motivation at work
Why do some teams overflow with energy while others seem to run on empty, even when objective working conditions are similar? Why can a manager hand out bonuses and see their team become even less engaged than before? Why does a highly competent team member produce disappointing results on certain projects and remarkable ones on others?
The answer to these questions lies in the mechanisms of motivation. Not in motivation as a vague, general concept, but in the four concrete equations that govern its actual functioning. These equations are not abstract theories: they are operational tools that any manager can adopt and put into practice during their next one-on-one meeting.
Equation 1: Motivation does not exist. It is always motivated "by" or "for."
The first fundamental lever is also the most counter-intuitive. Motivation is not a state you have or do not have, like optimism or a sense of humor. You cannot say "I am motivated" in the same way you say "I am dynamic." Motivation is always relational: it only exists through what activates it.
Etymologically, motivation comes from the Latin motivus, sharing the same root as motor. It is the capacity to put into action a reserve of energy that everyone carries inside. This energy needs an anchor to trigger: I am motivated "for" finalizing this project, "by" my manager who trusts me, "for" this goal that matches my ambitions, "by" this team where I feel great.
What this changes for the manager
Since motivation does not exist in itself, saying "my team is not motivated" is a faulty diagnosis. The right question is not "how do I motivate them?" but "what is the 'by' or 'for' of each member of my team, and do current conditions allow them to connect to it?"
The challenge is that this lever is often poorly expressed or even subconscious. Team members themselves do not always know how to name what engages or disconnects them. This is precisely why the manager's role is not to motivate, but to build trust and create the framework where each person can find and activate their own motivational lever.
Equation 2: What I give vs. what I receive
The second equation is one that every team member naturally and unconsciously calculates during every project, every period of intense effort, and every demanding mission. On one side of the scale: what they invest in time, energy, skills, and availability. On the other: what they receive in return, whether in compensation, recognition, personal fulfillment, or the feeling that they made a difference.
If the equation tips too unfavorably, the team member naturally adjusts their investment downward on the next project. This is not out of bad will, but simply a logical protection of their energy. "I poured myself into these goals all year, all for a 500-euro bonus"—this phrase perfectly illustrates the felt imbalance that leads to demotivation.
Non-monetary recognition: an underestimated lever
Rewards are not limited to compensation. Sincere and specific appreciation after a significant effort, a shout-out in front of the team, or an individual message naming exactly what was done well—these forms of non-monetary recognition can have a stronger motivational impact than a one-time bonus. Conversely, their absence after a heavy investment creates a lasting sense of injustice that shapes future engagement levels.
Equation 3: What I receive vs. what others receive
The third equation is even more subtle, and often more destabilizing for the manager. It focuses on social comparison: no longer between what I gave and what I received, but between what I received and what my colleagues received for what is perceived as an equivalent effort.
"We all gave a lot on this project, and the manager thanked Camille in the meeting. But they forgot me." This seemingly minor situation creates a real motivational wound. The team member does not question Camille's value; they question the manager's ability to see and fairly recognize everyone's contribution.
Procedural justice vs. distributive justice: the rule every manager must remember
This is where an essential distinction comes in, one too rarely known by managers: the difference between distributive justice and procedural justice.
Distributive justice is what you distribute: bonuses, praise, benefits, responsibilities. Procedural justice is the *why* behind the distribution: the rules, criteria, and transparency on how decisions are made.
A simple experiment illustrates this distinction. Imagine a teacher handing out envelopes to students leaving class: one receives 10 euros, another 5, and the third 20. Nobody understands why. As a result, the student who got 10 euros was happy until they saw the third student's 20 euros. The same experience with 1 and 2-euro coins, but with clear rules announced at the start (each correct answer is worth 1 euro, each disruption takes one away), produces a radically different outcome: nobody is surprised or frustrated, because everyone understands the process.
The absolute rule to remember: the *why* behind what you give is always more powerful than *what* you give. A manager who clearly explains their criteria for recognition and differentiation builds a much stronger sense of fairness than a manager who hands out generous rewards without explaining the logic. And this transparency costs nothing.
The trap of involuntary omission
Most perceived imbalances in this third equation do not stem from conscious favoritism. They come from simple inattention: managers naturally praise the most visible contributions and overlook those happening behind the scenes. What is unintentional on the manager's side is experienced as deliberate by the forgotten team member. The impact on motivation is identical.
Equation 4: P = M x S — Performance is the product of motivation and skills
The fourth equation is perhaps the most operational of all for a manager. It states a simple but profound truth: a team member's performance is the product of their motivation multiplied by their skills.
P = M x S. Performance equals Motivation times Skills.
A team member's skills are relatively stable over time. They evolve, but slowly. A team member who masters their job today will still master it tomorrow, next week, and next month. Skills are the foundation, the baseline of what we expect.
Motivation, however, can change daily. It fluctuates based on personal energy, team climate, recent successes and failures, accumulated frustrations, or renewed momentum. A highly competent but unmotivated team member will produce results far below their real capabilities. The same team member, fully engaged, can exceed all expectations.
What this equation demands from the manager
If performance is the product of M times S, and S is stable while M fluctuates, then a manager who wants to drive team performance must focus their energy mainly on motivation. This does not mean neglecting skill development, which remains essential, but understanding that the motivational layer determines whether existing skills are fully deployed or held back.
In practice, this means checking in regularly to understand each team member's motivational state, not just during annual reviews. Motivation can shift in a week, or even a day. An attentive manager captures these variations and adjusts their support accordingly, before demotivation sets in and impacts long-term results.
What these four equations say about the manager's role
Together, these four equations shape a clear and cohesive vision of what motivation requires from a manager. It is not about motivating team members in the sense of an external injection of energy. It is about understanding the mechanisms that activate or inhibit their own motivation, and taking action on the levers within your scope.
Find the "by" or "for" of each team member. Ensure a healthy balance between what they give and what they receive. Distribute recognition fairly and transparently. And keep a constant eye on the motivational state of your team, because that is where collective performance is won or lost.
These skills cannot be improvised. You develop them by understanding the mechanisms, practicing the right tools, and training through situations that bring these dynamics into play.
FAQ: Frequently asked questions about motivational levers at work
Can a team member be motivated without their manager's intervention?
Yes, if organizational and relational conditions are naturally supportive. Some team members spontaneously find their "by" or "for" in their mission, colleagues, or sense of purpose. But according to Gallup (2023), 70% of engagement depends directly on the immediate manager's behavior. This figure illustrates how much the manager remains the primary lever for activating motivation, even when they think they are doing nothing out of the ordinary.
Why is offering more money not enough to remotivate a team?
Because money is a hygiene factor in the Herzberg sense: its insufficiency creates dissatisfaction, but its increase does not create lasting motivation. And because procedural justice overrides distributive justice: giving more without explaining why, or according to what criteria, can create more confusion and a sense of unfairness than actual motivation. The how and the why matter as much as the what.
How do you apply P = M x S in practice with your team?
By integrating motivational pulse-checks into regular conversations with your team members, rather than saving them for formal reviews. Simple questions like "What is engaging you most in your work right now?" or "What is slowing you down?" help you check the pulse of motivation before it drops. This regular attention allows you to adjust conditions quickly before demotivation takes root.
How do you explain recognition criteria without creating jealousy?
By setting criteria upfront, before recognition is distributed, rather than explaining them after the fact. When the rules of the game are known and accepted by everyone from the start, the final differentiation is perceived as logical and predictable, not arbitrary. This proactive transparency is the best antidote to comparative unfairness.
Can these levers be learned in a training program?
Yes, and it is actually essential. Understanding these mechanisms intellectually is not enough: you must practice applying them in real situations, detecting warning signs of demotivation, and leading individual conversations focused on understanding each team member's drivers. These skills are built through experience. Discover our training programs in management to develop these reflexes within your leadership teams.
Conclusion: Four simple equations, a profoundly different managerial approach
Motivation does not exist in itself. It is always motivated by or for something. It depends on a sense of fairness between what you give and what you receive. It is shaped by perceived justice in comparison with others. And it determines, far more than skills, a team member's actual level of performance.
These four equations invite managers to shift their posture: search less to motivate from the outside, and focus more on creating the conditions where each team member can activate and sustain their own energy. It is a more demanding, more nuanced role, and infinitely more effective than acting as a temporary provider of enthusiasm.
To train your managers on these levers and anchor them into their daily habits, discover our training programs in management: setups designed to transform understanding into lasting reflexes.
SOURCES
Watch the videos:
Read the articles:
What drives motivation at work
Take action
A 30-minute conversation helps clarify what’s relevant for your teams.
