Motivation in Organisations

Motivation in Organisations
Motivation in Organisations: Searching for a Meaningful Work-Life

Balance extends the current motivation models in business education to
include motives of human behaviour that have been neglected for decades.
It debunks some of the myths about human motivation (self-interest as the
dominant factor, amorality and non-spirituality) and explains why this
approach to teaching business is erroneous and leads to wrong and harmful
practices in many organisations.
In a very personal and engaging style, the author presents a “map of
motivations”, based on a humanistic approach to management. This
includes the latest findings of Abraham H. Maslow supported by sound
philosophical reflections and modern research. He also presents specific
ways of putting the framework into practice, sharing stories from students
and professionals of how this framework has helped them better understand
their own motivations and look at their daily work in a much more
meaningful way.
The book is highly relevant to students and researchers in humanistic
management, people management, organisational behaviour, business
ethics, corporate social responsibility and sustainability. In short, this text
will be truly inspiring to anyone who wants to reflect on motivation in
organisations and how to achieve a better work-life balance.
Manuel Guillén is Associate Professor of Management, Organisational

Behaviour and Professional Ethics at the University of Valencia (UV), Spain,
and specialises in the area of leadership and trust in organisations. He is
Founder and Director of the Institute for Ethics in Communication and
in Organizations (IECO) and Director of the IECO-UV Chair of Business
Ethics. For eight years, he has been the General Secretary of the Spanish
branch of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN-Spain). He is also
Co-Founder of the International Humanistic Management Association
Center Consortium. Guillén is a regular visiting researcher at Harvard
University, where he is currently Representative of the University of Valencia
Grants Programme.
Humanistic Management
Series Editors: Michael Pirson, Erica Steckler,
David Wasieleski, Benito Teehankee,
Ricardo Aguado and Ernestina Giudici
Humanistic Management draws together the concepts of social business,

sustainability, social entrepreneurship, business ethics, conscious capitalism
and cooperative capitalism to present a new humanistically based research
paradigm. This new paradigm challenges the prevailing neo-liberal ‘econo
mistic’ approach that dominates twentieth-century management theory and
practice, and instead emphasises the need to protect human dignity and
wellbeing as well as economic drivers.
Aesthetics, Organization, and Humanistic Management

Edited by Monika Kostera and Cezary Wozniak
Searching for a Meaningful Work-Life Balance
Manuel Guillén
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com

Searching for a Meaningful
Work-Life Balance
Manuel Guillén
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa
business
© 2021 Manuel Guillén
The right of Manuel Guillén Parra to be identified as author of this
work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and
78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Guillén, Manuel (Guillén Parra) author.
Title: Motivation in organisations : searching for a meaningful
work-life balance / Manuel Guillén.
Description: New York : Routledge, 2021. | Series: Humanistic
management | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020026233 | ISBN 9780367322106 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780429317293 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Employee motivation. | Organizational behavior. |
Work-life balance.
Classification: LCC HF5549.5.M63 G85 2021 | DDC
658.3/14—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026233
ISBN: 978-0-367-32210-6 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-31729-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
For Mum and Dad, my first teachers, for so many things
Contents
List of figuresxii
Foreword by Dr Donna Hicksxiv
Prefacexvi
Acknowledgementsxx
PART I
Mapping the territory of human motivations1
1 Human motivation theories: Are they really human? 3

Understanding Herzberg’s extrinsic and intrinsic
motivations 3
Revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs 7
Building a map of motivations 10
Using the map of motivations 14
Some practical tips 17
Some questions for reflection 18
A final critical thought on why the map is not yet accurate
enough 19
References 20
2 The extrinsic moral motivations: Human yearning for dignity 21

Human motivation theories neglecting the moral
dimension 21
Inviting Aristotle to join the conversation with Maslow and
Herzberg 22
Comparing Maslow’s hierarchy with Aristotle’s conceptions
of good 25
Recovering the neglected moral dimension in human
motivation theories 29
viii Contents
Extrinsic moral motivation founded on human dignity
and source of trust 33
The crucial role of moral motivation to rebuild trust 35
enough 39
References 40
3 The intrinsic moral motivations: Aiming to do the right thing 42

Revisiting Maslow’s latest ideas on the moral dimension
of motivations 42
Maslow’s and Aristotle’s common ideas on human nature
and moral goodness 44
Intrinsic moral motivations: The human desire to do good,
honouring our own dignity 47
Moral motivations are higher than useful and pleasant
motivations 49
Intrinsic moral motivations shape our moral virtues and
our moral conscience 55
Intrinsic moral motivations demand free moral
character 57
Intrinsic moral motivations are a manifestation of our
human ideals 59
enough 64
References 65
PART II
Exploring the region of higher human motivations67
4 The transcendent motivations: Human readiness to give 69

Overcoming a self-centred vision of human motivations 69
Transcendent motivations: Human willingness to give 71
Transcendent motivations or human generosity in debate
among academics 74
Transcendent useful motivations: Human willingness to
give useful good, to serve 78
Contents ix
Transcendent pleasant motivations: Human willingness to
give pleasant good, to please 80
Transcendent moral motivations: Human willingness to
give moral good, to do good 83
Transcendent motivations’ presence in ordinary and
professional life 85
enough 90
References 91
5 The spiritual motivations: Human aspiration

for the highest goods 93
The neglected spiritual motivations 93
Spiritual motivations in pursuing the highest human
goods 95
Spiritual motivations in Maslow’s latest enquiries 97
Spiritual motivations’ different conceptions 99
Spiritual motivations: Worthy of universal recognition
and respect 103
Extrinsic spiritual motivations: The willingness to receive
spiritual good 106
Intrinsic spiritual motivations: The willingness to acquire
spiritual good 109
Transcendent spiritual motivations: The willingness to give
spiritual good 111
Evidence of spiritual motivations 112
enough 116
References 117
6 The religious motivations: Human longing for God’s Love 120

Religious motivations: A human reality 120
Religious motivations: A personal relationship with
God 121
Religious motivations: Discovering God’s Love 124
Religious motivations: It is all about love 127
x Contents
Religious useful motivation: Willing to return useful good
to God 130
Religious pleasant motivation: Willing to return pleasant
good to God 133
Religious moral motivation: Willing to return moral
good to God 134
Religious spiritual motivation: Willing to return the
spiritual good to God 136
Evidence of religious motivations 139
A final critical thought on why having a map is not
enough 144
References 145
PART III
Using the map of motivations: Towards higher
meaningful work147
7 The map coordinates for motivations: The logic of love

in organisations 149
The logic of love in life and work 149
The logic of love in the human sciences 151
The logic of love in human organisations 153
Receiving truly human good in organisations 157
Achieving truly human good in organisations 161
Giving truly human good in organisations 166
Returning truly human good in organisations 169
The order of love and the order of loves 172
enough 176
References 177
8 The compass for motivations: Searching for a meaningful

work-life balance 179
Meaning in life and motivations 179
The meaning of work and motivations 181
The meaning of work as a job 183
The meaning of work as a career 186
The meaning of work as a calling 188
Contents xi
The meaning of work as a higher calling 192
Searching for a meaningful work-life balance 195
enough 198
References 199
9 The roadmap for motivations: Always searching for higher

meaningful work 201
Searching for higher meaningful work 201
From the logic of fear to the logic of love 203
In search of a higher meaning in a job 205
In search of a higher meaning in a career 208
In search of a higher meaning in a calling 212
In search of a higher meaning in a higher calling 217
In search of higher meaningful work and life 219
References 224
Index226
Figures
1.1 Comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s motivation theories 11

1.2 A different way of comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s
1.3 Comparing Maslow’s, Herzberg’s and other authors’
1.4 Using the 2x2 map: Diagnosis of students’ motivations 15
2.1 Philosophical distinction between motives and motivations 24
2.2 Comparing Maslow’s hierarchy with Aristotle’s types
of human good 26
2.3 Definition of motivations based on Aristotle’s types
of human good 28
2.4 Definition of moral motivation based on Aristotle’s types
of human good 32
2.5 Examples of the extrinsic moral motivation 37
3.1 Defining intrinsic moral motivation 47
3.2 The hierarchical order of human nature and human goods 53
3.3 Examples from participants’ intrinsic moral motivations
or ideals 61
4.1 Defining transcendent motivations 72
4.2 Mapping the territory: The transcendent useful motivation 79
4.3 Mapping the territory: The transcendent pleasant motivation 81
4.4 Mapping the territory: The transcendent moral motivation 84
4.5 Examples from participants’ transcendent motivations 88
5.1 The spiritual good defined 95
5.2 Mapping the territory of motivations: The spiritual
motivations105
5.3 The extrinsic spiritual motivations 107
5.4 The intrinsic spiritual motivations 109
5.5 The transcendent spiritual motivations 113
5.6 Examples of spiritual motivations 114
6.1 Love as the summary of human motivations 128
6.2 The religious human motivations 129
6.3 The religious useful motivations 132
Figures xiii
6.4 The religious pleasant motivations 133
6.5 The religious moral motivations 135
6.6 The religious spiritual motivations 137
6.7 Examples of the religious motivations 140
7.1 Love as the summary of human motivations in organisations 150
7.2 Disciplines involved in understanding human motivations 152
7.3 The logic of love in human organisations 156
7.4 Receiving love at work 158
7.5 Achieving love at work 162
7.6 Giving love at work 168
7.7 Returning love at work 170
7.8 Map coordinates for motivations: The order of love
and order of loves 175
8.1 The map of motivations and the meaning in life 180
8.2 The map of motivations and the meaning in work 182
8.3 The meaning of work as a job 185
8.4 The meaning of work as a career 186
8.5 The meaning of work as a calling 190
8.6 The meaning of work as a higher calling 194
8.7 Searching for a meaningful work-life balance: Compass
for motivations 196
9.1 The logic of fear: A map of negative motivations 204
9.2 Fostering higher meaningful work as a job 208
9.3 Fostering higher meaningful work as a career 210
9.4 Fostering higher meaningful work as a calling 214
9.5 Fostering higher meaningful work as a higher calling 218
9.6 Roadmap for motivations: Searching for higher
meaningful work 220
9.7 Content of the book: A “map of the map” 222
Foreword by Dr Donna Hicks
Motivation in organisations: Searching for a meaningful

work-life balance
What could be more important than understanding what motivates us to
do the things we do? Since we are all human beings, we have the capacity
to rise above our involuntary, hardwired instincts and make decisions for
ourselves and others that are consciously driven, as well as thoughtfully and
deliberately chosen. The problem is, the process of moving from instinc-
tive behaviour to carefully thought-through decisions, is not something that
comes naturally. It has to be learnt.
What Professor Guillén has done in this remarkable book is created a
roadmap for anyone interested in reflecting on and engaging in that learn-
ing process. In so doing, he has given us tools to achieve more complex
and insightful ways of realising our potential as human beings as well as
engaging in the kind of meaningful work most of us are seeking. He has
also clarified what the literature on meaningful work means by “work”. Is
it understood as a job, a career, a calling, or a higher calling?
In order to create the roadmap, Professor Guillén has shone a bright light
on the limitations of the current theories of motivation and has addressed
the gaps in the literature that have ignored some of the most profound rea-
sons for what motivates us and what gives our lives and work meaning. He
has added another dimension to the classical and traditional motivation
theories that espouse only extrinsic and intrinsic reasons for why we do
what we do (humans’ desire to achieve and receive “good”; that which is
either pleasant or useful). He argues that humans also have a passionate
desire for “moral” good (this includes extrinsic and intrinsic moral motiva-
tion). Integrated throughout the moral dimension is an appreciation for the
role dignity plays in achieving this kind of good.
From a dignity perspective, we seek extrinsic moral good with the desire
to be treated with dignity by others and our organisations. On the other
hand, when we treat others with dignity, we achieve intrinsic moral good
because we know it is the right thing to do. All human beings have inherent
value and worth and deserve to be treated as such.
Foreword by Dr Donna Hicks xv
The matter of dignity plays out in the rest of the book by suggesting
something that I have been talking about for decades, that treating others
with dignity and receiving dignity from others are acts of love. What better
way to create meaning in your life and work than by recognising the inher-
ent worth in yourself, others, and the greater purpose of the organisation?
If you love your work, then you are likely receiving and giving dignity. You
are likely to feel that the purpose of the organisation is also dignity driven.
With those three connections – to your own dignity, to the dignity of others,
and the dignity of something greater than yourself – your goal of achieving
a meaningful and fulfilling work-life balance is within reach.
I said in the beginning of this foreword that the items in the map Profes-
sor Guillén has created to help us navigate the challenging task of figuring
out why we do what we do, are things that don’t come naturally; we have
to learn how to reflect on these issues. Fortunately, Professor Guillén has
answered his highest calling by thinking deeply about the topic of human
motivations and has done it with such loving intent. His commitment to
love and dignity, and, for him, a connection to a Higher Power, is what
motivated him to write this important book. He has given us the tools to
learn how to create meaning, purpose and a life of fulfilment, not only for
ourselves but also for the organisations that enable us to do what we love.
Thank you, Manuel, for this invaluable contribution to our understanding
of what it means to be human.
Donna Hicks, PhD
Associate, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs
Harvard University
Preface
I had just led a one-day seminar on human motivations in organisations for

a group of corporate executives in Valencia, Spain, when one approached
me and said, “Before you go, I would like to thank you for the discussion we
had today, it was priceless for me”. I thanked her for the positive feedback
and, curious about what had caused her encouraging appraisal, I asked her
which particular aspect of the day’s discussion, if any, she had found most
helpful.
She looked at me and said:
“This is something quite personal . . .”

“. . . I left my former employer a year ago. It was a tough decision
because I was part of senior management and, if you are a woman, it
is quite difficult to access such positions. Most people could not under-
stand why I was leaving the company but, somehow, I knew it was time
to go. It was a decision that came from the heart, and I knew I had to
make it, even though I was not a hundred per cent sure it was the right
thing”.
She continued, “It was only today, during your seminar, that I finally real-
ised why I quit and what drove me to that decision. Finally, I could define
the motivations behind my determination to quit and, even though it sounds
weird, I now know that I did the right thing. Again, thank you very much
for your message; I am glad I was able to attend your seminar”.
I wish I could say more about her and her job, but the company she left
is well known in Spain, and I must respect her privacy. Nevertheless, I will
share one last thing she told me that day: “You should write a book about
your expanded framework on human motivations. If you write such a book,
I believe you will help many people”. Even now, I remember that conversa-
tion in full, and have not stopped thinking about writing this book since.
That woman did not give me many reasons, but the one she mentioned –
“you will help a lot of people” – was enough to give me my motivation.
A few months after that seminar in Valencia, I presented the same theory of
motivations in organisations to a group of business management professors
Preface xvii
at other European universities. At the close, one attendee said to me, “You
have just awoken our consciences. We cannot return and keep teaching
motivation related to management in the way we used to. We must be frank
with our students – tell them about the findings of your research, and how
wrong we have been”. This person asked me if I had considered writing a
book to explain this new way of understanding human motivations.
More recently, now in the US, I was again surprised by the positive reac-
tions when presenting my research to business professionals in Boston.
Almost everyone approached me after the presentation to enquire about
further readings and opportunities to learn more about higher human moti-
vations; they were eager for more. It was evident that the academic article
I gave them was simply not enough. Since then, wherever I present this
theory of human motivations in organisations, be it at Harvard University
where I spend half of the year, or back in Europe where I teach for the other
half, I always get the same message from students, colleagues and practi-
tioners: “If you write a book, you will help many people”. Had I not been
made aware of the value people have placed on the findings of my research,
I would not be devoted to what I teach to then go on and share it with a
wider audience.
The ideas you are about to explore come from over twenty years of pas-
sionate discussion with my students at the University of Valencia in Spain
and also from seminars with professionals from almost every sector at the
Harvard Kennedy School of Government.1 In the beginning, I used to say
to the undergraduates attending my lectures: “I’m sorry, but the theories of
motivation I will be teaching you are wrong, but I have nothing better to
offer you right now, so please help me become better. Let’s do some research
together”.
If you were to ask any of my former students, they would tell you that this
is exactly how frank I was with them. I worked with them for years to find
a way of explaining human motivations in organisations in a manner that
was open to aspects of motivation that, for decades, were entirely neglected
by most major business schools and management textbooks. Unfortunately,
we have been explaining the model of a person as self-interested, amoral
and non-spiritual.
After a few years of discussion and research with the students, and with
help and input from researchers at the institute I founded – the Institute for
Ethics in Communication and in Organizations (IECO)2 – we introduced a
first version of an expanded taxonomy of motivations. The resulting “map
of motivations” was the product of inclusive dialogue between social scien-
tists and philosophers.
As I explain in further detail in the book, the definitive version of this map
was produced partly due to a correction by an MBA student at Harvard
and partly due to another year working with other colleagues. In 2015, the
full version was published, co-authored together with my colleagues Ignacio
Ferrero and Michael Hoffman, in the Journal of Business Ethics.3
xviii Preface
The book you now hold in your hands is a humanistic, methodical and
more comprehensive exploration of the theories of motivation. Parts I and II
describe a new map of human motivations based on the most recent empiri-
cal findings of the social sciences, in dialogue with the humanities. Part III is
then devoted to explaining how to use the map, offering you its coordinates,
a compass and a roadmap.
A map is most helpful when you want to know where you are and to get
to your destination. Similarly, having a map of our drives and desires might
help us to better understand where those wishes, interests and ideals reside
and to decide where we want to take them in our work and our lives.
This map might be useful for students who do not have clear criteria on
which to base their professional future. It can help young professionals who
are overwhelmed, who suffer from stress at work, who find tension between
their work and personal life, or who do not even find meaning in their work.
The map can be also especially useful for more mature people in the midst of
a mid-career crisis. In fact, it can help us all better understand our motiva-
tions and the meaning we are giving to our work. In short, this conceptual
framework allows us to reflect on how to achieve a better work-life balance.
Given the complexity of human nature, I am fully aware that attempting
to build a humanistic map of human motivations risks oversimplification.
This is why all my research is grounded in the works of some of the most
renowned researchers in the field. I am also very aware that every theory
is just that, a theory, with its limitations. I expect revisions and correc-
tions to come about as more colleagues engage with this material, but, until
then, I offer you the result of a long and honest search to better understand
human nature and our motivations in the workplace, in particular, and our
lives in general.
Clearly and simply, this book is the story of a management professor who
knew he was wrong, asked for help and ended up devising a framework that
may guide people to a more meaningful work-life balance. A professor who
has gained a lot more from it than he had expected. A professor who has
learnt much more about the complexities of human behaviour as well as its
grandeur and dignity.
Students, managers and practitioners in general say that this new frame-
work is much more relatable and easier to remember than existing theories
of motivation. More importantly, they found the framework quite useful
in better understanding their own motivations, to order their minds and
help them make better decisions. I hope everyone who teaches human moti-
vations can learn from the findings of this work, with a further focus on
managers and practitioners. I believe we all need a more humanistic under-
standing of our motivations and, for those whose work is managing people,
they will be further enlightened in knowing how to manage motivation in
others.
I believe this reflection is worthy of your time, as many people around
the world have commented that it could help them a lot. I hope this work
Preface xix
serves you in understanding your personal motivation and your purpose in
work and in life. Throughout the book, I will present the results of years
of research and share many stories from students and professionals about
how this framework has helped them look at their daily work in a more
meaningful way and how it helped them transform their lives. My desire is
that this book will lead you to reflect on your ideals and help you discover
your true and profound motivations, with the ultimate goal of balancing
your work and life.
As I finish writing this book, locked away at home in Boston, the entire
world is engulfed in this coronavirus pandemic. During these days, I have
been receiving news from Spain about the death of several co-workers and
good friends. One feels great pain and helplessness at not being able to be
near them and their families in such difficult times. These are difficult times
for everyone. If you feel powerless in this situation, you can only pray, if
you are a person of faith; in any case, we all need to look for meaning in this
situation that we have never experienced before.
At this time, I have been able to see that the book by Victor Frankl, Man’s
Search for Meaning, is one of the most cited when reflecting on the COVID-
19 crisis. Frankl explained that what really distinguishes man from other
beings is not the will to pleasure (Freud), or the will to power (Nietzsche),
but the will to meaning, to finding meaning in life, which is the first motivat-
ing force of the human being. He also said that “when we are no longer able
to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves”.
What I have tried to do in this book, while standing on the shoulders of
giants like Victor Frankl, Abraham Maslow, Aristotle, Augustine and Aqui-
nas, is to reflect on the search for meaning at work, an essential part of our
lives. I hope I have been faithful to the ideas of such brilliant thinkers, and
my desire is that this book helps you as much as it has helped me.
Notes
1 As the representative of the University of Valencia Grants Program at Harvard,
I have been invited for several years as an occasional lecturer by the Harvard New
England Alumni Association of the Leadership Survival Skills Program at the Har-
vard Kennedy School of Government. This program focuses on developing the
skills and strategies needed to address leadership challenges.
2 IECO’s mission is to promote dialogue between the social sciences and philosophy
based on a holistic view of the person. It also develops tools to assess organisa-
tions from an ethical approach. www.iecoinstitute.org/en/
3 See Guillén, M., Ferrero, I. & Hoffman, W. (2015). The neglected ethical and spir-
itual motivations in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 803–816.
Acknowledgements
My gratitude starts with two people: Danilo Petranovich, the Director of

the Abigail Adams Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Desmond
Conway, who was an LLM student at Harvard Law School when I first met
him. I would not have written this book had it not been for the insistence,
support and friendship of both.
Two other people have been key in reviewing the first drafts of this book:
Alejandro Cañadas and Jean Pierre Peinado, who read the early versions of
the manuscript and gave me valuable comments. They made sure I was con-
sistent and comprehensible throughout the book. In recent months, a third
person, Sergio Castellano, began to read the drafts of each chapter, and his
comments and advice have helped me enormously in the final writing of the
text. Cristiana Nicoli de Mattos, a psychiatrist and good friend, was the final
person to review the manuscripts and contributed invaluable comments.
Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers who gave their approval for
this book to be published in the special Humanistic Management series
by Routledge (Taylor & Francis). Special thanks to Michael Pirson, who
encouraged me to publish the book in this series. Many thanks to Brianna
Ascher and Naomi Round, my principal editorial contacts at Routledge, for
their permanent spirit of service.
For his skills and guidance, I’m especially indebted to Ian Nicol, who
edited every single word of the final manuscript with extraordinary pro-
fessionalism, and who turned my English into easily readable prose that
conveys the ideas that were originally in my head. Nevertheless, any errors
in this book are mine alone, but the book itself would not exist without the
help of every person I named before.
Most themes in the book had their genesis in my classes at the Univer-
sity of Valencia, and in many of the classes and talks I gave over the years
throughout Europe and the US. I should thank each one of my former stu-
dents for so many wonderful hours shared learning together. I must thank
in a special way all those people that I name in the book without making
explicit mention of their full names. Thanks to them, I have been able to bet-
ter understand and explain many of the concepts and ideas that I propose
throughout the text.
Acknowledgements xxi
Much of the content was developed while preparing several leadership
seminars I have lead that were organised by the Harvard Kennedy School’s
New England Alumni Association, so very special thanks to Madeline Snow
and Karen M. Kingsbury, who put their trust in an unknown Spanish pro-
fessor after hearing me speak once in a talk at RCC-Harvard.
Very special thanks to Rita Jácome and Luis Pérez, the IECO manage-
ment team, for their friendship and unfailing support. Were it not for Rita
and Luis, I would have given up; they set me straight along the way. I am
also indebted to all the members of the IECO advisory board, starting
with Donna Hicks, who wrote the foreword of this book. God surprises
us by putting superb human beings along our path; Donna has been one
of those people. She has been my Harvard mentor and counsellor, and she
has always trusted me more than I ever trusted myself. Above all, I want to
thank Donna and Rick, her husband, for their love and friendship.
Special thanks to the rest of the IECO Advisory Board for their commit-
ment to IECO’s work over the last decade, thanks to Ignacio Gil, Ginés
Marco, Ignacio Bel, Joaquín Aldás, Rafael Juán, William (Bill) Bowman
and William (Bill) English. Also, to all the former and current IECO Fel-
lows: Alexis Bañón, Tomás Baviera, Alejandro Cañadas, Lourdes Canós,
Fernando Chust, Esther Galdón, Antonio García, Tomás González, Álvaro
Lleó, Enrique Marrades, Santiago Martínez, Borja Moragues, Carlos M.
Moreno, Jean Pierre Peinado, Marco Robles and Pablo Ruíz. All of them
colleagues in this exciting world of research and education and truly great
friends. Also, special thanks to my doctoral supervisor, Professor Domènec
Melé.
For their wisdom and guidance all this time, I am very grateful to the
three businessmen who support the IECO-UV Chair of Business Ethics:
Vicente Ruiz (RNB), Raúl Royo (RGIB) and Fidel García-Guzmán (Guz-
man Global). From them, their companies and their management teams,
I have learnt many of the humanistic management principles and practices
that you will read about in this book.
Particular appreciation for her confidence goes to the Rector of the Univer-
sity of Valencia, Mavi Mestre, who appointed me the representative of our
institution in the exchange programme with Harvard University, through
the RCC-Harvard. Thanks also to Guillermo Palao and Carles Padilla, the
former and current Vice-rectors of International Affairs at the University of
Valencia, two wonderful people with whom I have been fortunate to work
in recent years.
Many thanks to David Kennedy, Director of the IGLP at Harvard Law
School, for his invitations over the last four years as visiting researcher at
Harvard University. Special thanks to Tyler VanderWeele, founder of the
Human Flourishing program at Harvard, and to Matthew T. Lee, the pro-
gramme’s Director of Empirical Research for their help and collaboration
with IECO researchers and their invaluable advice about much of this book’s
content. Special thanks also to Nien-hê Hsieh at the Harvard Business
xxii Acknowledgements
School, for his invitation to attend all his classes and his support in promot-
ing a Humanistic Management approach and in writing this book. Thanks
to all the Harvard professors who have supported me over the years.
I also would like to make a very special mention of three people who,
unfortunately, have already left us but without whom this book would
never have seen the light. Juan José Renau Piqueras, my teacher, first men-
tor and Dean of the School of Economics at the University of Valencia;
Dr Ángel Saenz-Badillos, Director of the Real Colegio Complutense (RCC)
at Harvard University; and W. Michael Hoffman, who passed away a year
ago and was a member of the IECO’s Advisory Board. The three of them
were renowned academics, great people and very good friends. I have fond
memories of the entire team at the W. Michael Hoffman Center for Business
Ethics at Bentley University: Mary Chiasson, Bob McNulty & Gail Sands.
A million thanks for so many things.
I cannot but thank my American “family”, all the residents of Elmbrook
and Chestnut Hill, who have supported me for six months each of these last
years living with me. Thank you all, and sorry for so many hours of absence
that I had to dedicate to writing the book. Thanks to my Valencian family,
the residents of Altet and Colegio Mayor la Alameda, for their patience with
me.
I have been raised in an exceptional family, so I cannot finish without
mentioning my sisters Yoya, Piedad, Ecarna and my brothers Antonio and
Pepe for every minute they have shared with me, and their example, and for
having given me nine wonderful nieces and nephews. Much of the content
of this book is the result of a shared life.
Finally, this book is dedicated to the memory of my parents. I thank God
for His generosity, His teaching, and His example. Although I have written
the book alone, the previous two sentences show the real “culprits” for this
book being written.
Part I
Mapping the territory

of human motivations
1 Human motivation theories
Are they really human?
Understanding Herzberg’s extrinsic and intrinsic motivations

Back in 2008, I delivered a presentation at Harvard University.1 The title
of this talk was “Human Motivation Theories: Are They Really Human?”
I presented an analytical review of some of the most renowned theories on
human motivations in organisations and justified why a majority of those
theories seem not so human somehow. The lecture room was packed, and
many of those in attendance conveyed their positive reaction and considera-
tion to the basis of the talk. Among the participants was a Spanish MBA stu-
dent who approached me and said, “I think your ideas are quite innovative
and definitely on the money, but I think there is still something missing”.
I was surprised by this observation from the Harvard student, and it defi-
nitely piqued my interest. He followed up on his comment by agreeing that
the framework of motivations I had presented was an improvement on oth-
ers he had studied, especially when referring to the human perspective, but
he insisted that a piece of the puzzle was still missing.
Because of those comments, I undertook a journey of development, which
meant another year of research to produce the definitive Map of Human
Motivations (Guillén et al., 2015), which is at the core of this book. I make
the case in this book that, unless some of the most well-known past theories
of motivation are reviewed and improved, they could lead to inappropriate
and detrimental practices in organisations as predicted years ago, referring
to the subjacent assumptions of many of the management theories that have
been taught in business schools in recent decades (Ghoshal, 2005).
Let’s start this expedition together: imagine you are a business student
and your management lecturer asks you what your motivations are. To
begin with, why are you attending this class? The first answer from most
students is quite simple: they want to pass the course and get the credits.
This is an almost universal motivation for any student, no matter what they
study. Even though you may find students interested in getting an A+ or just
a C, what is clear is that every student in the world wants to pass the exams
and, ultimately, the class.
4 Mapping the territory of human motivations
As human beings, we do what we have to do in order to get a particular
set of results, or to obtain items we consider good, as something essential,
convenient, or just satisfying, and students are no exception to this. In fact,
if you ask them to provide other reasons for passing the course, among their
motivations they will include all kinds of rewards they may get from their
parents if they pass their exams. For instance, money or presents such as a
motorbike, a car, a holiday, etc.
At this point, it is logical to ask them if they have motivations other than
external rewards. The answers, however, will probably depend on how
much they care about the content of your course and which parts they are
specifically drawn to, but it will also have a lot to do with their personal
interests. Occasionally, you may have a good student saying that they are
attending the class simply in order to learn. However, the reactions to this
from the rest of the class might be quite diverse, including disbelief.
Young students, especially adolescents, are not typically enthusiastic
about recognising their noble desires, or even talking about them in public,
exposing themselves to the risk of being embarrassed. Then again, what is
true, is that the desire for learning is a universal motivation, and one that is
not contingent upon what you receive from someone, such as your lecturer
or your boss, but of what you accomplish while in class or at work.
Learning is something that you attain through effort, your own effort. It’s
a deeply personal engagement. Thus, when learning is the primary reason
why students go to class, their interest is certainly higher than when their
only motivation is just passing the course. This may seem obvious, but it
is something that has always helped me explain the difference between our
extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to my students. The former come from
the outside (such as rewards), whereas the latter originate on the inside
(such as learning).
It is at this point I like to ask them if they know who popularised such dis-
tinction. The reason for this is that, when I teach, I love to move seamlessly
from common experience to general theories. Unfortunately, even though
these two categories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are almost com-
mon knowledge, only a few recognise the individual responsible for them.
It was the American psychologist Frederick Irving Herzberg, one of the
most influential names in business management, who first distinguished
between what he called hygienic factors (extrinsic) and motivator factors
(intrinsic) (Herzberg, 1968). The former refers to doing something because
it leads to a distinct outcome, some external value that you expect to receive
(like a good grade); the latter refers to doing something because it is inher-
ently interesting or enjoyable, that is, it results in an internal reward (like
learning something new).
You can distinguish intrinsic motivation when you gaze at the bright,
attentive eyes of your students, looking at you, eager to know more about
the topic. Intrinsic motivations are those reasons that move us to do things
for their own sake, because we care about what we are doing, like learning
Human motivation theories 5
something new. I must point out that, in an ideal world, learning should be
the main motivation for any student.
As you almost certainly know, though, real life is always different and not
so perfect. It seems that in real-world situations, students mostly care about
passing the course, at least at the start of the academic year. Furthermore,
such motivations are mainly extrinsic, meaning those reasons that move us
to do things to obtain something from the outside.
What Herzberg found with his studies in organisational working envi-
ronments was that extrinsic factors do not properly motivate an individual
when they are present. Nevertheless, when these factors are absent, they can
easily lower motivation. For many students, passing the course is an extrin-
sic factor but not a motivator. The possibility of not passing would surely
produce dissatisfaction, but just passing only for the sake of passing would
not be a factor in explaining a higher interest or motivation for taking the
course or paying more attention to their lecturers.
Equally, in the opposite direction, Herzberg found that intrinsic factors
do not necessarily lower motivation when they are absent, but they can be
responsible for increasing motivation when present. If students are keen on
studying in general, or the topic you are teaching is interesting or challeng-
ing, this will unquestionably lead to greater motivation.
It is a universal truth that to keep the attention of young undergradu-
ates, you have to manage not only their extrinsic motivations but also their
intrinsic. If you want to hold their attention, you need to ensure the class is
interesting, challenging and worth their presence and effort.
That is precisely why, when teaching about human motivations, I try to
challenge students by asking about their personal motives. I make an effort
to present the topic in a way that engages them, starting a basic and real
“conversation” with them. Accordingly, to check their understanding of
the two-factor theory, I ask them to give me examples of these two kinds of
motivations. For this exercise, I normally tell them to apply the theories to
third parties, for instance, using their lecturers as examples.
I enquire about the kind of extrinsic motivation that a professor or lec-
turer could get from lecturing. The answer may vary depending on the
group, but usually they all end up with one or all of three reasons: to make
money, to get a better job or to move into a higher position at the university.
Sometimes, they also suggest that we lecture to gain acknowledgement or a
lasting interest from them, the students.
This is the moment when I tell them that these are really good examples
of extrinsic motivations. I also ask them if they have ever asked their lectur-
ers about their motivations or if they have just assumed them. This issue is
quite relevant for management students; asking and listening is important
when referring to the motivations of others, as we will consider again in
Chapter 7.
The good news about their responses is that they really understand what
extrinsic motivation implies. Their replies are genuine and sincere, and they
are all reassuring reasons for teachers and educators to keep working how
they do. This is not dissimilar to any job or organisation; extrinsic motiva-
tions are always related to receiving some type of external reward or appre-
ciation from others, but these are not necessarily the main or only reasons
why we teach.
Consequently, if you press the students further to tell you more about
other teachers’ motivations, they will probably reach the conclusion that
some just love teaching; they thoroughly enjoy it. In other words, some
teach because, while doing so, they feel good in themselves and with what
they do. This is definitely a great example of intrinsic motivation and is
intrinsic because the reason you keep doing something is the positive effect
that activity produces within yourself. While doing this activity, in this case
teaching, you feel good.
I always feel regret when most students do not see intrinsic motivations
as a main driver for some of their lecturers’ undertakings. That is a story for
another time, though. The motivations of lecturers are not the important
issue to reflect on right now, it just became part of the ongoing conversation
with the students about human motivations in general.
The next question is usually, “If you had to choose, would you prefer lec-
turers motivated by extrinsic or intrinsic motivations?” As you can imagine,
if they had to choose, they would rather have lecturers with strong intrinsic
motivations. But why? Mainly because they feel that lecturers who love
their job are regularly more fun, seem more knowledgeable and deliver their
classes with exceptional ability.
Again, this observation from students is likely to be true for every profes-
sion. For some reason, when you perceive someone’s enthusiasm, you also
become an enthusiast. I remember when I was young, the reason I originally
wanted to study chemistry was the passion my chemistry teacher had for the
subject. Intrinsic motivations seem to be contagious, but why would that
be? Students don’t normally know how to answer that question directly,
which is why I suggest they give it some thought and discuss it among them-
selves or in class later. We will explore this idea further in Chapter 7.
Afterwards, I tend to go further and ask them a new question: Would
you rather lecturers be motivated only by intrinsic motivations, or also
by the extrinsic? As you may guess, their answer is always the same; the
more motivations, of any kind, they exhibit, the better. In fact, receiving
a monthly salary is something you expect, but getting appreciation, inter-
est and affection from your students is also very gratifying (both extrinsic
motivations).
Moreover, if the lecturer loves teaching and learning from the interac-
tion with the students (intrinsic motivations), motivation multiplies expo-
nentially. Therefore, common sense seems to suggest that the greater the
number and intensity of motivations at stake, especially intrinsic, the more
motivated the person doing that job will be in any organisation.
Revisiting Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Now that the students understand the importance of having lecturers moti-
vated by both extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Herzberg, 1968), it is time
to return to their motivations. They have just established that they prefer
having lecturers with both motivation types, so I then tell them that, as a
lecturer, I also prefer having students moved by all positive motivations. If
anyone is capable of doing their job better and more productively because
there are more motivations at stake, then it makes sense that students will
also do their “job” (studying, completing assignments, performing well in
tests) better if there are more incentives involved.
It is therefore fair to say that, just as students love to have highly moti-
vated teachers, we also care greatly about having highly motivated students.
The logical conclusion is that students and lecturers alike should work
together to improve our frame of mind. This undeniably presents a win-win
opportunity and one that requires joint effort, not just to pass a class but
because it positively affects our work and lives and is worthy of understand-
ing and doing.
When I prompted this fundamental conversation asking about reasons
why students attended classes, it was clear that the first reason was mainly
extrinsic: to pass their courses and to get their degrees and certificates, and
there is nothing wrong with that. Without a degree in management, the
probability of them being able to get a job as managers is considerably
lower.
Likewise, without employment, they will probably find it hard to live a
regular and fulfilling life. In fact, it seems obvious that extrinsic motivations
are universal, and many of them are essential and even basic to human
endeavour. We all need food, drink and somewhere to live. This is precisely
what the American psychologist Abraham Harold Maslow, in the middle
of the twentieth century, defended in his popular hierarchy of human needs
(Maslow, 1943).
Every time I mention Maslow, I see some students looking at me with
a face of complicity and understanding since almost everyone has some
knowledge of him. However, the truth is that most only remember some
part of his theories and conclusions. I find this same phenomenon happen-
ing almost every time I ask about Maslow in my seminars, regardless of the
audience’s origin and background.
Most people remember that he proposed a hierarchical order of human
needs that has been immortalised as a pyramid, even though none of his
published works included a visual representation of that hierarchy as a pyr-
amid. People usually remember Maslow’s considerations about basic needs
and that only after those are satisfied should we seek increasingly higher
needs. Nevertheless, what most do not readily remember are the five ele-
ments or levels of the hierarchy and their sequence. Would you like to try?
This is the kind of exercise I like to engage in when starting from scratch
and when lecturing to practitioners. I ask them to take a blank sheet of
paper and write down or draw any theory of human motivations they might
remember. I want to know if they have any map of motivations in their mind
that they use daily when managing people and making decisions. It is quite
remarkable that most of them think first about Maslow’s pyramid as a plau-
sible map, and this is probably down to its intuitive graphical appearance.
Nevertheless, only a few of them are able to write down the five human
needs of the hierarchy and in the right order.
Moreover, for some strange reason, in my experience, teaching the theory
of human motivations in organisations for more than twenty years, it seems
that people almost always overlook the need for self-esteem described by
Maslow or they confuse it with social need, or self-actualisation. This is
remarkable; the most widespread and remembered theory and, most of the
time, not even HR managers are capable of remembering Maslow’s five
levels.
The lower-level needs of Maslow’s pyramid are the easiest to remember.
They include physiological needs, understood as all the biological require-
ments for human survival (e.g. air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth,
sex, sleep). If these needs are not satisfied, the human body cannot function
properly. He therefore considered them the most important needs, as all
others become secondary until these are met.
Among the lower-level needs he also included the safety needs, compris-
ing protection from the elements, security, order, law, stability and free-
dom from fear. Finally, he described the third lower-level needs as social,
those that involve feelings of belongingness. Examples of such needs include
friendship, intimacy, trust, acceptance, affection and love. They also imply
affiliations, such as being part of a group (friends, family or work).
According to Maslow, when the lower-level needs are met, one would
start developing sensibility for those from the upper level. From them he dis-
tinguished esteem needs, including esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement,
mastery, independence), and the desire for esteem, reputation or respect
from others (e.g. status, prestige). Finally, among the upper-level needs,
he underlined the highest level of need, self-actualisation. This need refers
to realising personal potential, seeking personal growth, self-fulfilment
and greater experiences. A desire “to become everything one is capable of
becoming” (Maslow, 1987, p. 64).
As I just did here, I like to be sure my students revisit Maslow’s theory,
including lower-order needs (physiological, safety and social) and higher-
order needs (self-esteem and self-actualisation). The next stage is to ask
them if they consider this a sound theory and why or why not. Again, the
answers usually vary from group to group, but most agree that Maslow’s
theory does make sense.
They all feel that the needs Maslow described are universal. Furthermore,
most people recognise that a higher number of basic physical needs must
be met, to some extent, prior to addressing higher psychological and self-
fulfilment needs. Nevertheless, they are not so sure that there are just five
levels, or why these five levels and not others were chosen or formulated,
and why they were arranged in that specific order.
What’s more, students tend to agree that the theory’s logic seems too rigid
and reductionist. It is distinctive that we sometimes prefer to sacrifice lower-
level needs (like food or drink) to attain other higher levels of needs (like
another person’s appreciation). Just think about the times spent nowadays
working out in gyms; this requires us to sacrifice lower-level needs (e.g. time,
effort, comfort, physical rest) to attain higher-level needs (e.g. appreciation and
liking from others, based on looks or aligned interests in physical training).
Fortunately, Maslow himself later clarified that meeting a need is not an
“all-or-none” phenomenon, admitting that his earlier statements may have
given “the false impression that a need must be satisfied 100 per cent before
the next need emerges” (Maslow, 1987).
Let’s go back to the question concerning how much students really appre-
ciate Maslow’s theory. While they seem to be keen on the framework, they
have a lesser appreciation for its added value, given that the hierarchy of
needs idea seems to be just common sense. Nevertheless, from a historical
point of view, Maslow’s real contribution, as one of the fathers of “human-
istic psychology”, was presenting his novel perspective. He believed that
people have an inborn desire to be self-actualised, that is, to be all they can
be, to grow and be happy.
Moreover, this is something that relevant schools of psychology, such as
psychoanalysis and behaviourism, were not interested in during the middle
of the twentieth century. Before Maslow, most psychologists had been con-
cerned with abnormal conducts and the mentally ill; they tended to focus
on problematic behaviours. Maslow, on the other hand, with a new original
vision, wanted to know what constituted positive mental health. He urged
people to acknowledge their basic needs before addressing higher ones and,
ultimately, self-actualisation. For him, that was a way of learning to become
humanly mature and, hence, happier.
Even while acknowledging the popularity and important contribution
of Maslow’s early ideas, students still tend to be critical about its added
value and usefulness. They do not see its practicality, nor how it may help
them to make better decisions in the future. My impression is that students
around the world mainly study this theory to pass their exams but, later
on, they generally don’t tend to use it as a map of motivations. If they do,
it is in a very haphazard way, distinguishing lower needs from upper needs
and ensuring they cover the former. Sometimes, it is because they just don’t
see value in its applicability, and it tends to fall into oblivion for them.
Maslow’s framework is popular but does not seem to have much impact on
people’s behaviours.
When it comes to managers and practitioners, they do not use much of
the theory either. One suggestion would be to try to understand what is
amiss with Maslow’s early ideas and discussing such issues by comparing
his approach with other more “practical” theories, like that proposed by
Herzberg as discussed before. It would be useful if we were able to come
up with some kind of map of motivations that could be used to understand,
describe and diagnose our own motivations.
Building a map of motivations

It is at this point I propose something that probably never happened but
that would have been interesting to see: a scenario in which Maslow and
Herzberg are debating their own approaches with one another. With that in
mind, it can be said that if both theories are correct, they should be compat-
ible to some degree, or even complementary and harmonious to each other.
Ultimately, this is what science is all about: understanding reality from its
different angles, finding patterns and order in nature, in this case, in human
nature.
As social scientists, we should be able to provide theories that explain
human reality universally, so that we may understand it collectively and, if
necessary, transform it. I am convinced that when this happens, when theo-
ries of human behaviour are accurate and closely related to human reality,
they become truly useful. Similar to an accurate and faithful map of a terri-
tory, a good integrative theory of motivations may aid in effective decision
making.
Nevertheless, such an integrative approach may require pushing back
against the fragmentation and hyper-specialisation of modern science and
be open to others’ findings, building bridges and promoting dialogue, just
like that proposed between Maslow and Herzberg.
The aforementioned exercise of an imaginary debate between both theo-
rists was fun. In almost every class, someone would suggest that both theo-
ries are not so different after all. The proposal being that the lower-level
needs described by Maslow (physiological, safety and social) are indeed
extrinsic motivations, whereas those of the upper level (self-esteem and self-
actualisation) are intrinsic motivations. This is precisely how some text-
books liked to compare both theories (Hitt et al., 2011). It makes sense to
point out that the basic and social needs are external or extrinsic, given that
they refer to our dependency from others, whereas, on the other hand, the
psychological needs of self-fulfilment (esteem and self-actualisation) seem to
belong more to the intrinsic realm (see Figure 1.1).
Unfortunately, things are never that simple. When Maslow focuses on
esteem, as we have noted, he set apart mainly two categories. On one hand,
esteem is understood as the desire for reputation or recognition from others
(e.g. status, prestige), which would be extrinsic motivations. On the other,
self-esteem, or esteem for oneself (including mastery, independence, achieve-
ment and dignity), would represent intrinsic motivations. So, where do we
finally place esteem? Is it intrinsic or extrinsic? Could it not be in both?
Upper Self-actualisation
Intrinsic
Level Esteem Motivations
Needs (Herzberg, 1966)
(Maslow, 1943) Social
Lower
Safety Extrinsic
Level Motivations
Needs Physiological (Herzberg, 1966)
(Maslow, 1943)
Figure 1.1 Comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s motivation theories
It is precisely because this comparison is not clear-cut that I suggest think-

ing outside the box or just thinking analytically and attempting a higher
level of precision. The question is that, if we want to promote open and sin-
cere dialogue between both established theories, we must first recognise that
both classifications are using different criteria to categorise and differentiate
human motivations.
Herzberg’s distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic factors seems to
refer to the origin of those aspects (either from the outside or from the
inside), whereas Maslow’s distinction of human needs refers to the type
of needs people are motivated by and the reason, purpose or goal of those
motivations, understood in a hierarchical higher or lower order, and given
their particular contribution to human growth.
If both classifications are apparently right, then, to compare the two
properly, I suggest not mixing the categories but first differentiating them
and later comparing them. The easiest way to do this would be by build-
ing a matrix structure instead of a pyramid, leaving room for both criteria
to play their role in the new categorisation or map of motivations. This
would actually lead to a grid where the columns include Herzberg’s extrinsic
and intrinsic motivations, and the rows would embody Maslow’s upper and
lower levels of human needs (see Figure 1.2).
The appropriateness of comparing both theories by developing this grid
or matrix is threefold. First, it makes it easier to understand the compat-
ibility between both approaches. You may find motivations that even while
being in the lower level of the pyramid are still intrinsic, such as our desire
for achieving competence or mastery, even though Maslow did not explic-
itly mention them (see Figure 1.2).
You may also notice motivations that even if in the upper level of the
pyramid are still extrinsic, as would be the case for esteem (from others).
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Motivations Motivations
(Herzberg, 1966) (Herzberg, 1966)
Upper Self-actualisation .
Level Others-Esteem . Self-Esteem .
Needs
(Maslow, 1943)
Social . .
Lower
Level Safety .
Needs Physiological .
(Maslow, 1943)
Figure 1.2 A different way of comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s motivation theories
In Figure 1.2, this others-esteem is distinguished from self-esteem precisely

to make this differentiation more accurate. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier,
many people tend to forget or confuse this level of the hierarchy (of esteem),
maybe and precisely because they tend to erroneously mix theories and clas-
sifications in their minds.
Second, this matrix allows visualising how both theories are not only
compatible but also complementary. For instance, the first conclusion peo-
ple arrive at from analysing Figure 1.2 is that each of the levels of human
needs described by Maslow can be satisfied in either an extrinsic or intrinsic
manner, even though Maslow himself did not make this specific argument.
Finally, this framework offers a map where all possibilities of human
motivations seem to be presented not just in a compatible and complemen-
tary manner but also in a way that is harmonious. The map represents an
organisation of motivations template based on a logic that is simple and
transcends its empirical origin, while ratifying it at the same time.
It additionally offers criteria to define and diagnose or interpret our own
motivations as we will see throughout the book. In this sense, once we are
able to describe our motivations, using the framework or map, we may also
conclude if it is better to be motivated by extrinsic or intrinsic motivations,
or by lower- or upper-level needs.
But, before we start reflecting on how to use the framework to diag-
nose our motivations, we should ensure that the tool is accurate enough
to describe them. To do this, I always suggest my students compare and
appreciate how compatible this classification is to other approaches and
taxonomies of human motivations. If they do not contradict each other,
then we will be able to define it at least as an acceptable map of motivations.
With that purpose in mind, I ask them to check other descriptive or “con-
tent” theories of motivation2 online and see how they fit the framework.
The result of this exercise is that students end up correctly assuming that
the majority of popular taxonomies of motivation found in most textbooks
today could fit within the proposed matrix framework quite well. In fact,
as Figure 1.3 shows, there is strong correlation between most of Maslow’s
and Herzberg’s findings and the discoveries of other renowned authors such
as Alderfer (1969) or McClelland (1962). Furthermore, it is important to
highlight that other later studies corroborate the conclusions of all these
early theories.
In 2001, Ryan and Deci revisited the distinction between extrinsic and
intrinsic motivations to better understand their development (Ryan & Deci,
2000). In addition to Maslow’s basic physiological needs, they identified
the existence of three basic innate psychological needs: competence (feeling
self-efficacious, having the relevant skills to succeed); autonomy (an internal
perceived locus of causality, of a self-determined behaviour); and related-
ness (a sense of belongingness and connectedness).
As amazing as it sounds, these three motivations fit exactly into our
grid (see Figure 1.3). The consistency of all these approaches, and the fact
they all still appear in the majority of today’s textbooks describing human
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Social (Maslow, 1943) Self-actualisation (Maslow, 1943)

Upper Esteem (Maslow, 1943) Self-esteem (Maslow, 1943)
Level Affiliation (McClelland, 1961)
Needs Growth (Alderfer, 1969)
(Maslow, 1943)
Relatedness (Alderfer, 1969)
Relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2001) Autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2001)
Lower Safety (Maslow, 1943)

Level Physiological (Maslow, 1943)
Needs Power (McClelland, 1961) Achievement (McClelland, 1961)
(Maslow, 1943) Existence (Alderfer, 1969) Competency (Ryan & Deci, 2001)
Figure 1.3 Comparing Maslow’s, Herzberg’s and other authors’ motivation theories
motivations, validates that the way of organising them is accurate and
constitutes a good synthesis and therefore a precise map of pre-existent
classifications.
Using the terminology of authors other than Maslow and Herzberg,
and revisiting the framework we suggest, Figure 1.3 shows that among
the extrinsic motivations (left column) we can include, in a lower level, the
physiological and safety aspects of human existence itself. The left column
moves us to look for things like external support, reward and power.
Similarly, among the extrinsic motivations of an upper level, we find
motivations like relatedness, esteem, affiliation or social relationships, all
related to external recognition. Moving to the right column, the intrinsic
motivations include, at a lower level, the universal desire for achievement,
which in work environments would mean mastery and competence. At an
upper level, we find the motivations of autonomy, growth, self-esteem and
self-actualisation (see Figure 1.3).
According to the students, the advantages of this new framework con-
verge on simplifying their work when preparing for exams. It becomes eas-
ier for them to effectively retain the ideas and the empirical findings from
the specialised literature. The main aspect they have to remember now is
essentially the criteria from both classifications that have been used to iden-
tify four kinds of motivations.
The first criteria referred to the origin of our motivations (columns of the
map), which denotes that we engage in actions to receive an external good
(extrinsic) or to attain an internal one (intrinsic). Furthermore, the second
criteria indicate the kind of good we expect to obtain (rows of the map),
specifically, being more practical (lower level), or more psychological (upper
level).
Using the map of motivations

As I have explained throughout these pages, developing this simple frame-
work, this map of motivations, has been the result of hours of meaningful
discussions with students, and it represents a worthwhile summary of all
the other traditional approaches. Nevertheless, and regarding our main pur-
pose, the framework is also a source of reflection concerning the usefulness
and accuracy of existing theories. Thus, in regard to its usefulness, the best
way I have found to substantiate it has been by asking the students (and
practitioners attending my seminars) to use the map to describe and diag-
nose their own personal motivations.
I suggest my students think about the reasons why they want to work
as managers in the future and write down their motivations for studying
a degree in Business Administration using the map we built together. This
exercise has different purposes. First, it verifies if the framework actually
helps them to better identify the origin or source of their motivations (extrin-
sic or intrinsic). Second, it helps them grasp how many of their motivations
are related to more practical matters (lower level) or with other higher psy-
chological reasons (upper level).
Finally, this exercise helps them to reflect not only on the quantity but
also on the quality of their motivations, simply by weighting the score they
give to each motivation. The entire exercise will serve them in testing the
accuracy of the theories and how those theories could help them understand
and transform their motivations so they ultimately make better personal
and professional decisions.
In Figure 1.4, I present some of the most common responses from my
students over the years. As part of the lower-level extrinsic motivations for
studying management, they normally include aspirations such as getting a
job, having a decent salary, ensuring stability and security, purchasing a
home, being able to travel extensively and getting to a comfortable level of
life whereby spending money is of no concern.
Among the upper-level extrinsic motivations for choosing to study busi-
ness, they consider issues such as finding workplaces with suitable envi-
ronments in which they may develop valuable social relationships with
colleagues and superiors, feeling part of an important mission or project,
being recognised with admiration and pride and being considered and
treated as worthy and unique individuals (see Figure 1.4).
Regarding their intrinsic motivations to study business, they include,
at the lower level of the grid, interests such as acquiring knowledge and
skills or gaining experience. Finally, on their intrinsic motivations to study
Extrinsic Intrinsic
- Aspiring to better jobs

- Good social relationships
Upper - People’s admiration for me
- Achieving major goals
- Growing professionally
Level - Being treated as a unique person - Feeling proud of myself
Needs - Friendships with mates and bosses - Having a Sense of self-satisfaction
(Maslow, 1943) - Feeling part of an important project - Feeling contentment in myself
- Enjoying myself while doing this work
- Being able to travel

Lower - Having a good salary
- Getting experience
Level - Having my own house
- Acquiring knowledge
- Gettinga good level of life
Needs - Achieving competence
- Spending money without concerns
(Maslow, 1943)
- Getting a job, having stability and
security
Figure 1.4 Using the 2x2 map: Diagnosis of students’ motivations

business, students’ answers at the upper level of the grid are feeling proud
of themselves, achieving meaningful goals, professional growth, enjoying
themselves by doing this work, aspiring to better work experiences and hav-
ing a sense of self-satisfaction and feeling contentment within themselves
(see Figure 1.4).
Looking back on the results of this exercise with my students, it seems
clear to everyone involved that the higher the number of motivations pre-
sent, the better. Earning a good salary and having an excellent work envi-
ronment are almost universal aspirations, and, on top of this, having the
kind of job they can enjoy and in which they can improve their abilities is
very desirable. These results show that the four kinds of motivations sum-
marised in this framework seem to have a universal value; they are different
human goods that we all particularly aspire to in our jobs and our lives.
When it comes to reflecting on the quality of the motivations, things
become less universal to some extent. For instance, once each student has
written down their own motivations, I ask them to think about what moti-
vation they would choose if they could choose only one. As you can imag-
ine, they usually all choose one from the extrinsic lower level, such as having
a job or getting a good salary. These results make sense; the first thing we
all expect from our jobs is to be rewarded and to make sure it serves us in
making a living.
This is where Maslow hit the nail on the head; we all have some basic
needs that are necessary for our existence for practical reasons. In fact, most
of the extrinsic lower-level motivations are indispensable. This is why the
more we experience their scarcity, the higher the tension, fear or concern
about not getting them. This idea is also consistent with the findings of
Herzberg regarding extrinsic motivations. When we do not get the kind of
human goods that belong to the realms of extrinsic motivations, we feel
dissatisfaction.
Hence, the less we are motivated by fear or dissatisfaction, the more our
aim can be focused on personal satisfaction, meaning placing more impor-
tance on the intrinsic motivations in this framework. Following the logic of
this map, it seems to be better if you are motivated more by intrinsic than
by extrinsic motivations. We will return to this issue, and the role of fear in
motivation, in Chapter 9.
All these findings are consistent with the answers you get from students
today. When you ask them which group of motivations they would leave
out, if they had to sacrifice one of them, you may be surprised by their
answers. On courses where students are more competitive, because our uni-
versities require better grades for admission or good standing, the motiva-
tions connected with relatedness usually pay the price. These students seem
to be much more focused than others are on money, rewards, achievement
and success.
It is interesting that this exercise helps them learn more about the relative
importance they assign to each group of motivations and reflect on which of
them they believe are of lesser importance. What also seems clear is that this
map helps them identify their own motivations and assess the importance
they give to each group of them in terms of intensity. In other words, this
map helps them reflect on their “motivations at work”. At this point, they
might know where they are “located” on the map.
We must exercise extreme caution when it comes to the question of how
we as scientists can help ourselves and others (students and practitioners)
interpret and improve their motivations using these conclusions. As far as
I understand, the normative power of a theory comes from its reliability, its
conformity with reality. Therefore, if scientific studies in this field are con-
sidered reliable and trustworthy, there are a few conclusions and practical
tips that we may offer at this point.
Some practical tips

Regarding intrinsic motivations, over recent decades, behavioural scien-
tists have been figuring out the dynamics and decoding the power of such
motivations. It seems that empirical studies keep proving the power of
enjoyment-based intrinsic motivations rather than the extrinsic. In many
organisations today, extrinsic motivations respond mostly to reward and
punishment logic (like salaries, bonuses, holidays, etc.). Authors today sug-
gest the importance of (1) promoting a way of thinking and an approach
to life built more around intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, motivators (Pink,
2009).
Intrinsic motivations are powered by our innate need to direct our own
lives, to learn and create new things. They are among the strongest and most
omnipresent drivers of human behaviour because they relate to our creative
capacity, the joy of discovery and the delight in mastering challenges. Their
“reward” is the activity itself, performing to the best of one’s ability, and
not the external aspects of the work. Therefore, one thing we all should
attempt to do is (2) “fall in love” with our own work, or at least with those
aspects of our work that are more attractive for us (Pink, 2009).
We should (3) look at every activity in our daily work (any kind of work)
as an opportunity for growth and, whenever possible, the joy in learning.
We need to keep in mind that those people with higher intrinsic motiva-
tions of self-esteem and sense of autonomy also tend to have better interper-
sonal relationships and a greater general well-being than those who are just
extrinsically motivated. This does not necessarily depend on the nature of
the task performed, as we will discuss later in Chapter 8.
Furthermore, intrinsically motivated people usually achieve more than
their reward-seeking counterparts because extrinsic motivations can give us
less of what we actually desire. In fact, they can extinguish intrinsic motiva-
tion, diminish performance and crush creativity, fostering short-term think-
ing. Too little intrinsic motivation would mean a lack of passion and interest
in our work and lives, whereas too much, at the expense of forgetting
extrinsic needs, would probably also be a mistake. We all need to (4) satisfy
our basic and social external needs (Pink, 2009).
However, it does not mean that extrinsic motivations, those related to
rewards and punishments – or “carrots and sticks” as some authors call
them – are entirely reasonable. According to Herzberg, they have to be ful-
filled in order to avoid dissatisfaction. Recent empirical studies have proven
that the traditional “if-then” rewards system can be effective for rule-based
routine tasks in organisations because there is little intrinsic motivation to
undermine and not much creativity to crush. Still, they can be more effective
if those giving such rewards offer a rationale as to why the task is necessary,
acknowledging that it may be boring and allowing people autonomy over
how they complete it (Pink, 2009).
I do not want to seem naive; it is just a matter of common sense to think
that we all need to satisfy extrinsic motivations. Because, indeed, we need
them. We all need jobs and money to have a happy or just functional life. In
fact, when I find students not interested in money, I feel the need to correct
them. They cannot and should not be dependent on their parents or another
third party their entire lives and without repayment or a sense of earning
and contribution of some sort. (5) A lack or defect in extrinsic lower moti-
vations would mean a lack of common sense and practical reasoning.
The same can be said about upper-level extrinsic motivations. (6) We all
need to have well-balanced family and social relationships. Neglecting them
as a result of giving too much importance to our professional or personal
achievements (intrinsic motivations) would be another serious disorder or
miscalculation, and not just for students, for all of us. The lack of – or
meagre – interest in external drivers would show maturity issues, not having
your feet on the ground. What is more, (7) too much concern for external
incentives (financial security, others’ appreciation) would show excessive
dependence on our environment, probably another manifestation of matu-
rity issues. We will get back to some of these ideas, on how to read our
motivations, in the third part of the book, which deals with the ways we can
interpret and use this map of motivations.
It seems that some practical consequences may be drawn from the frame-
work we just reviewed in this chapter. These consequences can keep us
thinking about our own motivations. That is why I love to finish this first
session by engaging participants in some more personal questioning, hav-
ing the simple map we just built together in mind and what they discovered
regarding their own motivations (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4).
Here are some of those questions, and you are welcome to use them for
your own purpose to understand the kind and intensity of motivations that
drive you in your daily work and life.
Some questions for reflection

1 How often am I driven by interest and enthusiasm for my work and my
life in general? (intrinsic higher)
2 How often am I driven by the fear of failing or not being competent
enough in my work and in my life in general? (intrinsic lower)
3 How often am I driven by an interest in getting rewards or support at
work and in my life in general? (extrinsic lower)
4 How often do I complain internally or externally about issues at work
and in my life in general? (extrinsic higher)
5 How often am I driven by the concern of what others say or think about
me at work and in my life in general? (extrinsic higher)
6 How often do I see opportunities and challenges where there only seem
to be difficulties? (extrinsic higher)
7 Would I be able to assess (from 0 to 10) what level of intensity I have in
each type of motivation described in this framework?
8 Which would I say are my true sources of motivation at work, and in
my life in general?
9 What group of motivations would I like to improve in terms of my
work and my life?
10 Am I missing any motivation type(s) in this framework?
A final critical thought on why the map is not

yet accurate enough
The reason I tend to ask this last question about any missing motivations in
this framework is that I am convinced there are other motivation sets absent
from this structure and that may be present in the real world of organisa-
tions. Therefore, this framework might not be so accurate after all.
I recall a joke I once heard about student asking their teacher if they
would punish them for something they hadn’t done. The teacher replied that
of course they wouldn’t, and the student said great because they hadn’t done
their homework. Should we blame our students for not telling us about the
other motivations they probably have?
At this point, I wonder if those of us who teach motivations have done
our homework. It is just common sense to consider that some people might
be motivated by the wrong motives, and by “wrong” I mean morally wrong.
Not everything in life is about money, power and prestige (extrinsic motiva-
tion) or about competence or satisfaction (intrinsic motivation). Or is it?
In other words, I do not think that every motivation I teach my students
is always a good one, but, unfortunately, in our framework based on the
most widespread motivation theories, we did not mention any moral issue.
Maybe you know this joke about an employee asking one of his colleagues,
“I heard that the boss has called you into his office every day this week to
reprimand you. What do you have to say for yourself?” He replied, “I’m
glad it’s Friday”.
Of course, no one likes to be unfairly reprimanded. We cannot deny that
in our organisations, as well as in our lives in general, we all want to be
treated morally well, with a sense of justice and fairness. We all want reason-
able salaries, and students want to get a fair assessment of their capabilities
through their grades. These are all goods that belong to the moral realm of
human life. Accordingly, if the moral dimension is missing from our map of
human motivations, there is something wrong with it.
Therefore, we should try to understand why ethics, the question charac-
terising human behaviour as good or evil, is absent. We should revisit the
classification to right what was once wrong, to propose a more humanistic
theory of “human” motivations. Otherwise, if ethics – or morality – one of
the most fundamental elements of human nature, is lacking, then these theo-
ries of human motivation cannot be linked to the human experience after
all. This will be explored further in the next chapter.
Notes
1 The talk took place at the Real Colegio Complutense at Harvard, (RCC-Harvard),
a non-profit organisation, aimed at providing academic, scientific, and cultural
cooperation between Harvard University and the Spanish Higher Education sys-
tem. https://rcc.harvard.edu/
2 Some authors distinguish “content” theories of motivation from “process” theo-
ries. The content approaches study what motivates people in acting. Among them,
the hierarchical description of needs proposed by Abraham Maslow in 1943 is
paradigmatic. Process approaches attempt to explain the motivational mechanism
by way of changes in the process of satisfying human needs and how individual
behaviour is encouraged, directed, and maintained with respect to desired goals.
Some examples of these approaches would be those of Skinner, Adams, Vroom or
Latham and Locke (see Guillén et al., 2015).
References
Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175.
Guillén, M., Ferrero, I. & Hoffman, W. (2015). The neglected ethical and spiritual
motivations in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 803–816.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management
practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, January–February, 46(1), 53–62.
Hitt, M., Black, S. & Porter, L. (2011). Management. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4),
370–396.
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Pearson
Education.
McClelland, D. (1962). Business, drive and national achievement. Harvard Business
Review, 40, 99–112.
Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates. New York,
NY: Riverhead Books.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
2 The extrinsic moral
motivations
Human yearning for dignity
Human motivation theories neglecting the moral dimension

Every year, I like to start my first Fundamentals of Management class by
telling undergraduate students about a very simple experiment that I fre-
quently carry out when using the lift at the university and visiting compa-
nies; I pay close attention to the conversations of those around me. This
regular practice helps me reflect upon other peoples’ motivations in their
business schools or their workplace interests. Surprisingly, the topics people
mostly talk about are not related to economic, financial, marketing, stra-
tegic matters or business metrics, etc. The conversations are usually more
related to personal moral issues, at least in ordinary circumstances whereby
we talk about what interests, affects or worries us.
Talking about moral issues is one of the most common events for human
beings. People, in every human organisation, discuss matters in terms of
injustice, mistrust, misunderstanding, and lack of respect or sincerity from
colleagues and those in authority. This is not exclusive to the world of uni-
versities or business organisations, where this can be easily observed just by
paying attention to conversations in lifts.
In almost every organisation, people mostly complain, gossip or judge,
and regularly on matters related to the everyday behaviours of others. Have
you ever had the same experience? Have you noticed the conversation topics
of others around you? The topics usually revolve around what others have
done wrong, reasons why you can or cannot trust others, and many argu-
ments ensue about the “ethical health” of the organisation’s environment
and, lamentably, on rare occasions, what has been done the right way.
My eavesdropping, coupled with substantial empirical evidence (For-
syth, 1992; Lan et al., 2008), shows that human beings tend to discuss their
everyday life issues through the lens of morality, a morality that refers to
human moral principles and qualities such as justice, equity, truthfulness,
reliability, etc. Unfortunately, the theoretical framework introduced in the
previous chapter did not include a moral dimension when describing human
motivations.
The majority of current classifications of motivations have neglected the
moral dimension (Guillén et al., 2015). I strongly believe that if social scien-
tists do not make this dimension explicit when building theories, the result
will be an incomplete and artificial explanation of human reality. Further-
more, when omitting morality, management theories stop being realistic
and can even become destructive and harmful (Ghoshal, 2005).
Going back to my business school classes, when I ask my students if
any motivations are missing the framework we started building together
in Chapter 1, they normally fail to see any missing moral aspect, and these
concerns do not arise until I start asking questions. For example, I ask them
if they would prefer to have lecturers who are fair or unfair. I also ask
if they would prefer lecturers who limit themselves to explaining theories
and concepts that are true and real, based on rigorous intellectual reflection
and proven experience or, conversely, who base their lectures on their own
opinions. Paradoxically, being fair, truthful and objective when teaching is
something morally good and not neutral at all.
Likewise, I ask them if they would rather have lecturers who care about
their students’ learning and development or ones who are more distant with
a penchant for impersonal presentations. Their answers usually follow the
same vein. As all students want to receive fair grades, they assume they are
learning the truth in everything they study; they also want to know in advance
how they are going to be assessed, and, of course, they prefer to have lec-
turers who care about them, their learning and growth. The same could be
said of any of us when asked about how we expect our bosses to behave in
organisations; we want them to truly care about us as human beings.
We all want bosses who are fair, truthful, trustworthy and caring towards
us, as this is a type of motivation that holds a moral content, one that can
only be explained if we use the language and logic of philosophy and moral
science. For this reason, and at this point, I suggest that my students (and
now readers of this book) use their imaginations and invite an expert in
moral philosophy to our discussion. Someone who twenty-four centuries
ago was also fascinated by human nature and human motivations. I propose
letting Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, accompany us for the rest of
our conversation about human motivations.
Inviting Aristotle to join the conversation with Maslow

and Herzberg
Now, we can continue our dialogue between psychologists from Chapter 1,
this time including Aristotle. Before we start this discussion, and for the sake
of honesty, I cannot be sure whether Aristotle would accept or even if he
would approve of our considering Maslow’s classification of human needs
as a theory of motivations. Nonetheless, we know for certain that he did
reflect on these issues during his lifetime.
The extrinsic moral motivations 23
Most probably, Aristotle would say that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is
not exactly a theory of motivations but a theory of motives. In other words,
Maslow is less concerned with the reasons why we do things, our “motiva-
tions” and their origins (i.e. internal or external, as in the case of Herzberg’s
theory), than with the reasons for which we do things, our “motives”, goals,
or purposes (regarding the satisfaction of our human needs for growth).
This might sound too philosophical, but, as I like to tell my students, what
would you expect from a philosopher?
Being the philosopher he was, Aristotle would probably argue that
Maslow’s theory of needs is more a theory of human motives or goals (the
for which) because it focuses on the purpose of our behaviour (the satisfac-
tion of needs). On the other hand, Herzberg’s two-factor framework could
be considered more a theory of motivations, given that it deals with the
reasons why people act (the origin or the forces that move us to act, i.e.
internal or external).
To explain this simply, I suggest that the students think about their moti-
vations in class: the reasons why they attend my classes. Normally, they
would provide answers as diverse as out of fear of their parents (negative
extrinsic motivations) or out of fear of failing (negative intrinsic motiva-
tions). In both cases, the reason why they attend classes is a kind of fear
that, in the first case, has an external origin and, in the second, an internal
origin. Both cases focus on the cause that moves them to behave in one way
or another. They give that kind of answer precisely because I ask them why,
where is the cause or the source of their behaviour?
On the other hand, when I ask them what they want to obtain from
attending management classes, what they are looking for or what the rea-
sons are for them coming, they then talk about their motives. They include
things like passing the course, having fun with their classmates or learning
something new. When the question is about the “what for”, their answer
relates to some kind of interest or need they want to satisfy. In other words,
they are now thinking in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of unsatisfied needs or
desires that demand to be fulfilled, a hierarchy that is not so much a grading
of motivations as a hierarchy of motives, of needs, purposes or reasons for
them to act in one way or another.
This distinction between motivations (reasons why we do things, i.e. fear
of punishment or failure) and motives (reasons for doing things, i.e. having
fun or achieving mastery) may still sound too philosophical for the students,
but I consider this to be a key point in properly understanding any explana-
tion or taxonomy of human motivations. For those wanting to know more
about this distinction, I recommend studying the research carried out by
Professor Velaz in 1996 on this issue (Velaz, 1996). However, it is easy to
understand the difference between motives and motivations simply by look-
ing at the map of human motivations that we discussed in Chapter 1 (see
Figure 1.3).
The columns on the map refer to our motivations (either an extrin-
sic or intrinsic origin), and the rows refer to our motives (our higher- or
lower-order goals). Therefore, the map constitutes a theory of motivations
that also considers our motives. In other words, by presenting a dialogue
between Herzberg’s and Maslow’s approaches, the map proposed in Chap-
ter 1 constitutes both a theory of motivations – understood as psychological
forces that move us to act – and a theory of motives – understood as the
intellectual reasons explaining our behaviour. It maps our different moti-
vations (columns) and also the motives for those motivations (rows) (see
Figure 2.1).
At this point, I love to tell my students that Maslow was not only a human-
ist but probably the most Aristotelian psychologist of his time. I imagine
that both Maslow and Aristotle would really enjoy themselves if they had a
chance to have this conversation. The reason I say this is that both thinkers
conceived human behaviour as always being directed towards some motive,
end or purpose. Humans do practically everything they do with a goal in
mind (a telos, in Greek). In that sense, their conception of human behaviour
can be considered “teleological”.
Both were interested in understanding the motives, ends or purposes
behind our desires and not only the motivations, their origins. In other
words, they both cared about the content of what we seek to do, the purpose
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
(Herzberg 1966) (Herzberg 1966)
MOTIVES
Social (Maslow 1943) Self-actualisation (Maslow 1943)

Upper Esteem (Maslow 1943) Self-esteem (Maslow 1943)
Level Affiliation (McClelland 1961)
Needs Growth (Alderfer 1969)
(Maslow 1943)
Relatedness (Alderfer 1969)
Relatedness (Ryan & Deci 2001) Autonomy (Ryan & Deci 2001)
Lower Safety (Maslow 1943)

Level Physiological (Maslow 1943)
Needs Power (McClelland 1961) Achievement (McClelland 1961)
(Maslow 1943) Existence (Alderfer 1969) Competency (Ryan & Deci 2001)
Figure 2.1 Philosophical distinction between motives and motivations

we pursue (i.e. passing the course) and, additionally, the source that moves
us to pursue such a goal, its origin (i.e. fear of others’ judgement).
To accurately compare Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with Aristotle’s view
of human motives for acting, we should look more carefully at Aristotle’s
idea of what moves us to act. According to Aristotle, behind everything we
do there is a reason for doing it, that every action, no matter how simple, is
born from a purpose the action is meant to achieve, and what leads us to act
is nothing more and nothing less than our desire for the “good”.
We act because we want to gain some sort of good. Aristotle refers to
the things that we desire, that we love, that appeal to us as human beings
because we consider them worthy. In other words, human beings seek
“good” in everything they do. That is why Aristotle sees happiness (eudae-
monia) as the addition of all the possible human goods or, rather, as the
highest human good, the one we all aim for (Aristotle, 2014).
It seems that Aristotle and Maslow agree on viewing happiness and the
achievement of a “good life”, a fulfilled one, as the main and final motive
behind every human behaviour. Maslow was also interested in psychologi-
cal health as an important part of that human fulfilment (or flourishing)
(Daniels, 1982). Thus, unsurprisingly, when I ask students to tell me if they
see any parallel between Maslow’s pyramid and Aristotle’s idea of the desire
for good and happiness, they start seeing them as being the same thing.
If we think about it, lower-level motives or needs (such as food, sleep or
shelter) can be understood as lower-level goods, those that are necessary
for living. Upper motives or needs (such as relatedness or self-actualisation)
coincide with the higher-level goods, those that we all aim for, which include
social and psychological health and the “good” of our self-fulfilment. There-
fore, to better compare Aristotle and Maslow, it is time to look at Aristotle’s
distinction of human goods and its hierarchy. Is there a parallel between
Aristotelian kinds of good and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? Herein lies the
key to understanding the absence of moral motivation in classical motiva-
tion theories.
Comparing Maslow’s hierarchy with Aristotle’s

conceptions of good
Here is where I recommend one of Aristotle’s most exciting works to my
students: his Nicomachean Ethics, probably the first systematic treatise of
moral philosophy in the history of humanity. This book includes his teach-
ings to Nicomaco, his son, regarding human happiness. Aristotle explains
to his son that the things we love, the motives for loving, can be directed
towards three kinds of “good”: the honest or moral, the pleasant and the
useful. Based on this distinction, he talks about three kinds of friendship.
“The kinds of friendship may perhaps be cleared up if we first come to know
the object of love. For not everything seems to be loved but only the lovable,
and this is good, pleasant, or useful” (Aristotle, 2014).
Aristotle therefore distinguishes between three kinds of lovable things.
First, the good itself, or what he later describes as the honest good, one
that could be translated into today’s modern language as the ethical or
moral good (like fairness or justice). Second, the pleasant good, that which
is attractive to us as it is nice (like enjoyment or pleasantness). Third, the
useful good, which we also call good because it is useful or practical (like
learning or mastering). Therefore, from an Aristotelian perspective, there
are only three main reasons for doing anything: because it is morally virtu-
ous, fun or practically necessary.
This simple distinction can be really useful to help us better understand
the hierarchical order Maslow proposed when describing his two-level kinds
of needs. If we go back to our initial framework of motivations (Figure 2.1)
and look at the lower level of the grid, the needs Maslow described in 1949
included safety and physiological needs (Maslow, 1949). These two basic
needs perfectly fit Aristotle’s concept of useful good (see Figure 2.2). These
are goods that human beings need for practical reasons. Alternatively, as
Aristotle would say, we aim for them to attain other goods, for the sake of
some other goods and not for their own sake (e.g. air, food, drink, warmth,
shelter, sleep, money, working conditions, security, protection, law).
These kinds of lower-order goods cover practical needs or needs for use-
ful good. Unsurprisingly, this can also be applied to the desire for power
(McClelland, 1961) and the needs for survival and existence (Alderfer,
1969); the extrinsic motivations for useful good. Furthermore, the needs
for achievement (McClelland, 1961) and competency (Ryan & Deci, 2000),
can be considered as intrinsic motivations for useful good (see Figure 2.2).
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
(Herzberg 1966) (Herzberg 1966)
MOTIVES
Social (Maslow 1943) Self-actualisation (Maslow 1943)

Upper Esteem (Maslow 1943) Self-esteem (Maslow 1943) Pleasant
Level Affiliation (McClelland 1961)
Needs
Good
Relatedness (Alderfer 1969) Growth (Alderfer 1969) (Aristotle, 4th C. BCE)
(Maslow 1943)
Relatedness (Ryan & Deci 2001) Autonomy (Ryan & Deci 2001)
Lower Safety (Maslow 1943)

Physiological (Maslow 1943) Useful
Level good
Needs Power (McClelland 1961) Achievement (McClelland 1961)
(Aristotle, 4th C. BCE)
(Maslow 1943) Existence (Alderfer 1969) Competency (Ryan & Deci 2001)
Figure 2.2 Comparing Maslow’s hierarchy with Aristotle’s types of human good
It is really gratifying to glance at the eyes of the students and participants
in this session when they realise that the first level of Maslow’s needs fits
perfectly with Aristotle’s concept of useful good. This “Aha!” moment then
continues when they keep looking at Figures 2.1 and 2.2. They suddenly
understand that the second kind of Aristotelian good, the pleasant good,
also fits perfectly with Maslow’s upper-level needs. These needs are attrac-
tive to us because they satisfy us without the brokerage of any other good
and cause a sense of enjoyment or gratification when present. They are what
Aristotle described as pleasant goods.
Pleasant goods are sought for their own sake because they are nice, enjoy-
able or just produce satisfaction. These goods include esteem and social
interpersonal relationships (Maslow, 1949), affiliation (McClelland, 1961),
recognition (Alderfer, 1969) or relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Corre-
spondingly, they could all be labelled as extrinsic motivations for pleasant
good, referring to a pleasant good received from the outside. On the other
hand, the concepts of self-actualisation (Maslow, 1949), growth (Alderfer,
1969) and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000) may also be considered pleasant
goods. Since such concepts are attained or acquired personally, through our
own self-satisfying actions, they could be labelled as intrinsic motivations
for pleasant good.
Once we arrive at this point in the presentation, two things normally hap-
pen: the first is that everyone in the class realises that the Aristotelian view
of human motives of conduct provides us with a very simple way of distin-
guishing between the upper and lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, some-
thing that had not been too clear before. Similarly, this concept also allows
motivations to be described in a very simple manner: as the human desire
for the good. This understanding of the motivations of human conduct is
thus also compatible with Herzberg’s distinction of extrinsic and intrinsic
factors (Herzberg, 1968).
It was not a surprise when I later found out that modern Aristotelian
literature also makes a parallel distinction between external goods and
internal goods, both contributing to a fulfilling and flourishing human life.
The external goods are those coming from outside the person and include
money and status, whereas internal goods derive from participation in spe-
cific practices, such as acquiring skills, knowledge or capabilities, but also
refer to the enjoyment, sense of achievement, exhilaration and pride that we
experience while doing these things (MacIntyre, 1981).
More recently, Aristotelian virtue ethics literature has drawn from Mac-
Intyre’s work to identify some practical steps that business managers should
take to encourage achieving these external and internal goods in a bal-
anced manner (Moore, 2005; Moore & Beadle, 2006). We will return to
this idea later in this book to gain practical knowledge from these findings.
Nevertheless, and regarding our purpose here, this Aristotelian distinction
about human goods confirms the relevance of defining human motivation,
understood as a rational desire for different types of goods (needs), and the
convenience of suggesting a taxonomy or map of such needs (motives) based
on the different kinds of human goods.
Therefore, as described in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, we could now present a
map of four types of human motivation. The extrinsic useful motivation
is the voluntary desire to receive an external and useful good; that which
moves us to act is satisfying basic physiological and safety needs and those
concerning existence and power. Meanwhile, extrinsic pleasant motiva-
tion can be defined as the voluntary desire to receive an external pleasant
good, like satisfying social needs of esteem, relatedness and affiliation. The
first two kinds of motivations, in the left-hand column, are both related to
receiving goods from others.
On the other hand, the right-hand column presents two types of motiva-
tions related to personal achievement. The intrinsic useful motivation is the
voluntary desire to achieve an internal useful good; what moves us to act
is feeding the needs of achievement and competency. The intrinsic pleas-
ant motivation is the voluntary desire to achieve an internal pleasant good;
what moves us to act is filling the needs of self-actualisation, self-esteem,
growth and autonomy (see Figure 2.3).
What students really like about this framework is that the definitions are
quite simple and easy to remember. Now they are able to recognise human
motivations by using two verbs: “receive” and “achieve” (left and right
columns); and two predicates: pleasant and useful goods (upper and lower
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Receiving Achieving
MOTIVES
Willingness Willingness
Pleasant to receive to achieve
Good pleasant good pleasant good
Relatedness, Affiliation, Esteem Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem
Useful to receive to achieve
Good useful good useful good
Sustenance, Safety, Support Competency, Mastery, Success
Figure 2.3 Definition of motivations based on Aristotle’s types of human good

rows). Extrinsic motivations refer to the willingness to receive pleasant and
useful goods and intrinsic motivations refer to the willingness to achieve
pleasant and useful goods (see Figure 2.3).
However, after explaining the Aristotelian distinction of human goods,
students are not oblivious to the fact that something is missing from Fig-
ure 2.3. This is the third “Aha!” moment of this presentation. Where is the
moral good element in Herzberg’s or Maslow’s theories? What I tell my
students is that, from a philosophical standpoint, we are not rigorous in
incorporating the types of goods that, according to Aristotle, human beings
pursue (pleasant, useful and moral). Where is the moral good element in
McClelland’s, Alderfer’s or Ryan and Deci’s approaches?
It seems that they did not explicitly consider this kind of good in their
work. After all, that was precisely my point at the end of Chapter 1: human
morality is absent from all these psychologists’ work and conclusions. Thus,
if Aristotle were here and having this conversation about motivations, he
would most probably ask why we dismissed the moral dimension when
describing human motivations.
Recovering the neglected moral dimension in human

motivation theories
It seems evident that none of these early psychological taxonomies of moti-
vation pays substantial attention to such moral goods as motives of human
conduct. As a result, what I now argue, following Aristotelian tradition, is
that to be considered really and entirely human, a taxonomy of motivations
should include the moral good clearly and distinctly from pleasant and useful.
According to Aristotle, the moral good, as the pleasant, is chosen for its
own sake and consists of everything that is right and worthy of cultivation,
contributing to the flourishing of human beings (Guillén et al., 2015). Put
simply, moral good is that which avidly contributes to making us better
as human beings. Intuitively, we can all understand the difference between
pleasant and moral good. This is what we have been taught since child-
hood. Our parents, families or caregivers would correct us every time we
wanted to do something that we thought was fun, but that seemed wrong
at the same time. For example, they would definitely tell us not to break our
neighbours’ windows by throwing stones at them, even though this might
seem like fun to us.
Furthermore, our parents and educators would tell us to always tell the
truth, even though it was not always pleasant and could lead to uncomfort-
able consequences for us. However, the consideration of moral good is not
something just for children or exclusive to some negative aspect of our early
education. It is a universal desire; we all believe that we deserve this kind of
good, and we all aspire to what we consider is right for us. Imagine some-
one in your workplace found it funny and pleasant to hurt your feelings or
constantly lie to you. What would you think if that person did not care for
moral qualities such as integrity, honesty or truthfulness? Would you be
able to trust this person?
We all want others to tell us the truth all the time, even if it may hurt. It
is a universal desire to strive for the truth in all matters. We all consider it
a right to be provided with the truth from others, precisely because it is a
moral good; a universal one. When someone lies to us, or when we perceive
we are being lied to, we inevitably feel bad and react by avoiding that person
because they are treating us unjustly, as if we are not given the right or are not
worthy of knowing the facts. We feel as if we are being treated like children
or, even worse, as fools. The same happens with every single moral good: we
want the ability to get a hold of them all. We all feel we deserve to be treated
as human beings (because we are human beings and worthy of being treated
as such) and be thought of with sincerity, justice, respect, care and the like.
While reading these paragraphs, you may think that everything I am pro-
posing is just common sense, and I agree, even though you could also agree
with me that this is not always common practice, especially in the world of
organisations. I believe a good part of the problem resides in that we have
been teaching theories for decades in which morality has not been accounted
for in human motivations. This narrow assumption explains many of the
limitations in our current management theories and even our current wrong
management practices (Ghoshal, 2005).
For decades, the existence and need for extrinsic and intrinsic motiva-
tions, the human necessity to receive and achieve good, has been unques-
tionable. What is debatable, however, is the reduction of them to just the
useful and pleasant levels of human good without also explicitly considering
our universal desire for the moral good. This universal desire is a real extrin-
sic moral motivation. As Harvard expert in conflict resolution Dr Donna
Hicks put it simply, “We all want to be treated as if we matter, and when we
are not, we suffer” (Hicks, 2011).
We all have a universal yearning for dignity that drives our species and
defines us as human beings. It is our highest common denominator. Dignity
not only explains an aspect of what it means to be human but is also a
hallmark of our shared humanity. We were all born worthy of dignity, and
because of that, dignity is something we all deserve, no matter what we do
or who we are. It is the building block for the way we treat one another.
Therefore, it is imperative to respect each other’s dignity as a measure of
healthy and sensible relationships (Hicks, 2011).
As Dr Hicks argues, dignity is not the same as respect. While dignity is an
attribute that we are born with – our inherent value and worth – the con-
cept of respect is different. Respect, must be earned (Hicks, 2011). We do
not always get respect, sometimes because we do not deserve it, other times
because we do not even respect ourselves and sometimes because others do
not see and recognise our dignity and worth so they do not respect us.
However, the truth is that we all are moved by the desire to be treated
as human beings and not just as simple life forms or as part of a working
system or machine, which is something that might be occurring now in
many of our modern organisations. This is what extrinsic moral motivation
is about – the universal desire or willingness to receive the moral good that
we deserve, founded on our human dignity and including respect and fair-
ness but also interest, appreciation, care and even love.
How do you feel when someone cheats you or betrays you, especially
when it is someone you have trusted? How do you feel when this person
does not share information that they should share with you? How do you
feel when someone does not keep their word or the commitments they
made? Neuroscience is proving that when we suffer a moral pain (as a result
of an argument, deception or humiliation), the same region of our brain is
affected as if the pain suffered were physical (Hicks, 2018).
We all want moral good, and when others deny it to us, we suffer as we
would suffer from physical pain. We all are affected to a greater or lesser
extent by the quantity and quality of the moral good we receive. This consti-
tutes a real human need and is an object of our desire and interest. Unfortu-
nately, this moral good that we all lean towards, which Aristotle described
more than twenty-four centuries ago, did not concern Maslow’s early ideas
in the 1940s. Neither was it relevant in Herzberg’s theories nor to other
scientists studying motivations in the second part of the twentieth century.
On the other hand, in the early 1960s, another well-known behavioural
psychologist, John Stacey Adams, developed his theory on motivation in
the workplace, but here he found the consideration of the moral dimension
in human motivations highly significant. In his equity theory, he explains
that the perception of equity or justice (a moral factor) affects an employ-
ee’s assessment and perception of their relationship with their job and their
employer. Moreover, when that is not the case, employees will be unhappy,
which can manifest itself in different ways, including demotivation, reduced
effort, becoming disgruntled or, in extreme cases, perhaps even becoming
disruptive (Adams, 1963).
The idea behind Adams’ theory is to strike a fair balance, with inputs
on one side of the scale and outputs on the other – both weighted in a way
that seems equal. If the balance lies too far in favour of the employer, some
employees may work to bring this balance towards their own interests, for
instance, by asking for more compensation or recognition. Some will be
demotivated, and others will seek alternative employment (Adams, 1963).
Consequently, his theory argues that managers should attempt to find a
fair balance between the inputs that an employee contributes and the out-
puts they collect. As a result of this, high levels of motivation and other
positive outcomes in organisations can only be expected when employees
perceive their treatment to be fair (Adams, 1963). In short, this is the point
we have been discussing all along: we all want to be treated fairly, and we
all desire the moral good.
As you can imagine, Adams’ theory is compatible and complementary
with Herzberg’s works. When this moral extrinsic factor is missing, when
we perceive that we are not receiving this moral good, we will be demoti-
vated. Examples of this demotivation could be students who feel they don’t
get the grades they deserve from their lecturers, or employees who think
their boss is keeping information from them that they need for their jobs.
Conversely, when we perceive that we are treated morally well, with fair-
ness, then we believe that they are giving us what we deserve, that we are
treated with the respect our dignity deserves, and therefore this factor being
present will not increase motivation but neither will it decrease it. Simply,
we consider that we are receiving what we deserve. If all this is true, moral
good should be part of the extrinsic factors described by Herzberg in his
two-factor theory. Hence, Adams’ theory fits perfectly with Herzberg’s find-
ings and suggests that we should expand extrinsic motivation to include a
new moral motivation. The proposal is therefore to expand the extrinsic
motivations column to explicitly include the moral good in our framework
and add extrinsic moral motivation (see Figure 2.4).
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Receiving Achieving
MOTIVES
Willingness
Moral to receive
Good moral good
Reputation, Admiration, Respect
Pleasant to receive to achieve
Useful to receive to achieve
Good useful good useful good
Figure 2.4 Definition of moral motivation based on Aristotle’s types of human good
Furthermore, and in line with previous definitions, extrinsic moral moti-
vation can be described as the voluntary desire to receive an external moral
good. It is a universal human yearning and desire to receive external moral
goods (e.g. the willingness to be treated morally well according to our
human dignity). We all want to receive respect as human beings and appro-
priate moral recognition, reputation or legitimacy from others (Guillén
et al., 2015).
Essentially, this is something that we all deserve and expect. Ultimately,
I do not need any more arguments to convince my students of the need to
include this moral good in our framework. It is evident that they all want to
be treated with the respect that befits their human dignity, and if a lecturer
(or anyone) treats them otherwise, their trust in those people would become
non-existent.
Extrinsic moral motivation founded on human dignity

and source of trust
For management students, it is crucial to understand the role of trust when
dealing with others, and extrinsic moral motivation is key in understanding
the ultimate reason for why we trust people. Trusting is nothing less than
making yourself vulnerable to others. The main reason we do this is because
we expect them to do the right thing by us. We trust someone mostly because
we expect that person to be truthful and fair with us and because they will
do right by us. In short, we know they care about us and consider us worthy
of respect. Without this consciousness of dignity, it is more than likely that
resentment and distrust will prevail at some point (Hicks, 2018).
At this point, in those courses I teach on management, we start discuss-
ing the importance of this universal desire to receive the moral good and
its connection with trust in organisations. I love telling my students about
research I carried out years ago with a colleague of mine at the University
of Valencia, Professor Tomás González, an expert in Quality Management.
Together, we published the study of a case comparing two companies and
their Quality Managers. From our research, we found that one manager was
a genuine leader, freely influencing the behaviour of those working for him;
the other was not, and his subordinates did not trust him.
We observed that to maintain a good relationship with his colleagues, the
former was not only technically proficient but also demonstrated a lasting
commitment to do what was right for others. We found an ethical dimension
of leadership related to treating others well consistently, to honouring their
dignity, as Dr Donna Hicks would say. Moreover, this ethical dimension is
the key, the quintessence, to understanding the relationship between lead-
ers and those who follow them freely. Increased levels of moral behaviour
from the leader resulted in higher levels of moral trust. Likewise, the trust
is quickly lost when leaders stop doing what is right (Guillén & González,
2001).
Fortunately, other scientists are arriving at very similar conclusions now-
adays. For instance, sociologist Randy Hodson’s comprehensive study of
dignity in the workplace concluded that real leaders were those who treat
people with dignity, who give them a sense of autonomy and independence
to work in the way that best suits them, who create an open and trusting
environment where employees are acknowledged and recognised for their
good work. Ultimately, they treat them in a way that enhances their self-
worth and the worth of others. These are the managers who succeed as
leaders (Hodson, 2001).
In more recent times, Stephen Covey and Douglas Conant rationalised that
“trust between managers and employees is the primary defining characteristic
of the very best workplaces” (Covey & Conant, 2016). This finding comes
directly from The Great Place to Work Institute’s report on the “100 Best
Companies to Work For”. In fact, they found this trait in companies that beat
the average annualised returns of the S&P 500 by a factor of three. What
these researchers concluded is that “trust is not a soft, social virtue – it is truly
a hard, economic driver for every organization” (Covey & Conant, 2016).
The field of leadership seems to be proving once again that we all welcome
moral goods in organisations and that extrinsic moral motivation is every-
where despite its absence in most classic theories on motivation. Researcher
Sunnie Giles conducted another study in 2016 involving nearly two hundred
leaders in more than thirty global organisations in fifteen countries. She
wanted to ascertain what people felt were a leader’s top skills. Not surpris-
ingly, what she found at the top of the list was a demonstration of high
ethical and moral standards (Giles, 2016).
She explained that leaders with higher ethical standards convey a com-
mitment to fairness, safety, and inclusion – all elements of dignity and the
extrinsic moral motivation that we have been discussing. She also described
the importance of giving employees clear direction while allowing them to
organise their own time and work, giving them a sense of autonomy and
independence. Evidently, understanding the importance of extrinsic moral
motivation, and the universal desire of people to honour their dignity, was
one of the core skills expected and desired of those in leadership positions
(Giles, 2016).
One of the examples I like using the most to explain the importance of
this moral motivation is that presented by Donna Hicks in her latest book,
Leading with Dignity (Hicks, 2018). Dr Hicks was invited by a company
to address conflicts between management and employees. Everyone knew
that the company was in a precarious position because five years earlier, the
company was almost bankrupt. At that time, and in a desperate move, the
management team asked its employees to help them avoid bankruptcy by
taking pay cuts. They asked everyone to “pull together and win together”,
and so they did.
Five years later, the company’s situation had improved, and it was clear
that the strategy had worked out well, but that is when the problems started
to appear. The employees fully expected their pay to be restored when the
company started doing well again, but this did not happen. Worse still, the
management team gave themselves big bonuses, arguing that it was a legiti-
mate move as it was stated in their contracts (Hicks, 2018).
Of course, the employees felt betrayed. They had given the management
team the benefit of the doubt that they would do the right thing if and when
the company improved, and they felt exploited when that did not happen.
The trust that the employees had for the management team during the time
of the crisis vanished. They were not being recognised or acknowledged for
the contribution they had made to help the company survive. They were
treated unfairly, they felt a great injustice; they felt invisible and as if their
identities did not matter. They no longer felt safe in their relationship with
management.
Furthermore, what most bothered the employees was that management
did not want to talk about the self-awarded bonuses, much less be held
accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, the leadership team was not
willing to take any responsibility for their decisions, making it impossible
for the relationships to be repaired. The company never recovered from
the rift with its employees. What were the chances that trust could ever be
restored? (Hicks, 2018).
The crucial role of moral motivation to rebuild trust

Dr Hicks’ graphic case shows that we all look for the moral good, and when
we do not achieve it, we stop trusting others. I remember some years ago
at a Harvard colloquium, in front of a group of lecturers and managers,
Dr Hicks explained the importance of dignity awareness in fostering organi-
sational cultures of trust.1
That same day, we discussed the difficulty of recovering trust in situations
after it was broken. I recall telling the attendees an anecdote about a local
politician from Spain – talking on TV a few days before this event – who
did something wrong and never recovered the trust of her supporters. I rea-
soned that this politician had missed one of the three basic ingredients of
recovering trust that I found essential in my years of people management:
recognition, rectification, and reparation (what I like to call the three Rs for
trust recovery). These three ingredients are the result of understanding our
desire for moral good.
This politician recognised she had been using the government’s money
for personal purposes. She also said that she did it because everybody did
the same in her party at that time. Nevertheless, she recognised that it was
wrong, and she also promised that she would rectify her conduct in the
future. At that point, I remember saying to the audience that this politician
would never recover the trust of the public.
Due to our universal desire to receive moral good, and even though she
had recognised the wrongdoing (a first necessary ingredient regarding the
past) and was rectifying her conduct (a second ingredient, regarding the
future), she was not repairing the wrongdoing (the third essential ingredient,
regarding the present). My point was that unless she asked for forgiveness,
repairing her misconduct by paying back the money she had misappropri-
ated and offering her resignation, she would never recover people’s trust.
That was exactly what happened: she lost the election and, as far as I know,
all but disappeared from the Spanish political map.
Undoubtedly, all human beings want to be treated with the dignity char-
acteristic of being unique. Moreover, this moral extrinsic motivation is pre-
sent in every human endeavour, in politics, in business, in families and any
personal relationship. Denying this motivation, or not giving it its proper
value, implies a vision of human motivations that is not very human.
For this reason, moral extrinsic motivation has been incorporated into our
map of motivations (Figure 2.2). It is at this time that I encourage students
and seminar participants to expand the answers they gave about their own
motivations in the previous session (see Figure 1.3) and to think about some
practical consequences that they can draw from the discussion we just had.
Some practical tips

After expanding our map to include extrinsic moral motivations, when
asked for moral issues they would consider when looking for future jobs,
students normally include their desire to receive fair salaries and to be rec-
ognised for the value they contribute. They all want to have bosses who are
sincere, who help them grow personally and professionally and who can be
trusted (Figure 2.5).
In fact, all these answers from the students are not dissimilar to those you
get from professionals attending these seminars on motivations. Everyone
wants to work in an organisation where they are supported by their col-
leagues and managers (useful good) and where they feel that the environ-
ment is friendly and safe (pleasant good) (Edmondson, 2018). However,
most importantly, we all want to work in places where we gain respect and
trust and where others treat us with fairness, truthfulness and have a sincere
interest for our professional development and personal growth. This is what
makes a workplace a humane one.
In addition to being able to explicitly identify the moral issues that are
crucial in explaining our behaviour, the expanded map of motivations also
brings the consideration of some practical insights that usually arise in
classes and workshops on motivation, leadership and trust, such as the role
trust plays in creating a productive work environment and the kind of man-
agement behaviours that nurture trust in organisations (Zak, 2012).
Given the relevance of extrinsic moral motivations, as Professor Zak sug-
gests and is in line with this chapter’s previous discussion, from a purely
practical point of view, I recommend my students look for leaders (managers,
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Receiving Achieving
MOTIVES
- Conserving my dignity
- Having people care about me
Moral - Maintaining a good reputation
Good - Having people take me seriously
- Having people treat me with respect

- Good social relationships - Achieving major goals
Pleasant - People’s admiration for me - Growing professionally
- Being treated as a unique person - Feeling proud of myself
Good - Friendships with mates and bosses - Sense of self -satisfaction
- Feeling part of an important project - Feeling contentment in myself
- Enjoying myself doing this work

- Having a good salary
- Getting experience
Useful - Having my own house
- Acquiring knowledge
Good - Getting a good level of life
- Achieving competence
- Spending money without concerns
- Getting a job, stability and security
Figure 2.5 Examples of the extrinsic moral motivation
bosses, politicians, etc.) who understand and respect the extrinsic moral
motivations described in these pages, who care about human dignity when
managing others.
Namely, leaders who care about our extrinsic moral motivations are those
who: (1) recognise our excellence when we accomplish a goal at work; (2)
give us autonomy and discretion in how we work when possible; (3) enable
us to engage in job crafting, to choose the work we feel most passionate
about when possible; (4) encourage hard work in us that produces a sense
of challenge and a reasonable level of stress; (5) share information broadly
so we know the direction in which the organisation is going; (6) intention-
ally build relationships at work; (7) facilitate whole-person growth; and
(8) show vulnerability, recognise their limits and ask others for help when
necessary (Zak, 2017).
These insights, from recent empirical research, offer clear evidence of the
existence and importance of understanding and appreciating the extrinsic
moral motivations, especially for those whose work is related to people
management.
Another very practical insight that shows the relevance of understanding
these extrinsic moral motivations is what Dr Hicks calls the ten elements of
dignity. Leading with dignity is understanding that: (1) we all want others
to accept our identity and interact with us without prejudice or bias regard-
ing our race, religion, ethnicity, class or disability; (2) we all desire to be
treated with inclusion, feeling that we belong to our families, communities,
organisations and nations; (3) we all yearn to feel safe, not only physically
and psychologically but also morally, from being humiliated, without fear
of retribution; (4) we all long for acknowledgment so that people give us
their full attention, responding to our concerns; (5) we all deserve recogni-
tion, knowing the appreciation and gratitude that others give to our contri-
butions, ideas, and work.
Additionally, (6) we all want to be treated with fairness, justly, without
discrimination; (7) we all wish for people to give us the benefit of the doubt,
judging that we have good intentions and motives and seeing us as trustwor-
thy people; (8) we all expect the understanding of others and that they will
listen to us, hoping that others believe that what we think matters; (9) we
all need independence to act freely, on our own behalf, to be responsible for
our actions; and moreover, because we are morally free, (10) we also want
true accountability of our actions and behaviour, even though we make mis-
takes and need to apologise and start again (Hicks, 2011).
These ten elements of dignity, as Donna Hicks describes them, could be
viewed sceptically by some, maybe as too idealistic, in a world where oth-
ers often do not appreciate our extrinsic moral motivations. However, these
are the kind of behaviours that we all desire and deserve: to be treated with
dignity.
It is also true that, at times, we are the ones who do not appreciate the
extrinsic moral motivations and dignity of others. Sometimes, we violate
other people’s dignity as well as our own without even realising it. This is
why the awareness of these moral ideals and the understanding of our own
fragility becomes so essential. Both our capacity for ideas, and therefore
ideals, and the ease with which we can violate them are aspects that belong
to the realm of our free moral human nature. To deny or to forget this is a
big mistake.
In our lives and our jobs, we hope others allow us to fully develop as
moral persons, to flourish and be happy. The way others contribute to this
aspiration is what I have called extrinsic moral motivation. We need to rec-
ognise that, as human beings, we all have a universal desire to receive moral
good.
Likewise, if we decide to continue this exciting journey, trying to under-
stand our motivations better, then we have to be aware of its implications.
We have to accept that an authentic theory of human motivations, a human-
istic one, can never be a morally neutral theory. We need to recognise that
moral motivations are real. As proof of this, I suggest you think about your
own extrinsic moral motivations by answering the following questions.

1 How often do I wish people would give me the benefit of the doubt and
trust me more in my work or my life in general?
2 How often do I feel not safe, with a fear of being humiliated or derided
in my work or my life in general?
3 How often do I miss a sense of freedom and autonomy from others in
my work or in my life in general?
4 How often do I not perceive how others understand my work or my life
in general?
5 How often would I like to be given more information and for others to
be more transparent with me at work or in my life in general?
6 How often do I think others treat me with prejudice or bias regarding
my identity or my ideas at work or in life in general?
7 How often do I miss being treated with fairness at work and in my life
in general?
8 How often do I think people do not recognise and acknowledge me or
pay me full attention in my work or my life in general?
9 How often do I long for others to care about my personal growth at
work or in my life in general?
10 How often do I think that I am not included as being part of a commu-
nity in my work or in my life in general?

yet accurate enough
Only if you answered “never” to every question could you say that you had
never had extrinsic moral motivations. These are issues that we all consider
in our lives because they are related to what it means for us to be human.
Something that only we can consider because only humans care about their
dignity. Obviously, other species do not even think about it because they do
not possess the ability to think rationally. This is not a joke. This is it.
We are capable of reflecting on what it means to be treated properly as
humans or just as beasts. In fact, this is what morality is. We are moral
beings because we have the capacity to act freely, either as ideal human
beings or as simple irrational creatures. We have the ability to pursue or
not to pursue the ideals of what it means to be a good human being, a good
professional, a good father, a good friend or a good citizen.
We have a permanent desire for these higher human goods or higher ide-
als that other species cannot even think of. We are moral beings precisely
because we have the capacity to reflect on what is it that makes us better
human beings and to demand it from others. Would it make sense to desire
to be treated morally well by others and not treat ourselves in the same
way? This sounds like a contradiction, like a beggar asking for money and
then throwing it away, or a student asking for a grant and dropping out of
university once they get it. Would that make sense?
It seems that our desire to receive moral good from others is the conse-
quence of our interest to grow as human beings, to flourish, to be happy.
In fact, this is what explains that, in addition to the extrinsic moral moti-
vation, there exists an intrinsic one, a desire to “achieve” moral good, not
just to “receive” it. This is another area of human motivation that has
been neglected, forgotten, or at least misunderstood by social sciences but
is also worthy of exploration. Now is the time to keep moving forward
on this journey to another unexplored territory on this map of human
motivations – the land of the intrinsic moral motivation. We will examine
this in the next chapter.
Note
1 It was during the First IECO-RCC colloquium at Harvard University in 2013.
The event can be viewed here: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SOU6wwx
B0tC7m3-n-_BnBOOyv9QPjt9.
References
Adams, J. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequality. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
Alderfer, C. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142–175.
Aristotle. (2014). Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Covey, S. & Conant, R. (2016). The connection between employee trust and finan-
cial performance. Harvard Business Review, July.
Daniels, M. (1982). The development of the concept of self-actualization in the writ-
ings of Abraham Maslow. Current Psychological Reviews, 2, 61–75.
Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety
in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Forsyth, D. (1992). Judging the morality of business practices: The influence of per-
sonal moral philosophies. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 461–470.
Giles, S. (2016). The most important leadership competencies, according to leaders
around the world. Harvard Business Review, March 2016.
Guillén, M. & González, T. (2001). The ethical dimension of managerial leadership
two illustrative case studies in TQM. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 175.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard
Business Review, January–February, 46(1), 53–62.
Hicks, D. (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Hicks, D. (2018). Leading with Dignity: How to Create a Culture That Brings Out
the Best in People. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lan, G., Gowing, M., McMahon, S. et al. (2008). A study of the relationship between
personal values and moral reasoning of undergraduate business students. Journal
of Business Ethics, 78, 121–139.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue. London: Duckworth.
Maslow, A. H. (1949). The expressive component of behavior. Psychological Review,
56(5), 261–272.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Moore, G. (2005). Humanizing business: A modem virtue ethics approach. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 15(2), 237–255.
Moore, G. & Beadle, R. (2006). In search of organizational virtue in business:
Agents, goods, practices, institutions and environments. Organization Studies,
27(3), 369–389.
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Velaz, J. (1996). Motivos y motivación en la empresa. Ediciones Díaz de Santos,
p. 312.
Zak, P. (2012). The Moral Molecule: The Source of Love and Prosperity. New York:
Dutton, Published by Penguin Group.
Zak, P. (2017). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard Business Review, January–
February.
3 The intrinsic moral
motivations
Aiming to do the right thing
Revisiting Maslow’s latest ideas on the moral dimension

of motivations
Back in 2001, I published the results from a research project I undertook
with Professor Tomás González, a colleague from the University of Valen-
cia, whom I briefly mentioned in the previous chapter. We studied two com-
panies that were implementing a Total Quality Management Programme
(TQM).1 In one company, employees acknowledged the person in charge
to be a moral leader, whereas in the other, it was the opposite. What we
observed was that, given all other intervening factors remaining constant
(ceteris paribus), only in the presence of a moral leader was the ability to
implement all the TQM principles of the programme guaranteed, coupled
with the involvement of everyone in the company and a strong level of com-
mitment (Guillén & González, 2001).
When we presented the results in Cambridge at the EBEN conference in
2000, one attendee asked if both companies were making any money at the
end of the day. “Did it really matter that the moral leader was able to imple-
ment all the principles of TQM?” My answer was simple: yes. It was clear,
from a managerial point of view, that in the first case and based on their
higher level of trust towards their leadership, the group would more easily
be able to confront any future difficulties in meeting their goals.
This actually proved correct when, some ten years later, the second com-
pany ended up being sold due to poor financial results. I then followed up
this person’s question with one of my own: “What type of company would
you prefer to work for?” I still remember the look on her face. It was evident
from her expression that she, and indeed anyone, would prefer to work in a
more humanistic organisation.
Usually, we prefer to work in places surrounded by good people, those we
can trust. Most would also prefer to work in places with people of honest
intentions and behavioural traits based on moral virtues such as reliability,
industriousness, sincerity, and honesty (i.e. working with integrity). If you
were a student, you would probably like the same qualities in your class
environment and in your teachers.
The intrinsic moral motivations 43
Years ago, one of my best students came to my office to complain about
the excessive competitiveness in her class. She told me: “No one shares their
class notes, nor helps the others. They all want to get the A+ to prove they
are the best”. Clearly, she felt bad that she could not find collaborative
classmates she could trust.
This case is just another everyday example of why the extrinsic moral
motivations described in Chapter 2, the willingness to receive moral good
founded on our human dignity (Hicks, 2011), are not only important but
also quite real. Who would oppose the fact that most of us would like to
work in environments with individuals who have high ideals and superior
human qualities? We have a desire for the good, a longing that, as we dis-
cussed in the previous chapter, was proposed centuries ago by Aristotle.
What I would like to consider now is that, if you ask people around you
(who are trying to do good things) why they behave this way, they will usu-
ally answer: “Because it is the right thing to do”. Indeed, every time I ask
any of my colleagues why they are trying to work competently, or why they
are always telling their students the truth, they will invariably reply that
this is what they are supposed to do. Is this not, in fact, a kind of human
motivation to do what one perceives to be the “right” thing to do? To put
the “good” into practice?
Of course it is, but not everyone has the same good moral intentions. We
are all free to decide if we want to behave well or not precisely because we
are moral beings. Therefore, we do not always necessarily pursue this moti-
vation of attaining the good, but, without a doubt, it is a human motivation
that we would like to see in others and that we all try to engage in more
often than we tend to think.
In this chapter, I will champion the premise that, in addition to the intrin-
sic human psychological drive of self-actualisation, there is another kind of
motivation, an intrinsic moral motivation: a desire to behave well, a yearn-
ing for moral good and moral growth. A motivation that is and that has
been neglected for decades by classical motivation theories (Guillén et al.,
2015). This intrinsic moral motivation was glanced at in Figure 2.4 in the
previous chapter.
This is one of those moments where a teacher must be honest with
their students by telling them about their mistakes. For years, I believed
that Maslow did not capture this moral dimension of motivations at all.
I thought I was right, based on his early works, and the views of other rel-
evant scholars. I believed that, for the psychologist in Maslow, the concept
of self-fulfilment meant developing people’s personal idiosyncrasy in a posi-
tive way (not focusing just on mental disorders). Therefore, it seemed that,
in his work, Maslow was not paying much attention to the ethical side of
this moral development, namely, the growth of the noblest potentials of
each human being, their moral virtues (Melé, 2003).
The truth is that I was wrong about Maslow, and only after an observa-
tion from one of my students during one of our discussions did I decide to
investigate further. This is when I discovered The Farther Reaches of Human
Nature (Maslow, 1971), a book published posthumously. It was a text I had
never heard of before and not one that, as far as I know, my colleagues had
read. I do not think less of my colleagues here, I blame myself for having
been part of an academic system that was teaching what everyone else was
teaching, without a healthy dose of critical thinking. I hope acknowledging
my own mistakes may contribute to changing this situation.
Maslow devoted quite a few pages in this book to talking about aspects
that are directly engaged with morality. He explained that the object of
human life is to fulfil all the motivations that he described in his early hier-
archy – or at least as many of them as possible. He contends that those who
do so are psychologically happier and healthier. Moreover, when talking
about the need for self-actualisation, he says that self-actualisers are the
most emotionally healthy and most fully developed people on the planet
(White, 1988).
When referring to these more fully developed individuals, he describes
them as being more objective and accurate in their judgements, having
their perceptions less distorted by their hopes, fears or desires and being
very understanding of others. This is when the moral dimension appears
more explicitly, giving them a clearer notion of right and wrong in their
moral judgements, he explained. “They listen to their own voices; they
take responsibility; they are honest; and they work hard” (Maslow,
1971, pg. 49).
Maslow affirms that self-actualisers can recognise good and bad fairly
easily and that they consistently side with the good. Therefore, it is not only
about having sound judgement but also about behaving well. Self-actualisers
are aware of their own limitations, without arrogance, and have a sincere
willingness to listen to and learn from others. They are also comfortable
resisting popular opinion or the ideas of their surrounding culture when
either goes against their own point of view. Maslow came to say that these
people represent the best that the human species can attain. He even called
self-actualisation the “growing tip” of humanity (Maslow, 1971).
Likewise, this is what Aristotle would say about virtuousness and virtu-
ous people. It seems that Maslow’s later understanding of self-actualisers,
and their moral character development – a concept that he does not use but
would probably accept – could have been written centuries ago by any of
the classical Greek philosophers.
Maslow’s and Aristotle’s common ideas on human nature

and moral goodness
In 2019, I defended the position that Maslow was not too far from the
findings of Aristotle, Plato or Socrates while giving a presentation at the
Abigail Adams Institute (AAI)2 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I was insisting
on the importance of revisiting classical philosophers if we truly want to
understand human motivations and on the need for a higher-level dialogue
between psychologists and philosophers.
I was surprised by a comment from an attendee who said that he totally
agreed, and not only that, but that I should read a book he had written
thirty years earlier in which he claimed the same premise. A few days later,
I got to read the book by my now colleague – and good friend – the philoso-
phy professor Thomas White (White, 1988).3
I could not believe that in the late 1980s, Professor White had already
found reading of Maslow’s posthumous book fascinating and, when describ-
ing Maslow’s view of human personality, he asserted that Maslow’s idea
about morality and the healthy personality is virtually identical to Socrates’
ideas stating, “Both men think that ethical behavior is consistent with the
strong, healthy human personality. And both imply that unethical behavior
is unhealthy” (White, 1988, p. 142).
He explains that, in Maslow’s findings, everything we consider to be a
part of someone with a strong moral character are characteristics of the
healthy human personality. Consequently, the opposite is therefore true:
people lacking virtues, who regularly manipulate others, cheat, or other-
wise foster human harm and violate human dignity, are engaging in actions
that are in some sense humanly unhealthy, or at least signs of a frail or less
developed personality.
It seems then that, after all, the traditional conception of moral virtue is a
conspicuous part of Maslow’s later ideas. Furthermore, as Professor White
explains, Maslow claimed that self-actualised individuals tend to agree
about matters of right and wrong and suggested that, because of this agree-
ment, their “value judgements” seem to be more objective than subjective.
Maslow went on to say that “at least in the group I studied they tended to
agree about what was right and wrong as if they were perceiving something
real” (Maslow, 1971, p. 9). Actually, their sense of right and wrong results
from how accurately they perceive reality, the objective truth.
It is surprising that, after more than twenty centuries, philosophers
and psychologists are arriving at the same conclusions. Aristotle always
thought that one lives a virtuous life when one is capable of knowing how
to choose correctly, putting that decision into action and being emotion-
ally engaged with good behaviour. Virtuous people, or mature people as
we would say today, feel love for the good and aversion towards the evil
(Abbà, 1989).
If we just think about an ideal boss (for those who have a boss), or an
ideal teacher, the Aristotelian view is that they would be always judging the
right thing to do in every circumstance and doing so with joy. I guess here
is the reason why intrinsic moral motivation is contagious. We can all trust
that someone who is in charge looks for the true objective good with joy and
avoids the true objective evil with hate.
This is the model, the ideal, that I propose to my students. I encourage
them to be excited about becoming great leaders in that sense. In fact, I nor-
mally ask them to think about examples of people they know and are as
such. Many of them talk about their parents, but even more often about
grandparents, and in this, I fully identify with my students. Does it happen
to you? Do you feel motivated to do good things like you saw your grand-
parents do? We all need role models, good examples of morally mature
people, those who do not get carried away by the current moral relativism.
They call good, good, and evil, evil.
As a philosopher in dialogue with psychologists, Professor White states
that, “one of the most important implications of Maslow’s perspective is
that ethical judgements are basically objective. He suggests that when self-
actualized humans make ethical judgements, they use a standard of human
good that is universal, not relative to either an individual or culture” (White,
1988, p. 143).
He continues saying that, when it comes down to it, “Maslow doesn’t offer
us ideas that we don’t already find in Socrates. The two thinkers state things
differently, but both assert an ultimate connection between moral goodness
and a healthy and well-developed human personality. What Maslow does,
that Socrates doesn’t do, however, is to base his findings on research”. To
make his statement clear, Professor White says that, “there may be ways
to question it. But you can’t argue that he doesn’t have a body of research
that convinces him that there is an ethical dimension to the self-actualized
human being” (White, 1988, p. 143).
The existence of such an ethical dimension is consistent with more recent
findings in the area of psychology and the concept of conscientiousness, a
personality trait of being careful, diligent, showing self-discipline and acting
dutifully. This is one of the five traits of both the Five Factor Model and
the HEXACO model of personality, which is intermingled with what has
traditionally been referred to as having character. According to these mod-
els, conscientiousness is considered a continuous dimension of personality,
rather than a categorical type of person (McCrae & John, 1992).
This consciousness personality trait reveals the existence of a universal
yearning for moral goodness that I included in our map of human motiva-
tions labelled as intrinsic and moral (Figure 3.1). However, unlike Maslow’s
contention, I maintain that this kind of motivation, this yearning for moral
good, is not only characteristic of a privileged group of self-actualisers but
of every single human being.
This desire of doing the right thing is a lot more common than it seems.
Most of our ordinary daily lives involve doing things in a righteous man-
ner. The majority of us pursue these kinds of motivations when trying to do
things well, doing well what needs to be done. This is what I mean by intrin-
sic moral motivation, something that a good father and mother, a good
friend or a good worker tries to accomplish every single day in every single
action.
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Motivation Motivation
Receiving Achieving
Moral
to receive to achieve
Good moral good moral good
Ethical Level
Reputation, Admiration, Respect Virtuousness, Excellence, Goodness
Pleasant
Psychological Level
Useful
Good
Physical Level
useful good useful good
Figure 3.1 Defining intrinsic moral motivation
Intrinsic moral motivations: The human desire to do good,

honouring our own dignity
In the realm of work, this intrinsic moral motivation means trying to do a
good job, to perform well, not only technically but also humanly. In other
words, to bring about good workmanship, and therefore attain the moral
good while doing what has to be done. The motive behind achieving good
conduct here refers not only to technical mastery (acquiring useful good),
or to the achievement of a personal satisfaction (attaining pleasant good),
but to achieving moral good (accomplishing moral perfection or quality)
(Figure 3.1).
Likewise, this is what Socrates, Plato or Aristotle would call a moral vir-
tue (arête in Greek, or moral excellence), achieving a state of excellence in
how you act, like working with method or the virtue of order, with con-
stancy, and intensity. Correspondingly, the view of classical philosophers
was that these moral qualities become traits of our character, traits that
enable a person to be better as a human being and to achieve human blos-
soming or flourishing. As I said, this is not far removed from what Maslow
found in his later intellectual period regarding the most self-actualised and
happy people. Of course, if you ask students if they would like to have
teachers like that, the answer is invariably yes.
At this point in our conversation, my students and I arrive to the conclu-
sion that, most probably, Maslow would agree on the necessity of including
the intrinsic moral motivation as part of a sound hierarchy of human needs
(Figure 3.1). If we want to build an accurate map of truly human motiva-
tions, the assumption made by the early psychological theories of motiva-
tion regarding the amorality of human behaviour does not seem to make
sense.
As we noted in Chapter 2, it is clear that we all expect others to care
about our dignity and moral good (extrinsic moral motivation). In addition,
we also aim for our own dignity to be honoured. We all have or might have
this intrinsic moral motivation, meaning that what moves us to act is to
achieve the moral good or to reach an integral human growth, honouring
our own dignity. As Dr Hicks would say, it is a moral motivation to treat
others with dignity because it is the right thing to do: to demonstrate value
for human life (Hicks, 2011).
Of course, the existence of this intrinsic moral motivation does not mean
that every human being always pursues actions trying to accomplish the
moral good but that we do have that potential. In the same way that we do
not always necessarily aim for the useful good, utility is one potential rea-
son for us to act. Regarding the moral good, as we discussed before, we are
moral beings precisely because we have the capacity to act, either aspiring
to the moral good or not.
This means that we have the ability to behave freely as human beings,
according to our dignity, but also as savages, or as beasts and irrational
beings. We have this capacity to pursue ideals, to seek purposes in life and
motives in our behaviour beyond useful and pleasant goods, but the oppo-
site is also true. This is why we are morally free; we are free to act well and
not so well. Only human beings are capable of freely choosing and wanting
their good, of being moved by higher goods or ideals.
This reminds me of another student I had several years ago. I asked the
whole class about which heights they would like to reach as profession-
als in their lives. Everyone laughed when one said, “In the future, I want
to become Spain’s Economy Minister”. This is a great example of what it
means to be an idealist. Someone who thought that he could change the
world by studying economics and then becoming a true influencer in the
country’s economic decisions. I remember telling him that I expected to
receive some special favour or treatment once he got the position. I was kid-
ding, of course; I am still waiting to see if he gets the job, though.
Each of us has ideals; at some point, we all dream about doing great
things in our lives, and it does not necessarily mean getting an important job
or role. We dream about being good at sports, good as parents, good friends
with our friends and good at our jobs. We all wish we could do great in
our lives. This is not just a desire for psychological self-actualisation or the
psychological trait of conscientiousness; it is also about being or becoming
the kind of person we dream of becoming.
It means having the qualities of a good sportsperson, of a good mother
or father, of a good friend or a good professional. Having ideals means hav-
ing not just the right practical skills (useful goods) or the passion for the
things we do in our professions (pleasant goods) but also desiring to achieve
the personal qualities of a good professional (moral goods), as Figure 3.1
shows.
Why is it important to make the distinction between these useful, pleasant
and moral realms? First, it is because they are different domains of human
nature, as classical philosophers found centuries ago. It would be a mistake
to confuse the physical, psychological and ethical orders or realms and to
not be able to distinguish between them properly. Second, it is because these
different realms or dimensions of human nature allow us to better under-
stand the hierarchical order that Maslow discerned decades ago, a kind of
order that now we can explain more precisely by using the Aristotelian clas-
sification of human goods. Finally, it is because the explicit consideration of
the ethical or moral order allows us to better understand and to explicitly
consider the importance of freedom when describing human motivations.
Let us now reflect on these three different realms and their hierarchical order.
Moral motivations are higher than useful and pleasant

motivations
When teaching motivations, I find that now is about the right time to reflect
on the hierarchical order of Maslow’s classification of human needs. As we
saw in Chapter 1, Maslow’s theory has been criticised for not giving a theo-
retical reason justifying its hierarchical order. At least, he never explained
this from a philosophical point of view, mostly because he was not a philos-
opher. However, if his hierarchy is correct, there should be a logical explana-
tion. Right?
It seems common sense that the practical or useful goods belong to the
material or physical realm, the one that is proper for the physical creatures
we are. This is why we all need to satisfy physiological and safety needs,
those that Maslow named basic at the lowest level of his hierarchy. We are
physical beings and we are also living beings, rational animals, and there-
fore we have a physical but also a psychological constitution whereby we
can appreciate everything that contributes to our pleasantness, and we call
that pleasant good.
In addition to our condition as physical and psychological animals, and
at an even higher level, we are free rational beings. There is an ethical realm.
We are capable of finding rational meaning in our actions and lives, some-
thing that other animals cannot do, which explains why this order or level
is higher than in other animals. More so, our behaviour is not explained
exclusively by the sensitive reaction to external or internal stimuli or incen-
tives. We are free rational animals, capable of willingly deciding the purpose
of our actions, our voluntary motives and the kind of lives we want to live.
This capacity to think and freely choose is precisely because of the human
ethical or moral realm,4 that which makes humans different from other ani-
mals. In this sense, we call anything contributing to betterment in this realm,
contributing to our humanness, a moral good. To put it simply, a lion can-
not be a better or worse lion; lions behave as lions, as wild animals, but
human beings have the capacity to freely act in a manner that is better or
worse, more or less in accordance with their human condition, their human
nature. This is what ethics and morality is all about.
As Maslow sensed, the hierarchy of our needs or the good we pursue is
founded on our human nature, one that, as we just described, has several
dimensions pertaining to different orders or realms: the practical or physi-
cal, the pleasant, sensitive or psychological and the moral or ethical one.
This is why Aristotle distinguished useful, pleasant and moral goods when
referring to the kind of goods that friends could desire in each other. They
belong to the three realms or dimensions of what constitute human nature,
which is why I decided to include the physical, psychological and ethical
levels in our map of human motivations, following this hierarchical order
(see Figure 3.1).
What I just wrote might sound too philosophical for some people or even
a matter of common sense for others. This is frequently the case with philo-
sophical arguments and is one of the reasons why I love teaching business
ethics. At the end of the day, moral philosophy or ethics should never be
absent in our teaching because human reality is moral by nature. With each
of our actions, we can hurt others or contribute to their betterment, and,
of course, with each one of our actions we become better or worse human
beings. This is something that seems obvious but has been absent for dec-
ades from the theories of motivation and the hierarchical order of goods
they offer.
It is at this point that I tell my students it took me several years to truly
understand the hierarchical order of goods in human nature. In fact, it was
with help from a business management professor, Juan Antonio Pérez-
López,5 that I understood it. I recall a class in which he gave a very illustra-
tive explanation of this hierarchical order of nature in general and of human
nature in particular. Being the engineer he was, he liked to offer visually
descriptive examples.
I remember him saying, “Imagine there is a big box on the teacher’s table.
A box that is about 1.8 metres tall and weighs 80 kilos”. He then added,
“If we wanted to predict the behaviour of the box regarding the moment at
which it might fall off the desk, what do we need to know? What kind of
knowledge do we need?” The answer he gave was quite simple, “We need
to know physics and some physical laws (i.e. the law of gravity). Only if we
know about the laws that belong to the physical level can we say how much
force is necessary to push the box off the desk. We are facing a physical phe-
nomenon in the physical level of nature”. This is the order or dimension of
reality in which physical and mechanical sciences operate.
Following this visual example, he then added, “Imagine that instead of a
box, what we now have on the table is a brown bear with the same height
and weight. The question now is, what do we need to know to predict the
behaviour of the brown bear regarding the moment at which it might fall
off the desk. Is the knowledge of the physical laws enough? We still need
to know the laws of the physical level, but this knowledge is not enough to
predict the bear’s behaviour. We also need to know the laws of the sensitive
order (i.e. social norms of brown bears, etc.).
By knowing the laws of both the physical and sensitive levels, we can
predict how much force is necessary to push the bear off the desk”. Clearly,
if the bear were hungry, or just violent by nature, it would be best to leave it
alone. We are facing a phenomenon that belongs to the scope of the physical
and sensitive orders at the same time. We just need to know the laws that
govern over both orders, the ones in which physical and natural sciences
operate.
The professor then asked a curious question, “In which case would the
physical laws be enough to explain the bear’s behaviour?” The answer seems
clear: when the bear is dead. In that case, it will behave like the box, as an
inanimate object. The lower laws of physical order apply to every physical
object. However, if the physical object were a living creature, we would
also need to consider the higher-level laws of living nature to understand its
behaviour.
What if, instead of a brown bear, we had a person standing on the table?
Would having the knowledge of physical and sensitive biological laws be
enough to predict human behaviour? The answer is obviously no. Using
only physical and sensitive biological laws, we cannot predict human behav-
iour. This knowledge is certainly necessary but not sufficient.
We would also need to know something more about the laws of human
nature, including what sensitive level is specific to human minds (like tem-
perament traits), which explains why we call this the psychological realm in
the case of human beings, but we also need to know about the laws of ethi-
cal or moral nature (what is good or evil, human and inhuman behaviours,
moral and immoral habits, etc.).
Moreover, these laws of moral nature belong to what classical philoso-
phers call the ethical order, one that in modern sciences has been neglected
and reduced to its psychological dimension. In fact, many of today’s social
scientists would include the psychological dimension as just part of the
second-order sensitive biological realm. That would explain why classic
taxonomies of human motivations did not include ethics.
To predict the behaviour of someone standing on the professor’s table, we
would need to know, among other things, if that person was violent or not,
if they are there because they want to be or for other reasons. Would they
get down if we asked amicably, or would we need to force them down? The
questions are limitless given the free nature of human beings.
In other words, to predict human behaviour, it is not enough to only
know the laws of physical and psychological orders but also those laws of
the human ethical order. What this example allows us to understand is that
human reality is affected by physical, psychological and ethical dimensions,
where each one belongs to a different hierarchical level of reality.
The lower-order dimensions support the higher ones. We would not be
able not make the right moral judgements (ethical level) without having
a healthy living brain (psychological level). Moreover, this would not be
possible without having daily access to the necessary natural resources for
survival, such as food, water, clean air, etc. (physical level). Furthermore, in
normal life, these different realms or dimensions can be theoretically distin-
guished but not separated because we are just one and the same person, with
a living physical, psychological and ethical nature. Moreover, as we will
discuss in Chapter 5, there is actually a fourth human higher spiritual realm.
These different realms each have their own laws, and we can only explain
the way these realms work if we first get to know these laws. Besides,
what Professor Pérez-López wanted to make clear with his example was
that to become good managers when dealing with people, we should prop-
erly understand the different orders of human nature. For example, if one
employee is feeling ill, a manager should first care about that. However,
the logic also applies to the manager themselves. If they are not feeling well
in the lower level (physical), they may not be able to make good decisions
in the higher ones (technical, economical, psychological, and also ethical).
Thus, to understand our own behaviour and that of others, we have to rec-
ognise the complexity of human nature, including the hierarchical order of
its needs.
After using the example of the brown bear, I like to explain that Aristotle
studied this hierarchical order of human life, and it was later revisited by
other philosophers. It was the case, for instance, of St Thomas Aquinas, in
whose view these goods are ordered in a hierarchy corresponding to the
hierarchy of living things described by Aristotle several centuries earlier (i.e.
those with vegetative, sensory, and rational souls, respectively). Aquinas
also defended that the higher goods presuppose the lower ones; for exam-
ple, one cannot pursue moral truth if their brain does not function prop-
erly from a biological or psychological standpoint, and this will not happen
unless one preserves oneself in existence in the physical level.
In addition to the hierarchical order of these realms of human nature,
Aquinas indicates that the lower goods are subordinate to the higher ones
in the sense that they exist for the sake of higher ones (see Figure 3.2). The
point of fulfilling the vegetative and sensory aspects of our nature is, ulti-
mately, to allow us to fulfil the higher defining rational and spiritual dimen-
sions (Feser, 2009).
We cannot deny the importance of understanding each different dimen-
sion of human nature and its hierarchical order (see Figure 3.2). There is a
universal need or desire to receive and achieve higher moral goods (extrinsic
and intrinsic moral motivations). They are different from the desires to also
receive and achieve useful or pleasant goods, so, at this point, once again
I do not need any more arguments to convince my students of the need to
include this moral good in our map of human motivations.
We all want to be treated with the respect befitting our human dignity,
and we all have the capacity to behave or not according to this dignity. This
capacity is precisely what we call moral or ethical freedom, something exclu-
sive to humans, to moral beings, that belongs to this higher order of goods
and distinguishes us from other living beings. In fact, we can distinguish at
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Receiving Achieving
Moral
Higher-order goods
Good
Ethical Realm
presuppose lower-order goods
Pleasant
Lower-order goods
Good
Psychological Realm
exist for the sake of higher-order goods
Useful Lower-order goods

Good
Physical Realm support higher-order goods
Figure 3.2 The hierarchical order of human nature and human goods
least three different kinds of freedom, each one belonging to one of the three
realms of human nature included in the three levels of our map of motiva-
tions: physical, psychological and ethical.
The first two are the freedom from physical or psychological constraints,
and the third is the freedom to attain some purpose. This third kind, the
moral freedom, is the one characteristic of human beings. We are not neces-
sarily moved by every external or internal stimulus, craving, urge or pressure
we feel, as that would mean reducing the concept of freedom exclusively to
its psychological aspect. Instead, and in addition to the feeling of freedom,
we are quite capable of freely deciding to follow such feelings, impulses or
tendencies, or to act in a radically different way for other reasons, purposes
or intentions.
We human beings can follow our tendencies and impulses or not after
having rationally evaluated and, consequently, accepted or rejected them.
Freedom refers to the willingness, the voluntary decision, to follow or not
to follow some tendency. In this sense, human motivation consists of the
energy or drive that impels a person to make choices and to seek goals
actively (Cloninger, 2004).
Of course, for the people who are not concerned about morality, human
freedom is then artificially reduced to psychological freedom, meaning the
ability to do whatever you want. Therefore, there are those who falsely
separate the psychological realm from the ethical one, but these two realms
or levels, while different, are inseparable in human nature. When you artifi-
cially separate them, you will go as far as saying that a behaviour is right as
long as you do whatever you wish with a sense or feeling of autonomy and
with no psychological constraint.
You could then simply lie, show injustice, harm others and do whatever
you want. Given that, from this perspective, freedom has nothing to do with
morality, then the question of moral good or what is morally right or wrong
would not matter, a perspective that, unfortunately, leads to the moral rela-
tivism that reigns in Western society today. It seems common sense that,
because of the laws of physical nature, we are not able to fly, and we cannot
think about a hundred things at once because of the laws of psychological
nature. For the same reason, we cannot constantly lie without becoming
liars and being untrustworthy because of the laws of moral nature.
The more you understand the truth of the laws of science, the more sci-
entific you become. In the same way, the more you know about the laws of
a sport, the more skilful you become in that sport. Moreover, for the same
reason, the more we understand the laws of human nature (physical, psy-
chological and ethical), the freer we are to live and enjoy our human life.
That is why the expression “the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32)
makes so much sense in this context, not just for Christians but for any-
body. From the denial of reality (the truth) that there are moral laws derived
from human nature (just as there are physical and psychological laws), the
relativist position follows. Disregarding the existence of moral principles
and intrinsic moral motivations leads to moral relativism. This is why the
map of human motivations proposed in this book presupposes the existence
of these three realms considered as different but, again, inseparable levels of
one and the same reality (see Figure 3.2).
Intrinsic moral motivations shape our moral virtues

and our moral conscience
In a thought-provoking way, I like to tell to my students that sometimes we
are less free than we think, and they ask me why. It’s clear that they want
to feel free, but they also want to make sure that they are really free, as
nobody likes a kind of “fake freedom”. Instead of giving a direct answer,
I keep asking them if we are really free when we are incapable of saying no
to something urgent, and we can’t stop doing it.
For instance, when we are incapable of not looking at our smartphones
if a message suddenly pops up, or when we can’t help but distract ourselves
by surfing the internet when we should be studying or paying attention to
someone in class, we are not really free. More precisely, we are not using
our freedom well – we are lacking the necessary willpower to say no. Thus,
we become “slaves” to our urges.
We may feel that we are free because we have the apparent ability to do
whatever we like (psychological freedom). Indeed, if we cannot stop doing
that which distracts us from our tasks, then we are not putting our moral
freedom into practice. In these cases, we are less free than we thought,
as we are letting our urges and instincts make our decisions for us; like
non-rational creatures (machines or animals), we just respond to external
impulses, without using our willpower to make our final decisions freely.
When we are incapable of governing our own impulses with self-mastery,
ensuring we put them at the service of higher goods and human ideals, then
we are slaves to our own cravings. We may feel that we are doing what
we want, but we are powerless to do anything other than just what our
comfort-seeking, lower, pleasant goods motivations are suggesting. This
same thing happens on the physical level, for example, when we do any
sport. If we want to do well in any sport and master it, we have to practice
to acquire a full skillset.
This is exactly the same as in the three levels of our map (see Figure 3.2),
including the psychological and ethical levels. To not be driven solely by
feelings and impulses, we all need to practice the skills and engage in habits
that will allow us to do the right things. This is something that requires will-
power to say yes to some cravings and impulses and no to others, depending
on how they contribute to our own good. This is what moral life and the
traditional concept of moral virtue are about.
Here, it is relevant to mention The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg,
which I recommend to my students every year. It is a research work that
describes the scientific discoveries that explain why habits exist and how they
can be changed. He brings the findings of neuroscientists to life exploring how
habits work and where, exactly, they reside in our brains (Duhigg, 2012).
This work brings new insights to an old understanding of human nature
and character development that philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle,
explained centuries ago. This is another work that shows how the findings
of scientific research in modern social sciences are consistent with the con-
clusions of the moral philosophy more than twenty-four centuries ago.
Imagine a father who is incapable of returning home early enough every
day to take care of his children. If this becomes a habit because of work
pressures or the fear of looking irresponsible in front of his colleagues, then
he is probably trapped by a lower-order kind of motivation in our map (use-
ful or pleasant). In cases like this, one lacks the necessary moral virtue or
habit to aim for higher-level motives (moral) (see Figure 3.1).
If this person is incapable of choosing a different higher good, if he is una-
ble to leave his workplace earlier at the risk of losing his job to spend more
time with his children, then they are morally free but lacking the strength of
moral character to use that freedom properly. By not choosing the higher
moral good in this case and not using his free will well, he is actually doing
morally wrong, even though he might be doing well from a purely economic
point of view (getting useful good), or even from a psychological perspective
(getting some pleasant good).
Of course, you may argue, however, that being a good employee is not
always compatible with being a good parent. Sometimes, sacrifices have
to be made, like working overtime to better support your family. In this,
I agree. If that is the case, though, then you are just facing a decision that
includes a moral good, in opposition to other kinds of lower-order goods.
This is the real world. Our daily lives are crowded with this kind of tension
about goods (useful, pleasant and moral) and, therefore, about different
motivations.
This is why I subtitled this book: Searching for a meaningful work-life
balance. We will further discuss this in the last part of the book, but for now,
let us say that it is one thing to understand the map of motivations and the
place where we are right now, but moving to a better place in the map is
much more complicated.
In practical life, things are not so simple. It is not enough to just know the
theory. Any theory of motivation, in order to be accurate, has to explicitly
consider this tension between motivations and the role our freedom plays in
making such decisions because this is what happens every single day in our
personal lives.
Being morally free implies the necessity of engaging in moral judgement
all the time regarding the purpose or good that is at stake in every moment
and situation as well as in deciding the necessary means to attain our pur-
poses. Judgement about the good we are trying to pursue, our purpose or
intention, in addition to the effort we make to accomplish such a goal, is
precisely what makes us responsible for our own human actions.
This kind of verdict or rational judgement about our motives of conduct
is what has traditionally been described as moral conscience: the judgement
of our reason whereby we recognise the moral quality of a specific action.
This may be applied to the action we have already completed, the one we
are going to take or, more frequently, the one we are doing.
By choosing the appropriate good here and now, our reasoning approves
the good and censures the evil we do or might want to do in every specific
situation. This is precisely what makes us essentially different from irra-
tional beings. This is what it means to be human, to be capable of moral
judgements and moral decisions. A theory of human motivations should not
therefore dismiss the role of moral conscience if it wants to be described as
human. It is essential to distinguish good from evil (a privation of the good).
This reminds me of what happened to me at the end of one of my MBA
classes. One student came to me and said, “Today was the first time in my
life that I heard someone say that we always have to follow a moral criterion
to make good management decisions. No one talks about this in our other
management classes”, followed by, “in my personal life, I have always done
what I pleased. I never thought about any other criteria than my personal
satisfaction. That is what I was planning to do in my future job as a man-
ager, until today”.
This student was grateful for the ethical decision-making lecture that day.
I was even more grateful to see the sincerity of this student, who had made
me aware of the importance of this topic. I became even more mindful of the
importance of our moral training as management lecturers and the necessity
of writing this book.
I also realised the direct influence that we may have on others when teach-
ing (in this case when I teach classes on decision-making). If we lecture
future managers on how to make good decisions without explicitly men-
tioning the moral dimension and the role of the moral conscience in dis-
tinguishing good and evil, then something must be wrong. Simply put, as
already anticipated by the late prestigious management professor Suman-
tra Ghoshal, “Bad management theories are destroying good management
practices” (Ghoshal, 2005).
Intrinsic moral motivations demand free moral character

We all have to make decisions at the end of the day, not just managers.
When we are considering which motivation we want to follow, we are judg-
ing our own purpose, the good we want to choose. If the goods at stake are
just those that are useful and pleasant, then we will reduce our analysis to
things like efficiency and effectiveness, in terms of profit, results or satisfac-
tion. However, if we expand the realm of goods at stake in our judgement
to include the moral good, as well as the useful and the pleasant, then we
will also think about the right thing to do when making that decision (see
Figure 3.1).
As I like to tell my students, to make a good decision you must always
consider at least three E’s; effectiveness, efficiency, and ethics. The first two
belong to the useful and pleasant realms, the third to the moral. If we do
not implicitly or explicitly consider the third E (the ethical dimension), we
will most likely make a bad decision and destroy the trust around us. This
is not the place to explain how to make ethical decisions or how they affect
trust building in organisations, something I did elsewhere in the context of
teaching business ethics (Guillén, 2006).
When there is tension among the three kinds of motivations (useful, pleas-
ant, and moral), it is time to stop and judge what the right thing to do is – to
use our moral conscience, to be conscious of the situation. This is why I con-
sider it important to offer “maps of good” to students so that they may dis-
tinguish the hierarchical order of the different kinds of goods. In this sense,
I usually distrust public speakers who talk about business ethics and start
their talks by saying that being ethical is profitable, when I think that, in the
short term at least, it is usually the opposite. Likewise, in the long term, it is
quite probable but not always necessarily true that putting the moral good
first will lead you to reach financial success, a useful good.
The useful good has its own logic, one that should always be subordi-
nate to the higher moral good. There are quite a lot of profitable businesses
that will always be immoral and that should be avoided as being inhuman,
like pornography, drug dealing, human or organ trafficking, etc. We man-
agement lecturers should not be afraid to make this clear because we are
supposed to teach how to make good decisions (good in its three levels or
meanings).
Regarding the distinction of the useful, pleasant and moral domains,
there are a good number of moral businesses that may still not be profitable,
as is the case with many social endeavours that require the help of external
donors. I insist to my students that useful, pleasant, and moral goods belong
to different realms, and to make the right decisions, given that moral goods
are of a higher order, they should be the ones that we never give up.
Therefore, any business harming human beings is wrong by its own
nature, because it is inhumane, and any decision that goes against moral
good is wrong, even if it is quite profitable. As the traditional moral prin-
ciple goes: a good end (making money) does not justify a wrong mean (any
unethical decision) (Guillén, 2006).
I like to tell my students that learning ethics is quite exciting. Neverthe-
less, strictly speaking, ethics cannot be taught, but it may be learned. In fact,
ethics may be presented but not imposed, precisely because moral motiva-
tion demands moral freedom, the capacity to choose and want the good.
Indeed, because we are morally free, we have to decide if we want to shape
our consciences to make better decisions. Only we can make such decisions.
Ethics is connected with judging the good but, most importantly, with the
practice of the good, and that means engaging in the habit of always doing,
or at least trying to do, the right thing and achieve moral virtues. Hence, the
more we study and practice ethics, the higher our intrinsic moral motivation
will be and, therefore, our desire and capability to do good (Guillén, 2006).
We do not always make good decisions, not because we lack the moral
criterion, but because, at times we lack the strength of character, the neces-
sary moral virtue or habit. At times, we lack the moral temperance to say
“no” to pleasant goods in order to attain higher moral goods (e.g. from
the earlier example, when we cannot move away from any distraction on a
smartphone to listen to and pay attention to another person).
Other times, we lack the moral fortitude to say “yes” to higher moral
goods despite having to sacrifice some lower useful or pleasant goods, for
instance, going to visit a friend who is sick while giving up other personal
interests, such as going to the gym. When that happens, when we lack the
necessary moral strength to make the correct decision and choose higher
goods when possible due to its difficulty, then we gradually lose the habit;
we become inept at making other good moral decisions in the future. As
on the physical plane, when you stop going to the gym for a while, you
lose your physical strength, your habit, and then it becomes harder to lift
weights or compete with the same speed and agility as before.
Temperance, or self-mastery, and fortitude, or strength of character, are
two of the four cardinal classic virtues that govern moral life and are key in
making good decisions. The other two cardinal virtues are justice and prac-
tical wisdom. This distinction was proposed twenty-four centuries ago by
Plato. The more we practice these moral virtues, the better people we become.
The opposite is also true. If we do not keep practicing all these moral virtues,
then our moral character deteriorates (Plato, 1997); we become worse per-
sons and, therefore, worse professionals, as both things are inseparable.
It is like any athlete who stops doing a sport they are competent at; they
lose physical form and stop being proficient at that sport. Conversely, if they
keep practicing, they could then become a better athlete. The same happens
with the “moral muscle”. As Aristotle would say, the more we practice the
good, the easier it becomes and the more we enjoy it. In fact, mature people
are those who enjoy practicing the good and suffer when they face evil and
wrongdoing. Maslow found exactly the same evidence in his most recent
studies, as noted earlier (Maslow, 1971).
Intrinsic moral motivations are a manifestation

of our human ideals
Ideals and higher purposes in our lives constitute powerful engines for our
behaviour, and this is what intrinsic moral motivation is about (see Fig-
ure 3.1). We all have ideals, so when people do not know what they are liv-
ing for, or they just do whatever they please, they get bored with the use of
their freedom. They feel as if they have surrendered responsibility and may
develop anxiety. We all need ideals, intrinsic moral motivations, which give
meaning to our daily decisions. Many times, our ideals are the main reason
we do what we do, even if we do not feel like it. That is why we try to be
good members of our families, honest members of our professional organi-
sations and upright citizens of our communities and societies.
Don’t get me wrong, though, as I do not want to sound naive here: you
can only be virtuous in a society where you can also be vicious. In the same
way, you can only be a saint in a world where you can also be a sinner. Hav-
ing high ideals, and struggling to pursue higher moral good, is compatible
with frequently feeling the lowest desires for just the lower goods and even
the greatest vileness. This is simultaneously the greatness and wickedness of
human nature, something we all experience on a daily basis.
You would be surprised by the responses from young undergraduate stu-
dents regarding these ideas. This is one of the most exciting ingredients of
the teaching profession: we are always surrounded by young idealists, and
they recognise the truth of these ideals to achieve the good. We do not have
to convince any of our students of the existence of the intrinsic moral moti-
vation. I would dare to say that only those who do not have them, or do not
know how to put ideals into practice, get into trouble with drugs, alcohol,
stress, etc.
The majority of young people have noble ideals and dreams. In fact,
at times, the problem is that they are too idealistic. Normally, they have
dreams but do not have clear plans on how to achieve them. This is a dif-
ferent issue, however, and one that I will discuss at the end of this book, in
Chapter 9. For now, let us just say that intrinsic moral motivations, moral
high ideals, such as attaining justice or peace in the world, are, in fact, one
of the most common drivers among young people. This is my experience
from more than twenty-five years of teaching at the university level.
All these young people detest poverty and aim for higher levels of pro-
gress and justice. They all aim for peace and aspire to see a better world and
a society that thrives, but not only students long for moral good. This is
common to all of us. In fact, every attendee in professional seminars I give
all over the world agrees on the importance of a life driven by moral ide-
als. Furthermore, their intrinsic moral motivations are not so different from
those of the eighteen-year-old, first-year students I also teach.
Mature professionals, as well as young students, all have purposes and
ideals that include things like growing and becoming a better person, caring
and giving the best of themselves, earning morality and respect for them-
selves, learning moral and good practices, achieving their main goals ethi-
cally or knowing that they are doing the right thing and not being corrupt
(see Figure 3.3).
For most young students, the question of moral ideals and personal excel-
lence or virtue do not sound so familiar at the beginning of the sessions.
However, once you describe the concepts, they understand that these moral
questions and their awareness are part of their process of personal growth
and the unfolding of the full potential of our human dignity. Depending on
MOTIVATIONS
Extrinsic Intrinsic
Receiving Achieving
-. Not being corrupt

-. Caring about myself
-. Conserving my dignity
Moral -. That people care about me
-. Growing as a person
-. Becoming someone better
Good -. Maintaining a good reputation -. Giving myself the best of me
-. Knowing I am doing the right thing
-. That people take me seriously
Ethical Realm -. Learning moral and good practices
-. That people treat me with respect -. Achieving my main goals with ethics
-. Earning morality and my own respect
-. Aspiring to better jobs
-. Good social relationships -. Achieving major goals
Pleasant -. People’s admiration for me -. Growing professionally
Good -. Being treated as a unique person -. Feeling proud of myself
-. Friendships with mates and bosses -. Sense of self-satisfaction
Psychological Realm
-. Feeling part of an important project -. Feeling contentment in myself
-. Enjoying myself doing this work
-. Being able to travel

-. Having a good salary
Useful -. Having my own house
-. Getting experience
Good -. Getting a good level of life
-. Acquiring knowledge
-. Achieving competence
Physical Realm -. Spending money without concerns
-. Getting a job, stability and security
Figure 3.3 Examples from participants’ intrinsic moral motivations or ideals
how mature their minds are, they see these ideas as powerful tools to help
them grow and make better decisions in the future.
Of course, you also find students that do not care at all about this “stuff”.
They just look at you with indifference. It also makes sense because, as I said
before, ethics cannot be taught, it has to be learned, and learning requires
time and personal experience. We all learn from our own mistakes, and no
one likes to be pressured or urged. No one likes to be reminded that we are
not doing well. Moral learning takes time for everyone, and what normally
drives us to improve are great ideals and good models.
My research and years of teaching experience have taught me that while
the majority of young people dream with virtues and with models of conduct
that are related to making a better world in the future, older participants
and practitioners in seminars find this intrinsic moral motivation important
because of their previous personal experiences; they look to the past. They
see other colleagues not always doing the right thing, or even if they work
in ethical organisations, they know of many institutions that end up being
corrupt precisely because this intrinsic moral motivation was absent. There-
fore, most of the older professionals attending my seminars love the idea of
making this dimension explicit in a theory of motivations.
Moreover, many of them want to delve deeper into this topic when I sug-
gest that it is through our daily work, through our daily professional activity
that we find higher meaning and achieve personal excellence or the oppo-
site. Nevertheless, the connection of the map of motivations and the mean-
ing we give to our work will be the subject of the final part of this book in
Chapters 8 and 9. This idea of achieving personal excellence through daily
work is not new and, in fact, has become an area of increasing interest
among scholars in the field of education (Gardner et al., 2001). As before,
let us finish this chapter by considering some practical insights from some
of these researchers.
Some practical tips

The well-known Harvard professor Howard Gardner, honoured for his
theory of multiple intelligences, carried out an empirical study in the late
1990s with his team at Harvard, known as The GoodWork Project. In this
study, they conducted in-depth interviews with more than 1,200 profession-
als in nine different spheres of work. Their findings led them to conceptual-
ise good work as exhibiting three components: excellence, engagement, and
ethics. To finish this chapter, let us now consider some practical insights that
emerged from this research and that strongly support the ideas I have just
presented (Gardner et al., 2001).
As Professor Gardner maintains, to achieve our higher potential in our
work, we need to always keep in mind what makes work excellent. Like-
wise, work is good when it meets the technical standards of our profession
or craft. This is indeed an essential part of what it means to do the right
thing, to work well. Therefore, (1) we all should stop and reflect on how
good we are in the way we work and how this workmanship affects our
motivation to work better, recognising that we can always improve and
keep learning.
We should examine the means we employ to keep up with our train-
ing, including all the skills and knowledge befitting a good professional in
our area. It is also important to ask for help and corrections from our col-
leagues, students, clients, patients, etc. Here, intrinsic practical or useful
motivation intermingles with the intrinsic moral one. To be a good profes-
sional requires humility (a moral virtue) to recognise that we can and should
always keep learning.
In addition to this attitude of continuous improvement, “good work”
is that which is personally meaningful or engaging. This is the essence of
intrinsic moral motivation; as Professor Gardner would suggest, (2) we
should keep asking ourselves how our work is helping us to attain our
higher purposes in life. We need to bear in mind that we spend most of
our day working, and the more we see our daily tasks as opportunities to
attain our higher ideals, the more motivating and engaging our work will
be. A good way to start every working hour, therefore, is to ask ourselves
how this specific task is contributing to our ideals.
Finally, what Professor Gardner found is that good work is one that is
ethical, one that is carried out responsibly. Therefore, if we really aim to be
good workers (3) we should constantly cross-examine ourselves about what
it means to be responsible, to be a good professional, seeking to behave
in that way and admitting our shortcomings before correcting them. Once
again, humility, the ability to recognise our frailty and limitations as well as
our virtues and strengths, becomes a key moral virtue that we all should aim
for in our work if we want them to help us thrive as human beings.
It is fascinating to see increased academic interest in the area of profes-
sional work. Another Harvard lecturer, Dr Kevin Majeres, is also interested
in this area of well-done work. He studies how working at our best affects
our motivations and behaviours, but especially our habits. This renowned
psychiatrist, who teaches at Harvard Medical School, has recently devel-
oped a project called Optimal Work,6 a mentoring tool aimed at helping
young students and professionals work at their best.
We all experience optimal work from time to time; it is a way of work-
ing that seems to happen effortlessly at times, in a state of flow. What
Dr Majeres supports is that this way of working is also something we can
learn to do intentionally. His programme is based on the theory of classical
virtue, physiology, the latest neurosciences and the cognitive-behavioural
therapy approach, a methodology that, as noted before, focuses less on the
pathology and more on human flourishing.
According to this approach, to have the most meaningful life, in which
you meet all your potential, you must incorporate your highest ideals in
your work. Based on Dr Majeres’ findings, (4) our motivation increases
exponentially every time we reframe the purpose of our work. Then, we
stop looking at every task solely through the lens of pressure, stress and
seeking goals and start looking at them as opportunities for growth. Moreo-
ver, we see every hour of work as an opportunity to attain our higher ide-
als but also specific moral virtues, such as humility, patience, consistency,
order, intensity, and many others.
At work, (5) we have repeated opportunities to engage in challenges every
day. They give us the chance to grow in every virtue. It is at work that we
may change our approach to challenges in life from a reactive and nega-
tive view to a most proactive, stable and positive one. Rather than being
passive – seeking to reduce challenge – we can actively stretch ourselves
according to our ideals.
Thus, following virtues in our work, by facing challenges, is how we best
develop the habit of living according to our highest ideals. Ironically, chal-
lenges are the path to a richer and more satisfying life. Happiness comes
from living out our ideals to the fullest, and challenges are the way we do
that. In fact, because work is a hinge upon which life turns, the growth that
we attain while working well, following virtues, applies not just to work but
also to every area of our lives.
Paradoxically, by facing daily challenges, seen as opportunities that help
us to grow, we attain virtues; we become better persons. The workplace then
becomes the natural situation for personal growth. When going to work, (6)
in every activity we can aim to grow in specific moral virtues, such as hon-
esty, patience, strength, wisdom or justice, but also in other less celebrated
virtues, such as flexibility, creativity or cheerfulness, among many others.
In recent years, I have reflected with my students on how the knowledge
of our own motivations can help us not only to put our higher ideals into
practice but also how to work at our optimum level by finding a meaningful
work-life balance. For now, I will end this chapter by suggesting some practi-
cal questions related to this intrinsic moral motivation, the inner desire to do
the right thing, practicing the good and attaining moral virtues in our lives.

1 How often do I get anxious and rush about at work? Does it affect my
motivations?
2 How often do I complain about the new challenges at work? Does it
affect my motivations?
3 How often do I lose patience and get angry at work? Does it affect my
motivations?
4 How often do I have arguments and conflicts at work? Does it affect my
motivations?
5 How often do I criticise, slander or gossip at work? Does it affect my
motivations?
6 How often do I dream of attaining my higher ideals in my profession?
Does it inspire me daily?
7 How often do I seek to behave responsibly, doing the right thing at
work? Does it encourage me to perform better?
8 How often do I try to work at my best level, to be good in my chosen
profession? Does it challenge me?
9 How often do I perceive the challenges in my work as opportunities to
grow in virtue, to become a better human being?
10 How often do I reframe the purpose of my work, from stress and pres-
sure to personal growth?
A final critical thought on why the map is not yet

accurate enough
These questions, among other similar ones, may help us to better under-
stand the realm of intrinsic moral motivation. The answers can tell us some-
thing about our ideals and how the practice of virtue, or its absence, may
affect our motivations. We have been able to reflect on these issues because
we expanded our Map of Motivations to a new territory that was practi-
cally unexplored by the early theories. As we noted, for decades, psycholo-
gists did not pay much attention to this kind of intrinsic moral motivation,
a universal desire to do something because it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, the moral dimension of human behaviour was taken for
granted, and, consequently, integral personal development was reduced in
most cases, if considered at all, to its psychological realm. Furthermore,
as we will see in the next chapter, for decades, this amoral view of human
nature has led to another erroneous assumption: a conception of human
behaviour understood as exclusively self-centred and egotistic. For this rea-
son, it will be necessary to review the limitations of our map of human moti-
vations to discover a new and little-explored territory – that of motivations
to give selflessly.
Notes
1 Total Quality Management (TQM) describes a management approach to long-
term success through customer satisfaction. In TQM, all members of an organi-
sation participate in improving processes, products, services, and the culture in
which they work. The TQM Programme involves implementing a number of
principles.
2 Founded in 2014, AAI is a scholarly institute dedicated to providing supplemen-
tary humanistic education to the Harvard intellectual community. They foster
shared intellectual life by exploring questions of deep human concern that cut
across the boundaries of academic disciplines. www.abigailadamsinstitute.org/
3 On 10 July 2018, I gave this presentation as part of the Scholars’ Workshops
of the Abigail Adams Institute, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Professor Thomas
White was one of the attendees.
4 Although some ethicists want to make a distinction between the terms ethical and
moral, in this book I am using them interchangeably, as moral is the translation
into Latin (mōris) from the Greek (ethos).
5 Juan Antonio Pérez López (1934–1996) was a Spanish business theorist. He was
a professor of Organisational Behaviour at the IESE Business School (Spain). In
1970, he received his PhD in Business Administration from Harvard Business
School. His research and publications focus on action theory and its implica-
tions for organisational behaviour. He delved into issues like motivation, learning,
rationality, etc.
6 For more information, see www.optimalwork.com/
References
Abbà, G. (1989). Felicità, Vita buona e virtù. Saggio di filosofia morale. Ed. LAS.
Rome: Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose.
Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling Good: The Science of Well-being. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Duhigg, C. (2012). The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Busi-
ness. New York: Random House Trade Paperback Edition.
Feser, E. (2009). Aquinas. A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications.
Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Damon, W. (2001). Good Work: When Excel-
lence and Ethics Meet. New York, NY: Basic Books, Perseus Books Group.
Guillén, M. (2006). Ethics in Organizations. Building Trust. Madrid: Prentice-Hall,
Pearson. (Spanish Edition). There is a forthcoming English version.
Guillén, M. & González, T. (2001). The ethical dimension of managerial leadership
two illustrative case studies in TQM. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 175.
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Ed. Arkana. New
York: Penguin Books.
McCrae, R. & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
Melé, D. (2003). The challenge of the humanistic management. Journal of Business
Ethics, 44(1), 77–88.
Plato. (1997). Plato Complete Works. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
White, T. I. (1988). Right and Wrong. A Practical Introduction to Ethics. New York:
Pearson. (There is a 2nd edition published by John Wiley & Son, Oxford, UK, in
2017 with the same title).
Part II
Exploring the region of

higher human motivations
4 The transcendent
motivations
Human readiness to give
Overcoming a self-centred vision of human motivations

A year ago, I learnt that Andrew Fastow, former CFO of Enron and the man
responsible for one of the most egregious corporate frauds in the history of
the US, is nowadays being invited to give presentations in several prestigious
institutions all over the world. Fastow, who was indicted and imprisoned
for six years for his part in the infamous Enron investor fraud,1 is now pub-
licly acknowledging his part in the scheme and attempting to explain the
mindset that led him to participate in such a deception. Unfortunately, this
has become one of the paradigmatic cases showing the lack of ethics in the
world of business, and I have been using this in my classes for years. These
events show the consequences of having an exclusively materialistic and self-
ish worldview of business.
Since being released from prison in December 2011, Fastow has been on
the lecture circuit giving dozens of speeches a year, acknowledging that what
he did was wrong. He was not alone, though, as former chairman Kenneth
Lay was also convicted in the 2006 trial. He died before he could be sen-
tenced. Another Fastow collaborator, Jeff Skilling, actually Fastow’s boss as
CEO of Enron, also ended up in prison. He ultimately served twelve years
before his release in February 2019. Skilling has steadfastly maintained his
innocence to this day.
However, what – if anything – caused Fastow to adopt such a bleak per-
spective on humanity? He was convinced that we human beings are, at our
core, egotistical and self-centred. It seems that the book The Selfish Gene by
Richard Dawkins was one of the sources for these views for him. Underpin-
ning all his criminal activity while at Enron was this materialist, amoral and
self-interested logic, a logic that is as disheartening as it is wrong.
Unfortunately, this logical framework of human behaviour portrayed as
exclusively self-interested, continues to be taught explicitly or implicitly in
many business schools and universities all over the world. Similar to the
majority of my colleagues, I also taught human motivations under that same
assumption for years, at least implicitly (i.e. that we humans are always
egocentric and driven by that trait).
70 Exploring the region of higher human motivations
If you look at the framework of human motivations discussed in the pre-
vious chapter, this is precisely what it says, at least implicitly, that human
nature is always self-centred (see Figure 3.1). Normally, one does not realise
this until someone else clarifies it, asking you to look more closely at the
described framework. The unveiled supposition under these approaches to
human motivation that we have been teaching for decades is that we human
beings are always and basically selfish beings. What drives us is reduced to
the good we are expecting to receive from the outside (extrinsic motivations
in the left column of our map) and the one we could achieve from our own
actions (intrinsic motivations in the right column of our map).
In other words, if we agree uncritically with the distinction between
extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, then there are only two main drives
for human conduct: receiving and achieving. Therefore, by admitting this
framework, we are assuming that the only end result of human conduct,
whether extrinsically or intrinsically motivated, is self-regarding. A perspec-
tive that seems to be wrong in its basic assumptions about human nature,
as simply self-centred. Do you agree? Do you think that all our motivations
are always and only self-centred?
In this chapter, we will reflect on what empirical studies are furthering –
that the purpose of giving, and not just receiving or achieving, is a com-
mon and universal driver and part of our humanity, a kind of motivation
that considers the impact our actions have on other people and not just on
ourselves. Luckily, more and more empirical studies are proving that, in
addition to the so-called Selfish Gene, or innate interest for receiving and
achieving, there is also an Unselfish Gene (Benkler, 2011) related to a uni-
versal desire for giving (Grant, 2013).
Moreover, the decision to follow such a selfish or unselfish impulse is
precisely what was defined in Chapter 3 as moral freedom, or the “freedom
to”. We human beings have the freedom to receive, to achieve and to give.
Thus, as we noted, this moral freedom is what makes us responsible for our
decisions and what makes us humans capable of giving and taking.
In practical terms, this might sound like common sense. Whenever I ask
any student, they agree – they prefer lecturers who care about them. They
are convinced that some really care about them and consider the impact of
their actions on the students, whereas others do not. If you look from the
perspective of us lecturers, or professionals in general, when we go to work
every day, our normal purpose for going to work is to be helpful to others,
do useful things for our students, to serve our customers, etc.
Most work consists of providing something of value to others. This
means that we are putting a “giving” desire or interest into practice, what
some scholars would describe as a “transcendent” or “transitive motiva-
tion” (Melé, 2003). Can you imagine a teacher who was unable to teach?
A car mechanic incapable of fixing cars? A manager who does not produce
results? Being useful to others is the main justification or reason for being –
raison d’être – of practically every professional job, and I maintain that it is
therefore a kind of human motivation.
The transcendent motivations 71
Knowing that our actions are useful to others is something that virtually
everyone values. Of course, there are people who are mainly, or exclusively,
motivated by their salary (receiving, extrinsic motivation), but others are
moved by just a desire for personal development and success (achieving,
intrinsic motivation). However, this does not mean that helping or serving
others (giving, transcendent motivation) should not also be considered as a
universal motivation, a third in addition to the extrinsic and intrinsic.
These three types of motivations are not exclusive, they are compatible,
and in daily reality, they intermingle. The usefulness of our actions, its con-
tribution in aiding others, is a powerful human drive, a “transcendent” one,
which drives us to work better and that could provide a deeper meaning
to our work, especially when we perceive our work as an inner call to do
something for others, as we will discuss in depth in Chapter 8.
I love telling my students about my personal discoveries in this area as
a researcher. In this sense, I explain to them that I was shocked when, as
mentioned in Chapter 3, I discovered that Maslow was mistaken and had
admitted his mistake. In his posthumous book, he admitted that he had not
recognised the importance of transcendent motivations in his early studies.
He then described, as some of the latest findings of his research, what
he called the “transcenders”, meaning those people who are moved by the
motivation of giving (Maslow, 1971). Unfortunately, as I mentioned before,
even today, many professors who teach Maslow’s theory are not aware of
the existence of his latest ideas, as I myself was not aware for decades.
Maslow would probably agree with the suggestion that our map of moti-
vations should be expanded (see Figure 3.1) to include a third column for
the transcendent motivations of giving. Maslow also states that these tran-
scenders are among the happiest people in the world. In fact, in an attempt
to better explain the importance of this motivation, he expanded his popu-
lar hierarchy of needs to include transcendence, a personal self-giving, as the
highest human endeavour.
Transcendent motivations: Human willingness to give

To be specific, and more precise, Maslow was neither the first nor the only
scholar to admit to the existence of this third kind of transcendent motiva-
tion. Decades before Maslow’s later findings, there were other academics
aware of the importance of this giving motivation. Therefore, and aim-
ing to promote positive critical thinking in my students, I suggest they do
some new online research about other authors in the field of psychology
who also wrote about this kind of transcendent motivation. I then propose
inviting the other less-celebrated researchers to our conversation on human
motivations.
In their quest, students come up with authors, such as Lersch from the
late 1930s or Allport and Frankl in the 1960s, who recognised the exist-
ence of a universal driver for giving. Lersch was one of the first scholars
who described self-transcending drives as one of the groups of motives that
characterise human development from infancy to adulthood, striving for
cooperative, creative or loving behaviours (Lersch, 1938).
On the other hand, Allport viewed the human being as proactive and pur-
poseful, whose personality is less a finished product and more a transitive
process that requires this transcendent driver (Allport, 1961). Some years
later, Frankl held a similar position, arguing that there are two specifically
human phenomena by which human existence is characterised: the capacity
of self-detachment and that of self-transcendence (Frankl, 1966).
This self-transcending of the individual domain means that we human
beings can be moved by the impact that our actions have on others and not
just in ourselves. Therefore, in order to grow as individuals, we are capable
of moving from a self-perspective to an others’ perspective.
This idea was put forward and boldly defended years later by IESE Busi-
ness School professor Juan Antonio Pérez-López, who maintained that
human beings have three kinds of motivations: two belonging to the realm
of self-interest, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, and a third in the realm
of others-interest, the transcendent motivation (Pérez-López, 1974). As we
will see, this means that our map of motivations should be expanded to
now include a third column for the transcendent giving motivations (see
Figure 4.1).
The literature review by students always pays off: they themselves verify
that the desire to give is a human (transcendent) motivation that is not new.
Although not all the researchers fully agree on their approaches and ideas,
Extrinsic Intrinsic Transcendent

Motivation Motivation Motivation
Receiving Achieving Giving
Moral
Ethical Realm
Pleasant Willingness
to give
Psychological Realm Serve, Care, Goodwill
Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 4.1 Defining transcendent motivations

they all recognise the existence of this universal type of giving motivation
(see Figure 4.1).
As Faldetta explains, when describing what he calls the logic of gift-giving
in business relationships, “giving comes from the awareness of having
received something (from another person, from a social group, from society
as a whole or even from God), and the inevitable responsibility of answer-
ing this gift” (Faldetta, 2011, p. 71). Other authors, such as Frémeaux and
Michelson, contend that “giving for its own sake with ‘no strings attached’
presents an opportunity to provide deeper and more enduring meaning to a
wide range of social and business relations” (Frémeaux & Michelson, 2011,
p. 73).
Regarding this motivation of giving, among the first sources that students
find online in the task I set them is Daniel Pink’s 2009 TED Talk “The
puzzle of motivation”, which has been viewed more than 25 million times.
In this talk, Pink asserts that a “new operating system for our businesses
revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Auton-
omy: the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and
better at something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in
the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks
of an entirely new operating system for our businesses”.2
In the same sense, in his bestselling book, Pink explains that many entre-
preneurs, executives and investors are realising that the best-performing
companies stand for something that contributes to the world. He claims that
the old “Motivation 2.0” approaches were centred on maximising profits,
while the new “Motivation 3.0 does not reject profits, but it places equal
emphasis on purpose maximization” (Pink, 2009, p. 133).
He insists on the importance of this “purpose” motivation when he says,
“we know that the richest experiences in our lives aren’t when we’re clam-
ouring for validation from others, but when we’re listening to our own
voice – doing something that matters, doing it well, and doing it in the ser-
vice of a cause larger than ourselves” (Pink, 2009, p. 146).
Unfortunately, Pink does not differentiate transcendent motivations from
intrinsic ones, most probably due to the influence of traditional thought
in this area (as presented in Chapter 1). As I noted before, this distinction
is still not commonplace at all. Paradoxically, Pink has become popular
because he talks about the transcendent motivation – one that was already
described not so popularly a century ago – but he still includes the trans-
cendent purpose among the intrinsic motivations category.
Pink insists on calling intrinsic motivation the purpose motive, but I will
maintain here that purpose can be either extrinsic, intrinsic or transcendent.
The three kinds of purposes corresponding to three types of motivations are
distinct and compatible. Of course, they can be present in a simultaneous
and interconnected manner, however, they are entirely different.
As I explain to students, while the extrinsic and intrinsic purposes look
for the person’s own interests (i.e. getting rich or famous), the transcendent
purpose looks for others’ interests (i.e. shaping a better world). They respond
to three different kinds of motivations: our willingness to give in addition to
receive and achieve.
To make this distinction clearer, I suggest looking again at Figure 4.1,
which offers a graphic illustration of the distinction between extrinsic,
intrinsic and transcendent motivations. The figure shows an expanded ver-
sion of the map of human motivations as we move forward in our investiga-
tion. This expanded map includes now a third column for the transcendent
motivations, those that point outside the person. This third column graphi-
cally reflects the new category of the motivation for giving, distinct from
receiving and achieving.
I have to confess that defending the existence of this third kind of human
motivation has become a challenge for me among some of my colleagues,
especially the economics professors, as some of them are totally convinced
that there is no such a thing as a transcendent motivation. They would argue
that there are behaviours of external giving, but behaviours that are all self-
driven nonetheless.
They maintain that, when people give, it is always because they are expect-
ing to receive something in exchange. Therefore, from their point of view,
we would always be driven by the extrinsic motivation, perhaps the intrin-
sic, but there would be no such a thing as a transcendent motivation. Would
you agree with this position? Have you never given anything in your life just
for the sake of giving? Without expecting anything in return? The presence
of extrinsic motivations in human behaviour is a debate that I have with my
students every year at some point, one that is still taking place today among
academics. Are transcendent giving motivations a reality or not?
Transcendent motivations or human generosity in debate

among academics
The self-centred and transactional view of human nature has been immor-
talised in economics by Adam Smith (1976a [1776]). For him, exchange
is the most basic, operative logic in business transactions. As he famously
noted: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”
(1976a [1776], Bk. 1, Ch. 2).
However, Smith also famously attributed a great deal of importance to
benevolence in his Theory of Moral Sentiments that same year, going so
far as to assert, “The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his
own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own
particular order or society” (1976b [1759], VI.II.46). Scholars have long
debated how to reconcile Smith’s account of sympathy and benevolence in
his Theory of Moral Sentiments with the necessities of self-interest explored
in The Wealth of Nations, the so-called Adam Smith problem (Montes,
2003; Baviera et al., 2016).
This Adam Smith problem is indicative of a tension that has long existed.
Do we always give in order to receive? Are we capable of sacrificing our
own good for the good of others? When discussing this with my econo-
mist colleagues, I tell them that I understand that we are definitely prone to
receive. Nevertheless, not every time we give is in order to receive. Many
times, we give just for the sake of giving.
When I take this position, some of my colleagues concede that sometimes
we give without expecting to receive. However, they argue that in those
cases, people give because it makes them happy or because they like it, so
they feel satisfied with themselves, which, of course, makes it an intrinsic
motivation. So, if at the end of the day, it is all about personal satisfaction,
why do we need to talk about such a thing as transcendent motivation?
If transcendent motivation does not exist, then it seems that it is all
about ourselves. We human beings would either give to receive (an extrinsic
reward) or to attain something (a personal intrinsic satisfaction) but really
not care about others’ good. Others’ good would just be the result of all our
selfish conducts. Does that sound right? According to this position, people
with transcendent purposes in their lives would be moved exclusively by
their personal satisfaction, the desire of fulfilling their own purposes, but
not by the good that those purposes would promote in others.
There are examples of people like St Teresa of Calcutta, who gave her
entire life for the good of others, that seem to disprove this position. Of
course, you will always hear critical voices asserting that Mother Teresa
served her own religious beliefs and reputation (Hitchens, 1995). If true,
this would not deny the existence of disinterested motivations in Mother
Teresa. What I mean is that our generous and selfish motivations intermin-
gle, but they are not all selfish. Just think about soldiers who risk their lives
for their country. An even simpler example would be the millions of moth-
ers who care about the good of their children.
Therefore, I maintain that, in addition to the extrinsic and intrinsic moti-
vations, there may be a third reason why we give, a transcendent one, a
new third column on our map (see Figure 4.1). Of course, if there is no
such thing as a transcendent motivation, then the transcendent purpose of
human beings would most probably fall under the category of the intrinsic
motivations, and this could be why Daniel Pink included the motivation of
purpose among the intrinsic motivations – because he did not distinguish
the transcendent purpose from extrinsic or intrinsic purposes (Pink, 2009).
As I noted before, I have to disagree with Pink’s position despite the great
work he has done on promoting the concept of purpose as a kind of human
motivation in the workplace (Pink, 2009). If we reduce motivations to just
the desire to receive or achieve things and deny the existence of the trans-
cendent motivation, then any generous, altruistic or disinterested behaviour
would always be implied selfishly.
Undoubtedly, this position reflects a pessimistic view of human nature
as always being based on ego. This view is not real, at least in the world
in which the majority of us live. This is the position I defend with my col-
leagues and students. If we do not expand our map to have a third col-
umn (see Figure 4.1), to include transcendent motivation, we are implicitly
assuming quite a negative view of human beings and one that is not so
human after all.
It could be that we give part of our time to others to receive something
in exchange later, like a salary or a favour we might need in the future
(extrinsic motivations). Alternatively, maybe we give our time to feel per-
sonal satisfaction for giving (intrinsic motivations). However, we could also
say that there are times in which we give our time just for the good that it
will produce in others, neither necessarily expecting anything in exchange
nor without feeling any special satisfaction (transcendent motivations).
Who can deny that our motivations are often a mix of extrinsic, intrinsic
and transcendent reasons? Many times, we give partly to receive something
in exchange, partly for our personal satisfaction and also partly for the sake
of others’ good. Denying the possibility of this transcendent motivation
would be rejecting the possibility of giving, at least in part, for the sake of
giving, for the good it produces in others.
To prove this point to my colleagues, I like to engage them with a puzzle
and ask them a personal question regarding their children. If in the middle of
the night, one of their children starts crying, why should they wake up and
check on them? Why should they help their child who is feeling bad? Do they
get up because it is rewarding and nice? If they are consistent with their ideas,
as rational beings, they should probably answer that they wake up in the mid-
dle of the night exclusively to stop the children from bothering them (a nega-
tive intrinsic motivation). It is hard to believe that they will get up expecting
to receive some type of repayment from their children later in life (extrinsic
motivations). Reducing the explanation of their behaviour to these two kinds
of motivations would be foolish, silly or proof that they are not good parents.
Keeping with the puzzle, I suggest that denying the motivation of giving
is either unrealistic or inhumane. Can we absolutely deny the fact that we
human beings might freely choose to give just for the sake of giving? That
we care about others’ good? By the way, this is not just a human kind of
conduct; you can also find this transcendent behaviour in the family life of
many non-rational animals. This logic does not apply to just family relation-
ships as, even in the workplace, we tend to try and help others. We spend
hours working together and serving each other, collaboratively.
Thus, if we deny this transcendent motivation, the only explanation for
helping others would be to eventually receive something in exchange, or for
fun. However, again, this does not fit with ordinary common experience.
This is precisely what Maslow found in his later research; that there are peo-
ple involved in transcendent causes outside themselves, which they consider
central to their lives (Maslow, 1971).
Maslow avows that “because it will be so difficult for so many to believe,
I must state explicitly that I have found approximately as many transcenders
among businessmen, industrialists, managers, educators, political people as
I have among the professionally ‘religious’, the poets, intellectuals, musi-
cians, and others who are supposed to be transcenders and are officially
labelled so” (Maslow, 1971, p. 285).3
Surely, what this evidence proves is what common sense suggests, that
transcendent motivation is not exclusive to a profession or a particu-
lar group of people; rather, it is a behaviour that every human being can
engage in. Fortunately, a large and growing number of scholars are now
offering empirical evidence of the existence of this transcendent motiva-
tion. For example, according to Cloninger’s general model of temperament
based on genetic, neurobiological, and neuropharmacological data, self-
transcendence refers to the interest people have in searching for something
elevated or beyond their individual existence (Cloninger, 2004).
As suggested by other well-known psychologists and psychiatrists,
such as Carl Jung and Viktor Frankl, Cloninger has emphasised that self-
transcendence is an essential component in the processes of integration and
maturation of personality; it underlies the human capacities for self-aware-
ness, creativity, and freedom of will (Cloninger, 2004).
It is comforting to confirm that social scientists are proving this again
under different nomenclatures. For example, the phenomenon has been cap-
tured by evolutionary sociologists under the empirical construct of strong
reciprocity (Fehr et al., 2002). By “strong reciprocity”, these researchers
mean “a propensity, in the context of a shared social task, to cooperate with
others similarly disposed, even at personal cost, and a willingness to punish
those who violate cooperative norms, even when punishing is personally
costly” (Gintis et al., 2008).
They deem this “reciprocity” because it embraces an ethic of treating oth-
ers as they treat us, granting favours to those who cooperate with us and
punishing those who take advantage of it. A good example of this is the Brit-
ish concept of buying a round of drinks, where people who don’t buy their
rounds become extremely unpopular (Fox, 2004).
Among other good examples of empirical evidence proving the existence
of the giving transcendent motivations, I am especially partial to the studies
of management professor Adam Grant from the Wharton Business School.
In his now popular book Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to
Success, he illustrates how vital this behaviour of giving is for organisations
(Grant, 2013). Grant explains that “When [employees] act like givers, they
contribute to others without seeking anything in return. They might offer
assistance, share knowledge, or make valuable introductions. When they act
like takers, they try to get other people to serve their ends while carefully
guarding their own expertise and time” (Grant, 2013).
Ultimately, what Grant and many others have recognised is that success-
ful organisations require uncalculated contributions and a spirit of service
and collaborative generosity from everyone. In other words, he proves that
the transcendent motivation of disinterested giving is not so irrational after
all. Maslow called people showing these behaviours transcenders, and Pro-
fessor Grant called them givers (Grant, 2013).
I am aware that giving without the expectation of a reward is sometimes
difficult to understand in organisational contexts. This issue sometimes
causes confrontational debates among some of my colleagues at the Busi-
ness School, in particular, and among academics in general. In fact, as a way
of bringing this discussion into the academic realm, I co-authored an article
titled “The ‘Logic of Gift’: Inspiring Behavior in Organizations Beyond the
Limits of Duty and Exchange” (Baviera et al., 2016) on this subject a few
years ago with two colleagues.
In the article, we explained that contrary to a logic based on self-interest
or a sense of duty, a logic of gift is also possible. In fact, this logic explains
the phenomenon of free, unconditional giving. We endorsed the balanced
integration of all three logics, promising to enhance organisational life and
outcomes. Moreover, this logic fosters more humane relationships within
organisations, enabling individuals to be generous in ways that inspire trust
and promote creativity in the workplace (Baviera et al., 2016).
All these corroborations are some of the many examples that can be
found in the social science literature. They just show what common sense
also dictates regarding the human motivation for giving. Most of us can
recall a time when we were touched by another person’s generosity toward,
affection for or real interest in us. Perhaps they helped us with a difficult
task or project, showed us the warmth of their sincere smile in a difficult
moment or gave us a good piece of advice to help with a personal decision,
all without expecting anything in return.
In Chapter 8, we will return to the outcomes and practicality of this trans-
cendent motivation when talking about the meaning of work as a calling.
However, now is the time to explain in depth what it means to be moved
by this new category of motivations, which are reflected in the new third
column on our map.
Transcendent useful motivations: Human willingness to

give useful good, to serve
Let’s return and look carefully at the expanded map of human motivations
(see Figure 4.1). Once we include the category of giving, three new kinds of
motivation arise. These new types of motivations are the result of linking
the logic of giving with the three kinds of Aristotelian goods we described
before: the useful, the pleasant and the moral. Therefore, and starting from
the bottom of the third column, the first new type of motivation emerges:
the transcendent useful motivation (see Figure 4.2).
This transcendent useful motivation is a kind of human driver that can be
defined as the voluntary desire or willingness to give useful good to others. It
refers to being eager to be useful to others that we discussed at the beginning
of the chapter or, likewise, the wish to assist and serve others. It is defined

Moral
Ethical Realm
Pleasant
Psychological Realm
Willingness Willingness Willingness

Useful
to receive to achieve to give
Good
Physical Realm
useful good useful good useful good
Sustenance, Safety, Support Competency, Mastery, Success Assistance, Help, Service
Figure 4.2 Mapping the territory: The transcendent useful motivation
as providing help, aid or any kind of support, including all different ways of
providing practical good. These are the motivations of many people in many
everyday circumstances (i.e. parents, teachers, doctors, nurses, civil servants
and others) (see Figure 4.2).
No one can deny that firefighters, police officers or judges should all
aspire to assist others, to provide them with some kind of service. This
type of interest in others’ practical good is present in every profession. It is
widespread and common to the majority of human jobs and endeavours.
Moreover, meaningful interpersonal relationships are indeed characterised
by continuous acts of receiving and, therefore, of giving.
People in organisations give their time and resources beyond legal and
formal requests, in ways that are not restricted by their work contracts or
role definition and do not necessarily benefit them directly. Furthermore, it
is safe to assume that such attitudes towards service are crucial to the suc-
cess of most human institutions. Effective organisations often depend on
this “logic of gift”, a form of generosity and of giving freely without expec-
tation of return (Baviera et al., 2016).
This human phenomenon of giving without expecting anything in return
has been underappreciated by modern social scientists for decades, espe-
cially in the world of business management, as I noted earlier. Unfortu-
nately, we have lacked and still lack adequate language and a set of concepts
to understand unconditional, interpersonal giving. In the absence of these,
such giving can easily appear as something irrational or having a hidden
self-interest, and the importance of this phenomenon remains neglected
(Baviera et al., 2016).
As proven by general experience and dictated by common sense, the first
purpose of the majority of our professions is service, a transcendent motiva-
tion. As it happens, university management professors are supposed to serve
students by teaching them how to be good business managers and how to
serve better, and serving is nothing except providing useful good to others,
helping them in a useful or practical way.
This kind of reasoning may be applied to any daily task, as long as we
engage in it as an opportunity to serve others. Professionals who are often
more aware of their co-workers’ needs, will in turn get higher levels of moti-
vation in their own work. The same would happen with any service pro-
vider in the professional realm. The more we understand the needs behind
the services we provide, the higher our motivation will be.
Something similar can be said about our students; the more they dream of
becoming professionals at the service of society, the more they will benefit
from their classes and their professors’ knowledge. Curiously enough, it is
not rare that the more you feel useful to others, the more you want to keep
serving them. In addition to being paradoxical, is this not a meaningful and
powerful human motivation?
We will return to this idea of finding more meaningful work through this
type of motivation in Chapter 9. Moving further with this idea, the pleas-
ant good can also accompany this motivation of service when providing a
useful good. In other words, you can serve others with or without affection.
The practical interest to help others might go hand in hand with warm-
heartedness, kindness, compassion and authentic caring or just the opposite,
by bitterness and contempt (Brooks, 2019).
Transcendent pleasant motivations: Human willingness

to give pleasant good, to please
Of course, you may provide a useful good without providing a pleasant
good; for example, you can be teaching a quite practical class in a really
boring manner. However, the opposite is also true; you can provide pleas-
ant good with no utility to it at all. Your class could be quite funny but also
totally pointless. As we discussed in Chapter 2, useful, pleasant, and moral
goods belong to different realms.
To illustrate this, I remember that when I was a boy, my mother used
to tell me that it was not enough just to help my siblings at home and that
I should try to do it cheerfully. She would say that because sometimes I did
not like to help at all (especially with some of the more unpleasant tasks);
I used to do it with a sad expression on my face. That was a clear display
that I was not doing my chores with much or any interest. In fact, I was not
motivated at all, and you could tell that just by looking at my face.
My mother knew quite well that trying to make life more pleasant for my
siblings was a different kind of motivation (transcendent pleasant) from that
of just helping them (transcendent useful) (see Figure 4.3). In fact, teach-
ers may be interested in helping students and transmitting their knowledge
(transcendent useful), but at the same time, they may not transmit passion
nor sensation of enjoyment when teaching (transcendent pleasant). Some-
one that teaches without passion for what they are communicating is nor-
mally not a good teacher.
In similar fashion, a nurse taking care of a patient without compassion
and affection is not usually perceived as a good nurse. They might be quite
proficient technically, but if they serve with rudeness and without care, that
service might be considered less human, and it may also show a lack of moti-
vation. Therefore, the need for warmness and affection (transcendent pleas-
ant motivation) is not an exception in any act of service (transcendent useful
motivation) to be described as more human and more highly motivated.
This interest in making life more pleasant for others (transcendent pleas-
ant motivation), for instance, constitutes another driver for millions of
mothers and fathers towards the care of their children, and so it is with
other members of the family and friends as well. However, once again, this
desire to satisfy others does not happen exclusively in family-type environ-
ments; this may be also applied to every human environment.
I remember when, many years ago, I arrived in South Bend, Indiana, as a
visiting scholar at Notre Dame University. It was the first week of Septem-
ber, and the academic year had just started. I was walking through campus

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Good pleasant good pleasant good pleasant good
Psychological Realm
Relatedness, Affiliation, Esteem Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness, Care

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 4.3 Mapping the territory: The transcendent pleasant motivation

to my office, and, surprisingly, every person I came across on campus was
smiling at me and greeting me. At some point, I had the silly thought that,
somehow, they all knew about me.
Maybe because I was from Spain, coming from the exotic city of Valencia,
they all wanted to greet me. Surely, this did not make sense. Nonetheless,
everyone continued saying “hi” to me every day of that week and the fol-
lowing one, too. It took me several weeks to learn that being so amiable is
part of the culture at this institution and part of the culture in the Midwest-
ern United States and many other places as well.
After that experience, I spent time on other campuses all around the world,
and I decided to keep practicing what I had learnt at Notre Dame, smiling at
every person I passed on campus. It is fair to say, however, that many times
I forgot, or I just got distracted. Have you ever tried smiling at everyone you
meet on the street? It is an interesting exercise, and if you do it, you will find
that most people will instinctively smile back. Of course, others who might
not be used to this kind of experience may only respond with a half-smile,
but a smile nonetheless. Even if they are strangers, almost everybody, given
the time, will smile back and/or greet you. I later learnt that this was a clear
example of the functioning of our mirror neurons (Association for Psycho-
logical Science, 2007).
It seems that a good spirit or joyfulness is contagious, but sincerity is a
pivotal factor here. Being false may be awkward and off-putting, such as an
overly excited waiter who seems to be trying too hard to be liked. Neverthe-
less, normally, no matter the type of work environment, most people prefer
to be surrounded by others who show their joy naturally, with authenticity
and simplicity, and seem genuinely happy to be there. Contributing to a
positive/pleasant environment for others is also a personal powerful driver
of human behaviour. Making life nicer for others is, therefore, a kind of
universal driver, a transcendent pleasant motivation, distinct from the useful
one (see Figure 4.3).
This transcendent pleasant motivation can be defined as the voluntary
desire to give pleasant good to others. It refers to the eagerness to being
nice to others, to please them, to connect with their feelings and not just
with their minds. This is something that is totally consistent with some of
the human strengths described by positive psychology, such as forgiveness,
compassion, empathy and altruism (Snyder & Lopez, 2002).
In this matter, both humanists and positive psychologists coincide in
encouraging human flourishing not only through high levels of emotional
and psychological well-being but also of social and relational well-being.
Therefore, continuous self-development grows out of a purposive and mean-
ingful life but also out of close and high-quality relationships (Keyes, 2007).
Within a humanistic framework, the quality of an interpersonal relation-
ship reflects at least five characteristics: warmth, genuineness, empathy,
interpersonal acceptance and confirmation of the other person’s capacity
for self-determination (Kramer, 1995; Reeve, 1996; Rogers, 1973, 1995).
These five characteristics are but manifestations of the transcendent pleas-
ant motivation.
Unsurprisingly, all these self-transcendent emotional qualities of human
relationships, described recently by humanist and positive psychology, were
already witnessed by Maslow’s later studies. He stressed the important role
of intimate and fulfilling relationships – rather than the all-too-common
superficial ones – as the soil for cultivating peak experiences (Hardeman,
1979).
Such relationships require transcendent human qualities belonging to
the sphere of emotions and affectivity. Moreover, these qualities, as well as
those of kindness, consideration, sympathy and assertiveness, among oth-
ers, are not only positive psychological traits but also moral virtues, belong-
ing to the realm of the moral goods as well, which leads us to distinguish
transcendent moral motivation from those that are useful and pleasant.
Transcendent moral motivations: Human willingness

to give moral good, to do good
When we learn to empathise and be assertive, we become better human
beings while also contributing to the pleasant good of others. Sympathy and
assertiveness are moral habits of behaviour that contribute to our own per-
sonal flourishing while also contributing to the joy of others. In fact, these
habits are not always innate or part of our temperament or genetic constitu-
tion, and we need to put in the effort to attain them.
Some people may engage in them more naturally, others not so naturally.
However, for everyone, these habits require a process of learning through
continuous and laborious practice until, little by little, they become part of
our moral character (Havard, 2019). They imply a transcendent voluntary
intention to connect with others’ emotions and feelings, to search for others’
pleasant good.
As we discussed in Chapter 3, from an Aristotelian perspective, the realms
of the useful, pleasant and moral good are different. Moreover, it is impor-
tant to distinguish between them properly but at the same time not separate
them. In fact, in real life, the pleasant and moral spheres are permanently
intertwined. Strictly speaking, attitudes and motivations of empathy, asser-
tiveness or compassion belong to the realm of the pleasant good, but they
cannot be separated from the moral. In many cases, the pleasant conveni-
ently coincides with the moral, but not always, hence the importance of
distinguishing between these two dimensions of human reality.
Let me use an example to explain this. Imagine that one of your col-
leagues tells you that they want to have some fun after a really hard day at
work. They ask to borrow some money from you. You know that the money
they are asking for is to consume hard drugs that will surely harm them. You
may decide to lend them the money just to be helpful, a transcendent useful
motivation. Alternatively, you might lend them the money just because you
like them and you want them to have fun, a transcendent pleasant motiva-
tion. In any case, whatever the motivation is in these two realms (useful or
pleasant) you also must consider the third dimension, the moral. As we saw
in Chapter 3, as far as this is a human and free decision, it always has moral
implications. We human beings are moral beings by nature.
If you decide to lend money to your colleague, irrespective of the level of
useful or pleasant motivation, the moral must also be considered because
we are all moral beings. This is what traditional views of motivation have
been taking for granted. The three realms of motivation can be differenti-
ated, but they cannot be separated if we want to really understand what
is going on in the human action. We need to distinguish between, but not
separate, the three kinds of transcendent motivations that are at stake (see
Figure 4.4).
In this example, you might find that contributing to this person’s future neu-
ral damage (through drug use) is morally wrong, so you don’t lend them the
money. Although you want to help and please this person (transcendent posi-
tive, useful and pleasant motivations), you do not want to cause them moral
harm (positive transcendent moral motivation). In other words, not every trans-
cendent motivation is always morally good. You could be moved by the desire
to help or please someone and still cause that person moral damage.
What this simple example shows is that the three realms of human behav-
iour (physical, psychological, and ethical) are different but inseparable,


Moral
Good moral good moral good moral good
Ethical Realm
Reputation, Admiration, Respect Virtuousness, Excellence, Goodness Gentleness, Understanding, Good

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 4.4 Mapping the territory: The transcendent moral motivation

as we saw in Chapter 3 when discussing the example of the bear on the
teacher’s desk. Moreover, in our relationship with others, that transcendent
moral motivation can be positive, negative or apparently neutral, but, like it
or not, it will always affect our actions.
It also means that, as we noted, not every transcendent motivation is
always morally good. We can be moved to give a useful or pleasant good
to someone but still hurt them from a moral point of view. We can lend our
car to our friend who is drunk, thinking that will help them get back home
or contribute to their personal satisfaction at that moment, but if we are
putting their life – and potentially the lives of others – at risk, we are in the
wrong, as our transcendent moral motivation has not been considered in
our train of thought (see Figure 4.4).
Again, being moved by a transcendent motivation is not necessarily syn-
onymous with actually doing the right thing. In other words, not every
transcendent motivation is morally good. This is why making the distinction
between the three realms of human good is relevant. To understand the full
range of transcendent human motivations, we need to pay careful attention
to the useful and pleasant dimensions but also the moral dimension.
In that sense, the transcendent moral motivation may be described as
the voluntary desire or the willingness to give moral good to others, to be
benevolent (from the Latin bene-volere, or well wishing) or simply to be
moved by goodwill, by the desire of honouring others’ dignity as human
beings (see Figure 4.4).
Transcendent motivations’ presence in ordinary

and professional life
To review the logic of our map of motivations, we can reconsider the moti-
vations at stake in the example of the parent waking up in the middle of
the night to care for their child. Most probably, getting up late at night is
not motivated by some kind of later support, esteem or respect the par-
ents expect in the future from their child (the three motives from the first
column of extrinsic motivations in Figure 4.4). Neither do the attainment
of personal mastery, satisfaction or virtue seem to be the motivations at
stake (the three motives from the second column of intrinsic motivations in
Figure 4.4).
It therefore seems clear that the main motivation for parents to care for
their children, day or night, is transcendent. They will wake up at any time
to help, give affection to and care for their children (the three motives in
the third column of transcendent motivations in Figure 4.4). This simple
example, or any other example of cooperation among people, even in the
workplace and any professional setting, shows that human beings have
the capacity to transcend their own personal interests, to be transcenders
(Maslow, 1971).
The most graphic examples of transcendent motivations probably come
from public service professions, as in the case of public health, even though
Maslow found them in every professional setting. I recall one day, at dawn,
while on my way to Valencia Airport in Spain, I ran into a friend who is a
doctor. I asked him where he was going so early in the morning. In a teasing
tone, he replied, “I’m off to make a lot of money”, and a smile broke across
his face. I smiled back and said, “But you’re a doctor, not a businessman,
right? Did you choose to become a doctor just to make a lot of money?”
“Well”, he said, “I am just doing some extra work early in the morning.
Most of my colleagues prefer to start work later, so I just wake up earlier
and take care of the first surgeries at the hospital and, you know, it trans-
lates into extra cash”.
It was clear that my friend’s motive here was the extrinsic useful motiva-
tion. Nevertheless, and because I am an optimist when it comes to human
motivation, I was curious if there were any other drivers at play, so I kept
insisting. “Is money the only reason why you do this kind of work so early
in the morning?” I asked. “Well”, he said, “I do love getting up early”, but,
of course, he was joking. Knowing about my perspective on human motiva-
tions, my friend was enjoying a prime opportunity to tease me – an opportu-
nity he rarely misses. Smiling, I called his bluff. “No way! I know you quite
well, and it’s just the opposite, you wouldn’t get up earlier unless there was
some other reason, and I don’t think it is the money”.
At this point, we both made the time to grab a coffee before heading off to
our destinations, and he told me more. “The extra money doesn’t hurt, you
know. However, in addition to the money, I really love a new technique I’m
using in this surgery. I have a lot of fun working on this and becoming pro-
ficient at the same time, which is why they keep calling me for this particular
surgery at the hospital, and I keep accepting such requests”.
Eureka! I thought. It isn’t just about making money but is also enjoyment
and mastery; the extrinsic and intrinsic motivations were in play simultane-
ously. My friend’s motivations were to receive some external good (useful)
and to achieve some internal good (mastery), and both reasons played their
part in his behaviour that morning. Nevertheless, he did not allude to any
transcendent good at all, which, knowing him well, I found suspicious.
It was early, and not the best time for a deep conversation, but taking
advantage of our close friendship and the fact that we still had some time,
I asked him, “Don’t you care about the patients? Is it all just about you, your
mastery and financial needs?” He looked at me with a surprised look on his
face, and replied, “Of course I care. I don’t talk about it much, but I care”.
My friend noted that talking about how much he cares for the patients
does not make his job any easier. In fact, he told me that he was on his way
to amputate a woman’s leg and, though it would save her life, caring about
her medically would not necessarily make the experience more pleasant.
Some surgeries were fun, some others not so much – either for him or the
patient – but he definitely seemed to care about his patients as people.
The final part of the conversation took on a more serious tone, and given
that we were both now in a hurry, we decided to have another coffee at a later
date to continue the conversation. When we had our chance to talk again, we
discussed this transcendent motivation, the one related to taking care of others.
We both agreed that every time you help someone else it is not necessarily
pleasant for either party. Pleasing others in our relationships is sometimes
at stake, but not always. There are other kinds of goods that we desire for
those we care about that are not essentially useful or enjoyable and still are
considered “goods”: moral goods, those related to the person as a whole.
Saving the life of a patient, even if it means amputating their leg, is a higher
good that a doctor will carry out over the immediate comfort of the patient.
Moral goods are higher than the useful and pleasant as we discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3, and they are essential to a proper understanding and
flourishing of human growth. Life itself is a fundamental human good, and
appreciation of life over pleasantness is a manifestation of the value instilled
in each person, their uniqueness and dignity. As Maslow recognised, this
self-transcendent motivation of helping others to have a dignifying life is
indeed the highest natural human motivation (Maslow, 1971).
Contributing to others’ good is not just a motivation for naive or weak
people but the opposite. Many times, aiming to do the right thing for others
demands a strong character, and, undoubtedly, an unselfish one. Something
that, of course, you would expect from good parents, for example. The
same could be said of a good teacher, courageous enough to correct their
students, as well as a good manager properly assessing their staff. All the
motivations described in Figure 4.4 may be present in every single profes-
sion and human activity. It seems that the higher the level of the transcend-
ent, the more humane the motivations.
By now, it seems irrefutable that all these motivations are universal. How-
ever, this does not necessarily mean that we have them all and in every
action. It just means that, in every decision we make, any one of these moti-
vations may be at stake, if not all, and that each of them may present a dif-
ferent level of intensity.
When I ask the students to think about their own transcendent motiva-
tions in working as managers in the future, they have no difficulty filling in
the third column of the map of motivations, including their own. Once we
all accept the existence of transcendent motivations in theory, everyone is
able to identify them effectively in practice.
Within their transcendent useful motivations, students, but also profes-
sionals attending these presentations, include an interest in helping their
customers with their products/services, as well as helping their co-workers
better do their work. Secondly, in regard to their transcendent pleasant
motivations, they include a desire to contribute to others’ satisfaction, put-
ting all their energy into making them feel good, being kind to them and
being grateful with customers, co-workers and even managers.
Finally, among their transcendent moral motivations, they include try-
ing to give the best of themselves to others and being honest with their

- Not being corrupt

- Caring about myself - Being honest with my boss
- Being honest with my co-workers
Moral - Conserving my dignity - Growing as a person
- Becoming someone better - Giving the best of me to others
- That people care about me
Good - Maintaining a good reputation
- Giving myself the best of me
- Knowing I am doing the right thing
- Treating everyone with respect
- Benefiting myself but also others
Ethical Realm - That people take me seriously - Learning moral and good practices - Treating everyone with gentleness
- That people treat me with respect - Achieving my main goals with ethics
- Being committed to the environment
- Earning morality and my own respect

- Gratitude for mates
- Good social relationships - Achieving major goals
Pleasant - People’s admiration for me - Growing professionally
- Gratitude for bosses
- Gratitude for customers
Good - Being treated as a unique person - Feeling proud of myself
- Making others feel good
- Friendships with mates and bosses - Sense of self -satisfaction
Psychological Realm - Giving kindness to others
- Feeling part of an important project - Feeling contentment in myself
- Putting enthusiasm in my work
- Enjoying myself doing this work

- Having a good salary
Useful - Having my own house
- Getting experience - Helping customers with service
Good - Getting a good level of life
- Acquiring knowledge - Helping customers with product
- Achieving competence - Helping workmates with problems
Physical Realm - Spending money without concerns
- Getting a job, stability and security
Figure 4.5 Examples from participants’ transcendent motivations
co-workers and bosses, while also being committed to the more transcend-
ent purposes of the organisation and of society in general, to something
greater than themselves (see Figure 4.5).
Some practical tips

As we will discuss in Chapter 7, there must be some kind of balance and
order among all our motivations (see Figure 4.4). It is clear that (1) it would
be wrong to be moved exclusively by extrinsic motivations, always aspir-
ing just to receive (first column), or just by intrinsic motivations, always
aspiring just to achieve (second column), without really caring about others.
Likewise, (2) it would also be wrong to be driven exclusively by transcend-
ent motivation, always trying to do good to others (third column) without
caring about oneself.
As Professor Adam Grant discovered in his research, in order to grow, (3)
we must find the right balance between other people’s good and our own. As
we will have the chance to reflect upon later, being generous, for instance,
in giving your time to others, is also compatible with a reasonable and bal-
anced or well-ordered self-esteem. How can you really care about others if
you do not care about yourself? If we completely neglect our own needs and
interests, this would be misunderstanding our own needs, a disorder; we
would not really be happy. Oddly enough, becoming generous is one of the
smartest things we can do for ourselves.
Paradoxically, and this is the great news, when our motivation moves
from the realm of self-interest towards a wider view, aiming at others’ good,
our humanity starts to really flourish. We grow morally when we look for
the good in others; we become better human beings. Nevertheless, and to
be consistent with the ideas we just discussed, if our motivation is really to
contribute to the good of others, then attaining such a good for others will
be our true reward (Baviera et al., 2016).
In other words, (4) when transcendent motivation prevails in us, it
becomes a habit, and then we start seeing potential for human growth in
everyone we meet, so we will be able to find and nurture talent around us.
Besides, (5) the more we put the transcendent motivation into practice, the
more we’ll see its benefits and the higher it will become in our set of motiva-
tions (Grant, 2013).
Additionally, it seems that, (6) people who engage in the habit of being
generous end up achieving top positions in society, and not because they
are aiming for them or have a desire to excel but because they focus on the
greater good. Unfortunately, we tend to criticise most of our leaders as self-
interested and power seekers (Brooks, 2019).
Nevertheless, the truth is that real leaders are influential because they care
about others; they are driven by the desire to help others, for their organisa-
tions and communities to be successful. Successful leaders have a sense of a
transcendent purpose; they cultivate and use their vast networks to benefit
others as well as themselves (Grant, 2013).
Creating relationships only with people who can give us something in
return is not the smartest decision, and it usually takes its toll. Instead, (7)
when someone’s joy is in helping others, the natural consequence will be
to “activate” lots of relationships, building networks without even realis-
ing it. Most people value reciprocity and fairness but value generosity even
more. Being genuinely interested in others’ needs leads us to build trust and
goodwill in them. This helps us serve others in a reciprocal fashion (Grant,
2013).
On the other hand, and regarding group work in organisations, (8) trans-
cendent motivation makes everyone better off (including ourselves) by mak-
ing the group better as a whole. This happens through simple actions in
which we put the group’s common good ahead of our own, for example,
by gathering many contributions, helping colleagues or just taking on tasks
that others will not do (Grant, 2013).
Remarkably, (9) the more we are driven by the motivation of giving, the
less we lose in the process. In other words, the more we give, the higher our
personal growth. This logic of giving produces a virtuous cycle as noted
before: (10) the more we give, the more we want to keep giving, and there-
fore the higher the transcendent motivations become (Grant, 2013).
After reviewing all these benefits of giving with my students, I wonder if
they will start giving more often in the future. This is something I will never
know. However, I keep reminding them that we choose how we appear in
the world. We can choose to act through solely self-driven motives or by
transcendent motivations, helping others without worrying about receiving
anything in return.
Many of them thank me at the end of the course for having studied this
theory. Gratitude is one more manifestation of the logic of the transcendent
motivation of giving. Again, as paradoxical as it seems, giving more makes
us happier. However, unless we stop to reflect personally on this, we might
not be conscious of our way of doing it. Let us think about it and, from time
to time, examine our own conscience. The following questions may help.

1 How often do I give my full and undivided attention to others, being
truly present for them?
2 How often do I really care about others, actually being interested in
what they have to say?
3 How often do I try to serve and do my best to help others, to help in
solving their problems?
4 How often do I acknowledge people’s existence around me by just smil-
ing at them?
5 How often do I sincerely give thanks for services provided to me by
others?
6 How often do I try to make people around me feel good?
7 How often do I try to leave people around me feeling better than when
I found them?
8 How often do I interrupt others when speaking?
9 How often do I genuinely care for others’ well-being?
10 How often do I give others the chance to help me?

yet accurate enough
Question 10 may seem contradictory. Are we helping others if we ask them
for help? Certainly, helping others to be led by generosity seems to be a
way to contribute to their human betterment, too. As we discussed, putting
transcendent motivation into practice makes us better human beings, which
is yet another paradox of human motivations. However, this is not a simple
matter; we still need to decide how much of this transcendent motivation we
could demand from others freely.
We want to be led by transcendent motivations, but we don’t want others
taking advantage of us. It is always a personal choice to decide how much
you want to be moved freely by these motivations, especially how much
you want to overcome the narrow, amoral and self-interested vision of
human behaviour that has been taught in universities and business schools
for decades. Therefore, how do we get a balance between all these kinds of
motivations? Is it possible to have them all in our working environments?
As we move forward in our study, the apparent contradictions and para-
doxes of human nature begin to appear, and we will need to stop and reflect
on all these findings in our workplaces, in an organisational context, and
this is something we will do in the third part of the book. However, before
getting there, is the map of human motivations that we have built accurate
enough? Is it all-inclusive?
As we will see in the next chapter, the map we have presented (see Fig-
ure 4.4) is not yet complete. As a Spanish MBA student at Harvard showed
me, in this conceptual framework, we are missing the explicit consideration
of spiritual motivations. There is objective evidence that spiritual drivers
have been present in every civilisation and every human experience since the
beginning of humanity. Should these also be included in our map of human
motivations?
Notes
1 There is an Enron Fraud documentary titled Enron: The Smartest Guys in the
Room, written by Bethany McLean (2005).
2 www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_the_puzzle_of_motivation (12 minutes, 30 seconds).
3 Maslow’s quote continues saying, “And most industrialists will carefully conceal
their idealism, their metamotivations, and their transcendent experiences under
a mask of ‘toughness’, ‘realism’, ‘selfishness’, and all short of other words which
would have to be marked off by quotes to indicate that they are only superficial
and defensive”.
References
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.
Association for Psychological Science. (2007). Mirror neurons: How we reflect on
behavior. ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070504114259.
htm, May 21, 2020.
Baviera, T., English, W. & Guillén, M. (2016). The logic of gift: Inspiring behavior in
organizations beyond the limits of duty and exchange. Business Ethics Quarterly,
26(2), 159–180.
Benkler, Y. (2011). The unselfish gene. Harvard Business Review, July–August.
https://hbr.org/2011/07/the-unselfish-gene.
Brooks, A. (2019). Love Your Enemies. How Decent People Can Save America from
the Culture of Contempt. New York: Broadside Books. HarperCollins Publishers.
Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being. New York:
Faldetta, G. (2011). The logic of gift and gratuitousness in business relationships.
Journal of Business Ethics, 100(Suppl.), 67–77.
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U. & Gachter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human coopera-
tion, and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13, 1–25.
Fox, K. (2004). Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour.
London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Frankl, V. E. (1966). Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology (6), pp. 97–106.
Frémeaux, S. & Michelson, G. (2011). No strings attached: Welcoming the existen-
tial gift in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 63–75.
Gintis, H., Henrich, J., Bowles, S., Boyd, R. & Fehr, E. (2008). Strong reciprocity
and the roots of human morality. Social Justice Research Ed., 21(2), 241–253.
Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. New York:
Viking.
Hardeman, M. (1979). A dialogue with Abraham Maslow. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 19(1), 23–28.
Havard, A. (2019). From Temperament to Character: On Becoming A Virtuous
Leader. New York: Scepter Publishers, Incorporated.
Hitchens, C. (1995). The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Prac-
tice. London and New York: Verso Books.
Keyes, C. L. M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing:
A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psy-
chologist, 62, 95–108.
Kramer, R. (1995). The birth of client-centered therapy: Carl Rogers, Otto Rank,
and “the beyond”. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35, 54–110.
Lersch, Ph. (1938). Aufbau der person. München: Barth. (in German).
Melé, D. (2003). The challenge of the humanistic management. Journal of Business
Ethics, 44(1), 77–88.
Montes, L. (2003). Das Adam Smith problem: Its origins, the stages of the current
debate, and one implication for our understanding of sympathy. Journal of the
History of Economic Thought, 25(1), 63–90.
Pérez-López, J. A. (1974). Organizational theory: A cybernetic approach. IESE
Research Paper, July 1974, WP n° 5.
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates. New York,
NY: Riverhead Books.
Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating Others: Nurturing Inner Motivational Resources.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rogers, C. R. (1973). My philosophy of interpersonal relationships and how it grew.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 13, 3–15.
Rogers, C. R. (1995). What understanding and acceptance mean to me. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 35, 7–22.
Smith, A. (1976a). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, A. (1976b). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Snyder, C. R. & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of Positive Psychology. New
York: Oxford University Press.
5 The spiritual motivations
Human aspiration for the
highest goods
The neglected spiritual motivations

In the first chapter, I described how, years ago, while giving my first pres-
entation at the RCC building at Harvard, an MBA student approached me
and said, “I think your ideas are right and quite new for me, but I think
you are still missing something”. He continued, “There is a kind of motiva-
tion that you did not mention that I still think needs to be addressed: the
spiritual one”.
His remarks left me completely stunned. Spiritual life is something I had
always personally cared about but never considered within a speculative
theory of human motivation. This student made me realise that the map of
motivations that I had just presented was missing a part of the reality. As he
had noted, many human beings are influenced in their daily behaviours by
spiritual motives. So then, why are these motives of behaviour not explicitly
included within current theories of motivation?
I remember telling some of my colleagues that I believed that these spir-
itual motivations are real and that they influence the lives of many people.
I told them that a good theory of human motivations should make them
explicit. Many of their responses were similar. They were something like,
“I’d never thought about it, but now that you say it, I guess you’re right”.
That simple yet insightful comment that day changed my research interest
for the following years. I decided to further investigate this issue, and this is
what led me to finding Maslow’s final posthumously published book.
In this work, he not only described the transcendent motivations, he also
explicitly mentioned spiritual motivations. In particular, he defined the con-
cept of human “meta-motivations” as those giving the highest meaning to
human life and the spiritual motivations being a part of them. For him,
“the spiritual life (the contemplative, religious, philosophical, or value-life)
is within the jurisdiction of human thought and is attainable in principle by
man’s own efforts” (Maslow, 1971, p. 312).
The spiritual life and spiritual motivations belong to aspects of human
reality that are intangible and immaterial, related to the mysteries of human
life and death, with those realities that the empirical sciences can only
glimpse. Although now taboo topics in most modern university settings,
they are crucial in understanding human motivation. As Maslow noted,
they are universal and reasonable (Maslow, 1971), even though they go
beyond rationality. To deny their existence in the ordinary lives of millions
of people would be to deny the obvious.
As I mentioned in Chapter 1, this MBA student’s observation led me to
study the concept of spiritual motivations in more depth and to write a
paper on the topic titled “The Neglected Ethical and Spiritual Motivations
in the Workplace” (Guillén et al., 2015) with my two colleagues Ignacio Fer-
rero and W. Michael Hoffman. While working on that paper, I also decided
to organise a colloquium at Harvard-RCC under the same title.1 To my sur-
prise, a good number of attendees commended the audacity of choosing the
theme of spirituality at work as one of the premises of the discussion. This
was no surprise for me as, again, this has been a taboo topic in universities
for decades.
After that colloquium in 2014, I was invited by the Harvard Kennedy
School’s New England Alumni Association to lead several leadership
seminars in which this topic was a key part of the discussion. At each
of these seminars, I was often introduced as “the guy who talks about
spiritual motivations in the workplace with no shame or concern for
criticism”.
Even though attendees vary each year, all those seminars have been well
received and complimented. Why is that? I believe it is because we all need
an in-depth understanding of what is going on in our lives, which includes
reflecting upon our deepest motivations. Even if we have diverging views on
what our spiritual or religious motivations are, most of us still wish to delve
into the substance of these metaphysical belief systems. This is something
that Maslow – as well as other well-known scholars – saw as early as 1971
(Cloninger, 2004).
Moreover, a growing body of scientific literature suggests strong evidence
of a spiritual reality at play in people’s lives, affecting our behaviour in vari-
ous conscious and subconscious ways (Pargament, 2013). Therefore, if we
recognise spirituality as a legitimate category of human needs and desires,
we should then expand the taxonomy of motivations in our map with the
addition of a new category, that of “spiritual goods”, on the top row of the
motivational grid (see Figure 5.1).
As you can imagine, when I mention spirituality in a class or seminar
about business management and motivation in organisations, the first reac-
tion is usually amazement, then curiosity. What do I mean by spirituality?
How can it be a human motivation? How is spirituality related to work in
organisations?
Well, spirituality at work has been defined in many different ways, and,
in fact, there is little consensus on it. Nevertheless, some scholars state that
while the definitions vary according to different traditions, five themes are
common to the realm of spirituality: connection, mindfulness, compassion,
meaningful work and transcendence (Petchsawang & Duchon, 2012).
The spiritual motivations 95

Spiritual Any intangible human good regarding transcendence and a deep sense of
Good meaning that requires some sort of faith in its origin, given that it goes
Higher Spiritual
Realm beyond human rationality
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Pleasant
Good
Psychological Realm
Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 5.1 The spiritual good defined
When I mention these words in class or in my seminars, I see from the

faces of participants that they all accept some part of this definition. Once
I have their acceptance, I try to explain what I mean by “spiritual goods”.
Spiritual motivations in pursuing the highest human goods

In the article I co-authored years ago with Ferrero and Hoffman, we wrote
that, “one could say that the spiritual good refers to any intangible human
good regarding transcendence and a deep sense of meaning that requires
some sort of faith in its origin, given that it goes beyond human rational-
ity. Some may call it supernatural good, given that it goes beyond nature”
(Guillén et al., 2015, p. 810). In other words, we could say that a spiritual
good refers to any intangible human good that possesses a deep sense of
meaning, transcendence and mindfulness and that leads to a connection and
compassion with nature and among human beings.
When I ask students what a “spiritual good” is for them, the first answers
are often things like happiness, inner peace or love. As you keep asking, the
answers include goods like true wisdom, being able to find yourself, self-
awareness or self-control. It is striking that a type of good that is mentioned
so little when motivations are studied can generate so many examples.
Among spiritual goods, students often also mention issues such as karma
or positive energy flows, reincarnation or the possibility of eternal destiny.
Normally, they do not see these matters as something exoteric but as some-
thing that many of them believe in and pursue in their lives.
Furthermore, in the case of students with a religious background, spir-
itual goods include all kinds of religious practices, a life of personal relation-
ship with God, and, in most cases, they mention the desire to achieve endless
happiness or eternal life in Heaven with God. We humans beings are aware
of having an inner life that surpasses matter and somehow also transcends
time. Who doesn’t have a childhood memory? Who does not dream of what
they would do if they had more free time or won the lottery?
We can recall our personal history, reflect on our identity and imagine our
future during our lifetime and also afterwards. For that reason, every spiritual
good involves some sort of faith in its origin and at its end because of its imma-
terial and intangible nature. We are not only capable of self-consciousness
and self-development but also of communicating our intangible interiority to
others in a compassionate, meaningful and transcendent way.
Just think about how people in love talk nonstop about their loves,
or how friends share personal issues and have confidence when there is
trust among them, or how a good work of art (a poem, a piece of music,
a painting, etc.) is capable of conveying beauty and, many times, a deep
meaning.
Only human beings have access to this spiritual dimension in their inti-
macy and are able to communicate it, a dimension that is higher in meaning
than the other three natural realms of human life (the physical, the psycho-
logical and the ethical) that we described in Chapter 3. Therefore, spiritual
goods are the highest level of the human goods because they relate to our
conscientiousness of being unique creatures, with a nature that includes tan-
gible and intangible aspects, material and immaterial dimensions, with body
and soul, as the classic philosophers would say (see Figure 5.1).
It could be said that one of the main spiritual human goods at this high-
est level is life itself. By life, I mean its physical, psychological, ethical and
mainly its higher spiritual nature, with an origin and a meaning or purpose.
We are capable of thinking about the meaning of life, to find meaning in
life. We may dream about visiting an inhospitable place or country in our
lifetime. We may want to do something special to change the world. We may
decide that we want to have as much fun as possible, but we also may decide
to give our lives in the service of others. The human spirit is made to search
for meaning (Frankl, 1959).
The mystery of the human spiritual life constitutes the epicentre of this
nonphysical, metaphysical or supernatural domain. Neither physics nor
biology, medicine, psychology or any other branch of natural sciences can
explain the nature of life, its spiritual dimension, its origin, the reason why
we exist and the purpose of such existence.
Furthermore, the meaning and purpose of life, together with its origin, are
all transcendental realities. That is why we can call them the utmost human
goods. Those that only human beings can think of. No other species grasps
or cares about the meaning of life or is trying to find meaning in life, but
who can deny that we humans certainly do?
As I said before, Maslow understood that these highest spiritual goods
and aspirations belong to the kind that transcend human rationality but
are still reasonable themselves. Moreover, in his view, they are crucial in
explaining the way we live and the way we pass away. They are the highest
ideals and motives of the human conduct. Let’s stop for a moment to reflect
on Maslow’s findings regarding these highest spiritual human goods, needs
or “meta-needs”.
Spiritual motivations in Maslow’s latest enquiries

To be precise, Maslow does not talk of spiritual goods but of values of the
spirit, the being values or B-Values (“B” for short). He calls them being
values because they are the ultimate values which cannot be “reduced to
anything more ultimate”. For example, he says that, “it is certainly demon-
strable that we need the truth and love it and seek it” (Maslow, 1971, p. 38).
Maslow lists around fourteen highest needs or B-Values, including the
truth, beauty and goodness of the ancients, as well as justice, order, law,
unity, perfection, simplicity, comprehensiveness, etc. He says, “I would go
so far as to claim that these B-Values are the meaning of life for most people,
but many people do not even recognise that they have these meta-needs”
(Maslow, 1971, p. 43).
Maslow sees this realm as an integral part of his hierarchy of needs.
He affirms that “basic needs and meta-needs are in the same hierarchical-
integration, i.e., in the same continuum, in the same realm of discourse. They
have the same basic characteristic of being ‘needed’ (necessary, good for
the person) in the sense that their deprivation produces ‘illness’ ” (Maslow,
1971, p. 312). In this case, it would be a spiritual illness.
In relation to the dynamism of this spiritual realm, he continues, say-
ing that “the spiritual life (the contemplative, religious, philosophical, or
value-life) is within the jurisdiction of human thought and is attainable in
principle by man’s own efforts. Even though it has been cast out of the realm
of reality by the classical, value-free science that models itself upon physics,
it can be reclaimed as an object of study and technology by humanistic sci-
ence” (Maslow, 1971, p. 312).
In Maslow’s view, these final values, or what I call here spiritual goods,
are real and universal, in the sense that all human beings yearn for them. As
he explains, “Can we, therefore, say that everyone yearns for the higher life,
the spiritual, the B-Values, etc.? Here we run full-tilt into inadequacies in
our language. Certainly, we can say in principle that such a yearning must
be considered to be as a potential in every newborn baby until proven oth-
erwise” (Maslow, 1971, p. 315, 316).
When reviewing Maslow’s latest enquiries regarding the further reaches of
human nature, one can see that he does not distinguish between the ethical
and spiritual realms (see Figure 5.1). As I like to tell my students, I must
admit that his position is somehow accurate because, strictly speaking, all
moral good is spiritual.
Nevertheless, as I will try to explain later, it makes sense to make the dis-
tinction between the ethical or moral dimension (philosophical and value-
life in Maslow’s terminology) from a higher spiritual one (contemplative),
which would refer to those motivations giving the highest meaning and pur-
pose to human life. Such a distinction is totally compatible with Maslow’s
findings.
Being the psychologist he was, and not a philosopher, he did not make
philosophical distinctions that would probably have been beyond his inter-
est and his field of expertise. Nevertheless, it seems that he was able to
intuitively distinguish the ethical realm from the higher spiritual one when
describing what he called human meta-needs.
As he himself claimed, “as we go on up the hierarchy of basic needs,
words like desiring, wishing, or preferring, choosing, wanting, become
more appropriate. However, at the highest levels, i.e., of meta-motivation,
all these words become subjectively inadequate, and such words as yearning
for, devoted to, aspiring to, loving, adoring, admiring, worshiping, being
drawn to or fascinated by, describe the meta-motivated feelings more accu-
rately” (Maslow, 1971, p. 324).
Although Maslow has been quoted extensively here, the reason for doing
so is to prove how explicit he was regarding this spiritual dimension. It
seems clear that, even in the early 1970s, Maslow was years ahead of his
academic colleagues in his understanding of human nature and human
motivations. In his later work, he found that there is a higher spiritual realm
that constitutes an essential element of the highest human motivations, what
he called meta-motivations.
At that time, he was also able to envisage the negative social consequences
of neglecting and even denying the existence of these highest ideals of the
human spirit. He envisioned the frustration of so many young people due
precisely to the dominant materialist conception of the world. At this point,
I really like to provoke critical thinking in my students. Was Maslow right?
Is it so bad that we have forgotten the spiritual goods, the higher human
motivations? This is what he wrote:
I believe that much of the social pathology of the affluent (already

lower-need-gratified) is a consequence of intrinsic-value-starvation.
To say it in another way: Much of the bad behavior of affluent, privi-
leged, and basic-need-gratified high school and college students is due
to the frustration of the “idealism” so often found in young people. My
hypothesis is that this behavior can be a fusion of continued search for
something to believe in, combined with anger at being disappointed. . . .
A total cultural determinism is still the official, orthodox doctrine of
many of most of the sociologists and anthropologists. This doctrine
not only denies intrinsic higher motivations, but comes perilously close
sometimes to denying “human nature” itself.
(Maslow, 1971, p. 310)
. . . How could young people not be disappointed and disillusioned?

What else could be the result of getting all the material and animal grati-
fications and then not being happy as they were led to expect, not only
by the theorists, but also by the conventional wisdom of parents and
teachers, and the insistent gray lies of the advertisers? . . . The end prod-
uct of such surfeit conditions is that material values have come more
and more to dominate the scene. In the result, man’s thirst for values of
the spirit has remained un-quenched. Thus, the civilization has reached
a stage which virtually verges on disaster.
(Maslow, 1971, p. 311)
You can find these words a bit catastrophist, as some of my students do.
Most of them acknowledge that the question of the absence of spiritual
motivations had never been an issue for them until I raised the subject.
A few of them also recognise that these statements left them quite thought-
ful since for them, and in their personal experience, these forgotten spiritual
motivations are very relevant in their lives. What do we mean by spiritual
motivations? Does everybody understand the same thing when we refer to
these issues?
Spiritual motivations’ different conceptions

If in the middle of a seminar on human motivations you ask how many
participants consider spirituality to be something that motivates people in
their lives, many will raise their hand and answer yes. On the other hand, if
the question is whether everyone understands the same thing when we talk
about spirituality, this time the majority will answer no.
Can we find consensus on what spiritual motivations are? It is obvious
that there are different interpretations of what we mean by spiritual issues
and spiritual motivations, depending on the cultural origin of those answer-
ing the questions, among other things.
When we consider how this is interpreted in an academic setting, at an
organisational level, some authors describe the idea of spirituality character-
ised as a private, inclusive, non-denominational and universal human feel-
ing. They distinguish it from the adherence to the beliefs, rituals or practices
of a specific organised religion (Karakas, 2010). Other researchers, however,
include the existence of the divine, of a spiritual being or God as an integral
part of spirituality, overlapping between spirituality and religion (Mitroff &
Denton, 1999).
Currently, there is no academic consensus on what constitutes a religion
(Nongbri, 2013). Therefore, and in order to offer a systematic explanation
of this issue, I propose three different conceptions of spirituality, which
I understand could be accepted by anyone. First, non-religious spirituali-
ties; second, religious spiritualities in a broad sense and finally, religious
spiritualities in its narrowest sense, referring to the three main monotheist
religions in the world.
In particular, non-religious spiritualities would include every human
experience centred on the search for a higher meaning in life, in a mindful
way, but with no religious affiliation; no formal attachment to institutional
structures, creeds, cults, sacred texts, etc. (Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006).
Therefore, this spirituality is the one for those who describe themselves as
atheists, agnostics or just people who do not identify with any particular
religion.
Moreover, the content of this non-religious spirituality, the search for
meaning in life, is a universal spiritual good shared by all the other spir-
itualities. What is common to the spiritualities included in this group is
their religious non-affiliation, an estimated 16% of world’s population (Pew
Research Center, 2017).
What distinguishes one from another within this group is that atheists do
not believe in God; agnostics are neither atheists nor theists, but the exist-
ence of a deity is unknowable for them and non-religious people could be
atheists, agnostics or theists. In each of the three cases, there is no affiliation
with any religion.
In a theoretical sense, it is possible to distinguish this non-religious spir-
ituality from others considered religious, but empirical evidence shows that
the distinction is not always crystal clear. Daily life shows that there are
cases where religion and spirituality intermingle, and it is difficult to sepa-
rate them.
In fact, there are studies reflecting that even among the religiously unaf-
filiated groups, some people still hold some kind of religious beliefs. For
example, various surveys have found that a belief in God or a higher power
is shared by 7% of unaffiliated religious Chinese adults, 30% of unaffiliated
religious French adults and 68% of unaffiliated religious Americans (Pew
Research Center, 2012).
Nevertheless, this first non-religious concept, including atheists, agnostics
and non-affiliated religious people conceive spirituality as a personal search
for an inner path enabling the essence of our natural being to be discovered.
This view is quite common today in many young students, spirituality refer-
ring to the search for a pathway towards a higher state of awareness, wis-
dom or perfection of one’s own being and contributing to the development
of the individual’s inner life to achieve happiness, peace and joy.
These spiritual goods of non-religious concepts of spirituality are uni-
versal, in the sense that they are desired by all human beings, including
religious people of all kinds. In other words, most human beings seek to
achieve some kind of knowledge or practical wisdom capable of providing
bliss, inner peace and joy.
Mindfulness, transcendental meditation and the search for positive men-
tal health are practices contributing to this inner growth and peace without
demanding a belief in God or any religious affiliation (Gotsis & Kortezi,
2008). This spiritual good normally comes from personal experience, but
it might also come from the teachings of “wise” people where it has been
passed on from generation to generation.
A good example of this non-religious view is the shaman tradition of
some cultures. The shaman is the healer, the connector, and the spiritual
leader or sensemaker. Intellectual shamans help people identify their own
gifts and find pathways to using those gifts in the world, no matter what
their occupation, civic activity, or interests (Waddock, 2014, 2017).
The second group of spiritualities, which I have named here as religious
spiritualities in a broad sense, would include traditional religions such as Hin-
duism (15% of the world’s population) or Buddhism (7% of the world’s pop-
ulation). It would also include folk religions (5.9%), which are those closely
tied to a particular people, ethnicity or tribe, including African traditional
religions, Chinese folk religions, Native American religions, Australian abo-
riginal religions and East Asian Confucianism (Pew Research Center, 2017).
This group would also comprise followers of other religions that are often
not measured separately in censuses and surveys, such as Shintoism, Sikh-
ism, Taoism2 and many others. Believe it or not, there are an estimated
10,000 distinct religions worldwide (Pew Research Center, 2017).
All these religious spiritualities in a broad sense reflect the universal
human openness to an external reality that is greater than us, to the myster-
ies of the cosmos and to the unknown and enigmatic of the afterlife reality.
Some of these religious traditions have faith in the existence of a divinity or
divinities, others do not.
For example, a survey found that approximately 60% of Chinese people
express a personal belief in the possible existence of one or more super-
natural phenomena, religious figures or supernatural beings that are often
associated with Confucianism and popular forms of Chinese folk religion
(Pew Research Center, 2008).
All these religious spiritualities in a broad sense demand different degrees
of faith that are normally higher than those of non-religious spiritualities.
In fact, spirituality itself could be named as the realm of faith, precisely
because it refers to the highest aspirations of the human spirit that belong
to the mystery of the unknown, common to religious and non-religious
spiritualities.
These universal spiritual aspirations are related to the origin and purpose
of life and with issues like the existence of good and evil, the meaning of joy
and suffering and of life and death in the world. These are questions that
always remain a mystery and to which the different spiritualities and reli-
gions try to give an answer. It is in this sense in which I said that the degree
of faith demanded by each spirituality is undoubtedly different, but they are
also different in their origins.
In many cases, the origin of the religious faith can go back millennia, for
example, mystic experiences from wise people, revelations of spirits, of dei-
ties, fables and myths or just ancient traditions that have been handed down
from generation to generation. This handing down of ancient customs is the
case for the Buddhist tradition, as well as for many Hinduists, Taoists, most
Chinese traditional religions, Japanese Shinto, Serer religions in Africa and
many polytheist religions all over the world (Pew Research Center, 2017).
Finally, the group of religious spiritualities in its narrowest sense would
include the three main monotheist religions of Abrahamic origin: Christian-
ity, Islam and Judaism. What these religions have in common with many of
the previous religious traditions is that they conceive spirituality as a human
dimension open to the sacred, to a divine realm (Pargament & Mahoney,
2002). Nevertheless, at the same time, what distinguishes them from previ-
ous religious spiritualities is their belief in one personal God, the Creator.
According to these traditions, God took the initiative to reach into human-
ity and revealed Himself to different prophets. With the prophet Abraham,
He established a covenant, calling mankind into a personal relationship with
Him. Actually, one of the classical meanings of the word religion (from the
Latin religare) means precisely a relation, link or connection with someone,
with a personal deity (Guillén et al., 2015).
Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe in one and the same “personal”
God, who reveals Himself to mankind and who expects a relationship, a
religion, a personal response from each one of His creatures. This is the
reason why I labelled religious spiritualities in its narrowest sense to include
the three Abrahamic monotheist religions.
The demographic study carried out in 2015 – based on an analysis of
more than 2,500 censuses, surveys and population registers – found there
were 14 million Jews (0.2% of the world’s population), 1.8 billion Muslims
(24%) and 2.3 billion Christians (31%) (Pew Research Center, 2017). There-
fore, this group of religious spiritualities in its narrowest sense, believing in
one personal God, comprises more than 55% of the world’s population.
Within this concept, God is the answer to the spiritual goods universally
desired by human beings and present in every spirituality, including happi-
ness, peace and joy. In this tradition, they are conceived as gifts from God.
Moreover, the highest spiritual good would be the capacity to be united to
God Himself, to share His supernatural life, His goodness or holiness for the
duration of human life on Earth and, ultimately, one day in Heaven.
As we will see in Chapter 6, the desire to correspond to God’s gifts will
give rise to a specific type of spiritual motivation, the religious motivations,
for those having a personal relationship with God. In this chapter, we will
focus on the higher spiritual realm and the spiritual goods and motivations
that are common to every tradition.
After this review of the different non-religious and religious spiritualities
(in its broader and narrower senses), it seems clear that every conception
of spirituality is a manifestation of the existence of a spiritual motivation,
a universal human longing for the transcendent higher spiritual good. It is
undeniable that there is a common human eagerness to find meaning of life,
in life and after life, one that the world of matter alone cannot give. There-
fore, it is important that spiritual motivations receive the recognition and
respect they deserve.
Spiritual motivations: Worthy of universal recognition

and respect
I am fully aware that, today, it is politically incorrect to talk about issues
such as religion and spirituality in many public settings, and the same is true
in scientific and academic spaces. For this reason, it is perhaps a subject that
excites many young students because they are “taboo” issues. Of course,
not everyone who attends my sessions is always excited; in some cases, the
reaction is one of oddness, dismay or indifference. Why should we mention
religion and spirituality in business- and people-management classes?
My attitude to the different reactions of dealing with these spiritual mat-
ters in class is always the same. I explain that this spiritual realm is true
for millions of people (as we saw in the previous section); it is a realm
referring to the mystery and meaning of human life that is universal and
that demands some sort of faith. Given that such faith influences human
motivations and behaviour, we should not be afraid of addressing this in our
people-management classes.
On the contrary, we should be able to understand them, speak of them
and understand why they are worthy of esteem. This is why I tried to explain
the different conceptions of spirituality in earlier paragraphs and the reason
why I now want to insist on the importance of respecting other people’s
spiritual motivations.
Many times, if not always, the answer to these transcendental spiritual
questions is what makes the difference regarding the meaning we human
beings assign to our entire life and work. It is precisely because of this that
human spirituality and human motivations are worthy of universal recogni-
tion and protection. In fact, this is such a relevant domain of human life that,
after World War II, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) included a statement to protect the freedom of thought, con-
science and religion, in Article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion;

this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and free-
dom, either alone or in community with others and in public or pri-
vate, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.
As I like telling my students, the UN declared these universal rights because

they are common human goods, not the other way around. Their goodness
does not come from their declaration, but the declaration of this right is a
confirmation and the fruit of the universal understanding of the goodness of
spirituality and religion.
Therefore, the spiritual good is one of those universal human needs at the
highest level, or, as Maslow would say, they are meta-needs. They constitute
the “deepest values and meanings by which people live” (Sheldrake, 2007).
They are sources of inspiration and orientation in human life. They reflect
“the extent to which an individual is motivated to find sacred meaning and
purpose to his or her existence” (Tepper, 2003).
It is therefore crucial to recognise spirituality as a legitimate category of
human needs and desires and that it deserves an open area in an accurate
description or map of human motivations. That is why we added the cat-
egory of spiritual good to the top row of the motivational grid, in addition
to the useful, pleasant and moral goods (Guillén et al., 2015). Notice that
the four rows or levels of the new version of the map refer to the four basic
anthropological dimensions or realms of human nature: the physical, the
psychological, the ethical and now the higher spiritual (see Figure 5.2).
As we discussed in Chapter 3, using the example of pushing the brown
bear, our free and rational behaviour may be explained thanks to the under-
standing and knowledge of the different dimensions of human nature. To
complete the example we saw then, if you push someone who had climbed
onto the table, they may not move for physical, psychological, ethical but
also higher spiritual reasons for example, because they are pacifists, and in
their conscience they prefer not to conflict with anyone (see Figure 5.2).
It reminds me that, sometimes, participants in my seminars will comment
that they always thought talking about these issues would end up leading
to conflict and disagreement, but in fact the opposite is true. When these
questions can be spoken about openly, precisely because they are reason-
able, this is when mutual respect and the recognition of the freedom of
consciences can take place.
Another way to explain the existence of these four dimensions in a more
positive manner is by reflecting on the different types of human joy. In this
sense, I was asked to give a talk to a group of undergraduates from MIT,
Harvard, Boston College and some other universities in Boston some years
ago. The topic of the talk was “joy at work”, and I took advantage of my
reflections on the map of motivations and the different realms of human
nature to talk about four different meanings of joy.
I spoke to them about physical joy, which we perceive when we are physi-
cally well; the sensible psychological joy, that pleasure of feeling good; the
moral or ethical joy, that we have when we know we are doing the right
thing and, finally, the higher spiritual joy, which refers to the highest and
most lasting joy and is related to the conviction to live a life full of meaning,
worth living and full of love (see Figure 5.2).
A year later, when returning to the US, I had the chance to see some of the
students that attended that talk again. They still remembered the content of

Spiritual Willingness
Good to receive
Higher Spiritual Spiritual Goods
Realm

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 5.2 Mapping the territory of motivations: The spiritual motivations
the presentation. One of them told me that, being a religious person, it was
that day when he profoundly understood the concept of spiritual joy for the
first time. He found that his highest and most lasting joy was the result of
considering God to be his Father who loved him madly and unconditionally.
I told him that was quite a good example of what spiritual joy is all about.
Other students attending that talk told me that they were able to better
distinguish the physical, psychological, ethical and higher spiritual realms in
their own lives. Moreover, they loved the holistic view of human nature that
this framework offered them (see Figure 5.2).
As we will discuss at the end of Chapter 7, this wider framework of moti-
vations proposed here, while respecting and synthesising previous classifica-
tions, also provides an understanding of their diversity and interrelationship.
My personal experience, after years explaining this map of motivations,
proves that this proposal contributes to a more holistic understanding of
human motivation by many people.
Moreover, it facilitates dialogue between different disciplines of human
knowledge that have been fragmented in the academic world for centuries.
As we saw in previous chapters, this framework is the result of the dialogue
between psychologists, sociologists and philosophers. Now, we can also
invite theologians to this conversation.
I recall a presentation of this map that I gave to a group of managers in
Spain. When I finished the talk, one approached me, smiling, and said, “I’m
an atheist and, believe it or not, I loved the framework you just presented”.
I was thankful and somehow surprised by the comment, so I asked him why
he liked it. He answered, “Because your lecture helped me understand my
own motivations and those of others, despite them being so different”.
The recognition of the spiritual realm allows us to go beyond a narrow
materialistic view of human nature. In an extremely competitive profes-
sional world, without time to stop, reflect, or meditate, it seems quite
difficult to have a true inner spiritual life. With so much noise, pressure,
and rush in today’s world, spirituality and religion are almost a luxury for
many.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that, in modern times, many people have left
spirituality because there has been an evolution or progression in our way
of thinking, but rather because we have stopped thinking. It is not surpris-
ing that, in recent years, mindfulness and meditation practices are becoming
ever more popular (Keng et al., 2011).
People are yearning for inner peace and joy of spirit, irrespective of a reli-
gious or non-religious context. As we will see next, the universal desires to
receive, achieve and give spiritual good constitute the extrinsic, intrinsic and
transcendent spiritual motivations. Let’s now consider the particular case of
the extrinsic spiritual motivations.
Extrinsic spiritual motivations: The willingness to receive

spiritual good
I remember this young professional whose only thoughts were about suc-
cess and earning money until he met a new friend, who was only twenty-
two years old and who had already started an NGO and a social company.
Thanks to the example of this person, he began to give a new purpose to his
life and now wanted to spend it helping make the world better.
This is also the case of many students in my classes who admitted they
were not environmentally aware. Thanks to the influence and advice of
other classmates and friends, they now value the planet much more and
connect much more spiritually with nature. Furthermore, many of my stu-
dents have been able to find meaning in their lives and personal completion
after meeting other friends who told them about their own experiences and
set an example for them. This is something I have witnessed throughout my
teaching career.
Using Maslow’s own terminology, most human beings yearn for values
of the spirit, such as unity and simplicity, and others related to novelty
and perfection, such as wholeness, fulfilment, uniqueness or completion
(Maslow, 1971). We could say that the desire to receive all these goods are
examples of extrinsic spiritual motivations that practically every spiritual
tradition, both religious and non-religious, would admit to being true.
Following the same logic that we applied in previous chapters to describe
the different kinds of motivations, the extrinsic spiritual motivations can be
defined as the willingness to receive spiritual good (see Figure 5.3). They
refer to the human aspiration to obtain spiritual goods, such as life itself,
practical wisdom, lasting happiness, peace and joy of spirit.
As Maslow would say, these “Being Values” are the highest values of the
human spirit. In his own words, “I would go so far as to claim that these
B-Values are the meaning of life for most people, but many people don’t
even recognize that they have these meta-needs” (Maslow, 1971, p. 43).
These meta-needs, longings or highest ideals that all humans aim for could
probably be summarised by the desire for the truth, beauty and goodness
(the transcendentals) already described by ancient Greek philosophers, such
as Parmenides, Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.
In our personal life, the discovery of extrinsic spiritual motivations (as
some truth, beauty or goodness) could come from someone who taught us
to have a nobler purpose in life. Questions about the ultimate meaning of
human life demand a practical answer from every human being. Most peo-
ple with the goodwill desire to reach the spiritual gift of wisdom and receive

Good to receive
Higher Spiritual spiritual good
Realm Gift, Present, Grace

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 5.3 The extrinsic spiritual motivations

the appropriate counsel (both spiritual goods) succeed in the meaning they
give to their lives (see Figure 5.3).
Wisdom and counsel to be able to judge and direct daily matters in
accordance with our ideals and the truth of human nature, but also the gifts
of understanding, fortitude and knowledge (three more spiritual goods), are
necessary to get the strength of mind to do good and avoid evil in life. All
these gifts of the spirit (wisdom, counsel, understanding, etc.) are longings
or extrinsic spiritual motivations that can be found in non-religious and
religious people (see Figure 5.3).
Of course, as I said before, they all request a certain kind of faith in the
inner human capacity of spiritual development and growth and also a faith
and trust in the different sources of those spiritual goods (oneself, other wise
people, some religious traditions, such as the Hindu laws of karma, or God’s
revelation in the case of the main monotheist religions).
I recall attending a conference at the Harvard Divinity School. There,
Bhutan’s former Minister of Education was describing the way Buddhist
spiritual motivations affect the way they care about the environment in his
country. Given that they believe in reincarnation, they do not want to take
the risk of hurting their reincarnated ancestors or families by treating nature
poorly. Both the desire for a good reincarnation and the respect for reincar-
nated ancestors in nature would be spiritual goods or gifts of a Buddhist
religious tradition, among others (see Figure 5.3).
Another illustration of spiritual extrinsic motivations that is shared by
millions of human beings with religious beliefs is the willingness to receive
eternal life or the desire to go to Heaven. Heaven, and what it represents,
is conceived by many religions as a gift and a reward for a good life, one
lived out of love for others and for those who believe in God, out of love for
God. In the three Abrahamic traditions, Heaven is understood as the final
union with God, the possession of God Himself, the truth, the good and the
beauty, the highest human aspiration (see Figure 5.3).
It is important to underline that practically every spiritual good that is
longed for by non-religious spiritualities is also an aspiration in most reli-
gious traditions. In the particular case of the three monotheistic religions,
the origin of every spiritual gift is considered to be divine. In other words,
all spiritual good comes from God, who shares it with human beings. Ulti-
mately, when you are a believer, God is considered to be the giver of all
material and spiritual gifts.
As we have seen, there are different examples of extrinsic spiritual
motivations, depending on the tradition we observe. However, what
is common to all of them is the openness to the realm of spirituality
through different levels of faith and trust in their source. Moreover, once
one accepts the existence of this spiritual domain, another two kinds of
motivations can be displayed and defined on our map: the intrinsic and
the transcendent spiritual motivations. Let’s pay closer attention to the
intrinsic ones.
Intrinsic spiritual motivations: The willingness to acquire
spiritual good
The human longing for a deeper spiritual life demands a personal open-
ness to the realms of the spirit beyond a materialistic view of human life
and, again, some kind of faith on the existence of an intangible reality that
human beings can access. Examples of these are those people who meditate
to find inner peace or those religious people who pray to find a greater con-
nection with God or to obtain the necessary strength to do good. We all
yearn for an inner peace and joy of spirit that are normally fruits of a wis-
dom and personal spiritual growth whose origin is also spiritual.
It is interesting that both non-religious and religious spiritual traditions
have this desire for inner peace and joy in common. This aspiration to access
the higher spiritual realm constitutes the intrinsic spiritual motivation, the
willingness to achieve spiritual good, to attain spiritual goodness, blessed-
ness or holiness (see Figure 5.4).
However, such spiritual life and growth and all its fruits are only acces-
sible when there is awareness of them and the desire to achieve them. This
spiritual inner flourishing of the person would be the result of some spe-
cific practices, depending on the spiritual tradition considered. If we look at
the two extremes of the continuum of spiritualities that I presented before,

Spiritual Willingness Willingness

Good to receive to achieve
Higher Spiritual spiritual good spiritual good
Realm Gift, Present, Grace Sanctity, Blessedness, Holiness

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 5.4 The intrinsic spiritual motivations

those who do not believe in God and those who believe in a personal one,
the conception of spiritual growth varies.
For non-believers, spiritual growth is the result of higher levels of mind-
fulness, which leads to a deeper spiritual union with oneself, with others, the
environment and the cosmos and to finding higher meaning in life. Learning
to live in the present moment, appreciating its meaning and value, produces
great joy, perhaps one of the clearest spiritual fruits of intrinsic spiritual
motivations.
At the other end, for those who believe in a personal God, the spiritual
growth and the finding of higher meaning in life are the results of a higher
interior life of union with God, or of a higher love for God. The fruit in this
case is then the perception of each present moment in life as a gift from a
God who loves you. For those who have faith, this produces a kind of joy
that only God can offer or, as Peter Kreeft described it, the most moving
thing in life (Kreeft, 2004).
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, in an extremely competitive professional
world without time to stop, reflect or meditate, it is quite difficult to main-
tain a spiritual interior life because this inevitably demands the necessary
inner silence and quietness of the spirit; a tranquillity that is far from a
reality in our modern society. Regrettably, today’s hustle and bustle, hyper-
activity and multitasking in personal and professional life make stress and
anxiety commonplace.
For the past few years, I have been discussing the real case of a young
manager named Vicente with my MBA students. As an executive in a large
international company, Vicente3 was having recurrent problems with stress
and anxiety, which is nothing unusual in such settings, as I just said. He
decided to ask for advice from one of his former MBA professors, a good
friend of mine. It was clear that Vicente did not know how to say no to his
boss and to the increasing demands of his job.
His intense eagerness to be successful, to get results for his superiors and
to earn the appreciation of his subordinates, was destroying his health, his
family and his social life. However, he was not entirely aware of what was
going on, and he had no time for personal reflection or meditation.
Every time I discuss Vicente’s case, many of my students feel as if I am
talking about them. More so, some of them suggest that we should teach
this case to their colleagues in their own companies because there are many
Vicentes. As you may guess, we spend several intense sessions discussing
how we could help him, or someone like him. The frenetic pace of life that
we all usually experience has triggered the high levels of stress to which
most professionals throughout the world succumb.
We live in the spotlight of never-ending deadlines and the excessive expec-
tations of others. We spend more time thinking about the future than living
in the present, and our minds are full of concern and noise. The inner world
of the spirit and the spiritual motivation is drowned out by the many daily
concerns.
People rarely stop to think about the big questions, about the meaning of
life and work. As I mentioned, in light of this anxiety and “noise”, mindful-
ness and meditation are becoming the modern tools with which to redis-
cover the spiritual realm and to achieve the spiritual goods of inner peace
and joy. For those who believe in a personal God, the source of all spiritual
good is God Himself and His divine Love (with a capital L). Therefore, in
these cases, mindfulness would mean full awareness of God’s presence, and
meditation would mean a personal conversation with God.
In religious traditions, the holiest people are those who are more united
with God, able to love with the Love of God Himself. In spiritual traditions
that do not believe in God, the holiest people are those with a higher interior
life, higher wisdom and higher goodness without reference to a divinity. In
both cases, for believers and non-believers alike, a tangible manifestation of
people’s holiness is precisely their goodness, their capacity to do the good
and their ability to transmit it to others.
As we will see next, the spiritual good seems to be contagious, exactly
as happened with the moral good. This is what we will discuss next when
describing transcendent spiritual motivations.
Transcendent spiritual motivations: The willingness to give

spiritual good
Maslow makes very explicit references to the higher spiritual realm when
describing transcenders, those motivated by the logic of self-giving. He
states that they “speak easily, normally, naturally and unconsciously the
language of Being (B-language), the language of poets, of mystics, of seers,
of profoundly religious men, of men who live at the Platonic-idea level or at
the Spinozistic level, under the aspect of eternity” (Maslow, 1971, p. 273).
As we discussed in Chapter 4, the universal self-transcendent quality of
human beings was already described by the likes of Lersch (1938), Allport
(1961) and Frankl (1966) and studied more recently by others (Cloninger,
2004). Moreover, Maslow himself devoted an important part of his post-
humous book to explaining the concept of what he called the transcenders,
those moved by the motivation of giving (Maslow, 1971).
Transcenders are not egotistic but the opposite. “Transcendence brings
with it the ‘transpersonal’ loss of ego”, he says and then states that “not
only are such people lovable as are all of the most self-actualizing people,
but they are also more awe-inspiring, more ‘unearthly’, more godlike, more
‘saintly’, in the medieval sense, more easily revered, more ‘terrible’ in the
older sense. They have more often produced in me the thought, ‘This is a
great man’ ”. Moreover, “transcenders are in principle (I have no data) more
apt to be profoundly ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ in either the theistic or nonthe-
istic sense” (Maslow, 1971, p. 282).
The aspiration to share the goods and joys of the spiritual life with others
is something that would be expected of people with more spiritual sensitivity,
more “saintly” or “godlike” people, using Maslow’s own words. It makes
sense that people who are more holy have a stronger desire to transmit their
inner peace to others and to promote that peace and joy to the entire world.
Who could deny that this has been the case of holy notables, such as Mahatma
Gandhi or Mother Teresa in India to give two well-known examples.
Transcendent spiritual motivation is the kind of motivation that consists
of the willingness to give spiritual good to others. The existence of trans-
cendent spiritual motivation is a fact that can be described and recognised.
However, a quite different issue is the question of how often you find these
saint-like people around your workplace (see Figure 5.4).
A good example of these transcendent spiritual motivations is seen today
when a person suffers some adversity. For instance, I remember a time when
I fell seriously ill, and my atheist friends wished me spiritual strength and
positive karma. In fact, they sent me “positive energy” as a manifestation of
their affection for me.
In the same situation, my Christian friends told me that they were praying
for me, that they asked God to give me His strength and grace, which is also
a kind of positive energy (what, in Christian tradition, is known as the com-
munion of saints). Both attitudes, from believers and non-believers alike, are
clear manifestations of my friends’ transcendent spiritual motivations, their
desire to bring me spiritual good.
As I noted before, people attending these sessions and students at the
university are bemused that we talk about these issues on a business-
management course or a seminar about motivations in organisations. I find
it remarkable that we can talk about these human realities with total open-
ness and respect.
Evidence of spiritual motivations

Unfortunately, I cannot give many examples of spiritual motivations com-
ing from my own students as I did with the other kinds of motivations.
I respect them and their privacy, so I do not ask them about their personal
beliefs in public. Nevertheless, some students come to my office to ask for
advice regarding their professional future. In order to help them to make
better decisions, I normally ask them to use the map of human motivations.
As a result, and after several years, I have been able to identify the most
frequent spiritual motivations students have in mind.
In Figure 5.5, you can find some of the contents of students’ own maps
of motivations. I also include answers from some of the professionals who
similarly ask me for advice. Among the extrinsic spiritual motivations, peo-
ple usually mention their desires to learn from others’ wisdom and find
peace and joy at work, being able to connect with something greater than
themselves. For people who believe in a personal God, motivations include
finding God in their work, recognising His divine presence and seeing their
work as a gift from Him and as a means of getting into Heaven.

Spiritual Willingness Willingness Willingness

Good to receive to achieve to give
Higher Spiritual spiritual good spiritual good spiritual good
Realm Gift, Present, Grace Sanctity, Blessedness, Holiness Sanctification, Salvation, Blessing

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 5.5 The transcendent spiritual motivations
The answers are very similar for intrinsic spiritual motivations, but this
time people see their work itself as an opportunity to attain inner peace and
joy while working, developing wisdom through their activities and being
aware of being part of something greater than themselves. If they have faith
in God, then they see their work as the place to unite themselves with Him,
to show their love for God, sanctifying themselves and becoming holier
through their work (see Figure 5.5).
Finally, when it comes to transcendent spiritual motivations, people see
their roles as opportunities to bring wisdom, peace and joy to others – that
they could contribute to something greater than themselves. For those with
a more religious background, they find their work as an opportunity to pray
for others and to help them find God and become holy (see Figure 5.5).
Some practical tips

These are all findings from my own experience as a mentor to many students
and professionals over more than twenty-five years of teaching at the univer-
sity. However, this goes beyond my own personal experience. It seems that
in recent decades there has been a major transformation in organisations,

-. Finding God at work

Spiritual -. Finding wisdom at work
-. Developing wisdom at work -. Bringing wisdom at work
-. Being part of something greater -. Praying for others at work
Good -. Finding peace and joy at work
-. Uniting myself with God at work -. Helping others to become holy
-. Seeing work as a path to Heaven
Higher Spiritual -. Achieving peace and joy at work -. Bringing peace and joy at work
-. Connecting with something greater
Realm -. Becoming holy while working well -. Contributing to something greater
-. Having the presence of God at work
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Pleasant
Good
Psychological Realm
Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 5.6 Examples of spiritual motivations
making room for the spiritual dimension, searching for meaning, purpose
and a sense of community (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000).
Some researchers understand spirituality as a form of “spiritual intelli-
gence” that gives a distinct capacity for transcendence; the ability to enter
into heightened spiritual states of consciousness; the skill to invest everyday
activities, events and relationships with a sense of the sacred; the aptitude to
utilise spiritual resources to solve problems in life and the talent to engage in
virtuous behaviours (to show forgiveness, to express gratitude, to be hum-
ble, to display compassion) (Emmons, 2000).
In regard to examples of the implication of spirituality in organisa-
tional leadership, Margaret Benefiel describes “the profound role that
awareness of soul, or spirituality, can play in leadership and organization
life” (Benefiel, 2005, p. 9). Her research presents several cases of manag-
ers whose priority is the growth and development of their employees by
looking for the right thing to do, considering the effects of their decisions
on people.
There are other recent studies, and a growing acknowledgement among
scholars, that show how mindfulness promotes more ethical behaviours in
organisations by improving the levels of people’s awareness. This also serves
as support for the development of moral virtues (Guillén & Fontrodona,
2018).
As Harvard professor Ellen Langer once said, “true well-being does not
consist of going through life on autopilot, but being aware and present
moment to moment to truly experience your life as it unfolds”. Today’s
unbridled stress in the workplace is leading to a drastic reduction in our
ability to pay attention to what is happening around us. Consequently, it
lowers our sensitivity to do well and to do good (Guillén & Fontrodona,
2018).
Therefore, it is necessary (1) to be aware of and pay attention to the
environment in which we act and to be in constant connection with our
values, the things we consider as really good. By doing so, we will avoid
acting automatically, or we will retain a reflective attitude when faced with
behaviours or demands that we might otherwise simply accept because we
are asked to act in that way or because “everyone is doing it” (Guillén &
Fontrodona, 2018).
In today’s workplaces, we get a lot of demands and requests. These are
goals and values that, while useful in the business world, may not be best
suited to our personal flourishing and spiritual growth. In this context, (2)
mindfulness – among others – may be useful as a tool to help us protect
our inner world and to achieve greater awareness. It will allow us to live in
the present moment with greater attention to our actions (Guillén & Fon-
trodona, 2018). Even more, awareness of God’s presence in every circum-
stance, meditation and prayer (for people with a faith in God), are also
among the most powerful means of contributing to our moral and spiritual
growth.
Finally, in a world of continuous technological innovation, the speed of
our communications and the number of our connections grows exponen-
tially. Moreover, the use of technology also contributes to increasing the
immediacy of our expectations. We want to attain everything right here and
now. All these factors contribute to the levels of stress, anxiety and hyper-
activity we feel today, with the consequent loss of serenity and inner peace.
In this context, (3) mindfulness and meditation (understood either as a
technique or, for others, as a way of prayer) may improve the level of aware-
ness of our surroundings, as it lets us connect to what is happening in an
open manner (Guillén & Fontrodona, 2018).
This is largely what spiritual motivations can do for us, according to
recent studies. Nevertheless, and as far as I know, there is not much empiri-
cal evidence regarding the importance or effects of having spiritual and reli-
gious motivations at work, and its connection with physical, mental, moral
and spiritual health. Maybe frameworks like that proposed here will help
these studies to be more in depth in the future.
Undoubtedly, all the spiritual means we discussed here can help us per-
ceive new dimensions in the situations around us. Moreover, spiritual
mindfulness and awareness allow us to attain higher levels of empathy and
compassion towards the people around us. When there is mindfulness and
its resultant inner peace, each human experience becomes new, and we can
forge deeper and more authentic connections with others, with something
greater than us and also with God for believers.
Of course, each person will have different spiritual motivations because
human beings are free to determine the reasons for their choices. Actually,
and as I have insisted several times in this chapter, the higher spiritual realm
is, in fact, the most human – the one that no other species can reach. Spir-
itual motivations are the highest kinds of motives of human conduct, the
highest ideals and aspirations in life. The question then is, how often are
we conscious of these spiritual drivers in our daily work and lives? To think
about it, here are some questions that might help you find that out.

1 How often do I feel a lack of peace and joy in my life and my work?
2 How often do I sense a lack of serenity and balance in my life and
work?
3 How often do I see my ordinary life as an opportunity to find peace and
joy?
4 How often do I see my ordinary work as an opportunity to cultivate
wisdom?
5 How often do I see my work as a contribution to something greater
than me?
6 How often do I see my ordinary life as an occasion to grow in holiness?
7 How often do I pray for others in my daily life and my work?
8 How often do I seek God in my daily life and my work?
9 How often do I realise that I am in the presence of God during the day?
10 How often do I see my life in connection with something greater
than me?
A final critical thought on why the map is not yet

accurate enough
As I mentioned right at the beginning of this chapter, the reason I decided to
study the spiritual motivations was from the suggestion of a Spanish MBA
student at the Harvard-RCC presentation. With genuineness, courage, and
audacity, he made me realise that I was missing a group of motivations
that are present in the lives of millions of human beings – the spiritual and
religious ones.
Owing to the comments from this student, I spent a year studying, reflect-
ing and in discussion with the two co-authors of the article (Guillén et al.,
2015) that gave rise to the book you are now reading. During that year, we
came up with the upper part of the grid comprising the group of spiritual
motivations that we have discussed in this chapter. Nevertheless, the study
of the different kinds of spiritualities, and the distinction between those non-
religious and religious traditions, led us to the conclusion that we were still
missing a group of motivations that were not included on the upper part of
the map: the religious motivations.
It seems that the MBA student was right when he suggested that he was
missing spiritual and religious motivations in the map of motivations. The
distinction of both kinds of motivations (spiritual and religious), shows that
for those spiritualities without God, there is no such thing as a personal rela-
tionship with Him; therefore, religious motivations would not make sense.
This explains why people who do not believe in God would see no need to
expand our map. The only reason that would justify expanding it would be
to be able to understand the motivations of those who believe in God, which
is why I wrote the following chapter.
If you are among those who do not believe in God, you can always skip
Chapter 6 and go straight to Chapter 7. If you are curious, you can always go
back. Nevertheless, I recall the fact that everyone attending the presentation
of this humanistic map of human motivations liked it in its entirety. They
found it useful and relevant. Moreover, those attending the sessions who
consider themselves atheists and agnostics also valued the entire framework.
As I noted before, they kept saying that the explanation helped them
understand everybody’s motivations better. Ultimately, the existence of peo-
ple with and without religious motivations is an outstanding manifestation
of human freedom, and religious motivations as well as the moral and spir-
itual ones, are exclusively human.
Notes
1 These annual colloquiums, organised since 2013 by the Institute for Ethics in
Communication and Organizations (IECO) and the Real Colegio Complutense
(RCC) at Harvard University, bring together leading scholars and practitioners to
shed light on what it takes to promote a workplace environment that brings out
the best in people, creating not only trust but also organisations that thrive. On 3
April 2014, the second IECO-RCC International Colloquium addressed the topic
“The role of moral and spiritual motivation in building trust in organizations”.
View the recordings of the event here: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2SOU6
wwxB0splsmVkHIHWr2N0grP5M-j
2 To be more precise, Taoism and Confucianism arose as philosophical worldviews
and ways of life. Unlike Confucianism, however, Taoism eventually developed into
a self-conscious religion with an organised doctrine, cultic practices, and institu-
tional leadership (see Encyclopedia Britannica, voices Taoism and Confucianism).
3 Vicente’s Outcome. IPADE Business School Case. FE 08 eC 03. R – April, 2012.
References
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.
Ashmos, D. P. & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and
measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134–145.
Benefiel, M. (2005). Soul at Work: Spiritual Leadership in Organizations. New
York: Seabury Books.
Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling Good: The Science of Well-Being. New York:
Emmons, R. A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the
psychology of ultimate concern. The International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 10(1), 3–26.
Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Frankl, V. (1966). Self-transcendence as a human phenomenon. Journal of Human-
istic Psychology, 6, 97–106.
Gotsis, G. & Kortezi, Z. (2008). Philosophical foundations of workplace spiritual-
ity: A critical approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 575–600.
Guillén, J. & Fontrodona, J. (2018). Mindfulness and its impact on ethical behav-
ior in companies. In Personal Flourishing in Organizations. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer, pp. 121–140.
Karakas, F. (2010). Spirituality and performance in organizations: A literature
review. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 89–106.
Keng, S., Smoski, M. J. & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psycho-
logical health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6),
1041–1056.
Kreeft, P. (2004). The God who Loves You: Love Divine, All Loves Excelling. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Lersch, P. (1938). Aufbau der person. München: Barth. (in German).
Mitroff, I. & Denton, E. A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan
Management Review, 40(4), 83–94.
Nongbri, B. (2013). Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press.
Pargament, K. I. (2013). Spirituality as an irreducible human motivation and pro-
cess. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 23(4), 271–281.
Pargament, K. L. & Mahoney, A. (2002). Spirituality: Discovering and conserving
the sacred. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Work-
place Spirituality and Organizational Performance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
pp. 646–659.
Petchsawang, P. & Duchon, D. (2012). Workplace spirituality, meditation, and work
performance. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 9(2), 189–208.
Pew Research Center. (2008). Chinese believers in supernatural. 3 August 2008.
www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/#ftn6.
Pew Research Center. (2012). The global religious landscape. Religion & Public Life,
18 December 2012. www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-
exec/#ftn6.
Pew Research Center. (2017). The changing global religious landscape. Religion &
Public Life, 5 April 2017. www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-
religious-landscape/.
Saucier, G. & Skrzypińska, K. (2006). Spiritual but not religious? Evidence for two
independent dispositions. Journal of Personality (5), 1257–1292.
Sheldrake, P. (2007). A Brief History of Spirituality. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tepper, B. J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behavior and the spiritual employee.
In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Spiritual-
ity and Organizational Performance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 181–190.
Waddock, S. (2014). Intellectual Shamans: Management Academics Making a Dif-
ference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Waddook, S. (2017). Healing the World: Today’s Shamans as Difference Makers.
New York, NY: Greenleaf Publishing/Routledge.
6 The religious motivations
Human longing for God’s Love
Religious motivations: A human reality

I remember the first time I attended the global gathering of some leaders
from the International Association for Humanistic Management (IHMA) at
Fordham University in New York City after becoming part of this initiative
a few months earlier. The purpose of this association is to promote human-
centred organising practices, oriented towards flourishing and enhancing
human well-being.1
One of the working sessions of this meeting involved producing a map
that identifies the antecedents and consequences of a humanistic vision of
management. In that session, I mentioned the role of spirituality and reli-
gion as a key element of a humanistic vision, and one person in the group,
who introduced herself as an atheist at the time, did not initially like my
comment. She argued that the humanistic approach should not be religious
or confessional. This comment led to a very heated debate between the two
of us on the subject of humanism and religion.
Of course, the humanistic approach cannot be religious or confessional, and
in this I agreed with her, but I also insisted that humanism should not oppose
the contributions of spirituality and religion. If humanism were opposed to
religion, then it would cease to be humanistic because, since the beginning of
human history, nothing has been more characteristic of the human race than its
spiritual condition and religious practice. No other being in this world is capa-
ble of religious practices, something that demands an intellect to believe that
which is “unbelievable” and the free will to access that which is “inaccessible”.
My argument was that a humanistic management approach should not
be confessional or ascribed to any particular religion, but neither should
it oppose any reasonable contribution coming from religion and theology
(from the Greek Theos Logos), the area of human knowledge studying God.
In other words, humanism cannot be exclusive to non-religious people.
A truly humanistic approach should be inclusive, consider everyone, believ-
ers and non-believers, the religious and non-religious alike.
The religious motivations 121
It was clear that, from a humanistic perspective, it would not make any
sense to impose any specific religion. That would lack respect for freedom
and human dignity and therefore be inhumane. For the same reason, deny-
ing the existence of religion as part of human reality and its impact on
human behaviour would also be a tremendous mistake and a lack of respect.
Fortunately, we all agreed on this point.
Furthermore, the person with whom I initially had that disagreement
ended up welcoming my suggestion to be more inclusive. We became good
friends that day, and since then she has been the person within the IHMA
who has helped me the most in promoting dialogue between believers and
non-believers.
Perhaps you are religious or not, or maybe you don’t know. In any case,
this chapter, as with the book itself, is presented as a dialogue but now
between religious and non-religious. For that reason, I strongly recommend
keeping an open mind to reflect on this explanation with me so that we can
jointly reach an inclusive vision of human motivations.
This entire chapter owes a great deal to this person2 and will focus on
explaining how religion is an integral part of human reality and the motiva-
tions for many millions of people. What do we mean by religious motiva-
tion, though? Did Maslow study this kind of motivation?
Religious motivations: A personal relationship with God

As we saw in Chapter 5, religious spiritualities in a broad sense comprise
traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and many other tra-
ditional, native and aboriginal religions. They all believe in the universal
human openness to an external reality that is greater than us. Nevertheless,
even though many of them have faith in the existence of a divinity or divini-
ties, when there is a god, it is usually an impersonal one. For example, in
Buddhism, there is no god spoken of at all. In classical Hinduism, there is
a god that is an impersonal cosmic consciousness rather than an individual
loving person with intellect and will (Kreeft, 2004).
The study of comparative religions shows that the three Abrahamic tra-
ditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), unlike most other religious spir-
itualities, believe in one personal God, who revealed Himself in a historical
moment to the Jewish people, establishing a bond, a covenant, with them.
This personal relationship of mankind with God (religare) is what I have
called “religion” or “religious spirituality” in its narrowest sense (Guillén
et al., 2015).
This entire chapter will focus on the religious motivations related to the
personal relationship with God that is typical of monotheistic religious
traditions, and belonging to any believer in the existence of one personal
God who created man out of divine Love. This is why I subtitled this chap-
ter Human longing for God’s Love.
Non-religious spiritualities share a commonality with religious spirituali-
ties in that they consider spiritual goods intangible; things such as wisdom,
peace and joy are immaterial. They are universal spiritual values or human
aspirations that are shared by non-religious and religious spiritualities that
could belong either to the natural ethical realm or to a higher spiritual one.
Nevertheless, for those who believe in God, in a personal God, it is still
possible to talk about another kind of motivation: the religious motivation.
What I argue in this chapter is that religious motivations are one of the
most common manifestations of the universal human longing for Love. But,
while this longing for Love seems to be universal, it is also true that not
everybody believes in the existence of a God who is Love, a God that, for
believers, is the answer to that universal yearning for Love, an idea that
St Augustine graphically expressed in his famous sentence, “Because you
have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest
in Thee” (Augustine, 1961, n. 1).
The truth is that half of the world’s population believes in this God and
the other half does not, which is likely also the case for my students. Maslow
accepted the idea of spiritual motivations as well as the religious, but was
he a believer?
We can say for certain that Maslow included religion among “the spir-
itual life (the contemplative, religious, philosophical, or value-life)” that,
for him, “is within the jurisdiction of human thought and is attainable in
principle by man’s own efforts” (Maslow, 1971, p. 312). However, what
I describe here as religious motivations, Maslow would have included just
among the realm of spiritual motivations, without distinguishing between
religious or non-religious, believers and non-believers in God.
As Maslow himself recognised in his posthumous book, he abandoned his
religious faith when he was young. “The form of religion that was offered
to me as a child seemed so ludicrous that I abandoned all interest in religion
and experienced no desire to ‘find God’. Yet my religious friends, at least
those who had gotten beyond the peasants’ view of God as having a skin
and beard, talk about God the way I talk about B-Values. The questions that
theologians consider of prime importance nowadays are questions such as
the meaning of the universe, and whether or not the universe has a direction.
The search for perfection, the discovery of adherence to values is the essence
of the religious tradition” (Maslow, 1971, p. 187).
As we can see, Maslow would not deny the existence of a religious moti-
vation, but most probably for him it would be just another kind of spir-
itual motivation. In some sense, this is actually true. While not all spiritual
motivations are religious, because there are millions of people who believe
in spirituality but not in God, each religious motivation, understood as
that of a personal relationship with God, is of a spiritual nature. Religious
motivations are therefore a kind of spiritual motivation that explicitly rec-
ognise the existence of one personal God who revealed Himself to man, as
the Creator of Heaven and Earth.
It seems that Maslow did not have these religious motivations himself.
His personal view of the world, at the end of his life, was markedly Taoist,
as much of his latest book reflects. He had faith, but not in God. There is no
doubt that even a Taoist religious spirituality requires a kind of naturalist
nontheistic faith. When things cannot be explained, then you trust fate. As
he himself argued, faith then consists of a “willing and eager surrender, or
yielding to fate and happily embracing it at the same time” (Maslow, 1971,
p. 293).
Faith is believing in a kind of truth that surpasses human reason but is not
irrational. The deepest human questions, related to the meaning of life, are a
source of personal motivation, and they all belong to the realm of faith. For
instance, it is not irrational to believe that one day we will see our deceased
beloved ones again. This is a longing shared by millions of human beings,
but it is also a mystery that can be true or false, a matter of faith.
There must be a truth about all the spiritual goods that are yearned by the
human spirit, even for those coming from above, belonging to the mysteri-
ous higher spiritual realm, one that, for believers, has a divine content, a
supernatural meaning. If these spiritual longings affect man’s deepest moti-
vations, it is because people believe them to be true. For believers, they are
not mere dreams or the creations of children, fruits of human imagination
or sentimentality. If that were the case, they would not become sources of
the highest meaning in life, as they are for millions of people.
As we discussed in Chapter 5, the domain of faith is related to the things
that are unknown, the mysteries of human life, and this realm is reasonable.
Faith is not irrational, it is suprarational in the sense that the objects of
faith, the realm of spiritual goods, exceed the human capacity for under-
standing, and accessing these mysteries involves taking a leap of faith, of
accepting as true what cannot be demonstrated.
This is why we added this dimension to our map of motivations and
why the declaration of human rights insists on the importance of respecting
freedom of belief and religious freedom. Furthermore, this is also why the
dialogue between faith and reason, as well as among all religions, is key.
There are spiritualities that believe in God and spiritualities that do not.
Without entering into any theological debate, which is not the purpose of
this book, religions that believe in God are clearly different from those that
do not. Of course, most human beings would agree that there are spiritual
goods, but not all would agree that these goods or gifts come from God, a
divine Giver and Lover.
I remember a student who told me that he was spiritual but not religious.
He told me that he believed in the spiritual soul, to which I replied that that
soul must have a spiritual origin, a spiritual donor, and that donor is the
one that even philosophers describe as God. This student said that this was
one of the most compelling arguments he had ever heard for the existence of
God, something I had never thought of myself. In the end, this student was
more religious than he thought.
In other words, for believers, there are spiritual goods whose origin and
nature are divine, they are supernatural goods coming from God (like the
human soul and other divine graces or gifts), whereas, for non-believers, the
spiritual goods would belong to a natural order, one of the highest moral
value but not divine or supernatural. We might all accept that we are “spirit-
ual” beings, but we do not all agree that we can also be “divine” beings, shar-
ing God’s supernatural spiritual life and Love, as monotheist religions do.
As Professor Peter Kreeft says, we “moderns” tend to feel that it is
“narrow-minded” to claim that one religion must be wrong and another
right, even if the two contradict each other. However, if two religions say the
opposite regarding, for example, the existence of God and its nature, only
one can be true. In other words, if God exists and is Love, not all religions
are the same because not all religions defend this position (Kreeft, 2004).
To sum up, it makes sense to talk about the spiritual motivations because
the majority of human beings believe in the spiritual dimension of human
nature. However, it also makes sense to talk about religious motivations
as a specific kind of spiritual motivations for those who believe in a higher
spiritual being, a God capable of having a personal, loving relationship with
mankind, which is the case of the three main monotheist religions. Let us
stop now to reflect for a moment on these religious motivations and their
place in our map of motivations.
Religious motivations: Discovering God’s Love

I normally do not talk about Maslow’s own spiritual motivations, as I just
did in the previous section. Nor do I talk about my personal beliefs. How-
ever, it is also true that once I present the entire map of motivations in
classes and seminars, it is not uncommon for one or more students or par-
ticipants to approach me and ask about my own religious beliefs.
I have no problem answering people’s direct questions about my own reli-
gious background. I am a Catholic, a Christian who believes in a God who
is Love (1 John 4:8), but I do not normally mention this during my presen-
tations out of respect for others. Nevertheless, now that I am writing this
book, I think that sharing my own theological background and my religious
personal experience is the most honest thing to do.
It is up to each believer in God, as well as each non-believer, to seek the
final truth about God. In this sense, I want to emphasise that this book is
not just about Christian motivations or any other specific religious motiva-
tions but is an inclusive view of all human motivations. I will therefore leave
theological discussions to experts in theology and comparative religions.
In regard to the purpose of this book, in this chapter I will focus my
interest on what is common to Muslims, Christians and Jews: the belief
in the same one God and the human capacity to have a personal, loving
relationship with Him, a relationship (of a religious nature) that, as we will
see throughout this chapter, leads to the desire to serve, please, adore and
praise Him.
To non-believers, this type of motivation may no doubt sound strange,
or at least unfamiliar and distant. If only out of curiosity, I suggest non-
believers and believers continue to read this chapter with a sincere positive
critical spirit. As the “logic of love” is something universal, perhaps the use
of this logic can help give non-believers and believers of different religions a
better understanding of human religious motivations.
I found the findings of a recent comparative study about the three mono-
theist religions fascinating.3 The authors explain that Judaism, Christian-
ity, and Islam acknowledge Abraham as a common father and Moses as a
genuine transmitter of their moral laws and values to their own prophetic
traditions. The three faiths agree on specific laws initially provided to Noah
by God – the Noahide Code – which include the belief in One Creator (God)
and respect and reverence for Him by not blaspheming His name (Cowen,
2013).
It is promising that some Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders sought to
find common ground in monotheists’ moral, spiritual and religious goods. It
is clear that at the heart of the commonality shared by the Abrahamic faiths
is the idea of monotheism and of a God who took the initiative, out of Love,
to reveal Himself to mankind. What I find really interesting here, however,
is the dialogue among believers that share the same religious motivations.
As I mentioned in the previous section, it was my atheist friend at the
IHMA who most helped me understand the importance of dialogue between
believers and non-believers but also between believers in the same God.
Only through sincere dialogue can we understand other people’s motiva-
tions, even those we ourselves do not have. For this reason, I would like to
continue this dialogue between psychologist, sociologist, philosopher and
also theologian using a common language and a common rationality: the
language of human love, or what I will keep calling from now on the “logic
of love”.
My personal experience for years has always been the same. The best
way to explain religious motivations, even to those who do not believe in
God, is through this logic of love, which I believe to be the main driver of all
human motivations, as I will discuss in more depth in Chapter 7. I explain
that religious motivation consists of the human correspondence to the Love
of God, for those who believe in Him. Because this occurs within a personal
relationship, the deepest source of this motivation comes from the personal
discovery of God’s Love for each person.
Of course, it is always possible to find people who claim to be religious
but whose motivations are not out of love for God. Among other reasons,
people can practice religion out of cultural or social customs, to look good
in front of others, out of routine, duty or even out of fear of God, but not
out of love for Him. If that were the case, when the response to God’s Love
is missing, something is wrong with those religious motivations.
It is true that not everyone understands religious motivations as a
response to God’s Love, not even all religious people. This is why it is
so relevant to define the meaning of religious motivations. Strictly speak-
ing, looking good, routine, fear, etc. do not seem to be genuine religious
motivations. In fact, they don’t sound very religious, pious, devoted, holy
or even spiritual. They seem to be some other type of motivation, some of
which we have seen before on our map. It seems clear, though, that they
do not correspond to the Love of God that I describe here as religious
motivations.
That God is Love is a distinctively monotheist biblical concept, which is
missing in most other religions (Kreeft, 2004). Therefore, this is a concep-
tion of the three main monotheist religions. What I defend here is that the
concept of religious motivation takes on its full meaning when understood
as the loving personal response of mankind to the Love of its Creator.
Anyone who has been in love, and has had this love reciprocated, knows
what it means to discover that someone loves you. This may not sound like
a very academic argument, but there is nothing as real as human love. Who
can deny that love is a source of motivation, indeed, the source of motiva-
tion? Love is the kind of motivation that gives meaning to human life. When
you discover that someone truly loves you, a person that only cares about
your good, it is unlikely that you will remain indifferent.
Just think about the millions of novels, poems and song lyrics describing
human love. When someone loves you, that person wants all kinds of good
for you, wants you to be the happiest person in the world. When a believer
trusts in God’s own revelation and discovers that God truly loves each per-
son infinitely and unconditionally, that person can only reach the conclu-
sion that God wants the best for each one of us.
God creates each human being out of Love. God is convinced that the
world has become a special place because each person exists. A believer is
convinced that God said, “How good it is that you exist”, and He made it
happen. He created me. This is what believers accept to be true; not just a
philosophical truth, but the truth revealed by God Himself.
There are philosophers who sustain that God is a human creation, as is
the case for Nietzsche, but the majority agree the opposite to be true, that
humans are a creation of God. What believers believe is that it was God’s
initiative to create mankind and to reveal Himself to man, something that
most philosophers and theologians can only verify but not prove. In other
words, it is not irrational to believe that if God is omnipotent, the Almighty,
He alone could create each person out of Love, and with the desire to be
freely loved back by his creatures.
Again, all this remains a mystery, a matter of faith, and for those who
have faith, the discovery of God’s personal Love for them is what explains
religious motivations in their deepest sense. The desire of the human heart
to reciprocate the incredible Love of God for each person. This is how the
logic of love operates in the minds of believers – paying for love with love.
This is why religious motivation makes sense to millions of human beings.
It is a motivation that consists of a voluntary desire to return all good to
God, who most believers conceive as Goodness Himself, a conception that
conforms to the deepest philosophical definition of God as Truth, Beauty
and Good (with capital letters). The religious motivation would then con-
sist of the deep desire to return all love to Him who is understood as Love
Himself.
I am not talking about love in a purely poetic sense – and much less, an
erotic sense – as modern society does most of the time. Here, I am talk-
ing about love in its deepest and most philosophical sense. The desire for
the good of the beloved one (well wishing). This is what the logic of love
is about. It is a logic that, because it is universal, might allow a fruitful
dialogue between believers and non-believers, as we shall see in the next
section.
Religious motivations: It is all about love

I would like to show part of an email that I received recently from my athe-
ist friend. I think its content reflects the logic of love that I have just spoken
about very well. The subject of the email was, “love is the key”, and in the
message my friend wrote, “Hi – I just was asked a question – what do you
do every day that makes you unique. I had no problem answering. I try
to love. Love myself. Love my family. Love my friends and love everyone
I come into contact with. Everything I do is about promoting love. Stopping
bullying, it is about love. Humanistic management? It’s about love. Teach-
ing people humanistic philosophy – it’s about love. Everything – is about
love. It’s my core motivation for everything”.
She continued, “I feel like I’ve had an epiphany and you were the only
person – aside from my husband and son and mother and sister – who I felt
would really understand, so I wanted to share it with you. I hope you are
doing well and that we can chat soon”.
The last part of the message, that I’m not copying here, was about the way
she had decided to change her professional life. Her epiphany drove her to
a personal and professional conversion. Of course, I couldn’t wait to reply
to her and thank her for sharing her personal discovery about love being the
centrepiece of her motivations. I told her that I fully agreed with her.
Who was going to say to my atheist friend that she had reached the same
conclusion as Saint John of the Cross, one of the greatest theologians,
saints and mystics of the Christian tradition? Saint John once wrote that
“in the twilight of our lives, we will be judged on how we have loved”. It
sounds comforting to me to know that when we die, we will not be judged
on our accomplishments, our fame or our triumphs, only on what we have
loved.
Yes, my friend was right; I really understood her. What’s more is that
I think we understood each other, and very well. With that email, she sum-
marised the entire map of human motivations that I have been trying to
explain in this book. As we saw in previous chapters, human actions are
always purposeful; they have an aim, a goal, an intention or motive. We act
because we want to achieve something good, and since the desire for good
is the simplest definition of love, we can say that what usually drives us to
act is love.
We search for the things we love, those we consider good. Therefore, all
human motivations are summed up in one: the desire for good or, what
is the same, love. To be motivated in our lives in general, and specifically
in organisations, we need to make sure that we receive, achieve, give and
return love. This logic of love is always what is behind our motivations (see
Figure 6.1).
As Figure 6.1 shows, and in line with what my friend wrote, love sum-
marises all human motivations. What this map means is that the driver for
every single human behaviour is the desire to either be loved by others, love
ourselves, love others or, for those who believe in God, to love God back.
The map can be abbreviated to one single and simple idea: that we are
driven to act by the things we love.
Therefore, the more we love and feel loved, the greater our motivations
will be at work and in our lives. This is exactly the “epiphany” my atheist
friend had. Discovering the content of Figure 6.1 has also been one of those
Extrinsic Intrinsic Transcendent Religious

Motivation Motivation Motivation Motivation
Receiving Achieving Giving Returning


Moral
Good
Receive Achieve Give Return

moral good moral good moral good
Ethical Realm
Pleasant Love Love

Willingness
to receive
Willingness
to achieve
Love
Willingness
to give
Love
Psychological Realm
Relatedness, Affiliation,
A iliation, Esteem
Aff Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness, Care

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 6.1 Love as the summary of human motivations

“Aha!” moments for many of my students and a kind of personal epiphany
for a few of them, too.
We are motivated daily with our family, work and communities when
we know and feel that others care about us. They love us (first column of
our map), and they help us to love ourselves (second column). We are also
motivated by the chances we are given to care about others, to love them
(third column). Finally, for those who believe in God, they are driven by a
voluntary desire to match God’s Love with personal love, and this is what
religious motivation is about (see Figure 6.1).
Now, I know that my atheist friend understands what religious motiva-
tion means for me and for those who have it. For someone who has discov-
ered God’s Love, the natural reaction can only be to repay that Love with
love. This return of love to God is a voluntary decision that constitutes not
only an act of love but also an act of faith and hope.
As poetically expressed in the Book of Psalms, religious motivations are
the answers to the question “What shall I return to the LORD for all his
goodness to me?” (Psalm 116:12). The recognition of having received every
material and spiritual good from God, as a gift, leads those who believe
in Him to give all sort of goods back to Him: useful, pleasant, moral and
spiritual (see Figure 6.2). Religious motivation is therefore the human will-
ingness to return good to God: serving, pleasing, adoring and praising Him.
As Figure 6.2 shows, to consider these religious motivations in our map, a
new fourth column has been added. One could say that the fourth column is
a specific case of the third, the transcendent motivations of giving the good,



Moral
to receive to achieve to give Religious
Good moral good moral good moral good Motivations:
Ethical Realm
Willingness Willingness Willingness Willingness

Pleasant
to receive to achieve to give to
Good pleasant good pleasant good pleasant good to return
Psychological Realm
Relatedness, Affiliation, Esteem Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness, Care good to God

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 6.2 The religious human motivations

but instead of giving it to “the others”, this time it is given to “the Other”,
to God the Spirit, the Higher Being, who for believers is a personal God.
I recall now a comment that a professor from Seville (Spain) made to
me during a presentation I gave in that city. He told me that some people
worship ideas, feelings or even things (power, fame, money, sports, etc.).
He was asking me if I would include those objects of adoration among
the religious motivations in the fourth column. My answer was simple:
some people put things in the place of God, but for believers that would
be idolatry.
This is why this fourth column is so relevant. Religious motivations refer
to the return of love to God, a God who in the mind of believers is not a
thing, a feeling, or even an idea, but a person with whom it is possible to
have a personal relationship. As I said before, this is what the word religion
(religare) means. Therefore, believers worship a personal God who is Love,
not just the idea of Love. In other words, what believers believe is that God
is Love but not that love is God. This distinction may seem like semantics,
but it is not. If you say that love is God, you will worship love instead of
worshipping God (Kreeft, 2004).
This is another reason why adding a new fourth column leaves no room
for confusion. Through the logic of love, a love among persons, it is possible
to better understand believers’ relationships with God. At the end of the
day, believing in God’s existence and Love means trusting His own revela-
tion and deciding to love Him back with the help of His own graces and
gifts. This loving God back, returning love to Him, is the content of the
fourth column, the meaning of religious motivation.
Adding religious motivations to the map favours the knowledge and
mutual respect between non-believers and believers. It makes their different
motivations clearer. Moreover, to ignore and exclude them would be unre-
alistic and render any systematic description of human motivations incom-
plete, non-inclusive and therefore inaccurate.
Let us now briefly review the types of religious motivations that can be
distinguished by following the logic of the map. We start with what I call the
religious useful motivation.
Religious useful motivation: Willing to return useful

good to God
While reviewing the materials I had for when I could write this book,
I recently came across an email from one of the attendees at a seminar on
human motivations in organisations that I taught in Valencia. In her mes-
sage, she was saying that, after having been away from God for years, she
had decided to return to her religious practice as a result of the discussion
during our seminar.
She explained that, while reflecting on her life during the session, she felt
as if she was living a kind of “schizophrenic” double life. On one hand, she
lived a competitive life during the week, ruled by the desire to receive and
achieve as much as possible at work. On the other hand, she lived a very
different kind of life on the weekend, guided mainly by the desire to do good
and share her life with her family and friends. In the past, she had also gone
to church, but lately her spiritual and religious life had somewhat cooled off.
She was convinced that this abandoning of her faith was the reason for that
schizophrenic double life and the lack of reflection.
As she explained, the hectic activity at work during the week and the need
to rest and be with others on the weekend had, little by little, extinguished
her interest in spiritual and religious matters. However, after listening about
the logic of love, she also had her epiphany, now followed by her conver-
sion, her resolution to match God’s Love, to be faithful to that Love, not
only on the weekend but throughout her life.
Of course, I’m grateful that the logic of this map helped this woman
better understand her own faith. This was not the only case where a reli-
gious person had told me how much the framework had helped them better
understand their own motivations. I’m grateful for the email she sent me,
though, as it is a great example of how the logic of love is key to properly
understanding religious motivations.
When this person stopped to reflect on how good God is to us, there was
a moment of awareness, an enlightenment. After this personal epiphany, the
next step in this logic of love was her conversion, as with my atheist friend.
This time, however, the conversion involved a desire to match the goodness
of God, an eagerness to be faithful to God’s Love, to do His will and keep
His commandments, out of love rather than fear or duty.
This is what happened to this woman. Her conversion involved this eager-
ness to be faithful to the Love of God. She wanted to answer His calling,
cooperate with Him, serve Him and be useful to Him through her human
actions. This is precisely what religious useful motivation is about – the vol-
untary desire or willingness to return the practical or useful good to God.
This involves the desire to discover God’s will and lovingly obey and fulfil
it by answering His calling and doing His will. This is the kind of motiva-
tion that appears at the bottom of the new column we added to our map of
motivations (see Figure 6.3).
As previously mentioned, not everyone sees religious practices and moti-
vations as a response to God’s Love. For some people, these motivations
could be seen as a response to justice and the power of God. In this case, the
reason for religious practices would be based more on fear or duty than on
love. In some of these cases, we would still be talking about religious moti-
vations, but in a negative or less positive sense.
As we will see in Chapter 7, the whole map of motivations can be inter-
preted positively, from the logic of love, or negatively, from the logic of fear
and duty, which exist in the absence of the former. However, what most
drives the human heart is love. Love is why so many religious people decide
to do missionary work. They are sure that it is God’s will for them, His



Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
to receive to achieve to give to return
Good
Physical Realm
useful good useful good useful good useful good
Sustenance, Safety, Support Competency, Mastery, Success Assistance, Help, Service Obedience, Assent, Fidelity
Figure 6.3 The religious useful motivations
calling. They want to be useful to God, to cooperate with Him, to answer

Him, to do His will.
As we can see, religious useful motivation will lead to discerning God’s
will and being useful to Him. To saying “Thy will be done” instead of “my
will be done”. To saying yes to God’s call. This ‘yes’ to God’s will, is a word
of love, and the whole secret of worship, sanctity, contemplation, happi-
ness, and peace for believers (Kreeft, 2004).
Within the logic of love, religious useful motivation leads believers to
see life as a personal response to the goodness of God with faith, hope and
love, trying to do his will, answer His universal calling to holiness and be
united with Him by fulfilling the specific mission He has for each person in
the world. In other words, every time God’s Love is personally discovered
by someone (an epiphany), the desire arises to faithfully match that love
(a conversion), leading to a response to God’s will as a personal calling (a
vocation). These are indeed acts of faith, hope and love.
Furthermore, when this religious useful motivation is authentically
human, this affirmative response of believers is not just a rational fulfilment
of God’s will but a sincere and joyful human response to the Love of God. It
is therefore a kind, affective and sensitive answer full of bliss and joy. This
sensitive desire of the human heart with the Love of God is what constitutes
the religious pleasant motivation (see Figure 6.4).



Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Good pleasant good pleasant good pleasant good pleasant good
Psychological Realm
Relatedness, Affiliation, Esteem Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness, Care Gratitude, Thanks, Appreciation

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 6.4 The religious pleasant motivations
Religious pleasant motivation: Willing to return pleasant

good to God
Religious pleasant motivation comes into play whenever religious motivation
is fully human, noble, affective and all heart, and mostly when God is per-
ceived not only as the Creator and the Almighty God but also as the One who
wants to be acknowledged as Father. This motivation constitutes a human
voluntary desire to return the pleasant good to God in order to be affectionate
with Him. The purpose of the human heart before God as Father is then one
of piety, appreciation, reparation, gratitude and thanksgiving. The human
heart wants to please God affectionately and lovingly (see Figure 6.4).
In fact, the presence of this motivation somehow implies the fulfilment
of the previous religious useful motivation while also being partly a conse-
quence of it. For a believer, knowing that one is freely doing the will of God,
who is a loving Father, leads to a kind of spiritual joy that drives the heart
to give thanks and maintain a desire to keep pleasing Him (see Figure 6.4).
This explains the presence in almost all religious traditions of music
through hymns, psalms and songs, often accompanied by musical instru-
ments. As the Psalm goes, “I will sing of the LORD’s great love for ever”
(Psalm 89:1). The joy of music is part of the movement of a grateful human
heart; it is part of the logic of love.
However, this grateful joy that is accompanied by music and celebra-
tion in front of the Giver of all goods is also compatible with believers’
recognition that God is God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Almighty.
This also explains the solemnity of sacred music and the gravity of the lit-
urgy in so many religious practices. I must say that my non-Catholic friends,
and even non-believers, are drawn to the beauty of the Catholic liturgy, as
I have witnessed many times.
Believers are aware that God is all-powerful, ineffable and mysterious,
and compared to Him, his creatures are worthless. Religious liturgy then
calls upon the help of sacred music, of singing and the voices of creation in
the sounds of instruments. Profound and true sacred liturgy is many times
recognisable because it is cosmic, it sings with the angelic spirits yet at the
same time is silent with the expectant depths of the universe (Ratzinger,
1997).
This explains the solemnity of music in the liturgy of so many religious
practices in the face of the mystery of divine, but it also explains the third
type of religious motivation: the religious moral motivation. The awareness
of the divinity and infinite power of God leads human beings who believe in
Him to prostrate themselves before their Creator, to adore Him as an act of
justice, as the right thing to do in front of Him. This is the religious moral
motivation.
Religious moral motivation: Willing to return moral

good to God
In addition to practicing God’s will and pleasing Him, a third kind of reli-
gious motivation can be described following the logic of our framework.
This motivation is part of the ethical realm. It refers to the reaction among
believers when they realise they are in front of a Supreme Being, the Creator
of Heaven and Earth. The ethical or moral response of creatures in front
of their Creator, as the right thing to do, is to recognise His grandeur and
divinity by worshipping Him.
Following the logic of our map of motivations, religious motivation refers
not only to the desire of believers to fulfil the will of God (returning useful
good) and to please Him (returning pleasant good) but also to the duty of
worshipping Him (returning moral good). It is the need to give back to God
what is just, the reverence and respect that He deserves. In this sense, the
religious moral motivation of believers can be described as the voluntary
desire to return to God the moral good that is due to Him: reverence, ven-
eration, worship and adoration (see Figure 6.5).
Adoration is the logical reaction of human beings when they perceive
themselves in front of something greater than themselves, something
mysterious and sacred. This is why this motivation is part of the sphere
of moral or ethical good. The most correct response to God by a believer
is to recognise His greatness, sacredness and divinity by worshipping
Him. This sacredness, godliness or holiness is universally recognised by
all who enter a sacred place, such as a synagogue, mosque, temple or
church.



Moral
Good moral good moral good moral good moral good
Ethical Realm
Reputation, Admiration, Respect Virtuousness, Excellence, Goodness Gentleness, Understanding, Good Reverence, Adoration, Worship

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 6.5 The religious moral motivations
This religious moral motivation constitutes human beings’ deeply felt

realisation of the smallness of all created reality in comparison to the Crea-
tor. As a consequence, it is also a manifestation of humility, of accepting
human personal smallness before the One who infinitely transcends every-
thing. That acceptance and the desire of recognition leads believers to this
attitude of adoration – the most fundamental attitude of religion – that
which consists of prayer and also sacrifice. The purpose of sacrifice is to
offer God something, in homage to Him and as an expression of gratitude
but also of interior surrender, obedience and respect to Him.
Even in the most ancient of religions, we can find glimpses and signs of
these religious devotions of prayer, thanksgiving, adoration and offering or
sacrifice. In the traditional religions of ancient Greece, Rome, Africa, Asia,
the Americas and elsewhere, the reverence of images or statues has been a
common practice, and cult images have carried different meanings and sig-
nificance (Halbertal et al., 1992).
In this context, the revelation of God in a historical moment to the Jewish
people is seen as an absolute change in man’s relationship with the Crea-
tor, a gift received from on high and which is accepted by a believer with
grateful acknowledgement and religious devotion. Therefore, faced with the
revealed Word of God, and in this context of trust in God’s revelation, only
these attitudes of appreciation, gratitude and adoration are befitting. More-
over, in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, the worship of something or some-
one other than God as if it or they were God is idolatry, the “worship of
false gods” (Doniger, 1999).
For believers, this attitude of adoration also belongs to the logic of love
when it is not just pure submission but loving respect. Believers kneel before
a personal God who took the initiative and revealed Himself as totally spir-
itual, sacred, transcendent, omnipotent and eternal – a God who decided to
create the world and its creatures, to approach them out of Love and with
Love.
Although I said a few paragraphs ago that the creature is worthless com-
pared to his Creator, this is not entirely true for believers. In reality, for
those who have faith, human creatures are worth a great deal because they
were created from nothing, in God’s own image, with an eternal soul. Man
is loved by God, who as a loving Creator desires to receive love from His
creatures as free beings, not as irrational animals, robots or slaves. The
Lover wants to be united with each soul here and now on Earth and later
for all eternity in Heaven.
The realisation of how much God loves each human being, and how He
loves them infinitely, leads believers to the desire to praise Him continu-
ously. That is what religious spiritual motivation refers to – the desire to
acclaim His glory. As we shall see, this fourth religious motivation – that
which synthesises and elevates all other religious motivations – is the most
preeminent human motivation, the motivation par excellence.
Religious spiritual motivation: Willing to return

the spiritual good to God
When I explain the map of human motivations in class and I reveal each
square of the map, the last one I mention is the upper right corner. When
I ask people to give me their definition of this religious spiritual motivation,
it is very easy for them to build it. By now, everyone has understood the
simple logic of each and every definition of this map.
Like all other motivations, this one is a voluntary desire or a willingness
to return (because we are on the fourth column of the grid) the spiritual
good (because we are on the fourth row). Therefore, religious spiritual moti-
vation refers to the willingness to return the spiritual good to God. But what
does this mean? Are the religious motivations not all spiritual?
Well, the answer is yes, but now, in addition to following the same logic as
the rest of the map when naming each motivation, I want to underline that
this is the highest human motivation, the most spiritual of all: to give back
to God His own good, the spiritual or supernatural good. For believers,
this is what He deserves the most, what is most appropriate for Him, even
though He Himself gave everything to us first.
In fact, this is when the logic of love manifests itself as a mystery, even
for believers, in their relationship with God, a mystery of love. To love God
as He deserves, God gives man His own Love, He raises mankind to the
supernatural plane. This is when human beings can then love perfectly, with
the Love of God. It is an incredible mystery; to love God, one needs the
gift of faith, hope and love that God Himself offers us. However, without
personal freedom, not all of this would work. This mysterious capacity for
man (finite) to enter in a personal relationship with God (infinite) is another
manifestation of the immense human dignity for believers.
When I ask my students for a single word that summarises or synthesises
the full meaning of this definition of religious spiritual motivations, almost
none of them can think of a definitive answer. I fully understand that it is not
a concept that arises spontaneously. It took a long time for my colleagues
and I to understand what the upper square of this framework contained, but
the truth is that once it was discovered, it made complete sense.
The word I was expecting students to say was “glory”. In the context of
faith, giving glory means paying back with praise all the good received from
God, who deserves all the tribute and honour. According to most theologi-
ans, this is what the angels are doing in Heaven, giving glory to God. It is
therefore the highest possible human motivation as spiritual beings. In other
words, the religious spiritual motivation is giving back glory to the One who
is Glory Himself and who wants to share His glory with His creatures, in
eternity (see Figure 6.6).
It is interesting to note that the word “glory” is one of the most used and
heard in the prayers of the three monotheist religions. The word, from the
Latin gloria, mean “fame, renowned” and is used 148 times in the Bible
(Isaacs, 2010). In Christian tradition, as in Judaism, to glorify Him means
to acknowledge the greatness and splendour of His majesty through praise
of which He alone is worthy because He is God of all.
Muslims use the term Subhanallah – also known as Subhan Allah – which
could be translated as “God is perfect” or “glory to God”. Subhanallah can

Spiritual Willingness Willingness Willingness Willingness

Good to receive to achieve to give to return
Higher Spiritual spiritual good spiritual good spiritual good spiritual good
Realm Gift, Present, Grace Sanctity, Blessedness, Holiness Sanctification, Salvation, Blessing Praise, Acclamation, Glory

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 6.6 The religious spiritual motivations

also mean, “May Allah be raised” or “May Allah be free of any deficiency”.
In Islamic tradition, it is often used when praising God or exclaiming awe of
His attributes, bounties or creation (Huda, 2019).
To give glory to God, to glorify Him, is a kind of motivation that is pre-
sent in practically every religious theistic tradition, and, as in the case of the
other religious motivations, human beings are unique in this possibility of
voluntarily giving glory to their Creator. Only rational creatures can glorify
their God directly, for they alone can know, or at least have a glimpse of His
infinite grandeur, and be led to praise Him and to efface themselves before
Him in loving subjection (Martínez, 2000).
The noblest religious motivation for believers consists then of perceiv-
ing that the main purpose of human life should be to give all the glory to
God rather than to personal vainglory or self-glorification. In this way, life
acquires a meaning that transcends the terrain.
Believers recognise that God is their Creator by serving, pleasing, wor-
shipping and praising Him. Furthermore, in case there is any doubt that
each person is not only looking out for themselves in their actions, there
remains the possibility of frequently rectifying the intention by redirecting
all the glory to God (see Figure 6.6).
Believers are convinced that everything created is the fruit of God’s Love
(cf. Gen. 1) and that God created each one of us because He loves us deeply.
Then, it makes sense that the creature has a desire to recognise and pro-
claim God’s grandeur and infinite goodness, and, paradoxically, the believer
wants to return everything to Him out of love, everything meaning all the
goods already received from God Himself (see Figure 6.6).
Within the logic of love, which is common to believers and non-believers,
it seems easier to understand this kind of spiritual motivation, although,
strictly speaking, it is really impossible to understand it because it is a mys-
tery even for believers; it is a mystery of Love and, as such, requires faith.
It makes sense that when you love someone you only say good things
about that person. Lovers would spend all day singing about their love, and
they would like to spend their entire life telling their beloved how much they
love them and how much they are worth. This is precisely what it means to
give glory to God – sing His wonders, proclaim His greatness to the entire
world.
As shown, the fourth column of the map includes all those motivations
that, being spiritual, are related to returning all goods to God, in the context
of a personal relationship with Him. In reality, among those who have faith
in God, this relationship would include returning those goods but also ask-
ing for them, achieving them and sharing them with others. In other words,
as I said earlier, all religious motivations are spiritual, but for believers, all
spiritual motivations are also religious. They are part of the religious per-
sonal relationship with God.
Besides, this relationship of asking, receiving and returning goods to God
is precisely the meaning of prayer in every religious tradition. Prayer of
petition, as well as prayer of giving, is part of mankind’s universal religious
experience. The content of prayer, of human dialogue with a personal God,
includes all these kinds of motivations: asking for material things and grace
or for mercy and pardon, as well as giving material things and thanks, or
adoration and glory.
Everything I have just described makes sense from a purely theoretical
point of view. At least, this is what my atheist friends tell me when I explain
these religious motivations to them. However, understanding religious moti-
vations does not mean having them; as I said, they are a gift that, as such,
has to be asked for, received and joyfully shared.
Only those who have experienced the religious motivations can say if this
explanation is truly accurate enough because, at the end of the day, religion
is not just something theoretical; it is a personal relationship of love with
God. Therefore, every religious practice for believers constitutes a loving
encounter – of the friend with his best Friend, of the brother with his loved
Brother, the son with his loved Father. What seems clear is that everyone,
believers and non-believers alike, appreciates that we have reflected together
on these motivations from the logic of love.
We will return to these ideas in Chapter 7, where I will try to delve into
the logic of love in this map to be better able to use it. In Chapter 8, we will
reflect on how all of these motivations are connected to human work in
organisations. Now, and to finish the presentation of the map, let us have a
look at some evidence of these religious motivations.
Evidence of religious motivations

As in the previous chapter, I cannot give many examples of religious moti-
vations from my undergraduate students. Out of respect, I never ask them
about these issues directly. I just explain the logic of this taxonomy of human
motivations to them and the map that emerges from this classification.
It is true, however, that once all the possibilities have been shown, includ-
ing the moral, spiritual and religious motivations, some students and par-
ticipants in the seminars approach me when I finish. Some of them ask me
about my own religious beliefs, others share their beliefs with me and tell
me how they could better understand their own motivations, but the truth
is that I never ask first.
I think this map is ideal for personal examination and not so much for
commenting on its individual content in public because it is very personal.
Nevertheless, in recent years, I have received feedback from some students
and many young professionals who have told me about their own motiva-
tions during their mentoring sessions. There are all kinds of spiritual and
religious traditions represented among them. Figure 6.7 includes some
examples of these religious motivations.
Among the religious motivations related to daily work, students and oth-
ers tend to mention their desire to comply with the commands of God’s law

- To start working at my best to

Spiritual glorify God
- To think about Him and stop
Good centring on my own vainglory
Higher Spiritual - To rectify my intention to do
Realm everything mainly for Him and for His
glory, not mine
- To offer the hours of work to God

Moral - To present God with everything I
Good do, detaching me from it
- To give God the difficulties of the
Ethical Realm
day as little sacrifices
- To please God with everything I

Pleasant do
- To give thanks to God for all the
Good gifts I have received from Him
Psychological Realm - To be thankful to God for all the
opportunities He gives me
- To serve God through my work

and life
Useful - To comply with God’s commands
Good in all my deeds
Physical Realm - To look for the will of God in
everything I do
Figure 6.7 Examples of the religious motivations
in their daily deeds. Some of them go further and explain that they try to
find out the will of God for them to fulfil it. For others, their ordinary work
and life are seen as occasions to serve God. All these reasons fit within the
category of the religious useful motivations, those related to the desire to
fulfil the will of God, to answer His calling.
In addition, when believers talk about their relationship with God,
some have the sense that they are pleasing God with their lives, or at least
they are trying to do so, and they feel thankful for all the gifts they have
received from Him. More so, some of them frequently give thanks to God
for the opportunities He keeps giving them. These are all examples of reli-
gious pleasant motivations, those related to the desire to please God for
all His gifts.
In all these cases, you can appreciate how these motivations affect the
positive meaning these people give to their lives and work and the optimism
with which they live their lives in general. Moreover, among the most reli-
gious people that I have met over the years in my mentoring meetings are
those who regularly offer their work and their daily activities to God. They
see their ordinary lives as occasions to venerate and adore God.
For those more religious people, some see the little difficulties and chal-
lenges of their daily circumstances as opportunities to offer them to God as
small sacrifices. These are all clear examples of religious moral motivations,
those related to returning to God the respect that He deserves in the form of
sacrifice and self-offering.
What you can see with these people with greater religious sensitivity is
that they are motivated by a higher religious spiritual purpose, the one of
giving glory to God in everything they do. They frequently try to rectify
their intention during the day in order to work and live for the purpose of
giving glory to God. These kinds of religious motivations may only be found
in people with a strong spiritual background and a deep faith, at least that
has been my experience.
Obviously, this is not the case for most of those I mentor. Many have
no religious background at all, and if they have it, and declare themselves
believers in God, they recognise that they do not fully put their faith into
practice. They agree that they barely reflect on the idea of God being part of
their daily work or life.
Likewise, it is also striking that the devout believers I mentioned before
are the type of people who are usually more interested in delving even
deeper into this map of motivations. In fact, most of the students and young
professionals who knock on my door to talk about motivations or to engage
in mentoring sessions after attending a seminar are people who want to
change the “schizophrenic” way they live or deepen their faith. This was
the case of the person I mentioned earlier in this chapter who sent me that
email after the seminar explaining that she had decided to go back to her
religious practice.
This person, as a practicing Catholic, used to pray, study Christian doc-
trine and attend Mass frequently, but as she explained in her note, the excess
of work-life and the interest for other lower-level extrinsic and intrinsic
motivations, led her to abandon her relationship with God and her religious
practices. Only after reflecting upon the map of human motivations did she
decide to return to that relationship again.
On a personal level, this woman helped me a lot. First, because she had no
problem telling me about her decision to return to her religious practice. Sec-
ond, because she sincerely and humbly acknowledged that she had stopped
reflecting and praying more calmly, and third, because she also shared with
me that she felt great joy once she had decided to return to God. As I said
earlier, joy is contagious, and the higher the joy the more contagious it is.
Who can deny that the matters of spirituality and religion are universal
and that they impact on millions of lives? They are an essential component
of the entire spectrum of human motivations. This is the reason I decided
to include the fourth column referring to the religious domain in the map
of motivations.
When someone suggests that, in order to respect those who do not have
faith, I should not mention religious motivations, I explain repeatedly, as
I did in my first meeting at the IHMA in New York, that the case is just the
opposite. The only way to respect others is to be inclusive and take account
of believers and non-believers.
Next, in practical considerations, I will stress the importance of respect-
ing everyone’s freedom of belief. After all, without freedom, you cannot
love, and as I have wanted to show throughout this chapter using the logic
of love, religion is basically a matter of love of God.
Some practical tips

The first piece of practical advice one could think of regarding religious
motivations is probably the importance of freedom of belief and freedom
of religion and religious practice. Every single human being should have the
right to choose their spiritual and religious matters.
This is one of the most important decisions we as human beings should
be able to make. We all have the ability to want the good and to choose it.
This is what freedom is all about. We all want to make the right choices; we
all want to engage in the true good, and therefore we should be allowed to
look for it.
Given that spiritual and religious motivations belong to the domain of
faith, and of truths that cannot or need not be proved, (1) we must make
sure that we always respect others’ freedom, and more so, that we really
care about every person’s freedom of everything, including matters of reli-
gion. This means acknowledging that they are the masters of their own
actions and are responsible for them and that they are able to direct their
own personal lives.
In the same vein, and for the same reason that we must respect the free-
dom of others, (2) we should be able to exercise our own freedom in our
own decisions, including our religious choices. At the end of the day, we all
have to take the “risk” of putting our freedom into practice that, in matters
of faith, means deciding in whom we trust regarding religious beliefs.
In my case, I trusted my parents for years in matters of faith; then, when
I was an adolescent, I had my own “crisis”. You don’t want to believe some-
thing because everyone believes it. Furthermore, believing in matters of reli-
gion means seeking the truth about the question of God, but it has also
moral consequences; you want to be a good son of such an amazing Father.
I finally decided to trust Him, as my parents had. However, the risk and
responsibility of being a believer or not will always be mine.
This is the grandeur of the human soul, the ability to freely and responsi-
bly look for the true goods and to choose them but also to reject them. Here,
I recall the comment of a manager attending one of my presentations who,
at the end of the session said, “Do you realise that the map of motivations
you just presented can help people to be more free?”
I was shocked by the comment, but I guess he was right. The more we
know about the good, and the kinds of goods we can choose, the better we
can use our freedom. The phrase “the truth will set you free” really makes
perfect sense. A third practical piece of advice would therefore be that, in
order to be more free, (3) we should make sure that we spend time reflecting
on our motivations, on the good we normally search for, including that of
the spiritual and religious orders.
Of course, the clearest manifestation of the use of freedom on the reli-
gious level is the ability of human beings to pray. Along with the importance
of finding time to reflect on our highest motivations, (4) it is vital for those
who have faith to find time for prayer, time for conversation with God, time
for speaking, time for listening, time for silence. In short, time for personal
encounters.
As we have seen, freedom is related to the search for the truth and the
good, the human true good, a universal aspiration that deserves to be
respected, encouraged and protected, especially in matters of spirituality
and religion. Moreover, together with truth and goodness, there is still a
third longing of all human aspiration that was briefly mentioned throughout
this chapter: the Beauty.
This third classic transcendental is also considered an essential quality
of God for philosophers (believers and non-believers): the Truth, the Good
and the Beauty. When my atheist friends ask me how to better interpret this
chapter on religious motivations if you do not believe in God, I recommend
they think in terms of Truth, Good and Beauty because God is all that. More
so, I keep reminding them that because God is Love, He shows His Love for
mankind with the beauty of His creation.
Contemplation of the beauty in the world has been the path for many
to find their spirituality, as well as for many others to find God through
the beauty of His creation. Unfortunately, in an increasingly mercantilist
and technological world, the role of beauty in accessing the truth and the
good has been marginalised, as the well-known Harvard professor Howard
Gardner explained in one of his latest books (Gardner, 2012). We should
not forget the phrase by Fyodor Dostoevsky: “Beauty will save the world”.
Spirituality and religion are inseparable from artistic beauty. They are
among the few walls of contention that prevent everything from being
reduced exclusively to interest in material goods and physical pleasure,
which are the lowest kinds of good in our map and the ones that prevail in
most workplaces today. Contemplation belongs to the entirety of humanity,
including believers and non-believers.
Therefore, (5) contemplation must not be lost, not even in our work, if we
want it to remain human. We should be able to discover that there is always
something “divine” in a job well done. In a job done for love, believers can
discover God (who is Love). For those who don’t believe in God, love at
work offers glimpses of the Goodness, Truth, and Beauty belonging to the
God of believers.
Contemplation of God is synonymous with contemplation of the good,
the truth and the beauty. Therefore, for those who do not believe in God,
the following final questions can be read by substituting these words. Let us
consider if we are contemplative in our life and in our work. Let us think
about it. Let us stop and reflect about how often the logic of love is part
of our work. In other words, let us consider how often we contemplate the
truth, good and beauty of our daily life and work. For believers, they are
manifestations of God’s Love, and for everybody, they are expressions of
the highest dignity of human work.

1 How often do I think about the good, the truth and the beauty of the
world, about God’s Love for me?
2 How often do I give thanks for the goodness and beauty of the world,
and for all the gifts God gives me?
3 How often do I see my life and my work as opportunities to promote
the good, the truth and the beauty around me, to cooperate with God’s
creation?
4 How often do I try to do all my deeds and my work well to please God,
and not just for myself or others?
5 How often do I see my life and my work as occasions to serve others
and to serve God, to do His will?
6 How often do I think that my work has a transcendent meaning, that it
matters to God, who loves me and cares about all the things I do?
7 How often do I do things intending to praise and give glory to God and
not looking just for my own glory?
8 How often do I see difficulties in my work as opportunities to sacrifice
myself and to give them to God as small offerings or tributes of love?
9 How often do I think about my ordinary life and my work as opportu-
nities to love God, others and myself?
10 How often do I offer my work to God as an act of love, a tribute or
sacrifice for Him?
A final critical thought on why having a map is not enough

To conclude this chapter, I recall the comment of a graduate student who
attended one of my seminars. He told me at the end of the session that he
liked the map of motivations a lot but that he also perceived it as “too ide-
alistic”. He could not think of many people who would be driven by each of
the motivations displayed in the entire map. Moreover, he said that he could
not think of any organisation that tries to promote these moral, spiritual or
religious motivations.
I really appreciate the honesty of young people like this student. He
was quite right. The map of motivations can be characterised as idealistic
because it includes all the human ideals. At the same time, though, I think
this student was not representative of the majority of my students. Most of
those to whom I have taught this theory loved it. I think that this is because
the theory is idealistic and they are also idealistic.
What makes this map of motivations new for many people is that
it includes all the ideals of the human spirit. However, the truth is that,
nowadays, not many talk about all the motivations included on our map,
and many fewer in the context of the workplace and organisations. Is this
because we do not have ideals? Or is this because we do not bring them to
our workplaces? Are we bringing all our motivations, all our ideals to our
work? Is that not a problem of motivation in organisations?
To answer these questions, the third part of the book focuses on using this
map of motivations to help us to better understand our motivations at work
and to find higher meaningful work. To do this, I will explain why having
a map is not enough. We should know how to interpret the coordinates of
the map (Chapter 7) and then have a compass (Chapter 8) and a roadmap
(Chapter 9). In other words, I will try to show how this theory of motiva-
tions can help in this journey in which we are all immersed in the search for
a meaningful work-life balance.
Notes
1 Humanistic management differs from traditional, mechanistic, or economistic
practices in that humans in organisations are seen as more than resources, stake-
holders, assets or capital. Human beings are conceived as the means and ends, and
the purpose of management is therefore to serve human flourishing in addition
to wealth creation. To know more about IHMA you can visit its website: http://
humanisticmanagement.international/
2 The person with whom I had that heated discussion when I first met her at the
IHMA meeting is Jennifer Hancock, a member of the board of the Association.
I have her permission to mention her in this chapter. I want to thank her again for
helping me with this chapter and for teaching me how to use a more inclusive and
universal language when talking about religious motivations.
3 This research project was primarily funded by the Attorney General of Australia
and sets forth the common values on which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
agree. Three prominent theologians, one from each of the faiths, cooperated to
publish this ground-breaking document. According to the authors, the shared val-
ues of these three Abrahamic religions are the “moral rules by which Abraham
lived before these religions developed” (Cowen, 2013).
References
Augustine, S. (1961). Confessions. Harmondsworth Middlesex, England: Penguin
Books.
Cowen, S. D. (Ed.) (2013). An Education in a Shared Ethic: Common Values of
Judaism, Christianity and Islam. East S. Kilda, VIC: Institute for Judaism and
Civilization Inc.
Doniger, W. (1999). Merriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions. New
York: Merriam-Webster, p. 497.
Gardner, H. (2012). Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed. New York: Basic Books.
Halbertal, M., Margalit, A. & Goldblum, N. (1992). Idolatry. Harvard University
Press, 1–8, 85–86, 146–148.
Huda. (2019). The definition and purpose of the Muslim word ‘subhanallah’. Learn
Religions. www.learnreligions.com/islamic-phrases-subhanallah-2004290.
Isaacs, R. D. (2010). Talking with God: The Radioactive Ark of the Testimony.
Chicago: Sacred Closet Books.
Kreeft, P. (2004). The God Who Loves You. Love Divine, All Loves Excelling. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press.
Martínez, L. M. (2000). True Devotion To The Holy Spirit. Manchester, NH: Sophia
Institute Press.
Ratzinger, J. C. (1997). A New Song for the Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today.
New York: Crossroads.
Part III
Using the map

of motivations
Towards higher meaningful work
7 The map coordinates
for motivations
The logic of love
in organisations
The logic of love in life and work

On my arrival in Boston in March 2020, I had to go through customs con-
trol, as usual. A customs officer asked me why I was coming to the United
States, and my answer was simple. I was there to finish writing this book as a
visiting researcher at Harvard. He then asked me what the book was about,
so I told him that the book was about motivations in organisations and the
search for a meaningful work-life balance. To my surprise, he started to give
me his opinion about it.
He told me, “I personally think that you are motivated in your work
when you love what you do”. I replied that that was the main premise of
the book. He continued, “In my case, I am happy. My work is sometimes
repetitive, but it is well paid, I have good holiday time, and time to be at
home with the family”. I told him that was the main question posed by the
book, and it seems that he had it well resolved.
He kept saying, “Well, I’m lucky, but what about those who don’t love
their job?” I agree that this is the case for many people nowadays. Ideally,
everybody should learn to love their work, whatever the job. I told him that
being motivated is about finding reasons to love our work. He then said,
“Well, good luck; it doesn’t seem like an easy task”, and added, “But in any
case, it seems a very interesting book”. He stamped my passport and let me
in, while greeting me with a smile on his face.
That was incredible. In under two minutes, this officer understood and
summarised the content of a book that I had been thinking about for more
than ten years. My initial reaction was disheartening; so much work to
explain something that is so evident, just common sense. Maybe it was not
worth finishing writing the book, I thought.
I then realised that I didn’t know of any academic book explaining that all
motivations at work can be summarised by a logic of love, and I concluded
that this book was worth finishing. The truth is that this brief conversation
on the border gave me doubts that anyone would be interested in publishing
this book.
150 Using the map of motivations
As the officer summed up brilliantly, we are motivated at work when
we love what we do. This was exactly the same idea that my atheist friend
shared with me not long ago in the email with her personal epiphany. The
simple clue that all human motivations are summed up in one word: love.
We are all driven to search for the things we love, those things we consider
good. As we discussed in previous chapters, the map of motivations is just
a snapshot of the whole spectrum of possibilities regarding human kinds of
good or motives for love (see Figure 7.1).
Each of the four columns on our map of human motivations corresponds
to four ways of looking for the good, or four ways of loving. We all aim
to be loved, to receive love from others in our lives and work (extrinsic
motivation). We also love what we do in our work, our activity and our-
selves (intrinsic motivation). Moreover, we are capable of loving others in
the workplace (transcendent motivation) and, in the case of believers, loving
God in the workplace (religious motivation) (see Figure 7.1).
Maybe some of you will think that this explicit mention of love in an
academic book is excessive or out of place. Talking about love in a scientific
context and in a textbook about human motivations in organisations may
seem not rigorous enough, or unscientific, in addition to being considered
too naive an approach. However, the more I give presentations about this
topic, the more I find that these ideas resonate with everyone in the audi-
ence, from professionals to students, irrespective of their age, country, race
or beliefs.
My sense is that when teaching or studying these issues in academic
contexts, we avoid the term “love” because it sounds too conventional,


r turn
re r
Want to be Want to Want to Want to
Moral Loved
Willingness LoveWillingness Love
Willingness Love
Willingness
r turn
re r
Good
Ethical Realm
moral good
Yourself
moral good
Virtuousness, Excellence, Goodness
Others
moral good
Gentleness, Understanding, Good
themoralOther
good
Reverence, Adoration, Worship

Pleasant
r turn
re r
Psychological Realm
A iliation, Esteem
Aff Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness, Care Gratitude, Thanks, Appreciation

Useful
r turn
re r
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 7.1 Love as the summary of human motivations in organisations

The map coordinates for motivations 151
commonplace or even banal and predictable. It might be seen as too
abstract, philosophical or hard to measure. Perhaps we just fear the disdain
and sarcasm that talking about this may bring. Of course, if you have MBA
students, competitive managers or businesspeople in your audience, then
irony, mockery and even cynicism are assured.
Although it may seem that talking about love as the engine of human
motivations is too naive, I am convinced that it is true. If we don’t talk about
the concept of love, I don’t think we’re talking about true human motiva-
tions at all. Unfortunately, I guess that in our desire to teach this subject in
an academic, technical or highly professional manner, we end up teaching
human motivations in a rather inhuman manner.
To put this simply, a professor who loves teaching, who loves the activity
of education itself, happens to be a good professor or teacher, and one who
is highly motivated, regardless of many other factors. Who can deny that
good teachers are those who love not just their work, the activity of teach-
ing, but also their students? Good teachers care about their students and
their good, and they want to be loved by them. At least, this has been my
own experience and that of most, if not all, of my colleagues.
I am convinced that the logic of love as the core to explaining human
motivations can be applied to any human activity, profession or job. A good
doctor, police officer, boss or leader is one who cares about people and,
because of that, is loved back and freely followed or obeyed, when required.
This may also apply to a good mother or father who cares for their children;
or to good friends, who care for those they love as friends.
As Aristotle elucidated many centuries ago, what motivates us is what we
love. We move, we are attracted or moved – from the Latin verb movere –
by the things we love. However, if this is true, why then is love not men-
tioned in the most recognised theories of motivation?
Why have we been teaching theories of motivation for decades without
talking about the logic of love? Even though this is an issue that goes beyond
the scope of this book, I consider that it needs to be addressed, albeit briefly.
The logic of love in the human sciences

As we saw in Chapter 3 – with the example of the brown bear – if we want
to understand the phenomenon of motivation, we first need to properly
understand the complexity of human reality. As we discussed at that time,
Aristotle was one of the first thinkers who studied this complexity of human
nature and its hierarchical order.
Starting from those philosophical reflections and in dialogue with other
thinkers, we were able to distinguish the four hierarchical levels of our map
of motivations: the physical, psychological, ethical and higher spiritual
realms, referring to the useful, pleasant, moral and spiritual goods.
Unfortunately, in today’s mainstream positivist view of the world, the
only authentic knowledge would be scientific knowledge. As a result, the
term “science” has been mainly employed as a synonym for empirical sci-
ence. For that reason, topics such as human motivations have been explained
exclusively in a scientific manner in schools and universities for decades. In
other words, the phenomenon of human motivation has been studied solely
from the perspective of the natural and social sciences, those considered
proper sciences in the strictest sense.
This positivist view of human knowledge has led to the elimination of the
findings of the humanities in explaining human phenomena (the classics,
languages, literature, music, philosophy, history, religion and the visual and
performing arts), something that is clearly appreciated in the case of the
study of motivation. None of the typical contributions of the humanities is
normally mentioned to explain human motivation.
As Figure 7.2 shows, the phenomenon of human motivation continues to
be described exclusively from the perspective of “scientific sciences”, includ-
ing formal and applied sciences, such as physics and mathematics, and the
natural and social sciences. This would explain why, as we saw in Chap-
ter 1, when it comes to explaining human motivations, most researchers and
teachers are still trapped in the lower-left quadrant (2x2) of our map. Main-
stream theories refer exclusively to the extrinsic and intrinsic motivations,
and only the physical and psychological or sociological realms are studied
because they are observable.
The positivist view of human knowledge reduces its purpose to an observ-
able reality, so only the findings of the empirical sciences are considered true.
This fragmented and reductive view of the knowledge of reality, including
the reality of human nature, calls all knowledge that is not material and

Spiritual Willingness Willingness Willingness Comparative

Willingness
Good to receive to achieve to give religions
to return
Realm Gift, Present, Grace Sanctity, Blessedness, Holiness Sanctification, Salvation, Blessing Theology
Praise, Acclamation, Glory

Philosophy Willingness
Moral
Ethical Realm
Anthropology
Gentleness, Understanding, Good Reverence, Adoration, Worship
Ethics
Pleasant Natural Sciences
Psychological Realm
Relatedness, Affiliation, Esteem Social Sciences
Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness, Care Gratitude, Thanks, Appreciation
Willingness
Applied sciences Willingness Willingness Willingness
Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Formal
Sustenance, Sciences
Safety, Support Competency, Mastery, Success Assistance, Help, Service Obedience, Assent, Fidelity
Figure 7.2 Disciplines involved in understanding human motivations

verifiable into question. Obviously, as Maslow himself acknowledged, the
very concept of human nature is then also questioned (Maslow, 1971).
According to this positivistic view of science, the findings from philoso-
phy, philosophical anthropology, and moral philosophy or ethics, among
other human disciplines, would be no more than interesting reflections on
human values, but not verifiable facts. From this perspective, it would make
no sense to talk about an objective ethical realm in human nature, and,
of course, theology would never achieve the status of a science and com-
parative religions would be reduced to sociological analysis. Clearly, this
explains the neglected moral, transcendent, spiritual and religious dimen-
sions of the theories of human motivation (Guillén et al., 2015).
Given that the findings of the humanities are outside the explanation of
human reality, then the term “love” itself, as well as the “logic of love”,
can only be considered as a non-scientific issue or, at least, as a pre-scientific
question. Furthermore, any humanistic management vision with its holistic
outlook, and the entire humanistic theory of motivations presented in this
book, would most probably be questioned or included among some pre-
scientific findings.
It seems then that writing about these issues is risky and puts you on the
edge of “science”. I still remember what my doctoral supervisor told me
many years ago. He said, “Whatever you decide to write and publish, it will
remain in writing forever, so be prudent”. I don’t know if I’m following that
advice right now, but given that I share the Aristotelian view of love being
the engine of human motivations, and because I consider management and
business organisation to be a human science, I decided to take the risk.
I understand the position of those who would rather take lesser risks in
this area of knowledge. Here, I suggest they use alternative words, such
as “care”, “attention”, “concern” or just “interest”, instead of love when
referring to this work. As long as we all understand the concept of motiva-
tion as the human voluntary desire for the good, the labels are relatively
unimportant, but I will continue to use logic of love and now analyse it in
the context of work in organisations.
The logic of love in human organisations

As this customs officer said in our brief conversation when I entered the
US, all motivations at work can be summed up in one word: love. The
entire rationality explaining our motivations in life and work could be sum-
marised in one expression: the logic of love. We are motivated in our jobs
whenever we follow this logic, and we consider we are receiving love when
putting love into what we do, when we love those we work with and, when
speaking of believers, we are returning love to God through our work (see
Figure 7.1).
The type of love we are talking about, however, and the way this logic
of love operates in our lives, the workplace and in organisations, is not
obvious. There are many types of love: the love of lovers, the love of par-
ents, that of children, of friends, colleagues, neighbours, etc. Obviously,
I am not talking about love in a romantic or family sense, as I said earlier.
Ordinarily, our colleagues at work are not our lovers, parents or siblings.
Rather, I am talking about the love of friendship, the kind of love that can be
part of all other types of love, a kind of love that contains all the ingredients
of the logic of love because it is one kind of human love.
Who can deny that the ideal work environment would be one in which
everyone would be a friend to everyone else? This is what most people mean
when they speak of a “friendly” work environment. Of course, this is not
always the case in real life, and anyone could argue that this is idealistic or
even impossible for some. The truth is, though, given the choice, everyone
would like to work in a friendly environment. Nobody likes to have enemies
at work. This is what the logic of love means in an organisational setting:
everyone cares about others’ good.
The same could be said of an ideal family. The perfect family would be
one in which all members would also be friends, just as the ideal community
would be one in which everyone was friends. In the context of human rela-
tionships, friendship is probably the kind of human love that best expresses
the human desire for the good of the other person, the friend in this case.
Friendship refers to the common interest in happiness and human growth,
as Aristotle was able to observe in his investigations of human nature (Nico-
machean Ethics 8.3, 1156b7–11).
Friendship is a kind of human relationship based on the logic of love
because it is a kind of love. It is driven by the reciprocal interest for the
good of the other, that which looks for the union of both friends. As I said,
while it is true that it is not possible to be friends with everyone, it is also
true that we all would desire to live and work in friendly environments,
those in which others care about us as human beings – not just as human
resources – and where there is unity. This is precisely what characterises
ethically healthy organisations, those that contribute to the human flourish-
ing of their members (Bañón et al., 2012).
Understanding what true friendship means can better explain what it
means to work in truly human or humanistic organisations, where everyone
cares about the common good. In other words, exploring what true friend-
ship looks like at work will help us better understand how the logic of love
operates in truly human organisations. Therefore, reflections on love and
friendship, as part of the humanities, can contribute to better understanding
motivation in organisations from a humanistic perspective.
As we saw in Chapter 2, according to the Aristotelian distinction, there
can be friends for three kinds of good – friends for pleasure, utility and
moral virtue or honour – but not all are true friends. If friendship is based
exclusively on utility or satisfaction, then it will only last until the relation-
ship stops being useful or satisfying, which is what normally happens in
many professional settings and relationships. For instance, just think about
how many of your former classmates or workmates are still your friends.
Our professional relationships are mostly based on the reciprocal interest
for utility and satisfaction, which is something good but also rather super-
ficial on many occasions, and not that different from the way other animals
organise themselves. True human relationships, based on a logic of love,
have the capacity to take the person as a whole into account and not just
exclusively as a resource or source of utility and satisfaction.
Aristotle believed that friends make us better people. Do our colleagues
at work make us better people? If friendship is truthful and looks for the
complete good of the entire person, it should make us and our friends better,
more virtuous people. Therefore, truly human organisations that are based
on this logic of love, caring for each person as a whole, should also make
their members better, more virtuous people (Bañón et al., 2012).
This idea fits perfectly with the concept of virtue provided some centuries
later by another classical philosopher, Augustine of Hippo. As in the case
of Aristotle, he also asserted that our loves are the fundamental driving
force of our wills, thoughts and actions. Following this same logic of love,
but without using this term, he defined virtue as ordo amoris, or the “order
of love”, which means that virtuous people are those who love everything
according to its proper value. They love what is worth being loved.
Therefore, friends love their friends for who they are, full of moral and
spiritual goodness, and not necessarily for what they have (useful or pleas-
ant goods). Because they love each other for their goodness, while loving the
whole of their friend, they love them because they are worth loving. We love
our true friends with their faults, although we would like to help them over-
come their failings; we want them to be better and happier, but we love them
the way they are, for being who they are, for their intrinsic moral and spir-
itual value. As a student once told me, that might be the reason why some
rich people don’t want to talk about their fortunes; they don’t want people
to love them because of what they have but because of who they really are.
In this sense, the more virtuous the friends, the more perfect the mutual
friendship among them will be because they will contribute to the good of
each other, not just in a more complete or integrative way but also in a more
orderly manner. In other words, any real friendship, and therefore any truly
human relationship that follows the same logic of love, entails an ordered
mutual love. Therefore, and for the same reason, in truly human organisa-
tions, interpersonal relationships are founded on a reciprocal interest for the
truly human good. It could be said that humanistic organisations are those
that habitually seek the common good, the common “true good” (which is
ordered).
Of course, the perfect humanistic organisation or excellent ethical organi-
sation does not exist in the real world because in ordinary organisations
neither people nor their actions and relationships are always perfect (Bañón
et al., 2012). Unfortunately, we human beings do not always follow the
logic of love, which would allow us to have perfect human relationships.
Nevertheless, perfection constitutes the model, the reference, and for that
reason, it becomes the ideal, the desire and the longing for an ideal human-
istic organisation.
As we discussed before, we are all driven by ideals, we all want to be
happy in our lives, and therefore in our human organisations. Who would
not desire to work in an ideal organisation, one that contributes to our hap-
piness? (Fisher, 2010). In the ideal organisation, all our motivations would
be fulfilled because we would be receiving, achieving, giving and return-
ing truly human good all the time. This is what the logic of love means in
human organisations (see Figure 7.3).
As Figure 7.3 shows, the map of motivations that we have built through-
out this book is actually a summary of what constitutes human happiness
within some of the most well-known philosophical classical traditions.1
Receiving, achieving, giving and returning the true good is the summary of
all the potential aspirations or motivations of human beings. We all need to
be loved, love ourselves, love others and return love to God (for believers),
and therein lies happiness.
What we are doing in this chapter is applying these ideas to better under-
stand what happiness at work means from a humanistic perspective. This is
a subject that has grown in interest and popularity recently (Fisher, 2010).
Therefore, in the following sections, we will study the coordinates for our
map of motivations so we can identify where north, south, east and west


r turn
re r

Truly Human
Willingness Truly Human
Willingness
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Good
to receive
moral good Good
to achieve
moral good Good
to give
moral good Good
to return
r turn
re r
moral good

Pleasant
r turn
re r
Psychological Realm
A iliation, Esteem

Useful
r turn
re r
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 7.3 The logic of love in human organisations

are, how the cardinal points are related and how far away each one is. In
other words, once you understand the internal logic of the map, the logic
of love in our case, you can better identify your position on the map. Let’s
start by reflecting on the first column of the map, the extrinsic motivations,
our need to receive love.
Receiving truly human good in organisations

We all were born with a need for love because we all were born needed. As
C. S. Lewis explains in his book The Four Loves, there is a kind of love that
he describes as the “love of necessity”, a spontaneous movement towards
the good that comes first. As he says, this is the kind of love that propels a
lonely, frightened child into its mother’s arms (Lewis, 1991). From the day
of our birth until the day we leave this world, we need others in every one of
the human realms of our nature: physical, psychological, ethical and higher
spiritual or supernatural (for believers).
Such love of necessity should not be dismissed as egoism because it is just
a manifestation of the limitation of our human nature. No one will think
that a child is egoistic for turning to its mother for food, help or consola-
tion. Neither will anyone think that someone is selfish for seeking out food
or a friend (Burggraf, 2012). We all need goods of all kinds, we all need to
receive love, and this is what extrinsic motivation is all about, a manifesta-
tion of our incomplete human nature, always desiring to receive more and
in need of fullness.
I remember a student who at this point suggested an analogy that he had
heard from one of his teachers. She told them that we are all a rechargeable
battery of love and that in our day to day, at work, and when we study, we
discharge, and the level of love drops. For this reason, when we get home,
we want to be with our loved ones to recharge with love.
When working in organisations, either for profit or not for profit, we all
look for material provision, for salaries that are sufficient to support us and
our families (useful good), but we also look for enjoyable and friendly work
environments where there is companionship, or at least reasonably good
human relationships (pleasant good). Moreover, we look for workplaces
where they treat us with respect, justice and true interest (moral good), and
if we are people of faith, we want it to be respected at work, so we can
become holy while working (spiritual good). These are all extrinsic moti-
vations, external reasons that explain why we go to work every day (see
Figure 7.4).
As we discussed in Chapter 2, in addition to receiving material support
and affection from others in organisations, we ordinarily want others to
care about us. We need to perceive that we matter to others, that our col-
leagues and bosses will value us and our work, that they will recognise us
as human beings with a unique dignity. Even if they do not show esteem or
appreciate us, we at least hope they will respect us. Deep down, we all desire

Good to receive
Realm Gift, Present, Grace
Receiving
Truly Human
Willingness
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Good
to receive
moral good
Willingness
Pleasant
to receive
Good pleasant good
Psychological Realm
A iliation, Esteem
Aff
Willingness
Useful
to receive
Good
Physical Realm
useful good
Sustenance, Safety, Support
Figure 7.4 Receiving love at work
to be loved in our workplaces. We expect to receive goods at work, truly

human goods (see Figure 7.4).
These considerations could help you to think about the kind of work you
love, what kind of organisations could offer you that work, and what kind
of tasks and responsibilities you would like to have. These thoughts might
be useful for students thinking about their future jobs but also for young
and not-so-young professionals reflecting on what their job can offer them.
Truly human goods are those that are in accord with our human nature.
No one likes to be treated like an animal in the workplace or like a piece of
machinery. Of course, we are animals, and we have the ability to behave as
such when we forget the highest human goods (moral and spiritual) and we
exclusively seek lower material useful and pleasant goods. Therefore, truly
human goods are those of human beings, of beings that, as we discussed in
Chapter 2, are spiritual bodies, or body spirits, in unity. For that reason,
our different motivations, the different kinds of good we seek, can be distin-
guished into different types and categories, but they are not separable.
Truly human goods are not only those that consider the human needs as
inseparable but also as related and hierarchical. As we saw in Chapter 3,
there is a hierarchical relationship among the goods. They are all desirable
in their own level, order or realm, according to their own nature, their own
logic and their own purpose, which is inseparable and connected or related
to those of the other realms, and they all contribute to our happiness.
As we discussed earlier, it means that the lower goods are subordinate to
the higher ones, they exist for the sake of them. The physical realm allows
us to fulfil the higher psychological level, and these two realms allow the
ethical one to be fulfilled, and these three natural domains allow the higher
spiritual one to be fulfilled for those who believe in it. As we saw, to make
good ethical decisions with your mind, your brain needs to be physically
and psychologically well.
In practical terms, the hierarchical order of truly human goods, the sub-
ordination of lower to higher goods, allows us to make common-sense deci-
sions. For instance, if you don’t earn a salary that is high enough to live
decently, you won’t care so much about a possible toxic work environment.
Your first focus will be on earning enough before thinking about how to
make your work environment more pleasant.
However, if another company offers you a job with a better salary and
a good work environment, the most logical thing to do is accept the job,
which allows you to achieve not only useful but also pleasant goods. If
the new company tries to cheat you or treat you unfairly, the chances are
that you will consider returning to the previous company, if they treated
you fairly, even if the atmosphere was not so pleasant. You will choose the
higher moral good, sacrificing part of the pleasant.
As Maslow inferred, it is logical to think that a certain achievement of the
lower levels of good is necessary for the higher levels to function, at least
at a minimum, but once these minimums have been attained, it is also true
that human beings are capable of sacrificing inferior goods to achieve other
superior ones. This is what we do when we encounter difficulties; we give up
pleasant goods to obtain other higher, more desirable, human goods (family,
friendship, etc.). It is love that gives meaning to sacrifice.
This hierarchical order of the different realms of human nature does not
only affect the relationship between the different goods, it also affects their
desirability. As Augustine of Hippo explained, not every good is worthy of
being desired or loved in the same way; there is a hierarchical order of love,
based on the hierarchical order of goods at stake. Higher goods are more
worthy of love than lower ones.
To give a simple example, we all need physical useful goods, such as
drinking water, but if it is a hot day, drinking a cold beer instead of just
a glass of water might be a more pleasant good, it is more enjoyable. In
addition, if we were with a friend while drinking, it would be better still.
Friendship is one of the greatest moral goods. If that friend were a person of
high spiritual standing, the meeting could also bring us wisdom, peace and
joy (spiritual goods).
With this very basic example, you can see that all the goods at stake are
attractive to us at their different levels. This is why we love them. We want
them because we consider them good (useful, pleasant, moral and spiritual).
In this particular case, we would love a beer, friendship, and holiness. How-
ever, there is no doubt that each of these goods is considered as good at a
different level and from a different perspective, from their own different
realms. It would be a tremendous mistake to confuse them.
Who would deny that friendship with someone (a moral good) is more
valuable than a good drink (a pleasant good). Of course, if you can have
both goods at the same time, it would be better. In fact, in real life, the same
reality can be attractive to us because it is a useful, pleasant, moral and spir-
itual good all at the same time. As I just said, all the goods are inseparable,
not only in our minds but in reality.
On the other hand, when there is doubt about which good to choose,
it seems evident that the moral good of friendship is worth more than the
pleasant good of a drink; however, as obvious as it may seem, we often end
up loving lower goods in spite of the higher goods. This disorder is a mani-
festation of our freedom or, rather, our wrong way of using that freedom.
Normally, when we do moral evil, we do it driven by the attraction of some
other inferior good. Can you think of an example?
Mine concerns different managers I have spoken with throughout my
career who, over the years, realised that they had spent more time seeking
prestige at work than spending time with their families. They recognised
that that was wrong. Unfortunately, seeking success and material well-being
at any cost has become a compulsive behaviour all over the world. The
attraction of inferior pleasant goods (prestige) leads to superior moral goods
(family) being abandoned.
Perhaps the way we have been teaching motivations in business schools
has something to do with this sad situation, but there is still time to correct
our mistakes. There is no doubt that this disorderly way of loving has conse-
quences. As Augustine defended, good loves lead to goodness, whereas evil
loves lead to evil, which means that, at the end of the day, an individual is
the sum total of their loves.
In the same vein, a modern philosopher described the current excessive
dependence of many people for what others think about them. “The sad-
dest thing is to encounter people who have obtained a deserved prestige in
their professional lives, who have become competent doctors, great artisans,
researchers, or artists and who, nevertheless, in the autumn of life – which
should be a natural time of serenity and quiet – feel themselves unfortunate,
unsuccessful, and lonely” (Burggraf, 2012).
Unfortunately, the theories we’ve been explaining for decades, while dis-
tinguishing extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, never explained how good
or truly human these two kinds of motivations are. By understanding the
logic of love, and the inseparable, interrelated and hierarchical nature of
truly human goods, we can better explain that not all goods deserve to be
loved equally. As Aristotle would probably say, a good teacher should be
teaching the pupil how to love all good things in a way that is proportional
to their goodness.
If we think in terms of people management in organisations, which has
a similar role as teachers at times, good managers should always bear the
hierarchical nature of human goods in mind. This has nothing to do with
underestimating the lower goods, like the value of money, or overestimating
the higher goods like being excessively good-natured with staff, but the
opposite. The knowledge of what truly human goods are will make manag-
ers wiser and more respectful with others’ freedom.
Imagine your boss corrects you in private about something you are doing
wrong without even realising (like gossiping). Despite knowing that you are
not going to like it – it will be unpleasant for you to hear, but morally good –
the boss tells you. Managers need courage to correct others, but when done
for the right motive and in the right way, it respects the hierarchy of goods
and puts higher goods first. Someone doing so is a good teacher and cer-
tainly cares about you. I guess we all know when a manager, or a teacher,
cares about us. We know when someone truly loves us. This is the foun-
dation of moral authority of those in charge in human organisations, of
authentic leadership.
Before moving to the next section, someone might ask how the higher
extrinsic motivation of believers – regarding the higher spiritual or super-
natural realm – works in human life in general and in organisations spe-
cifically. The French philosopher Gabriel Marcel said, “Being in the world
means being loved by God” (Burggraf, 2012). A believer, who is convinced
that what Marcel said is true, is someone with a different view of the world,
a supernatural outlook that is based on faith and that affects motivations.
For a believer, all natural and supernatural good comes from God: life,
freedom, wisdom, faith itself, etc. As we saw in Chapter 6, everything in
this life is conveyed as a gift from God, made out of love, for someone who
believes in God. Therefore, life is conceived as a gift and a task. More so, the
meaning of life consists of freely accepting, enjoying and sharing every gift
received from God, starting with God’s Love. This is something that, for a
believer, can be done at every moment, including at work.
Undoubtedly, this higher spiritual good of faith is a source of motivation
for believers. As I mentioned in Chapter 5, faith is a very special source of
joy for believers. Given that this matter is of a theological nature and goes
beyond the purpose of this chapter, the way faith influences professional
work and motivations in organisations will be briefly described at the end of
the book. Now, we will reflect on how it is possible to achieve truly human
good in organisations.
Achieving truly human good in organisations

As we discussed in Chapter 1, highly motivated people go to work not just
to receive something extrinsic but because they also have an interest in what
they do. They care about their professional activity. Those who are moti-
vated see their work as worthy in itself. In other words, they love their work.
The insatiable human desire for the good, for love, is the driver of human
motivations. We are seekers of the complete, people who relentlessly pursue
whatever we think will ultimately make us content (Wadell, 1992). This
yearning for good does not stop at our relationship with the external reality;
it also includes our inner world, and this is what the map of human moti-
vations shows. The extrinsic motivation is necessary but not sufficient; it
demands the intrinsic motivation, the love for ourselves and for what we do,
the desire to achieve our own good (useful, pleasant, moral and spiritual)
(see Figure 7.5).
Without a doubt, our own desire for the good, our own self-love, also
plays an essential role in explaining why we do the things we do in our life
and at work. A love for ourselves that, as we will see, and following the
same logic of love, should be truly human in accordance with the insepara-
ble, interrelated and hierarchical nature of human goods. This time, the con-
siderations of this section are not on what our jobs can offer us but on the
attitude we want to have when working, which is something that depends
exclusively on us.
To be happy at work, we should be able to achieve truly human goods in
organisations. We should be intrinsically motivated and go to work because
we love what we do, because we desire to keep achieving useful, pleasant,
moral and spiritual goods, because we want to keep learning, enjoying, grow-
ing and flourishing, even to the point of becoming saints (see Figure 7.5).
At one extreme, there are people who love their work; on the other, you’ll
find those who hate it, and this is not an exaggeration. Unfortunately, it is a
fact that nowadays around 85% of people say that they are not engaged in
their jobs, and many of them hate their jobs (Gallup, 2017). As experience
shows, when intrinsic motivation is lacking, instead of being a meaningful
and joyful task, work becomes the opposite.

Good to achieve
Realm Sanctity, Blessedness, Holiness
Achieving
Truly Human
Willingness
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Good
to achieve
moral good
Virtuousness, Excellence, Goodness
Willingness
Pleasant
to achieve
Good pleasant good
Psychological Realm
Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem
Willingness
Useful
to achieve
Good
Physical Realm
useful good
Competency, Mastery, Success
Figure 7.5 Achieving love at work

This is one of the reasons why reflecting on human motivation in the
workplace from the perspective of the logic of love is extremely important.
It is hard to say why people hate their jobs. It could be due to its external
conditions and therefore related to extrinsic motivations, or it could be the
absence or disorder of intrinsic motivations. I will discuss this question fur-
ther in Chapter 8. Nevertheless, one thing is clear. If the intrinsic motiva-
tions are among the causes of people hating their jobs, the solution should
come from them and not their bosses or colleagues. Intrinsic motivation
comes from us, and we are free to decide whether to change it or not.
At this point, the issue gives rise to very lively conversations with my
students, especially when I suggest they think about their own personal
motivations. I tell them that if they do not like to study – that being their
current job – they should not blame others (the professors or the content
of the programmes). Of course, external factors are important reasons in
explaining their higher or lower levels of motivation. Nevertheless, I suggest
that they stop and think about how much their intrinsic motivations could
change regarding their love for their studies and, therefore, for themselves
and their own futures.
While it is hard for the students to change the content of their work once
they have chosen it – their incentive system or the environment of their
studies – they can do a lot to change their own inner motivations. We do not
always like what we do, and there are aspects of our work that we probably
enjoy less than others, but not everything is connected with what we like
and what gives us pleasure. We should do our best to love our work unless it
is impossible to be loved for some reason (it is inherently harmful, obscene,
evil or sinful). This interest for the things we do, that we consider good in
themselves, is what intrinsic motivation is all about.
If some of my students insist on telling me that they hate their studies,
I recommend they pause and use our map of human motivations to diagno-
sis their deepest personal drivers. There are many reasons why they do not
like what they do, including not having any other alternatives, but this does
not depend on them. In fact, on many occasions, students discover that the
reason they do not like their “job” is that they did not make a free decision
when choosing it.
Sometimes the decision came from the pressure of others or was highly
influenced by what others would say or think about them (extrinsic motiva-
tion). It is also true that sometimes what they wanted did not correspond
with the opportunities that came their way, but more often than not, they
did not stop to reflect seriously about their future or what they wanted to
do with their lives. They postponed their decisions or made decisions based
mainly on external influences. It seems that there is some kind of disorder
here, specifically that they are not using their freedom well and not loving
themselves properly.
Oddly enough, and as selfish or self-interested as it might sound, we all
have to love ourselves properly. We have to use our freedom to choose what
we consider good for us, not what others tell us we should choose. It seems
logical that, even before we start friendships with others, we should be good
friends with ourselves, so to speak. That’s what happiness is about – the
desire for our own happiness is the starting point in attaining it, achieving
the highest possible good during our lives freely and responsibly.
The characteristics of self-love should be the same as what we described
earlier in a perfect or true friendship with others; we should have a sin-
cere friendship with ourselves. We should care for our own truly human
good, whose nature is inseparable, interrelated and hierarchical. There is
a right human way in our desire for self-love. This well-ordered, right or
proper love for ourselves recognises all the good that we deserve, given our
human worth and dignity. This is a kind of self-caring that some authors
have described as “humble self-esteem” (Esparza, 2013).
A well-ordered self-love corresponds precisely to the universal human
yearning to be happy that Aristotle claimed in the first chapter of his Nico-
machean Ethics. It is the one that, during our lifetime, leads us to preserve
our own being and to unfold it towards its perfection until it reaches its
summit. This is the content of human life, and the day we stop loving our-
selves is the day we start distancing ourselves from what makes us happy.
When we stop loving ourselves properly, we move to all kinds of dis-
ordered self-love. We start looking for selfish lower goods, or we become
dependent on people’s opinion and start trying to attract the attention of
others, frequently begging for their love in an excessive manner. I am con-
vinced that many problems related to psychological disorders nowadays, as
well as drug consumption, alcohol abuse and other addictions (gambling,
pornography, etc.) are related to this lack of ordered and truly human self-
love, a “humble self-esteem” (Esparza, 2013).
It is important to understand this point to have the necessary truly human
self-esteem. As we discussed in Chapter 3, given the natural hierarchy of
human goods, the superior goods presuppose the inferior ones. Therefore,
we should first take care of ourselves at the lowest physical level: caring
about our food, our health, our sleep, our rest, etc. These are basic goods
that, early in our lives, we obtain through our families, but as we become
adults, we must be able to attain them by ourselves (see Figure 7.5).
This is why we should try to be competent in what we do, to achieve mas-
tery. The capacity to attain these lower necessary goods by ourselves is one
of the aspects that work provides us with and is the primary reason why a
student should be a good student. If studying is a student’s primary “job”,
they should study well. I tell my students that they should love themselves
with a truly human self-love, even at work (see Figure 7.5).
When we do things well, and get the work done, we normally get satis-
faction at the psychological level. The fulfilled task produces psychological
peace, a peace that means tranquillity of order (Augustine, 1993). This phe-
nomenon also seems to prove the idea that lower goods exist for the sake of
higher ones. The useful, practical goods help us attain higher pleasant ones,
and this enjoyment and peace – the result of the fulfilled task – will also
contribute to our desire for other higher goods.
Our competence and mastery, and the satisfaction they produce, can also
contribute to attaining moral virtues through the practice of work that is
well done. In this context, while working well, one achieves moral virtues,
such as optimism, order, industriousness, sense of humour or cheerful-
ness, among many others. The more we see our work as an opportunity to
grow, to attain virtues, the higher the chances are of us thriving for greater
ideals at the ethical level (see Figure 7.5).
This is what intrinsic motivation is about: a love for ourselves that, when
rightly ordered and truly human, will contribute to our highest good. But
of what does the highest good for us, and thus our well-being or happiness,
consist? In Aquinas’ view, what is good for us is something that remains
good for us even if, for some reason, we do not recognise it as good. He
states that what is good for us is necessarily good for us because it follows
from our human nature (Feser, 2009).
Therefore, wealth, power, pleasure, fame, honour and the higher goods of
the soul have their proper place in contributing to human happiness on their
different realms (physical, psychological and ethical). Nevertheless, for this
Christian philosopher, it is impossible for all these goods to be the highest
or ultimate good to which every other good is subordinated. Aquinas states
that God alone can be that good, at the supernatural realm (Feser, 2009).
Paradoxically, godlikeness, holiness or sanctity, the intimate union with
God, would be the highest good a human being could reach and where the
highest happiness would be found, according to the hierarchy of goods and
the abundance of truly human self-love. If there is order in love for us, it will
produce the best possible version of ourselves: a saint.
In short, thanks to our daily work done with the proper ordered love,
we get the chance to attain self-actualisation, to become better people, to
flourish. Even more, for believers, work may become a way of achieving
the highest human spiritual potential, an opportunity to attain holiness (see
Figure 7.5).
I remember one MBA student coming to me after I presented these ideas.
She told me that she was a Catholic and that she had never thought that
you could become a saint through your job. She was surprised after my
explanation. She thought that wanting to be holy, or achieving godlikeness,
sounded too high an ideal, maybe too bold or even too prideful as well as
being something that wouldn’t seem to be related with your daily work. My
answer was simple. For someone who believes in God, ordered self-love
implies attaining the greatest possible good, and this would be entering into
a union with God, the greatest Good.
As we will discuss in Chapter 9, employing the logic of love in our daily
life and work allows human beings to become competent, passionate, mor-
ally good and even saints, with God’s grace (in the case of believers). As
we have seen, in Aristotle’s views, to love is to will the good of the person
loved; he goes as far as to state that love for oneself is, in fact, a prerequisite
to loving others.
In other words, self-love is truly human, as long as you love yourself not
just for the sake of loving yourself but also for the benefit of others. For
Aristotle, to love is conceived as wanting good for oneself and others (Kon-
stan, 2008). Let us now consider what truly human good for others means.
Giving truly human good in organisations

During my discussions with undergraduates about truly human self-love,
some students look perplexed. They cannot believe that the same profes-
sor, who had previously criticised current mainstream self-centred theories
of motivation, is now suggesting that they should all love themselves as
much as they can, infinitely in fact. They are astonished when I tell them
that orderly self-love is a key human motivation that includes aiming for
mastery, joy, goodness and even sanctity in their work and that without this
intrinsic motivation, they will hardly know how to love others well.
As St Augustine explained, insisting on the complementarity of both self-
love and others-love, to be able to love others, we first need to learn how to
love ourselves. He questioned how you would be able to love your neigh-
bour if you don’t even know how to love yourself.
Likewise, Aquinas affirmed that the love one feels for another “proceeds
from the love that one feels for one’s own person”. He explained the appro-
priateness of us humans loving our own good because we are made, by
nature, to love all good, including our own. This natural love for ourselves
is an urge that can neither be evaded nor renounced (Esparza, 2013).
The truth is that students start to better understand these ideas when they
realise that recognising this necessity of ordered self-love does not mean
denying the importance of ordered self-giving. Both self-love and self-giving
are compatible and complementary. It was Aristotle who defended that they
both need each other.
The intrinsic desire to be good at work, and to become better day after day
(this ordered self-love), is a necessary condition to be happy, but being neces-
sary is not sufficient. Only when that self-love is also open to others’ good
do extrinsic, intrinsic and transcendent motivations become truly human.
This is what Aristotle meant when he described human beings as social
beings. To be happy, we need others. Human happiness is always inclusive,
not exclusive. The exclusivity of self-love would give rise to a competitive,
self-centred understanding of work and life, a proud and selfish outlook
where others would not matter. This would be an inhuman or immoral
behaviour. Therefore, the transcendent motivation, understood as self-
giving, as the yearning for others’ good or the love for others, is a univer-
sal human need. As Maslow would say, we are meant to be transcenders
(Maslow, 1971).
When self-love is inclusive, open to sharing its own good with others, it
leads to an even higher personal good being attained. For that reason, love
is contagious, and it starts inside ourselves. The more we recognise our own
human value and dignity, the more we want to share it with others. The
discovery, appreciation and connection with our own dignity will also lead
us to discover, appreciate and connect with others’ dignity. In other words,
“honoring dignity is love in action. Human connections flourish when dig-
nity is the medium of exchange” (Hicks, 2018).
This is a human paradox that has been observed generation after genera-
tion. Any dedicated grandmother or grandfather could tell us a lot about
this. The more one looks for the good of others, the higher the good and
joy one ends up achieving. This need for self-giving seems to be a universal
fact, one that Maslow was able to verify during the latter years of his career
and a fact that is being proven by social scientists, as we saw in Chapter 4,
including renowned organisational behaviour researchers (Grant, 2013).
Organisational and social sciences are proving what seems to be common
sense. Most of us would rather work in places surrounded by people who
are enthusiastic about their jobs, who love what they do and feel well about
themselves because of that. It is always great to be around people who thrive
in their work and lives because they are happy. Not even self-centred people
would desire the opposite. If people around us love their work, we will also
most likely end up loving ours, too, precisely because love is contagious.
Given the number of people who dislike their jobs, the chances are that
we end up working in places where those around us also hate their jobs.
This often explains why some people prefer to work alone. It seems obvious
that we would all like to work in truly human or humanistic organisations,
where people really care about others, trying to give truly human good. If
you are a professor, a manager, or just someone working at the service of
others, your motivation will be higher if you try to serve them with care,
with goodwill and self-giving, rather than with coldness, disinterest or self-
ishness. This is what Figure 7.6 reflects.
The transcendent motivation, understood as true, well-ordered interest
for the good of others, a truly human self-giving, opens a whole panorama
for the reflection of those who hold positions of responsibility over others.
This is the case of many of my Business Administration students. I keep tell-
ing them that, in any organisation, good leaders are those who are able to
facilitate others moving and acting freely for the truly human good of the
group, for the common good, because of transcendent motivations.
Since this kind of human transcendent motivation is a free human act that
can only arise from each person’s own initiative, the best way to promote
such behaviour is to lead by example. True leaders are those who promote
transcendent motivations around them because they are driven by these
same transcendent reasons (Pérez-López, 1974). As we saw, transcendent
motivation is as contagious as intrinsic motivation. Love begets love.

Good to give
Realm Sanctification, Salvation, Blessing
Giving
Truly Human
Willingness
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Good
to give
moral good
Gentleness, Understanding, Good
Willingness
Pleasant
to give
Good pleasant good
Psychological Realm
Compassion, Kindness, Care
Willingness
Useful
to give
Good
Physical Realm
useful good
Assistance, Help, Service
Figure 7.6 Giving love at work
Those who personally behave out of love for others “infect” others with
the same caring nature. This is what happens in ethically healthy organisa-
tions, those in which human dignity is treasured and human flourishing is
promoted (Bañón et al., 2012). When leaders encourage this logic of love,
this truly human interest for others, in the workplace on a daily basis, they
end up fostering more humane relationships in their organisations and ena-
ble others to be more generous.
This logic of love, which begets a logic of gift, expresses a deep truth
about humans – that their flourishing is enabled through relationships of
uncalculated giving and grateful receiving. But this logic also has practi-
cal implications for organisational management. When in harmony with
the logics of exchange and duty, the logic of gift enables greater creativity,
freedom and responsibility, inspiring trust and promoting commitment as
no other incentive system can do (Baviera et al., 2016).
I don’t wish to sound naive here, as this logic of gift, a part of transcend-
ent motivation, is not inexorable and involves vulnerability, namely, the
vulnerability of those who run the risk of giving for the good of others with-
out expectations of receiving. This could result in others taking advantage
of their goodness, or at least not caring and not thanking them for their
good work.
Free and unconditional giving is not guaranteed to produce results beyond
what the good (the gift) itself accomplishes. A fundamental aspect of uncon-
ditional giving is that it is not transactional; fulfilment is found in the gift
itself. It is true that it might lead some people to be opportunistic, or it could
bring about the opposite, a spirit of generosity in others, and thus generate
further good, but this is not its purpose (Baviera et al., 2016). The purpose
of transcendent motivation is a truly human interest for others.
When transcendent motivation is truly human, authentic and reflects a
true desire for others’ wellness, for its own sake, then it produces its own
fruits: the good of the other. This is what human love and the logic of love
are about. A true caring for others’ well-being and flourishing, and it cannot
be conceived as a management technique, much less a manipulative tool,
to attain higher personal or organisational results. I always make sure my
students understand that I’m not talking about management techniques here
but about a humanistic management logic, a truly human interest for others,
which is compatible with any good professional and transactional human
relationship.
We should all desire to contribute to the greater good in our lives and at
work. We all need to know that our work is useful for others, that it con-
tributes to making others’ lives more pleasant, humane and even divine (see
Figure 7.6). Therefore, our leaders and organisations should know about
that and help us achieve these noble ideals. Let us now briefly consider how
this logic of love in organisations is connected with spiritual and religious
motivations.
Returning truly human good in organisations

I remain aware that many people will think that the concept of motivations
I present in this book is too idealistic, and I would agree that this whole
approach is essentially idealistic. Human motivations are precisely that: ide-
als. Without ideals, we would not be motivated at all.
The problem is when we reduce our ideals to materialistic, self-centred,
amoral and non-spiritual aspects of human life. I think this is the narrow
conception of human nature that is embedded in the theories of motivation
that we have been teaching for decades (Guillén, 2018). This is something
that Maslow also seemed to have discovered in his final days.
I remember giving a presentation on this map of motivations to a large
audience, including faculty members. At the end of the presentation, one
colleague told me that my intervention had seemed “unscientific” to him
and that he thought that because I mentioned spirituality and religion I was
dedicating myself to “preaching”. I could not contain myself and replied
that, as teachers, we all preach.
I continued giving my argument to this colleague. The point is that some
teachers “preach” theories that are supposed to be scientific, but the truth
is that in their attempt to be scientifically neutral, their theories are, in fact,
inhuman. I told him that we are educators, and as such, we need to be open
to every reliable human source of knowledge, not just the empirical sciences.
This is the humanistic management perspective, open to the knowledge
provided by all the human sciences, including the humanities, as I discussed
earlier in this chapter (see Figure 7.2).
This colleague was most likely concerned about the last column of the
map of human motivations dealing with the religious motivation (see Fig-
ure 7.7). As I mentioned in Chapter 6, I have had people ask me to remove
this fourth column from the map to make it more admissible and to con-
sider those who do not believe in God, but I consider the map to be more
inclusive when it considers all human motivations, including the spiritual
and religious.
For those who do not have faith in a divine realm, this map confirms their
position, telling them that they are not driven by religious motivation in
how they behave. In these cases, some people will see their highest human
values and their spiritual motivations reflected on the third level of the map,
the ethical realm, or even in the upper higher spiritual level. In the case of
believers, this is a divine or supernatural spiritual reality.
What is sure, though, is that for those who do not believe in God, the
fourth column of the map does not apply to them. They do not “see” this
column because they do not have faith in God. Therefore, this proves that
the map allows people to identify the motivations they have but also those
they do not have. The fourth column of the map makes a lot of sense for
those who believe in a personal God, something I have been able to verify
every time I have presented this framework (see Figure 7.7).
For believers, if everything you have in your life is a gift from God, then
the most humane reaction is the desire to be thankful to Him. This is what
this fourth column of religious motivation is all about: the yearning to give

Good to return
r turn
re r
Realm Praise, Acclamation, Glory
Returning
Truly Human
Willingness
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Good
to return
r turn
re r
moral good
Reverence, Adoration, Worship
Willingness
Pleasant
to return
r turn
re r
Good pleasant good
Psychological Realm
Gratitude, Thanks, Appreciation
Willingness
Useful
to return
r turn
re r
Good
Physical Realm
useful good
Obedience, Assent, Fidelity
Figure 7.7 Returning love at work

back to God the useful, pleasant, moral and spiritual good. The desire to
serve Him, please Him, adore Him and glorify Him. In other words, the
longing to return love to God, to orderly and truly humanly give Him back
every kind of good (see Figure 7.7).
As I noted in Chapter 6, I have had many opportunities to talk about this
last column with people who do not believe in God. To my surprise, more
than once I have been shocked when these people thank me for the entire
map of motivations, including the religious because it helped them better
understand not only their own motivations but also those of others.
Both believers and non-believers can all make an act of faith regarding
God’s existence or non-existence, precisely because God is a spiritual being,
and His existence belongs to the realm of faith. Faith is reasonable because,
from a purely philosophical point of view, human reason can conclude that
God exists. In other words, the qualities of the god discovered by the philos-
ophers are also qualities of the God revealed to human creatures throughout
the course of history, as the three monotheist Abrahamic religions believe
and that their theologians study.
Believing in God is an act of faith that does not go against reason but
surpasses it. This is why the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion are protected as universal human rights. Faith is supra-rational. It
is for this reason that there should be no contradiction between faith and
reason. This is what theology strives for, the study of a divine reality using
the sources of knowledge provided by philosophical reasoning, faith and
revelation. Therefore, no scientist should fear accepting the existence of a
faith that is consistent with reason.
As I said previously, this book is not a theological text, but this does not
imply denying religious motivations nor confusing acceptance of religious
reality with religious “preaching”, as my colleague suggested. The fourth
column of the map reveals the human desire of millions of human beings to
have a personal relationship with a God they believe in. This is the meaning
of the fourth column on our map, the desire to love God back, to return
good to Him in a truly human way.
Moreover, in line with our previous reflections, this desire might be inter-
preted in terms of the logic of love belonging to a truly human friendship.
The desire of the friend is to be loved back. “From our side to seek God’s
good is to want to do God’s will. It is to adore and praise and worship God,
to delight in God’s goodness and to find joy in God’s Love. It is to serve God
because we are grateful, to be for God because we love” (Wadell, 1992,
p. 72). This is precisely the content of the fourth column in the context of
work (see Figure 7.7).
Returning truly human good to God, while working in organisations,
means finding ordinary work as an opportunity to repay God’s Love with
human love. For a believer, this means transforming every moment of their
life and work into occasions to love God, to serve, please, adore and praise
Him (see Figure 7.7). In this way, the “schizophrenic” feeling of separation
between professional life and spiritual life disappears, as most likely hap-
pened to the woman I mentioned in Chapter 6, who recognised she had this
feeling.
I remember explaining this to a group of top American leaders in a pres-
entation at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government a few years ago.
A high-ranking military officer asked me about how to use this fourth col-
umn when directing and governing people. My immediate reaction was to
tell him that religious motivations are very delicate, very fragile, because
they belong to the most sacred sphere of consciences. Therefore, those who
rule over people must not use them; they just need to respect them.
It seems logical that a “mechanistic” vision of management and govern-
ment disciplines leads us to want to use theories as management tools. Pre-
cisely for this reason, I wanted to use the metaphor of a map to present
the different types of human motivations from a humanistic management
perspective. The advantage of a map is that it describes reality as it is, iden-
tifying different regions and areas but not telling you where to go.
This map has been conceived to help better understand our motivations in
life and work and to understand the motivations of others. That is why this
chapter tries to describe the coordinates of the map, to delve into the logic
behind the map – a logic of love that explains the location of every kind of
motivation as well as their inseparable, interrelated and hierarchical nature.
Once the coordinates are described, and the reference points are clear,
we need a compass to understand how to move freely on the map, which
will allow us to go to our chosen destination. This will be the purpose of
Chapter 8, but before finishing, I would like to offer a final thought to give
a clue about the map’s coordinates. Not the vertical coordinates but the
horizontal. Let me explain.
Thanks to Maslow’s original insights and hierarchy of needs, we were
able to understand the hierarchical order of human goods and motivations
through a kind of “vertical” reasoning. The logic of love helped us identify
some types of goods that are of a higher nature, more worthy of being loved
than others. For this reason, thanks to this hierarchical vertical logic, the
rows of the map present higher and lower orders of goods. What about the
columns on the map, though? Is there any horizontal logic behind them?
The order of love and the order of loves

Some years ago, one of my students surprised the entire class with an incred-
ible comment. After a couple of sessions in which I had explained and dis-
cussed the map of human motivations with them, this student asked me if
he could share something with his classmates. When I approved, he said,
“I know that I have been very talkative this past semester, and that I have
been restless and seemingly inattentive in class, but it does not mean that
I did not care. As you know, I am a nervous person. However, if I did wrong,
it is not because I did not like the course content or because of you guys, but
the opposite. Now, after attending these classes about human motivation,
I better understand what’s wrong with me”.
At this point, I had to stop him. I told him that he did not have to talk
about personal matters in class. Nevertheless, my comment was to no avail;
he was determined to share. He went on to tell us that he was going through
serious family difficulties. It was clear that they were also related to his self-
esteem. However, what he wanted to tell the class was the news that now,
after our discussions on human motivation, he understood why he was not
able to behave as expected.
He had concluded that he did not love himself properly. In his own words,
“I understood in these sessions that when you feel you are not loved by oth-
ers, you are incapable of learning to love yourself properly, and then you
just fight against everyone, including yourself”.
He continued, “What I’ve got from this course is that in order to learn
how to love ourselves, we need to be loved by others first”. He explained
that we need to feel an unconditional love, something that we do not always
get. He continued, “My conclusion after our discussions is that the best way
of solving this problem is by learning how to give our love to others”. He
was essentially applying the traditional Golden Rule, as he recognised.
I could not believe what was happening. This student was sharing his
vulnerabilities and then helping others in the class comprehend the logic of
the framework of motivations, which he had come to understand perfectly.
After his comments, I told him that he was going to be a great entrepreneur
because of his honesty and especially because of his capacity to love.
What this student had just described is something that I had tried to
explain throughout the semester while revealing each column of the map of
motivations. Once I finish explaining the entire map, I tell them that there
is still a rule, the classic Golden Rule, that could help them understand the
relationship between the different columns of the map, a kind of “horizon-
tal” logic.
Of course, the Golden Rule is a maxim that can be found in many reli-
gions and in almost every ethical tradition in some form (Blackburn, 2001).
It establishes that “you should not treat others in ways that you would not
like to be treated”, or, in positive terms, “you should treat others as you
would like others to treat you”.
This simple rule contains a profound wisdom about human dignity. The
realisation that people possess a special and unique value gives us the reason
to understand that everybody deserves special respect and treatment, start-
ing with ourselves. Leaders of the world’s major faiths endorsed the Golden
Rule as part of the 1993 “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic” (Küng,
1993). Moreover, well-known authors have already studied this issue in the
context of humanistic management (Pirson et al., 2016).
In practical organisational terms, this principle of reciprocity is priceless
in order to make good managerial decisions, but we cannot stop here to
consider this question. Regarding the interpretation of the coordinates of
our map, the Golden Rule is also basic because it can help answer the ques-
tion of how the columns are related. Should I love others more than myself,
less or equally? In other words, which of the four columns goes first? Is there
a kind of order?
The answer provided by the Golden Rule would affect the first three
columns, referring to our relationship with others but not with the Other.
Belief in God is not necessary to endorse the Golden Rule (Esptein, 2010).
According to the rule, we must love ourselves as much as others or, to put
it the other way around, we must love others as much as ourselves. So, the
answer is that we should love others with a love that is equal to how we
love ourselves.
Another question regarding the columns of the map is how many are
necessary to attain happiness? Are all of them needed? This is a question
that I am usually asked at the end of my presentations. The Golden Rule can
again help us in the response on a natural, rational or philosophical level.
I shall offer a few thoughts on the last column, and its necessity in attaining
happiness, next.
We are all born with a natural self-preservation instinct, which corre-
sponds to the extrinsic useful motivation in the left corner of the map.
Therefore, there is no doubt that, as long as we are not mentally sick, we
will try to do our best to care for ourselves. What the Golden Rule suggests
is to not stop there but to move to the right, to care about others in at least
the same way.
There is another interesting point here. The rule is to love others as much
as we love ourselves, or to love ourselves as much as we love others. There-
fore, we should not love ourselves any more or any less than we love others.
Loving ourselves less than we love others would be a lack of ordered self-
esteem, as the student I mentioned discovered, and loving ourselves more
than others would be egoism.
These reflections could be much more nuanced, and, without a doubt,
they are the source of very interesting discussions with students. We can’t
stop here either, though. The question that remains unanswered is: what
about religious motivations? Are they needed? Is there a similar rule to the
Golden Rule that can assist us here?
If there is a rule that helps interpret the role that corresponds to religious
motivation, it can only come from religious sources. Obviously, if non-
believers don’t “see” the need for the fourth column because, among other
things, the source of the column itself is God’s revelation, then they don’t
need a rule that includes it either. As you have probably already guessed,
though, there is indeed a rule for believers that comes from Abrahamic tra-
dition and that complements the Golden Rule.
This rule is expressed in the primary Jewish prayer, the Shema, “Hear,
O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. And you shall love the
LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all
your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4–5). This religious law complements the
Golden Rule in that the Jewish tradition says, “but love your neighbor as
yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). It is clear that the point of the whole law is love.
It is a commandment of love, given in the Old Testament and repeated by
Jesus Christ in the New Testament (Matthew 22:35–40).
If you have been paying attention, you will notice that these two com-
mandments are the best summary of the entire map of human motivations
described in this book. The map of motivations includes the four loves pre-
scribed by this divine law. First, the love for God (fourth column), followed
by the love for others (third column), which should have the same intensity
as the love for ourselves and the love from others (second and first columns).
Once again, faith and reason seem not to contradict each other at all (see
Figure 7.8).
Even those without faith find these reflections fascinating and worth
considering. As we look again at Figure 7.8, those “Aha!” moments come
from many attending the sessions on human motivations. What we can now
appreciate in the map is that, in addition to the vertical order of love that we
discussed before, there is also a horizontal order of loves. Whereas the order
of love refers to the hierarchical vertical order of each one of the columns in
the map, the order of loves refers to the horizontal order of all the columns
and answering which of them goes first.
This order of loves is precisely that described in the first and second Jew-
ish commandments, which means that man should first love God and then
others, as much as they love themselves. Therefore, it would be a disorder
to firstly or exclusively focus on ourselves, as well as firstly or exclusively


Good to receive to achieve Higher Good to give to re
rreturn
turn
r
Realm
Receiving
Gift, Present, Grace
Achieving
Sanctity, Blessedness, Holiness
Giving
Sanctification, Salvation, Blessing
Returning
Praise, Acclamation, Glory
Love
Willingness
Love
Willingness
Love
Willingness
Love
Willingness
Moral
to receive to achieve to give to re
rreturn
turn
r
Ethical Realm
Lesser
Reputation, Admiration, Transcendence
Respect Virtuousness, Excellence, Goodness Greater Transcendence
Gentleness, Understanding, Good Reverence, Adoration, Worship

Pleasant
rreturn
turn
r
Psychological Realm
A iliation, Esteem

Useful
rreturn
turn
r
Good Lower Gooduseful good
Physical Realm
Figure 7.8 Map coordinates for motivations: The order of love and order of loves
focusing on others. More so, as we saw in Chapter 6, it seems that God is
a zealous lover and, according to Abrahamic revelation, He asked men to
freely love Him first. This is a mystery and a paradox, even for believers.
Being God, He can do anything except force anyone to love Him.
This last reflection shows how valuable human freedom is for both believ-
ers and non-believers. What this map allows to be appreciated graphically is
that not only does there seem to be an order of love, and an order of loves,
it also proves the value of human freedom. This human capacity to choose
and to want the good we decide to pursue.
Motivations are not inevitable external stimuli nor are they irresistible
internal impulses, as that would be a reductive, mechanistic view of human
motivations. As we will discuss in Chapter 8, a humanistic conception of
motivations means that they are not given by the organisation but that we
choose them freely. We decide the motives of our conduct freely and the
meaning we want to give to our lives and to our work. Before moving to
the next chapter, let us first stop to reflect on some of the questions we just
discussed.

1 How often do I see my work as just a job to get ahead in life?
2 How often do I go to work with concerns and worries in mind?
3 How often do I complain about my work?
4 How often do I go to work with the desire to do something worthy for
others?
5 How often do I see my work as an opportunity to serve and help others?
6 How often do I go to work with an enthusiasm and a desire to start
working?
7 How often do I see my work as an opportunity to be happy?
8 How often do I see my work as a gift from something greater than me?
9 How often do I see my work as a gift from God?
10 How often do I see my work as an opportunity to serve God?

After answering these questions, you might get the impression that there
are some aspects of your motivations that could be improved in your work
and maybe in your life; that is always my case. I guess that we can always
improve our love for the things we do, for the people we work for and,
in the case of believers, for God. It seems that there is always room for
improvement and growth.
Through this book, we have found that our motivations are not good
enough. The good news is that we can always rectify our intentions, correct
our navigation and arrive at a better destination every day. Having a good
map is always helpful, but the map is not sufficient. In order to arrive at any
particular place, in addition to the map, we need a compass. We need an
instrument to find the directions that always point to a fixed place to help
us set the course to where we want to go.
Anyone who likes sailing, flying or hiking in the mountains knows per-
fectly well that a compass is an essential instrument to identify where we
are on the map and to establish the course we want. In the case of human
motivations, we can use the map to identify our position. Do we have an
instrument to help us to identify where to go, though? The compass for
our map is nothing more than the kind of meaning we want to give to our
work. As we will see, there are different meanings of work, and knowing
each of them will serve as a navigation tool to get to wherever we want
to go.
Note
1 By classical, I mean based on the dialogue of classical Greek philosophers, such as
Aristotle, Plato or Socrates, in dialogue with other later classical philosophers and
theologians, such as Augustine of Hypona or Thomas Aquinas.
References
Augustine, S. (1993). The City of God. New York: Random House, pp. 690–691.
Bañón, A. J., Guillén, M. & Gil, I. (2012). Ethics and learning organizations in the
New Economy. In Human Resource Management in the Digital Economy: Creat-
ing Synergy Between Competency Models and Information. Hershey (Pennsylva-
nia, EE.UU.): IGI Global, pp. 67–79.
Baviera, T., English, W. & Guillén, M. (2016). The ‘Logic of Gift’: Inspiring behav-
ior in organizations beyond the limits of duty and exchange. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 26(2), 159–180.
Blackburn, S. (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Burggraf, J. (2012). Made for Freedom. New York: Scepter.
Esparza, M. (2013). Self-esteem Without Selfishness. New Rochelle, NY: Scepter.
Esptein, Greg M. (2010). Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People
Do Believe. New York: HarperCollins.
Feser, E. (2009). Aquinas. A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford, England: Oneworld
Publications.
Fisher, C. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Reviews,
12, 384–412.
Gallup. (2017). State of the Global Workplace. Gallup Report. New York: Gallup
Press. www.gallup.com/workplace/238079/state-global-workplace-2017.aspx.
Grant, A. (2013). Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success. New York:
Viking.
Guillén, M. (2018). Creating better human motivation theories for personal flour-
ishing in organizations. In Personal Flourishing in Organizations. Cham, Switzer-
land: Springer, pp. 49–65.
Hicks, D. (2018). Leading with Dignity: How to Create a Culture That Brings Out
the Best in People. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Konstan, D. (2008). Aristotle on love and friendship. SCHOLE, II(2), 207–212.
Küng, H. (1993). A Global Ethic: The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s
Religions. New York: Continuum.
Lewis, C. S. (1991). The Four Loves. Orlando, FL: Hartcourt Brace & Co.
Pérez-López, J. A. (1974). Organizational theory: A cybernetic approach. IESE
Research Paper, July 1974, WP n° 5.
Pirson, M., Goodpaster, K. & Dierksmeier, C. (2016). Guest editors’ introduction:
Human dignity and business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 26(4), 465–478. https://
doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.47.
Wadell, P. (1992). Primacy of love. An Introduction to the Ethics of Thomas Aqui-
nas. New York: Paulist Press.
8 The compass for motivations
Searching for a meaningful
work-life balance
Meaning in life and motivations

In Chapter 7, we saw how the logic of love, or the logic of our desire for
truly human goods,1 allowed us to better understand the coordinates of our
map of motivations in life and work. Following this logic, we concluded
that some goods are higher than others, more worthy of being loved or more
truly human (friendship, virtue, holiness, etc.). In addition, there are goods
that come first (service, gratefulness, worship, etc.) due to their being more
“transcendent”, involving others and not just ourselves (see Figure 7.8).
Now, once the internal logic of the map has been shown, and its coor-
dinates identified, I usually recommend students use the map to diagnose
their personal motivations, in their lives in general, and not just with their
studies. This exercise allows them to see for themselves to what extent this
theory is useful, contributing to their personal self-knowledge. Furthermore,
the map will eventually allow them to reflect on the meaning they give to
their lives.
Without a doubt, taking a hard look at our motivations is a complex task.
Each of our actions can be motivated for a multitude of reasons, and all of
them are interrelated and fluctuating. For this reason, I encourage students
to use Figure 8.1 as a framework to look for specific evidence that justifies
the presence of the different kinds of motivations in their decisions, those
that they find in their daily behaviours and in their ordinary life.
Normally, the best way to look for evidence on what moves you to act
(what motivates you) is to think about the time dedicated to different kinds
of activities every day. It seems logical that we spend more time on the
activities that interest us the most, on what we love the most, but this is
not always the case. For example, students who go to class out of duty or
obligation or to pass their exams because they have no other choice are not
positively motivated. For this reason, as well as considering the time dedi-
cated to each activity, I ask students to think about the reason or reasons
behind them, to think about the motives that lead to them spending time
doing that activity.
At this point, students prepare their own lists of the things they do on a
daily basis and the motivations behind them before adding the evidence to

Spiritual Receive Achieve Give Return

Good
Higher Spiritual
Grace Holiness Light Praise
Realm from God through God’s action to others to God
Moral
Good Respect Excellence Good Adoration
Ethical Realm
from others through our actions to others to God
Pleasant
Good Esteem Satisfaction Joy Gratefulness
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good Support Competence Service Fidelity
Physical Realm
Figure 8.1 The map of motivations and the meaning in life
the corresponding boxes on the map. Some use a Likert-type scale, rating
items on a level of agreement (Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and
Strongly disagree); others add plus and minus signs, and some employ a
traffic-lights system.
For example, using Figure 8.1 as a pattern to fill up her own map, one stu-
dent shaded boxes in green (as having those motivations) related to achiev-
ing competence and satisfaction in the second column. In her comments,
she said that she would like to learn and enjoy life. She added green to the
achievement of excellence, because she wanted to become a better person
at the same time. In addition, she also included “give joy” and “give good”
as green in the third column. The remaining boxes were red. She did not
consider them to be her important motivations, the ones giving meaning to
her life.
As I have said, this exercise is personal, and I never ask students to share
it with the class. If they share it with me, it is always of their own volition as
part of our mentoring sessions during my office time. Normally, for them to
learn how to do this exercise, we analyse the real case of a third party, such
as Vicente, who I mentioned in Chapter 5. When doing this exercise, many
practical issues arise related to people management and their motivations.
Among the many reflections that this type of exercise allows, one of the
most important is realising that motivations are always personal, in the
sense that they belong to the entire person. Nevertheless, motivations are
always intangible, which means that in order to be known, they have to be
shared and communicated. We can always guess, but we will most likely
The compass for motivations 181
make big mistakes as managers. Therefore, we should never guess what
others’ motivations are; we should ask them. Good managers judge subor-
dinates’ actions but not their intentions. If they want to know motivations,
they should ask and listen.
If this can be applied to the management of other people in organisa-
tions, even more so should it be applied to the management of our own
motivations. Stopping to reflect on your own motivations using the map is
an exercise that all those attending my seminars have always appreciated.
This explains why many say that this is a very practical theory. As for the
students, they all seem to be thankful for having learnt about this map and
having used it for their own personal reflection.
The student I quoted a moment ago wrote at the end of the course, “This
map has been a great help to me in realising what motivates me. Stopping to
think and reflect on it has made me realise that, in my case, the motivations
that led me to study management and my personal motivations in life do not
coincide. I have decided that from now on I will not stop looking for what
makes me happy, what I am good at and what really motivates me”. The
reason she was able to differentiate between her personal and professional
motivations is that I asked her to compare them both.
As we will see in the coming sections, one of the key reasons why it is not
easy to find a balance between personal and professional life is precisely
because of the tension between the different motivations in play. Before
discussing the balance between work and personal life, let us pause for a
moment to consider the most common motivations and meanings in work
that I have found among those attending seminars and classes on people
management.
The meaning of work and motivations

As the courses and seminars I usually teach are about people management
and business organisation, our goal is to understand people’s motivations in
organisations. For this reason, once the students have understood this human-
istic theory of motivations in general terms, as well as the map of motivations
and its internal logic, I ask them to go back again and use this tool to analyse
their own motivations and the meaning they seek in their work.
On this occasion, the question I ask is along the lines of what they usually
look for in their work. What moves them to go to work every day? Obvi-
ously, in terms of their content, the answers of the professionals who attend
the seminars are usually different from those of students. However, as we
will see, the responses between them are not so different regarding the most
common type of motivations at work.
As I did before, I suggest that students and professionals use the map in
Figure 8.1 as a pattern to help them answer this question and to diagnose
their motivations at work. It makes sense that the motivations and mean-
ing of work are not the same for students with no real work experience as
they are for mid-career senior managers, at least concerning the reasons that
move them to go to work daily.
The purpose that leads a young student to work (studying, in most cases)
is usually related to things such as obtaining a degree that allows them to get
a well-paid job, doing what they enjoy the most and, less frequently, learn-
ing or becoming competent for their future jobs. These have been the most
common answers from the majority of my students since I started using this
tool in my classes several years ago. All these responses (to be paid, to enjoy
and to learn) are found in the lower-left quadrant of the map of motivations
that refers more specifically to work (see Figure 8.2).
The responses of MBA students differ slightly from those of undergradu-
ates, but not by much. What moves them to study an MBA is to earn a
good salary, but they also add the idea of achieving a good job with high
social status and that gives them prestige. Of course, they also want to be
professionally competent and to be among the best in their areas of exper-
tise. Once again, all the responses (to be paid, to be esteemed, to learn and
to enjoy) are located in the lower-left quadrant of the map (see Figure 8.2).
Finally, the answers that mid-career managers often give for what moves
them to go to work is to achieve financial security or to earn a good salary
that allows them to support their families and enjoy life. In this case, it is
evident that senior professionals go to work to be paid, but they have the
need to serve in mind, to support the other members of their family. Many
of them seek to maintain status (to be esteemed), although not all recognise
it. What is striking is that, in most cases, they do not mention that they go
to work to learn or to enjoy (see Figure 8.2).

Spiritual
Good
To Be To Be To To
Higher Spiritual Sanctified a Saint Sanctify Honour
Realm
Moral To Be To To To
Good
Ethical Realm Respected Flourish Do Good Worship
Pleasant To Be To To To
Good
Psychological Realm Esteemed Enjoy Please Thank
Useful To Be To To To Be
Good
Physical Realm Paid Learn Serve Faithful
Figure 8.2 The map of motivations and the meaning in work

It is evident that the findings I get from those attending my classes and
seminars are not necessarily representative; however, the purpose here is not
so much to offer a global and rigorous map of what the motivations are at
work today but, rather, to help those attending the sessions to know their
own motivations better and to interpret them. The purpose here is to show
what the most common motivations are in these cases and to learn how to
read the map. If these findings were truly global and could be generalised,
what would they be telling us? How can we interpret the position they indi-
cate on the map? Before conducting more in-depth research with this map,
it is necessary to know how to use and interpret it.
For this, we need some instrument to help us, to interpret the different
positions that can be found on the map. The instrument that normally
serves this purpose is the compass. Is there a compass that tells us where we
are on our map of motivations? As we will see next, the answer is yes. The
compass that allows us to interpret this map comes from understanding the
different meanings of work. How do we conceive our work, what purpose
or meaning do we give to it? Is it just a job, is it a career or is it a calling or
higher calling?
The meaning of work as a job

In April 2019, I was invited to attend an interdisciplinary conference at Har-
vard on the meaning of life. The event had a significant impact on my under-
standing of human motivations and on the content of this book. Until then,
I was planning to write a book exclusively about a humanistic approach to
motivations in organisations, just the first and second parts of this book that
you are reading now, but it was then that I decided to connect the map of
motivations to the meaning of life and work. At that conference, I under-
stood that these issues are inseparable, and I started to become familiar with
the literature on the meanings of work and its relationship with the meaning
of life. It was there that I decided to write the third part of this book.
At that conference, I learnt more about the origin of meaningful work
theories. It seems that they draw their inspiration from Durkheim’s (1897)
sociological analysis of suicide. I read this in a text published by Michael F.
Steger of Colorado University, one of the world’s experts on purpose and
meaning at work and who I was lucky enough to meet personally at that
conference. I owe him everything I have learnt in this area of knowledge.
In one of his works, Professor Steger explained that it was Durkheim who
“argued that one cause of suicide was unemployment because it deprived
people of their function and their opportunity to contribute to society” (Ste-
ger, 2017, p. 61). More than one hundred years after Durkheim’s observa-
tions about the direct impact of losing one’s place in society through the loss
of work, we still see the importance of having a meaningful job.
As Professor Steger explained, “meaningful work is viewed as a way
to bring harmony, if not balance, to the busy lives of workers, providing
workers with well-being at the office and providing organizations with
enhanced productivity, performance, and dedication” (Steger, 2017, p. 60).
In his view, meaningful work seeks to understand the meaning and value
work provides to people.
Given the growing body of research in this area, it seems that “meaning-
ful work holds the promise of being the ‘next big thing’ among organiza-
tions seeking a lever for improving organizational performance” (Steger,
2017, p. 60). Even though scholars have differed on how they formally
define this concept, “the common thread across all definitions is the idea
that for work to be meaningful, an individual worker must be able to iden-
tify some personally meaningful contribution made by his or her effort”
(Steger, 2017, p. 60).
As we saw in the previous section, undergraduates, MBA students and
senior managers all want to have a job. There is nothing wrong about con-
ceiving your work as a job, in fact, just the opposite. When we go to work
with a “job” mind-set, we work for the money. We are extrinsically moti-
vated, for practical and useful reasons. Work is seen as a means to an end, to
financially support life outside of work, and therefore is a basic necessity, a
kind of need that is universal. This is the first basic purpose of the majority
of jobs: to support us and our families.
We all need an occupation, so, again, there is nothing wrong with having
the concept of our work as a job. What would be wrong is not to be able
to get a job, or to only have access to bad, inhuman or unfair jobs. This is
why I always advise my students to make sure they start looking for a good
job as soon as they can. I suggest they find employment capable of helping
them and their future families satisfy their extrinsic useful motivations. We
all need and want to receive useful good. The starting point of any good
work should be its capacity to contribute to the satisfaction of our basic
needs (see Figure 8.3).
It is true that work is a means to an end and is why we all need to have
a job. However, this statement is not entirely accurate. To be more specific,
we should say that work could be a means to many possible and different
ends, goals or purposes. This is what we have been discussing in this chap-
ter; there are different meanings we can give to our work, different reasons
or purposes we look for when working. One of these purposes is related to
obtaining useful goods, the lowest meaning of work, but the first and neces-
sary one, as Figure 8.3 captures.
For most people, having a job, daily occupation or task, is an essential
ingredient in a fulfilled and healthy life. These were precisely Durkheim’s
findings regarding the negative impact of losing one’s place in society
through the loss of work and the resulting number of people committing
suicide (Steger, 2017). Unless one is ill, ageing or incapable of working, hav-
ing a job or looking for one is crucial to fulfilling life. This is why whenever
I meet former students who are unemployed, if they ask, I suggest they think
of their search for employment as a job in itself.
Spiritual
Good
Higher Spiritual
Realm
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Pleasant
Good
Psychological Realm
Work as a JOB
Willingness
Useful
to receive
Good
(Physical Level)
useful good
Sustenance, Safety, Support
Figure 8.3 The meaning of work as a job
When work is seen as just a job, it is progressively perceived in a negative

light. It is just the price you have to pay to receive other higher goods later
and in some other place. People will look for other activities outside their
job to fulfil their other higher motivations. This is why so many people,
when they go to work, dream about the upcoming weekend. They don’t love
their work; in fact, only 15% of the world’s one billion full-time workers are
engaged at work, the other 85% are not engaged (Gallup, 2017).
Even though having a job is necessary, reducing the meaning of our work
exclusively to its useful purpose, seeing it as “just a job”, is neither the only
nor the best possible alternative. What the literature on meaningful work in
recent decades seems to keep proving is that being stuck in such a limited
mind-set of work is counterproductive. People who see their work as just a
job “tend to be dissatisfied, finding little meaning in what they do. They also
are generally looking for something new” (Barnett, 2012).
In addition to making money, there are many other higher goods at stake
in our work in human organisations, precisely because they are human.
Organisations cannot be reduced to their technical or financial functions;
in the case of business organisations, they are not simply moneymaking
machines as some might pretend. The meaning we give to our work can be
greater than just a way of paying our bills or making a lot of money.
When the only good at stake in an organisation is the practical, useful
one, the vision of human work remains limited to just its practical or techni-
cal dimension. In these cases, effectiveness and efficiency become the only
criteria that seem to matter in making decisions. Incentive systems are then
centred mainly on monetary rewards, premiums, bonuses and all kinds of
financial return. This is often the case when the purpose of the organisation
is reduced to its bottom line: making money.
Of course, the managers in charge of running companies know that, in
addition to money, most people would rather work in a friendly environ-
ment, have fun and become masters at what they do. This simple reason
would explain why the concept of work promoted in most companies and
business schools is the meaning of work conceived as a career. What does
work focussed on a professional career consist of? Let us now consider this.
The meaning of work as a career

When work is perceived as a career opportunity, it is then a kind of
stepping-stone to reaching a higher-level goal related to more success. This
gives work a higher meaning, not only because it pays (as a job) but also
because it produces prestige, satisfaction and advancement (Barnett, 2012).
The entire idea of conceiving of our work as a career is encapsulated visu-
ally by the first two columns and the first two levels of our map of human
motivations. This visual representation also allows the concept of work as
a career to be compatible with that of work as a job and in the majority of
cases will include it (see Figure 8.4).
Within this career orientation, one generally aims to impress others, so
one tends to strive for the next promotion and greater prestige (extrinsic
pleasant motivation). It makes one look for personal satisfaction, a feeling

Spiritual
Good
Higher Spiritual
Realm
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Work as a CAREER
Pleasant
Psychological Realm
Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 8.4 The meaning of work as a career

that one is “winning” when achieving some goal and measuring most things
in terms of competition, success and excitement (intrinsic pleasant motiva-
tion) (see Figure 8.4).
Of course, this career view demands more training and aiming for con-
tinuous personal advancement (intrinsic useful motivation). These are the
kinds of motivations that are captured as we move inside the second group-
ing of our map of human motivations. As we discussed earlier, lower levels
of goods in our map are necessary and subordinate to higher-level goods. In
order to have a career, you first need to have a job (see Figure 8.4).
It is clear that the concept of work as a career is higher than a job. Now,
work is not only seen as a means to obtain financial support, it is not just
a way to get the resources needed to enjoy our time away from the job;
it now becomes an end in itself. We have higher interests and ambitions
that are expressed through doing the work itself. That is why the intrinsic
motivations become the cornerstone of this meaning of work, as we saw in
Chapter 1.
When we see our work as a career, we have a deeper personal invest-
ment in it. We mark our achievement not only through external monetary
gain, but also through achievement in the work and advancement within
the occupational structure. This advancement often brings a higher social
standing, increased power within the scope of one’s occupation and higher
self-esteem (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
This concept of work as a career is the most widespread in today’s world
of management education, in particular, and in most professional training in
general. Schools, colleges and universities have become places where people
look for the necessary qualifications and skills for their future professional
careers. Within this generalised social framework in Western countries,
work success is measured mostly in terms of salary and prestige (extrinsic
motivations) but also in terms of competence or mastery, power and self-
satisfaction (intrinsic motivations).
As we discussed in Chapter 1, intrinsic motivation is presented currently
as the key factor in explaining higher levels of motivation, engagement and
commitment in the workplace. Everyone has a permanent natural desire to
look for the things they consider good, this is precisely the substance of our
motivations, and these goods constitute the purpose or telos of our actions.
We are insatiable purpose seekers, good seekers, and having a career brings
more goods than just having a job, as we have just discussed (see Figure 8.4).
Because we are insatiable purpose seekers, we have the tendency to look
constantly for higher and wider goods in our lives, and that means that we
have the tendency to look for higher and wider meaning in our work, too.
This explains that, when we care about having a job, we also start caring
about the work itself, its intrinsic meaning. We then have the desire to enjoy
and improve in our work, to become better at what we do, to improve our
career. Furthermore, and because of this permanent desire for higher and
wider goods, things do not stop there.
As we saw in Chapter 7, given that we want to achieve as many goods
as we can, we have this tendency to move up and to the right in our map
of motivations. If we love what we do in our work, the inner tendency is to
then transcend our own good and try to reach out to others to share that
good with them. As we discussed in Chapter 4, the intrinsic motivation is
contagious. As the medieval philosophical adagio goes, bonum est diffusi-
vum sui (“the good diffuses itself”). The good always tends to disseminate,
and this is probably what explains the tendency of so many to conceive
work as a calling. But what does it mean to conceive our work as a calling?
The meaning of work as a calling

Those who fall into the calling category often see their work as more mean-
ingful. People who have a calling view their work as one of the most impor-
tant parts of their lives and a vital part of their identity. Their source of
motivation comes from the fulfilment that doing the work brings them.
“They see their work as a positive end in itself. They feel good about what
they’re doing. They give more to their work. They get more from it. And
here’s a secret about people with callings: Not only are they happy and ful-
filled, they’re often very successful, sometimes bringing financial rewards”
(Barnett, 2012).
A well-known example of this higher meaning of work is the story about
the answer that a janitor gave to President John F. Kennedy while on a visit
to NASA in 1962. He saw this janitor mopping the floor and asked him
what his job was at NASA. He replied, “I’m helping send a man to the
moon”. He didn’t say he was cleaning that area to earn some money (seeing
his work as a job), or because he liked it, or that it would help him get a
better job (seeing his work as a career).
No, his answer was related to a higher purpose, a bigger meaning. He was
contributing to a project that was greater than he was, and he felt proud
of his work because of that. This is precisely what it means to conceive our
work as a calling. We see a higher purpose behind the work. We feel it is
highly rewarding and inspiring.
When we see our work as a calling, the content of the work is relativised;
it does not matter if it is big or small – mopping the floor or landing on the
moon – its value will depend on the meaning that each person gives to the
work. Because each person is unique, each must discover the unique gift
that they can give to the world. We will reflect on this in more detail in the
final chapter.
Research proves that those seeing their work as a calling are most likely to
feel a deep alignment between their professional aptitude and who they are
as a person. They are enthusiastic, have a sense of transcendent purpose and
are willing to work harder and longer to make a contribution. They make
helping others a higher priority. Unsurprisingly, this group is often the most
satisfied with their professional situation (Barnett, 2012).
Not long ago, I had a conversation with a colleague in Boston. When
I told her about my passion for teaching and my desire to write this book,
she told me, “It is clear that you are listening and answering to your inner
calling”. At first, it sounded quite weird to me, mostly because we do not
use that expression much in Spanish, but then I suddenly understood what
it means to conceive our work as an inner calling.
An inner calling is something you have to listen for, to understand and to
answer. The calling is something that comes to someone and is individual to
that person. It is something that calls out to everyone in a different way in
our consciences if we listen to it. You don’t hear it once and then immedi-
ately recognise it. It takes time to discover it. You’ve got to attune yourself
to find it because it is something internal and deep within your conscience,
a reflection, intuition or desire to discover the meaning of what we do, why
do we do it and for what purpose.
The inner calling that my colleague was talking about is related to the
concept of moral conscience that I described in Chapter 3 – the judgement
of our reason whereby we recognise the moral quality of our actions. In
our conscience, we can judge the reasons we go to work and why we keep
working as we do. This is related to discovering our own talents, our own
capabilities and our own potential to contribute to a greater good.
When we see our work as a calling, we tend to think that the things we
do in life, be they great or small, make a difference as if we had been called
to do it. Moreover, once we find our calling, we have a higher meaning, a
sense of transcendent purpose or a mission in our work and in our lives.
In our later years, we will be able to look back to see the impact we made
on the world, an impact that some will measure exclusively in terms of the
money they made in their job and the fun they had outside it. Others will
also value that impact in terms of their career achievements. Others will
view their time in terms of personal human growth and service to a calling.
These are all different meanings that we can freely give to our work and
lives.
As you probably remember, I mentioned a colleague in Chapter 7 who
once told me that it seemed that I was preaching more than teaching because
I talk about motivation, meaning and purpose beyond its economic scope.
I replied that, as teachers of management, we are supposed to teach how to
make good decisions. Therefore, by providing a wider view of what “good”
means, beyond strictly material good, we enhance our students’ capabilities
to make better decisions. We can help them be better and freer in finding
good jobs, in pursuing good careers, but even more importantly, in better
hearing their inner callings.
As the map of human motivations shows (see Figure 8.5), the material
good is necessary, but it is neither the highest nor the only good at stake in
the workplace. This is why this book is part of a humanistic management
series. Only by considering other higher levels of human good can a man-
ager understand the higher meanings that people give to their work.

Spiritual
Good
Higher Spiritual
Realm Work as a CALLING

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 8.5 The meaning of work as a calling
As Figure 8.5 shows – looking at the third row from the left– when we
try to find our calling, we are then open to receiving advice from others who
care about us (receiving moral good). We want to find the best version of
ourselves (achieving moral good). We desire to contribute to the well-being
of others (giving moral good) that includes their entire humanness. It means
that we care about their moral human flourishing but also – now looking at
the third column going downwards – about making their life more pleasant
(giving pleasant good) and helping them through our work, by serving them
(giving useful good).
Again, I reiterate to my students that the meaning of our work refers to
the purposes we choose to follow when working. We may decide to see our
work as “just a job”, or we can choose to move towards a more meaningful
view of our daily work. Either way, we are the ones finding meaning in what
we do; no one else can find that meaning for us.
As we saw in Chapter 7, our insatiable desire for the good corresponds
to our desire for love, for truly human good, even in the workplace. There-
fore, we can say that the deepest meaning of our work depends mainly on
the love with which we look at it, on the love with which it is done and on
the love or the true human good that it produces. Of course, this meaning
is affected by the nature of the work itself, by the organisation in which we
work and by the work environment in general, among other things. Nev-
ertheless, it is in our hands to give a greater or lesser meaning to our work.
Clearly and simply stated, it is our choice to work with more or less love, to
make the work more or less human.
Meaningful work itself represents an opportunity to transition from
organisational practices that simply seek to maximise effort and output to
those that also contribute to a more humane work that best fits with a
humanistic management view.
The literature on meaningful work again proves that different people
give different meanings to the same jobs and that more meaningful work
is not concentrated in particular occupations or positions in organisations.
Besides, what seems to also be a universal fact is that people giving higher
meaning to their jobs are healthier and happier, capable of finding a better
work-life balance (Steger, 2017).
A higher meaningful work perception augments employees’ motivation,
attitudes of ownership, responsibility and citizenship towards their organi-
sation. It provides greater well-being, health and belongingness inside the
organisation (Steger, 2017). People engaged in meaningful work report
greater job satisfaction and work enjoyment; they increasingly value their
work highly and believe that it plays a more central role in their lives (Steger,
2017). This is precisely what the meaning of work as a calling provides to
people in their workplaces.
As noted before, attending this conference on the meaning of life at Har-
vard in 2019 had a major impact on my understanding of the connection
between human motivation and meaningful work. While there, I learnt more
about a popular model among specialists in this area of knowledge. The
model draws upon a three-dimensional orientation towards work and was
first presented by Bellah and colleagues (Bellah et al., 1985). I will describe
the model now, and then you can best decide to what extent the model fits
with the logic of the map of motivations.
First, the model describes people who see their work as a job. Those
who perceive their daily tasks as an avenue towards financial or material
compensation. These people have little or no concern for whether work is
meaningful or significant; for them, it is just a way of living. Second, people
who perceive their work as a career. They focus on work as a path towards
gaining a sense of achievement, mastery, status or advancement within the
organisation. Once again, they have no particular interest in meaning. Third,
and in contrast to the previous concepts, there are those who see their work
as a calling. Their work orientation is mainly focussed on the fulfilment,
prosocial benefits and sense of purpose that their daily tasks provide. They
are those who are trying to make the world a better place (Steger, 2017).
This calling orientation model is relevant to theories of meaningful
work because of how scholars have relied on it since it was first published.
For example, the later work of Wrzesniewski and colleagues framed their
research in the same terms of calling as Bellah and found similar results
regarding the three concepts of work (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). On the
other hand, authors like Pratt and colleagues proposed that Bellah’s classic
calling orientation model could itself be further understood as a combina-
tion of three independent dimensions (craftsmanship, serving and kinship)
that may exist outside the parameters of calling and would be related with
work orientation (Pratt et al., 2013).
What all these studies have in common is a multidimensional understand-
ing of the meaning people give to their work. Moreover, and regarding how
the model fits with the logic of the map of motivations, if you look at the
map in the form of expanding rectangles, starting from the lower-left corner
(see Figure 8.5), what you see is that each rectangle corresponds exactly to
the three work meanings described decades ago by Bellah et al. (1985).
The first rectangle includes the motivations behind a concept of work
as a job. The second, which includes the first one, gathers the motivations
behind a perception of work as a career and the third embraces the previous
two to include all the motivations that justify a view of work as a calling
(see Figure 8.5).
This amazing coincidence between the groups of motivations in our map
and the kinds of work orientation does not seem to be pure luck. It supports
the idea that, as I endorsed in Chapter 6, the map we have seen throughout
this book is an accurate taxonomy of the entire range of human motiva-
tions. Moreover, this happy coincidence seems to reflect that, following the
logic of the map of motivations described in Chapter 7, the classification of
work orientation understood as a job, career or calling could also be under-
stood in a hierarchical order.
Therefore, we could say that there are work orientations that are higher
and better than others in terms of the kinds of good they pursue. In other
words, they are greater manifestations of the interest for truly human goods
and, for that reason, are more desirable. Here, I defend an even bolder thesis
that the different work orientations are not incompatible but are, in fact,
complementary, and the ideal one would include them all in a fully inte-
grated manner. What about the final rectangle, then? Can we still talk about
a higher meaning of work, a higher calling?
The meaning of work as a higher calling

People viewing their work as a calling think that it contributes to making
the world a better place. They are those who “find that their work is insepa-
rable from their life. A person with a Calling works not for financial gain
or career advancement, but instead for the fulfilment that doing the work
brings to the individual” (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997, p. 22).
Therefore, the concept of calling refers to a view of work that is person-
ally meaningful, that is motivated by an interest in serving a prosocial ben-
efit and, additionally, responds to a summons to work that comes from the
personal conscience but that could also come from transcendent sources.
Such sources could be as different as some perceived external societal need,
some respected authorities or some other spiritual reasons, and for those
with faith in God, the desire to fulfil God’s will, conceived as a divine higher
calling or supernatural vocation.
As the research by Wrzesniewski and colleagues explains, the word “call-
ing” was originally used in a religious context (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
Nevertheless, as they themselves recognise, while some may consider the
modern sense of “calling” to have lost its religious connection, there is
evidence that the religious connection still matters (Davidson & Caddell,
1994).
In a religious sense, the concept of higher calling or vocation (from Latin
vocātiō, meaning “a call, summons”) refers to the call received from God to
do His will, to follow a specific path or carry out some mission. It is usually
understood as stable state of life, permanent over a lifetime. For centuries,
the concept was applied mainly to members of formal religious Christian
institutions, such as pastors, priests, monks or nuns, and only by analogy to
other secular forms of callings.
Only more recently has the religious concept of vocation been applied
universally to laypeople. Well-known examples of professions that are still
today understood as vocations, given their higher levels of social service,
are those of doctors, nurses, teachers, the armed forces, police officers and
firefighters. The word “vocation” is still used in a religious context with a
spiritual meaning, whereas in secular contexts, the use of the word calling
is more frequent.
Therefore, it is possible to distinguish between, on one hand, the secular
concept of inner calling (or just calling), which is internal and of a moral
nature and, on the other hand, the concept of higher calling (or vocation),
which is of a spiritual nature and of a supernatural or divine origin. I find it
important to make this distinction because there are several lines of research
under the rubric of calling that do not include the spiritual content.
Even though the term higher calling is not univocal and may include
various motivations of the spiritual and supernatural realms, it is still
different, compatible and complementary with the one of just calling.
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between them and understand the
difference.
On one hand, the concept of calling captures the idea of a higher meaning
of work that makes it personally expressive and with high moral standards
to benefit others. It refers to a plausible inner calling to give a higher and
more transcendent meaning to our work, and its origin is in our moral con-
science (see Figure 8.5). On the other hand, the concept of a higher calling
or vocation captures the idea of a calling whose source is higher, and has a
spiritual, transcendent or supernatural origin. This concept demands faith
in a spiritual realm, or even faith in the existence of God, the Giver of such
a divine supernatural vocation, in the case of believers (see Figure 8.6).
The truth is that there is not much empirical evidence for the role of
this meaning of work conceived as a higher calling. Nevertheless, there is

Work as a HIGHER CALLING

Moral
Ethical Realm

Pleasant
Psychological Realm

Useful
Good
Physical Realm
Figure 8.6 The meaning of work as a higher calling
evidence that people who see their job as sacred (i.e. a vocation) experience
higher job satisfaction, more commitment to their organisation and a lower
intention of quitting their job (Walker et al., 2008).
Another study of highly educated working mothers, found that those who
declared “sanctification of work” among their purpose predicted higher
positive emotions and job satisfaction and lower life-work conflict beyond
other measures of religiosity (Hall et al., 2012). In the same vein, another
more recent study indicated that the sanctification of work was a significant
predictor of job satisfaction, turnover intention and organisational commit-
ment after controlling for personality, spirituality, religiosity, psychological
safety and demographic variables (Carroll et al., 2014).
To be precise, this concept of sanctification of work has been measured as
a psychological construct that includes every process through which people
perceive aspects of life (in this case of work-life) to possess a spiritual char-
acter and significance. As we will see in Chapter 9, this concept fits with the
religious idea of a universal call to sanctity, to be perfect in love, with the
help of God in ordinary life and daily work.
What empirical research seems to keep proving is that, for those who
have faith, understanding work as a higher calling has a positive impact on a
number of work-related outcomes. These studies also show the need to dis-
tinguish between the meaning of work understood as a calling in a secular
sense and the one understood as a vocation or higher calling in a spiritual or
religious sense. What the map of motivations allows is a better understand-
ing and distinction between those two different concepts of work meanings.
The fourth row from the left in Figure 8.6 shows that when work is per-
ceived as a higher calling or a supernatural vocation, it is seen as source
of spiritual gifts and, for those who have faith, as an occasion to have an
encounter with God at work (receiving spiritual good). Moreover, it becomes
an opportunity to attain holiness (achieving spiritual good) and a chance for
self-giving and prayer for others (giving spiritual good). For those who have
faith in God, now looking at the fourth column of the map going upwards,
work also becomes an occasion to serve, please, adore and glorify God (reli-
gious motivations).
At the beginning of this chapter, we recognised that to understand our
motivations at work and in organisations, simply having a map was not
enough. We saw that, in addition to the map, some instrument was needed
to help us read the map and interpret the different positions one could take
on it. Such an instrument would serve as a compass, a navigation tool help-
ing to identify a fixed reference point, giving direction. Such a reference
point is the different work meaning each person wants to have.
Consistent with the findings of scientific literature on meaningful work,
the internal logic of our map of motivations allows us to distinguish between
four meanings of work conceived as a job, career, calling and higher calling.
Therefore, knowledge of these different points of reference or purposes at
work should allow us to define a roadmap for our personal and professional
life’s journey. Reflecting on this roadmap will be the purpose of the final
chapter, but we still need to answer the question of how this compass can
help us find a meaningful work-life balance.
Searching for a meaningful work-life balance

At the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned a student who, after using the
map to diagnose her motivations in life and at work, discovered that those
motivations did not match. The motivations that led this person to study
business administration and her motivations in life were quite different. This
mismatch between motivations at work and in life is not something unique
to this student.
I have encountered this same phenomenon every time I have asked stu-
dents and seminar attendees to use the map to diagnose their motivations in
life and then at work. For example, as I said earlier, the purpose that leads
young undergraduates to work (study) is usually related to the lower-left
quadrant of the map (see Figure 8.7). They all want to get their degrees to
access well-paid jobs, to be competent and to enjoy life. However, when
they read the map and think about their life’s purpose, higher and more
transcendent motivations appear. Almost all of them want to change the
world and make it better; many want to start a family, and they all want
to mature, grow humanely and be happy. The misalignment of the motiva-
tions is evident, and it is what the double-headed arrow in Figure 8.7 tries
to reflect.

Work as a HIGHER CALLING

Spiritual Receive Achieve Give Return
Good
Higher Spiritual
Grace Holiness Light Praise
Realm from God through God’s action to others to G
God
Receive Achieve Work as a CALLING

Give Return
R
Moral
Good Respect Excellence Good Adoration
Ethical Realm
from others through our actions to othe
others
s to God
Receive Work Achieve

as a CAREER G
Give Return
Pleasant
Good Esteem Satisfaction
on Joy Gratefulness
Psychological Realm
from others through our
ur actions
tion to others to God
Work as a JOB
Receive Achi
Achieve Give Return
Useful
Good Support Competence
C Service Fidelity
Physical Realm
Figure 8.7 Searching for a meaningful work-life balance: Compass for motivations
Something very similar occurs with MBA students. What moves them
to finish their Master’s programme is to earn a good salary, get a pres-
tigious job, be among the best and do what they like. Once again, all the
MBA students’ answers about work purpose are in the lower-left quadrant
of the map (see Figure 8.7), but they respond very differently regarding their
motivations in life. The ideals of MBA students are very similar to those of
undergraduate students. Whereas some are only interested in succeeding
in life (again in the lower quadrant of the map), most want to change the
world, to contribute to making it better and to be happy. Again, a mismatch
of motivations shows up.
I have had numerous conversations with MBA students who told me
about their desire to not make the same mistakes as their parents. Many
have witnessed family crises caused by this tension between personal and
professional lives. This is consistent with the response that mid-career man-
agers give about their motivations in life and work. I have also seen the
tension among them between both the personal and professional spheres.
What moves most senior managers in their jobs is to achieve financial
security for themselves and their families. It is very striking, though, that
many of them recognise that they have also been carried away by status,
looking good, having luxurious cars and good houses. Worst of all is that
they recognise they are not happy (see Figure 8.7). For older people, the mis-
match or imbalance of personal and professional motivations produces con-
cern, stress and tension, a tension that usually ends up having consequences
in the different spheres of human life: physical, psychological, moral and
spiritual.
As I said before, the findings I obtained from those who attended my
classes and seminars are not necessarily representative, but it is also true
that others have reached the same conclusions in recent years. Most suc-
cessful people in professional settings are not happy in their personal lives
(Wilson & Wilson, 1998).
Moreover, as technology continues to change the shape of work in our
lives, by increasing competition in the job market, increasing globalisation
and increasing the intrusion of workplace communications into personal
time, people struggle with the challenge of trying to balance the demands of
work with life’s priorities (Steger, 2017).
The question is how we manage this tension between personal and profes-
sional motivations. How can we find a more meaningful work-life balance?
Of course, the answer is not easy, but I am convinced that the solution has
at least three stages: being aware of the problem, wanting to solve it and
making the appropriate decisions to change the situation. I call these the
three Cs: consciousness, conversion and change. These are the three stages
I have seen repeatedly in the lives of the many people I have met while teach-
ing about human motivations in organisations, so I recommend my students
reflect carefully about those three Cs.
Some examples of these three stages have been mentioned already, for
instance, with the person I mentioned in Chapter 6, who decided to return
to her religious practices after hearing about the map of motivations. She
first realised she was living a “schizophrenic” double life, personal and pro-
fessional, and she became aware of it because she took the time to stop and
reflect, to examine her conscience. It was a personal epiphany, a moment of
consciousness for her, followed by a conversion, a deep desire and resolu-
tion, which ended in real change.
This is just one of the many examples I have observed over the years. All
of them show that the tension between personal and professional motiva-
tions is a universal phenomenon, the reality behind the lack of a meaningful
work-life balance. It is a reality that explains the frustration of many stu-
dents who do not succeed in their future professions or young professionals
who are absorbed by work and end up destroying their family lives or that
of so many mid-career crises, which lead to many people radically changing
professions.
Finding a meaningful work-life balance is neither a one-day task nor an
easy one; in fact, it is probably a challenge we all face every day. As with
sailors, this imbalance requires regular course correction. The three Cs
I mentioned, consciousness, conversion and change require us to spend time
thinking, making decisions and getting down to business.
As we have seen, the knowledge of the map and the use of the compass
have allowed us to know where we are, to be aware of our position (con-
sciousness). In the example I cited, the map and the compass allowed for an
epiphany. However, to carry out the necessary course changes (conversions)
and to move to our destination (changes), it would be very helpful to have
also a roadmap. In fact, how the compass helps us find a meaningful work-
life balance is by helping us interpret our own roadmap, one that might
allow us to change course whenever necessary.
The last chapter of this book will be dedicated to the roadmap. For now,
and to conclude this chapter, I would like to suggest some questions to help
us consider the kind of meaning we give to our work. We can use these to
figure out where we are on the map right now. I recommend everyone use
the map to diagnose their personal and professional motivations and com-
pare them.
If you find tension between your personal and professional motivations,
or if you are conscious that you are located in a place that is not good
enough, you can still have your personal conversion and change your situ-
ation. As we will see in the final chapter, we can always search for a higher
and more balanced meaning in our work and lives.

1 How often am I concerned about not earning enough money in my cur-
rent job?
2 How often do I think about finishing my job and rushing off to do other
things I like more?
3 How often do I think about my prestige or whether others are going to
praise or criticise me at work?
4 How often do I think about the higher professional position I want to
get in the future?
5 How often do I think about my personal satisfaction at work, putting
my career before the service of others?
6 How often do I think of my work as an opportunity to put into practice
my talents and skills?
7 How often do I think of my work as an opportunity to serve and give
my best to others?
8 How often do I think of my work as an opportunity to make a positive
contribution to society, to build a better world?
9 How often do I think of my work as an opportunity to become a holy
person?
10 How often do I think of my work as an opportunity to serve and please
God?

As I said before, if you discover that your position on the map of motiva-
tions at work is not good enough, you can always change it. The meaning of
your work is not something given by your boss, the organisation or even the
work itself. It is a free personal decision. You can always search for higher
meanings and purposes.
Moving from a career understanding of our personal work to a calling
brings the opportunity to keep growing personally and to find more and
better ways of serving others through our work. Furthermore, for those
who have higher spiritual aspirations, finding a sense of higher calling in our
work promotes higher levels of inner peace and better ways to contribute to
something greater than ourselves.
In the end, different people give different meanings to the same work. We
all have the freedom to seek the meaning of work we want, the one we deem
most appropriate. As one of the attendees to my seminars once explained
in a very logical way, the more we know about the goods we can achieve
through our daily work, the higher our capacity to freely want and choose
those goods.
The final chapter of this book will focus on the importance of stopping
to reflect, looking at our own roadmap and choosing our next steps. To
be motivated means being moved to do something because we want to do
it. Therefore, the more we know about the goods we want, the freer we
become. This capacity to lead our own lives and get to our destination also
helps us to be good leaders at the service of others.
Note
1 As I said previously, I would understand the position of those who would rather
take lesser risks in the context of work in organisations using alternative words,
such as the logic of caring or the logic of attention instead of the logic of love.
Again, as long as we all understand the concept of motivation as the human vol-
untary desire for the good, the labels are relatively unimportant. To avoid an
excessive use of the term “love”, some may decide to use “truly human good” and
the “logic of truly human good” to refer to the same ideas.
References
Barnett, B. (2012). Make Your Job More Meaningful. Harvard Business Review
Online. https://hbr.org/2012/04/make-your-job-more-meaningful.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A. & Tipton, S. M. (1985).
Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. New
York, NY: Harper & Row.
Carroll, S., Stewart-Sicking, J. & Thompson, B. (2014). Sanctification of work:
Assessing the role of spirituality in employment attitudes. Mental Health Reli-
gion & Culture, 17(6).
Davidson, J. C. & Caddell, D. P. (1994). Religion and the meaning of work. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 135–147.
Durkheim, E. (1897/1951). Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press. The World’s Broken Workplace.
Gallup. (2017). State of the Global Workplace. Gallup Report. New York: Gallup
Press. www.gallup.com/workplace/238079/state-global-workplace-2017.aspx.
Hall, M. E. L., Oates, K. L. M., Anderson, T. L. & Willingham, M. M. (2012). Call-
ing and conflict: The sanctification of work in working mothers. Psychology of
Religion and Spirituality, 4(1), 71–83.
Pratt, M. G., Pradies, C. & Lepisto, D. A. (2013). Doing well, doing good, and doing
with: Organizational practices for effectively cultivating meaningful work. In B. J.
Dik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 173–196.
Steger, M. F. (2017). Creating Meaning and Purpose at Work. The Wiley Black-
well Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches
at Work. Chapter 5, Eds. Lindsay G. Oades, Michael F. Steger, Antonella Delle
Fave, & Jonathan Passmore. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Walker, A. G., Jones, M. N., Wuensch, K. L., Aziz, S. & Cope, J. G. (2008). Sanctify-
ing work: Effects on satisfaction, commitment, and intent to leave. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(2), 132–145.
Wilson, L. & Wilson, H. (1998). Play to Win. Choosing Growth over Fear in Work
and Life. Austin, TX: Bard Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C. R., Rozin, P. & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers,
and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality,
31, 21–33.
9 The roadmap for motivations
Always searching for higher
meaningful work
Searching for higher meaningful work

Most people, at some point in their career, struggle with the challenges of
balancing work and family life and finding an appropriate meaning to their
work. This challenge is intensified during moments of transition or opportu-
nity, such as a promotion with greater responsibility that leads to a greater
salary, relocation, etc. Many have rethought the hours spent at work as
their families grow. Is there a correct answer to all these questions? The
issue is not easy to solve, but it seems that searching for a higher meaningful
work-life balance is a universal aspiration.
I recall a comment made by a law student, who was working to pay his
way through university, during a seminar I gave on human motivations in
organisations. He told me that trying to help everyone to have a meaningful
work-life balance is a colossal and unattainable task. He told me that this
approach was “too idealistic”, something I have been told many times, as
you have read throughout the book.
According to this student, given that most people work because they have no
other choice, they mostly see their work as an obligation, a way to earn money
and possibly get ahead in life. Therefore, because most people perceive their
work as just a job, it would be naive to try to get them out of such a mind-set.
He argued that there is no such thing as ideal work. Today’s working conditions
are far from being ideal in most parts of the world, and, in many places, even
finding a job is difficult, so finding the ideal is all but impossible.
While it is true that working conditions are less than ideal in many places
today, and even though I respect his arguments, I do not agree with such a
pessimistic view because it places the blame on third parties for something
that largely depends on us and the meaning we want our work to have. The
meaning of our work does not come exclusively from the working condi-
tions (the salary, our boss, the organisational environment, etc.) or from the
work itself (the nature of the tasks, the difficulty, etc.).
These important external factors shape the meaning we give to our work,
but, at the end of the day, the meaning depends solely on us. We are the ones
who decide the final motives of our own conduct in every minute of our
daily work and lives. Even in the worst possible scenario, with dire working
conditions, we can always find a meaning, a higher meaning, to what we do
(Frankl, 1959).
Of course, I am not advocating giving up the fight for better working
conditions in our organisations. We all should desire and promote the best
possible working conditions, and that is one of the goals of a humanistic
management approach to business administration. In fact, it is one of the
first steps to finding meaning, as I will discuss next.
What I want to underline here is our capacity to freely give a higher mean-
ing to our own work, to personally search for higher meaningful work or
higher and better motivations. The meaning we give to our work and lives
is not exclusively reliant on external factors, or even internal feelings and
moods, but mainly relies on our free will, our capacity to choose our atti-
tude and what we really want. We must not confuse motivations with just
external stimuli or with a greater or lesser passion for doing things.
Naturally, motivation is related to external incentives and internal feel-
ings, but it mainly refers to the personal desire to do what we do and to keep
doing it freely for a purpose; even though at times it may not be pleasant, it
is still good. Human motivations, if truly human, are free human acts and,
above all, refer to our positive attitude, to our voluntary desire for good and
to the logic of love as we have seen throughout this book.
Human motivation is not just an animal motivation only or primarily
about responses to stimuli and instincts, as that mechanistic or emotive con-
cept of motivations would reduce all human drivers to just the lower levels
of the map of motivations. When what prevails is the reaction to external or
internal stimuli, then one leaves the logic of love and enters the logic of fear,
which is behind much of the tension students feel when making decisions
about the future as well as among experienced managers.
As we saw in Chapter 7, we can freely decide to seek those things we
consider valuable in our work, those we consider worthy of being desired
and loved. Therefore, as the customs officer told me, “we are motivated
in our work when we love what we do”. We have the capacity to love our
work, and that is where the reason for our motivation lies or, to put it suc-
cinctly, where it should lie. Unfortunately, we are often moved by fear, just
a feeling, instead of love, which is a feeling and a voluntary desire.
While love is related to the feeling and free desire of “winning” goods,
fear is the feeling of losing them. We fear a coming evil, the loss of a
good or the inability to achieve one in the future. We fear an evil that is
future, threatening and nigh impossible to avoid or overcome (St Thomas,
STh II, II, 125).
Before considering how to improve our motivations at work or how to
achieve more meaningful work, we need to stop and consider the differ-
ence between the logic of fear and the logic of love because the roadmap to
higher meaningful work means leaving the logic of fear and returning to the
logic of love.
The roadmap for motivations 203
From the logic of fear to the logic of love
Understanding fear is another of those issues that most people love to dis-
cuss in seminars on human motivations in organisations and that helps us
better understand our map of motivations and how to manage our concerns.
This question is inseparable from the search for a higher meaning in life and
work. When our work-life balance is compromised, it is often accompanied
by tension, stress and worry.
Fear is found both in human beings and in animals. It is a natural feel-
ing; it is what conflicts with the normal tendency or desire for good, such
as the fear of death, and affects the four realms of human life. We all fear
physical death and sickness, and we should also fear psychological, moral
and spiritual death and sickness. The fear of suffering, the fear of contempt
or even of offending God, in the case of believers, is something human and
reasonable if it is ordered and tends towards love (St Thomas, STh II, II, q
125, art.2).
Moderate fear is a stimulus to the mind, an emotion that triggers you to
act. For this reason, this is a kind of motivation that affects every human
being to a greater or lesser extent, but the problem is when fear is not
ordered,1 not healthy, sane, appropriate or holy. A disordered fear nor-
mally produces an excessive, unavoidable or obsessive tension that is wrong
because it does not lead to an ordered love. An example of disorder in love
would be excessive timidity, as well as excessive vanity.
For the same reason that we were able to describe a reasonable order in
love in Chapter 7, it is also possible to talk of a reasonable order in fear.
In other words, as well as there being goods that are more worthy of being
loved than others, there are also evils that are more worthy of being feared.
The reason for this is that fear is always linked to evil, which is nothing
more than the absence of good. The cause of fear is the threat of losing what
we love, or the impending failure to gain what we desire and love.
When we studied the logic of love behind the map of motivations, we saw
that the reasons why we are motivated could be summarised as the desire to
receive, achieve, give and return truly human good or love (see Figures 6.1
and 7.1). Now, following the reverse logic, the logic of fear, we could say
that other reasons why we are demotivated, or motivated not to act or to
avoid some behaviour, are summarised as those related to the fear of not
receiving, achieving, giving and returning truly human good or love (see
Figure 9.1).
This logic of fear becomes clearer when the map of motivations is seen
from a negative perspective instead of a positive one (see Figure 9.1). The
columns on our map can be read as motivations in negative terms rather
than positive. It is like contemplating heads and tails of the “coin” of moti-
vations. For example, if we look at the lower-left corner of the map, the rea-
son that would lead us to act is a fear of losing or not obtaining some useful
good (a basic salary, for example). Instead of the positive desire to obtain a

Fear of Not
Receiving Fear of Not
Achieving FearGiving
of Not Fear of Not
Returning
Being Loved Loving Ourselves Loving Others Loving God
Spiritual Fear of
Good
Fear of Being Fear of Fear of Being
Embarrassing
Higher Spiritual Condemned Sinning (others)
Irreligious
Realm
Moral Fear of
Good Scandalising
Ethical Realm Blamed Wrongdoing Irreverent
(others)
Pleasant Fear of
Good Displeasing
Psychological Realm Disliked Suffering Impious
(others)
Useful Fear of
Good Unavailing
Physical Realm Underappreciated Failing Unfaithful
(others)
Figure 9.1 The logic of fear: A map of negative motivations
useful good, the motivation here is the negative fear of disapproval, of not
obtaining the necessary support.
There are many forms of fear. In fact, there are as many kinds of fears as
there are positive motivations or desires. Some other examples (now in the
second column of the map) would include fears of failing or wrongdoing,
like when speaking in public. This is very frequent among my students, and
many of them overcame this by using the map. There are also all kinds of
anxiety that cause dread of possible evils when making decisions, such as a
student making a mistake when choosing their future profession or the pos-
sibility of losing a job in the case of those in the workforce (see Figure 9.1).
As we will see, knowing how to face reasonable fears becomes an oppor-
tunity for growth and love. Nevertheless, it is always useful to have a map
showing the origin of those fears. Once you identify which goods are at
stake in your human growth, you can also identify the different kinds of
fears in your imagination related to losing or not attaining those goods.
Let us briefly review what fears arise from each of the types of motivation
shown on our map.
Starting with the first column, extrinsic negative motivations show rea-
sons for acting out of fear of not being loved properly. These include the
fear of being underappreciated, dismissed or not being well paid in our jobs
(a useful good); the fear of looking bad or being disliked (a pleasant good);
the fear of blame, contempt or denunciation (a moral good) and the fear
of being punished or eternally condemned (a spiritual good). For the same
reason, intrinsic negative motivations are reasons for acting out of fear of
not loving ourselves properly. What moves us to act here is the fear of fail-
ing (losing a useful good); suffering (losing a pleasant good); wrongdoing
(losing a moral good) or sinning (losing a spiritual good) (see Figure 9.1).
Transcendent negative motivations are those that lead us to do good to
others out of fear and not out of love. This would be the case when things
are done for the fear of being useless or unavailing (not useful); displeasing
(not pleasant), scandalising (not moral) or embarrassing and overwhelm-
ing to others (not spiritual). Finally, the fourth column includes negative
religious motivations, those that lead to practicing religion not out of love
for God but out of the fear of being separated from Him. The motive to act
would then be the fear of being unfaithful to God, of being impious, irrever-
ent or irreligious (see Figure 9.1).
This way of interpreting the map by referring to negative human moti-
vations complements the description and understanding of the previous
description of human positive motivations on the same map (see Figure 7.1).
Furthermore, it clearly shows that the logic of fear and the logic of love are
opposites. In other words, if the main motive for human action is fear, then
love cannot be present. Therefore, when the goal is to increase motivation,
the first thing to do is overcome the unjustified fear and move towards love,
to move from negative to positive motivations. This is why this section was
necessary before we could proceed further in better understanding our moti-
vations and the tension behind the search for higher meaningful work.
According to the logic of the map of motivations, searching for higher
meaningful work involves looking for higher and better positive motiva-
tions, leaving the logic of fear and moving to the logic of love. For that rea-
son, now that we have a complete understanding of the map and its logic,
as well as a compass to interpret the map (the four meanings of work), we
can reflect on a roadmap that we can use in our life’s journey, in our work
in organisations.
As the border police officer would say, it is about finding a way to work
with greater love, or a more perfect love. Ultimately, the roadmap is about
finding a way to work with a higher desire for true good, with a higher and
better meaning and purpose. Let’s start by looking for a higher meaning in
our work.
In search of a higher meaning in a job

As we discussed in Chapter 8, most human beings agree that having a job,
daily occupation or task is an essential ingredient for a healthy life. There
are millions of people all over the world, though, who stay at home because
they take care of their house, family or an ill or elderly loved one. These are
all serious occupations, even if they are not widely considered as such.
All those occupations that are not considered “jobs” and those others that
are indispensable but not well paid (cleaners, shop assistants, etc.) usually
go unnoticed but are real roles that fill the day and give meaning to many
people’s lives because they have a meaning and purpose.2 Even those who
are ill or retired are able to find a sense of purpose in their situation because
the meaning we give to our actions and lives comes not from the outside –
from social considerations or external circumstances – but from our interior
freedom – from our deepest intentions or motivations.
External circumstances influence our lives and our work, but they are not
decisive. We are neither machines nor irrational animals that must obey our
circumstances blindly and instinctively. As I said, that would be a simplistic
mechanistic view, not a humanistic one. We are rational and free beings able
to get away from an unjustifiably excessive logic of fear. In fact, finding a
higher meaning entails being able to freely look for more and better kinds of
good in what we do because we want to.
People should not blame external situations for the lack of interest or
motivation in their daily occupations. Of course, there are exceptions, such
as having hostile colleagues who you don’t want to spend hours with or vile
and abhorrent bosses who are able to discourage even the most committed
person. If that were the case, and people worked in organisations where the
environment was so flawed that they bring out the worst in people, they
are probably in what has been called an ethically unhealthy organisation
(Bañón et al., 2012).
I hope this is not your case and your organisation is not ethically harmful
or corrupt so you can stay in your current job. The question then is how
to stop hating or fearing your job and start loving it, how to find a higher
meaning in your job. As we considered in Chapter 8, three stages are nor-
mally needed to improve or learn: consciousness, conversion and change.
Put in other words (and as we discussed in Chapter 3), to recover trust you
need to recognise what is wrong, rectify the direction, and repair the wrong-
doing (the three Rs).
Being aware of the meaning that we give to our current job is the starting
point. If we want to foster a more meaningful job, awareness of the situa-
tion and the logic behind our job motivations right now is key. If we were
ensconced in a logic of hate or a logic of fear, we should know. Therefore,
we must stop and reflect on whether the job is contributing to supporting
us, our livelihoods, our existence and our well-being. Am I well paid? Is the
job lucrative enough? If the answers are no, that would explain feelings of
sadness, resignation and even stress, especially when there is no job stability.
In these cases, where survival is at stake, what prevails is a logic of fear,
one that prompts individuals to interact for an immediate instrumental pur-
pose. In this case, working is understood as a way of giving (hours of work)
in order to receive something of value later (money), within the framework
of a contract, also following a certain logic of duty, but mainly inside a logic
of transaction or exchange (Baviera et al., 2016). Inside this logic, you only
think about earning more, achieving better working conditions and attain-
ing some stability.
Until these issues are accomplished, the logic of fear will want to prevail
over the logic of love, but even in these negative cases, it is possible to give
more meaning to our jobs with the courage to face fear. For that reason,
whenever I find people in these circumstances, I recommend they read Man’s
Search for Meaning (Frankl, 1959) because if someone can find meaning
in a Nazi concentration camp and also later in life – having lost his father,
mother, brother and wife – we should be able to find meaning in an unstable
or difficult job situation with courage while always looking for a higher and
wider meaning.
It is true that, in many cases, the job we have does not match our deepest
personal desires or abilities. What I want to underline here though is that
having a job is something good in itself. Being optimistic, having a positive
attitude towards the job, is something you can freely decide upon, even in
the worst possible scenario. This awareness of the good means having a job
can be a source of certain peace, courage and joy for any employed person
because it provides some material basic goods, even if it is not the ideal job.
I hope everybody can find a basic job in their lifetime and that everyone
answered yes to the previous question about having a job that contributes to
their personal livelihoods. If that is your case and you have a well-paid job
that contributes to your well-being, to your personal and family livelihoods,
then you should have the courage to recognise it.
We should be aware and acknowledge it if we have a good job and even
celebrate it from time to time. Even the possibility of using the money and
free time to look for other higher kinds of good in other activities outside
the workplace is good in itself. This is what defines the logic of love. The
awareness and acknowledgement of having a job has all the benefits from
the types of good that the job itself provides (salary, occupation, stability,
security, etc.) Recognising the goodness of having a job is key to leaving the
logic of fear with courage (a cardinal virtue) and starting to love our work,
increasing interest in our profession (see Figure 9.2).
As we analysed in Chapter 7, the key to understanding our motivations
is recognising that we are insatiable seekers of the good, that we are moved
by the things we love, but for that we need courage. If we don’t love our job
enough, we will end up complaining, dreading it and trying to escape from
daily reality by searching for love somewhere else. This is why, as I said
earlier, so many people spend the week looking forward to the weekend or
just looking for compensation outside of the job.
If we are among those who see their job as just a job, the first thing we
must do is recognise that this work contributes to our livelihoods. At the
same time, we should be realistic, aware of its goodness but also its limita-
tions, knowing that material goods are always limited and, as such, can
provide material well-being and the money to attain other kinds of useful
and pleasant goods.
For that reason, having a good salary is always good, but there are other
sources of goodness in that same job. One is the career opportunity that

Spiritual
Good
Higher Spiritual
Realm
Moral
Good
Ethical Realm
Pleasant
Towards a more meaningful JOB
Good
Psychological Realm
Useful Receiving
ceivi
ving with
t
Good
Physical Realm Awareness
Awa
w re
r
Figure 9.2 Fostering higher meaningful work as a job
most jobs offer. Is it possible to find a higher meaning in a career than in just
a job? It seems obvious that it does, as we dicussed earlier, but let us stop
for a moment to think about its consequences and its connection with our
humanistic understanding of motivations.
In search of a higher meaning in a career

As we saw in Chapter 1, the majority of theories of motivation that are
taught in business schools and universities today can occupy the lower
quadrant of our map. They only consider the extrinsic and intrinsic moti-
vations, the useful and pleasant goods. Motivations at work would then
be reduced to making money (extrinsic useful motive), achieving prestige
(extrinsic pleasant motive), being competent (intrinsic useful motive) and
achieving personal satisfaction (intrinsic pleasant motive). These would be
the motivations enclosed in a vision of work conceived as a career, as we
saw in Chapter 8.
When we are in this lower quadrant of our map, the meaning of work
as a career becomes a path towards success, status, mastery and achieve-
ment. The main logic behind this concept of work is once again a logic of
exchange in order to “win” all these goods within the rules of the “game”,
a contractual relationship, that also demands a logic of duty to be followed.
“These two logics of action – exchange and duty – are in some sense uni-
versal, but they are particularly salient within business contexts” (Baviera
et al., 2016, p. 161). Paradoxically, when only the two logics described are
at stake in our motivations in organisations, instead of resulting in feelings of
success, they produce feelings of fear. Yes, as paradoxical as it might sound,
the more you think in terms of success, the more you enter the logic of fear.
In the book Play to Win! Choosing Growth over Fear in Work and Life,
the authors describe the scene of a dinner they held for some of the top-
performing second-year salespeople in the US insurance industry. When the
event organiser asked them how they felt about their success, there was a
deathly hush. “They were terrified, they said – the more successful they
became, the more pressure they felt to be even more successful” (Wilson &
Wilson, 1998). Something had gone wrong.
As the authors explain, the concept of success is primarily defined by
external measures, such as how much money you make, your seniority and
the respect you get. Unlike success, though, the concept of human fulfilment
is largely defined by internal measures and related to the deeply felt sense
that your life is full, whole and complete (Wilson & Wilson, 1998). Fol-
lowing Victor Frankl’s ideas, these authors defend that it is possible to be
successful but not fulfilled in life and vice-versa; someone could be a failure,
socially speaking, and yet be fulfilled.
This idea of desiring to win instead of not losing matches the logic of love
described in this book. We should follow our desire to win the good above
all and focus less on the fear of losing it. As they say, if you have a fear of
failure, just try “doing your best, not being the best”.3
Unfortunately, we all can be trapped by the logic of fear in a conception of
our work as a career, as these authors foresaw more than two decades ago.
To avoid this reductionist vision, what they propose is the same as I suggest
here, moving from the logic of fear to the logic of love, to understand the
tension produced by the logics of exchange and duty in this conception of
work and then search for a more meaningful career.
Fostering a logic of love in our career means having a voluntary posi-
tive attitude that looks at our daily work (a job but also a career) through
appreciative eyes for the goodness of what we have. It is by valuing the good
we receive and achieve in our jobs and careers that we start to enjoy it in a
different and higher way, as an “adventure” where you discover and learn
new things every day because you allow yourself to be surprised by the good
that surrounds you.
For example, just think about the people who smile at you when you
enter the workplace. You do not always pay attention to all the positive
and good around you. Have you thought about the interest that others pay
every day to your needs in such small details that you often don’t even real-
ise? To think about how others normally care about you and your dignity,
I recommend revisiting the ten elements of dignity proposed by Dr Hicks as
mentioned in Chapter 2 (Hicks, 2011).
Maybe we are not mindful of the many gifts that we receive daily. The
attitude of trying to be attentive to everything that is worthy of being loved
around us, of valuing the good surrounding us, is what “play to win”
means. This is the rational way in which we can foster a higher meaning
in our careers. A greater meaningful career should move us to a permanent
attitude of gratitude, which will reinforce that greater meaning in our career
and in our life. In this way, thankfulness for our job and career becomes
one more step in our journey towards a more meaningful work-life balance
(see Figure 9.3).
The attitude of thankfulness that allows us to conceive our career in a less
fearful and more meaningful way is the effective and affective recognition
of all the good we receive, an attitude of gratitude that is freely decided,
even if what we are receiving is exactly what we deserve. Unquestionably,
we should always receive what we deserve from our peers, supervisors and
organisations.
Remember, this desire to receive some kind of good is what defines extrin-
sic motivation, a desire that normally includes what we deserve as part of
our career development. Even in those cases where we are given nothing
more than what we are supposed to receive, we may always be thankful, a
gratitude that makes us value our career, the job we choose and the organi-
sation in which we work.
This attitude of gratitude, of thankful appreciation for the things we
receive from others in our work, applies not only to material useful things (a
good salary, a good retirement plan or a safe workplace, for instance). This
positive outlook also applies to the other extrinsic motivations, as is the case
with the pleasant ones. Feeling the esteem of our colleagues and having a

Spiritual
Good
Higher Spiritual
Realm
Moral Towards a more meaningful CAREER

Good
Ethical Realm
Pleasant Receiving with Achieving

chievi
ving wi
with
Good
Psychological Realm
Gratitude Simplicity
Sim
i p
Useful Receiving
ceivi
ving with
t Achieving with
Good
Awa
w re
r Humility
Figure 9.3 Fostering higher meaningful work as a career

grateful sense of belonging to the organisation are pleasant extrinsic motiva-
tions worthy of recognition and appreciation (see Figure 9.3).
A thankful outlook for our work can reinforce a higher concept of our
occupations in a more humane way because we freely choose to want that
which we consider good. In fact, seeing our work as a career is a higher
manifestation of love than just considering it as a job (see Figure 9.3). Lov-
ing our career means loving what we do, what we achieve through that
work and what we receive from others in that work. There is nothing wrong
therefore with getting a good job and pursuing a good career with a noble
professional ambition and an enthusiasm for what we do in our work.
When we deal with this issue in class, students ask me how they should
succeed in choosing their career, which leads me to talk to them about
another basic attitude that is necessary to foster a more meaningful career:
humility. It may sound bizarre, but humility is a key human quality that we
all need to be able to grow, to be better. To grow personally and profession-
ally, we all need the humility to recognise our virtues but also our faults
and limitations. We must recognise the strengths and weaknesses of our
character, the talents and skills that we have and those that we do not (see
Figure 9.3).
As the Spanish writer Theresa of Jesus once said, “humility is living in
truth”, a truth that starts with sincere self-knowledge. “This self-knowledge
leads to the appreciation of what we do well – for having developed certain
skills, strengths, or being gifted in certain ways in areas that we find mean-
ingful. Focusing on what we do well can provide a sense of contribution to
our identity” (Rey, Bastons, & Sotok, 2019, 102).
Paradoxically, if we are humble enough to see our limitations but also
the things that we are capable of achieving – our true potential –we will be
able to find ways to actively and frequently use them in our daily tasks, and
we will perceive greater meaning in our work (Littman-Ovadia & Steger,
2010). Once again, this humble attitude regarding our career removes a
jealous, envious and fearful attitude in those who see others as competitors
because they only seek to excel, to be the best.
We also need humility in looking for a career that really fits with the rest
of our life’s projects, with the meaning we want to give to our lives as a
whole. It means choosing a career that is consistent with not only our real
capacity and true potential, but also consistent with our other dreams, feel-
ings, desires, beliefs and values. This kind of personal simplicity, clarity or
consistency reflects personal coherence, maturity and “unity of life” (see
Figure 9.3).
Simplicity or consistency, like humility, is a human virtue, but seen from
a technical point of view, the specialised literature on meaningful work calls
it “integration”, a concept that “builds on research showing reciprocal rela-
tionships over time between the meaning people find at work and the mean-
ing they find in the rest of their lives” (Duffy et al., 2014; Steger & Dik,
2009).
Integration refers to the desirable consistency, simplicity and harmony
between our work and our internal drivers, a personal and professional
authenticity, which is the opposite of a fearful attitude. Simplicity, like
humility, is related to the cardinal virtue of temperance, of measure, state-
ment and self-knowledge. It is a manifestation of ordered self-love, a kind
of “unity of life” or sincerity of behaviour in which the motivations of our
work are consistent and in harmony with those of our life (see Figure 9.4).
This integration or personal simplicity allows work to become an impor-
tant path to meaning in life. Therefore, as meaning in life is thought to partly
express a person’s values (Steger, 2009), integration points to the potential
importance of engaging in value-congruent activities while at work, both in
terms of the actual tasks required and in terms of the overall values of the
organisation (Hoffman et al., 2011).
Unfortunately, many students and seasoned managers believe these reflec-
tions arrive too late for them, even though they recognise the importance
of these findings concerning the meaning of work. “Nobody told me about
these issues before”, they say. As students, they made decisions about their
professional careers in a very intuitive manner highly influenced by the opin-
ions of third parties (family, friends, cinema, media, role models, etc.).
Decisions that are crucial for our future are frequently made without deep
reflection on our talents and capabilities but, most importantly, without
thinking much about the meaning we want to give to our future work and
life. Of course, this will have a huge impact on our daily motivations in
organisations for the rest of our lives, but why do we talk so little nowadays
about those personal aspirations of our students? Why don’t we talk more
about motivations and the sense of calling?
I don’t think it is ever too late to think about our professional calling, our
vocation, our suitability for a particular occupation and career. As we will
see, it is by finding our inner calling and by fostering its higher meaning that
we become highly motivated in our work and our lives. Let us now reflect
about this new step in our search for higher meaningful work.
In search of a higher meaning in a calling

Every time I recall the law student’s comment that the entire theory of moti-
vations was too idealistic, I am reminded that finding a higher meaning in
our work is inseparable from having ideals. Human “ideals” are the keys
that explain humanity’s greatest achievements. The greatest human endeav-
ours are the fruit of the ideals of those who led them. The great conquests,
the greatest inventions, the most successful businesses, all these human
achievements were led by people with ideals, with great motivations.
Unless students have great ideals, they cannot be enthusiastic about car-
rying out great projects, and they will not be able to find more meaning in
their jobs and professional careers. This is true for everybody; we all need
to answer questions, such as: what activities do we feel we have a natural
ability to give our best to? What do we enjoy doing? What especially moti-
vates us, and what work do we love? These are issues that refer to the mean-
ing of work as a calling, as a vocation.
Thinking in terms of calling is not only about our personal interests; it
also means considering the contribution that we can provide to society.
Understanding our work as a calling means discovering the role we are
called to play in this world, the unique contribution we can make with the
talents we have.
By unique, I mean irreplaceable, not necessarily important, big or com-
plex. Work becomes unique because of the meaning we give to it, because
of the love we put into it. Consider the janitor mopping the floor at NASA.
He knew his work was unimportant, small and simple, but he was “helping
send a man to the moon”.
We all should be able to answer the question regarding the contribution
we make to others with our work. But we should also be able to respond
to the question of how our work contributes to making us a better person
because we are now reflecting at a moral level. Seeing our work as a calling
for growth and contribution is a higher manifestation of love for ourselves
and for others than seeing it as just a job or as just a successful career.
This explains the importance and necessity of talking to students about
finding their calling, their professional vocation. At the end of the day,
though, the final word on students’ vocations must come from themselves.
They may ask for advice and trust in those who love them and care about
their happiness, but this decision about following a vocation is always per-
sonal. It involves using your own freedom with practical wisdom (another
cardinal moral virtue) to ask and receive good advice and the responsibility
to make that personal decision. No one else can decide our higher motiva-
tions (see Figure 9.4).
Wisdom in receiving advice and help regarding our work means being
able to ask the right people, those who really care about us and who can
give the best advice. In fact, trusting the advice of those who care about us
is synonymous with maturity and confidence on the benevolence of others.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day, we need to be convinced of the good-
ness of our own motivations and decisions; that is why we ask for the best
possible advice from the best possible advisers. In doing so, we are fostering
a higher meaning to our own calling because we will always be able to say
that we got the best advice possible (see Figure 9.4).
Although we must be open to the best advice, the decision must always
be our own. This is what it means to be free. If we make a mistake, that will
be our mistake, not the mistake of the one giving us the advice in the first
place. Unless we are clear about this, we will never be able to make our own
decisions freely and responsibly. It is this sense of freedom that will move
us to make our work truly our own. We do what we want because we want
to. We take ownership of our decisions because they are genuinely and fully
ours.

Spiritual
Good
Higher Spiritual Towards a more meaningful CALLING
Realm
Moral Receiving with Achieving with Giving

Givi
ving with
t
Good
Ethical Realm
Wisdom Responsibility Exemplarity
E
Exem p

chievi
ving wi
with Giving with
Good
Psychological Realm
Sim
i p Cheerfulness
Useful Receiving
ceivi
ving with
t Achieving with Giving with
Good
Awa
w re
r Humility Generosity
Figure 9.4 Fostering higher meaningful work as a calling
Unsurprisingly, this sense of ownership or personal responsibility of

our work is also part of the path to higher meaningful work. This is what
the specialised literature calls “personalisation”. It means bringing more
of ourselves to work, bringing our humanness, goodness and moral quali-
ties responsibly to the workplace and aligning our work with our feelings,
desires, values and virtues, making it more personally expressive (Steger,
2017). This is another loving attitude that distances us from fear when we
foster a higher meaning in our calling.
Adopting an ownership mentality of our work also means having higher
personal responsibility regarding our contribution to the organisation. By
taking our work seriously, with responsibility, and by fulfilling our duties,
we do our work better. Work centrality then increases, and it becomes more
expressive of who we are (Steger, 2017). Unless we have a competitive or
proud attitude, fear should not fit in this approach, only the desire to do the
greatest possible good, of loving our work more.
Because work is the axis around which a large part of our existence
revolves, the way we work affects the way we live and the kind of people we
become. Being good as human beings, we do better work, and from good
work, we can become better people (Gardner et al., 2001). When we want
to do our work right, when we want to work well and with responsibility,
then we have the right disposition to grow morally in our work. Through
our jobs, employing moral virtues while working, we become better human
beings.
This personalisation of our work not only helps bring out the best of our-
selves in our work but, paradoxically (and as we saw in Chapter 4), it drives
us to give our best to others (Steger, 2017, p. 75). This desire to give good to
others (transcendent motivations) is what the literature on calling describes
as “expansion”, seeking ways in which our work can be expanded to ben-
efit some greater good and expanding our concerns to embrace broader
interests beyond ourselves. This is what moral reasoning would describe as
“generosity”, the quality of being willing to share.
I was invited to give a keynote speech at the 23rd Annual Conference
of EBEN (The European Business Ethics Network) in 2019. It was titled
“University Academic Work: Just a Job or a Vocation of Service?” and I pre-
sented these same ideas, but this time I applied them to the work of those
teaching at university. When I finished, I was approached by someone who
said, “I need you to come and explain what you told us today to all my
students and colleagues”.
A year later, I visited her university in Malaga (Spain) to give a similar
presentation on the map of motivations to her colleagues and students. The
room was packed that day, and I could appreciate in a practical way what
I had written. When we find something we consider good, it drives us to
give it to others, to be generous – the opposite of a fearful attitude of losing
some good. This is what this lecturer did. When we care about our work,
we have this human tendency to transcend ourselves, to expand our love for
our work to others, to expand the good and make it “resonate”.
In fact, in addition to expansion, or generosity in moral terms, the litera-
ture about calling suggests “resonance” as another way to foster this higher
meaning in our work. This term means making our own personal values and
purpose align with the organisation’s core values and mission or purpose.
Then, leaders in organisations are not followed out of fear but out of love,
of recognising interest for the truly human good of their followers. “Reso-
nance builds on research showing that leaders who can express a vision and
purpose for an organization make it easier for workers to find meaning in
their efforts” (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
From the perspective of our map of motivations, this concept of reso-
nance might have two different dimensions: moral and affective. On one
hand, we could talk about a moral resonance, which would refer to the
ability to transmit the higher human or moral components of the organisa-
tion’s vision and purpose to others. This moral resonance would consist of
not only the transmission of some moral principles and values shared by the
organisation but also on its practice being uplifting, with exemplarity (see
Figure 9.4).
On the other hand, we could talk about affective resonance, referring to
transmitting those values and principles with a personal passion for our
work to others. It would include our capacity to genuinely show our enthu-
siasm, to resonate with the practices of the organisation, transmitting its
vision and purpose around us with cheerfulness (see Figure 9.4).
While this cheerfulness responds to the contagious nature of our own
satisfaction with our work in the organisation, of our gratitude and simplic-
ity, exemplarity responds to the contagious nature of our moral wisdom
and responsibility, of our moral qualities aligned with the organisation’s
purpose. In other words, cheerfulness is the resonance in others of our affec-
tive simplicity, while exemplarity is the resonance in others of our moral
responsibility (see Figure 9.4).
Unsurprisingly, most of the attitudes and behaviours in the workplace
described above are among the most important predictors and correlates of
meaningful work. This is what positive psychology professor Michael Steger
has described as the SPIRE model,4 one that contributes to fostering higher
meaningful work conceived as a vocation (Steger, 2017, p. 64).
It is striking to see the qualitative leap involved in the meaning of work
as a calling. In this conception of work, the logic of gift now joins the logic
of duty and exchange. A new kind of transcendent motivation or rational-
ity shows up, and its purpose is to contribute, to give for the sake of giv-
ing, seeking some good beyond ourselves in a gratuitous and unconditional
manner (Baviera et al., 2016, p. 168).
When work is conceived as a calling, the three logics of exchange, duty
and gift start to operate together at work with their own strengths, weak-
nesses and complementarities. Of course, this is a human art, and “the three
logics have to be played altogether as in a symphony”. “The hope is for
organizations to be more humane, to become communities with meaningful
social and moral bonds among members, which can inspire generosity and
common purposes that transcend instrumental self-interest or mere duty
and elicit the best that people have to offer” (Baviera et al., 2016, p. 168).
We could therefore say that people see work as calling when they have
a clear identification with the job, are moved by a transcendent guiding
force and have a sense of meaning and value-driven behaviour (Hagmaier &
Abele, 2012). Such a meaning of work is amplified when some positive atti-
tudes or moral virtues are promoted (wisdom, responsibility, exemplarity,
cheerfulness and generosity). Unsurprisingly, when we have these positive
and transcendent attitudes towards our work, we are moved by higher kinds
of motivation.
This phenomenon shows that the hierarchical concept of human goods
that follows from the logic of our map is fully consistent with a hierarchical
understanding of the different work meanings described by the literature of
meaningful work as a job, career and calling.
As we saw in Chapter 8, there is also empirical evidence for the role
of a meaning of work conceived as a higher calling, as a spiritual voca-
tion. Moreover, for believers, and for those who see their job as sacred (i.e.
a vocation), they might experience a higher motivation from this higher
meaning (Walker et al., 2008). In the next section, I will briefly reflect on
how the perception of this spiritual vocation, or higher calling, might affect
motivations at work and in organisations.
In search of a higher meaning in a higher calling
In Chapter 6, I spoke of a woman who felt she was living a kind of “schizo-
phrenic” double life until she stopped to reflect on her motivations during
one of the seminars on motivations. Her professional, social and family life
was separate and distinct from her higher spiritual inner life, from a life
related to God as the Christian she was. Learning about the logic of love
behind this framework helped her better understand the separation between
her faith and her life and work. It was the discovery of her love for God that
made her become conscious of the situation, challenge herself and change,
looking for growth instead of fear (Wilson & Wilson, 1998).
Her reaction was not one of fear or duty but was a desire out of love to recip-
rocate God’s calling with fidelity. This is a wonderful example that explains
how believers can find higher meaning in their work, founded on faith. From a
believer’s point of view, all human creatures have been called to love a God who
is Love Himself, here on Earth, and later for all eternity in Heaven. This is a uni-
versal calling to holiness, to an encounter with God in ordinary life and work.
As one of my students told me recently, when you have faith, the mindful-
ness of God’s love and His presence gives a very different meaning to every
second of your life and work. Here, the concept of mindfulness is relevant
to both believers and non-believers because mindfulness is what leads every-
body to a greater sensitivity to context and perspective. Mindfulness means
openness to the present moment in its fullness (Crane, 2017).
For non-believers, openness to the entire reality brings an opportunity to
discover higher spiritual realms like greater peace and inner balance. For
believers, this would be the result of being aware of God’s presence in daily
life and work, a presence that gives new meaning to every task but one that
is now divine.
For someone with faith, mindfulness would mean actively noticing the
development of the presence of God in their ordinary life, opening up to His
gifts, being aware that every moment is a present from God. Mindfulness of
God’s presence and of His gifts or graces would be the first step in fostering
a higher meaning, in this case, a supernatural meaning to daily work, to be
able to perceive work itself as a divine gift.
In both cases, in a religious and in a non-religious context, mindfulness
would be the door to be able to enter a higher meaning of daily work, but
as we discussed in Chapter 5, one must quieten the external and internal
distractions for this to be possible. In a noisy and busy world like the one in
which we live, silence and meditation are being valued again. Attitudes of
mindfulness, docility and dedication to spiritual insights are more frequent.
For non-believers, these are sources of inner peace and joy; this is the case
for believers, too, but in the company of God (see Figure 9.5).
As we saw in Chapter 6, this personal relationship of believers with a
God that surpasses all human capacity and belongs to the realm of the mys-
terious, of faith, is also what defines religion. Without God’s assistance, it
would be impossible for human nature to enter into contact with Him in a
mindful way and answer His calling with docility, dedication and celebra-
tion (see Figure 9.5).
It is in this context that the sense of a higher calling, of having a supernat-
ural vocation, gives believers a higher meaning of human work and a higher
type of motivation, which belongs to this realm of faith. The normal circum-
stances of each day allow each person of faith to grow in grace, holiness and
self-giving to others and God and become occasions to serve, thank, wor-
ship and glorify Him with faithfulness, devotion, reverence, joy and peace,
the perfection of joy (St Thomas, STh I-II, Q. 70, art. 3) (see Figure 9.5).
What others saw on a natural ethical level as an “inner calling” to
improve the world is now perceived by believers on a higher spiritual level
as a “divine calling” to be holy and help others to be holy. These two con-
cepts of secular and religious callings are fully compatible with each other.
In fact, for believers, the latter (natural calling) would be part of the former
(higher supernatural calling).
For those with faith in God, the professional inner calling to happiness
would be one aspect of the more general and universal divine vocation to
happiness and holiness. God gives different talents to every person and a
personal mission to use them in daily life and in work.
This universal calling to holiness is shared by the three Abrahamic tradi-
tions, and it is based on the opening pages of the Bible, where the vocation
to sanctity is expressed in the Lord’s words to Abraham: “Walk before me
faithfully and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1). The Torah exhorts the Israelites
to be holy and tells them how to do so: “Be holy because I, the LORD your
God, am holy” (Leviticus 19:2).
Extrinsic Intrinsic Transcendent Extrinsic

motivation motivation motivation motivation
Towards a more meaningful HIGHER CALLING

Spiritual
Receiving with Achieving with Giving with Returning with
Good
Higher Spiritual Mindfulness Docility Dedication Joy & Peace
Realm

Givi
ving with
t Returning with
Good
Ethical Realm
E
Exem p Reverence

chievi
ving with
wi Giving with Returning with
Good
Psychological Realm
Sim
i p Cheerfulness Devotion
Useful Receiving
ceivi
ving with
t Achieving with Giving with Returning with
Good
Awa
w re
r Humility Generosity Faithfulness
Figure 9.5 Fostering higher meaningful work as a higher calling

For Muslims, the Qur’an calls to uprightness (al-salah), to conscientious
devotion (al-taqwa), to goodness (al-husn) and to virtue (al-birr) (Qur’an
2:177). In the case of Christians, Jesus teaches his disciples to “be perfect,
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).
This universal calling to strive for perfection in Love, for holiness, assisted
by God’s grace, has always been part of the Christian faith and practice.5
Regarding the importance of finding God in ordinary life and work, St Jose-
maría Escrivá, the “Saint of ordinary life”,6 devoted his entire life to remind
people all over the world that work is a means of perfection, a way to sanc-
tity (Escrivá, 1985, no. 10).
So far, we have analysed the different ways of achieving the highest
possible level of motivations in organisations, resulting from the highest
possible level of meaning that we give to our work. We have been able to
build a roadmap that allows us to leave the logic of fear, move to the logic
of love and find ways to work with greater love, with a more perfect love.
Now, it is up to each one of us to use the map, the compass and the
roadmap to find out where we are right now and where we want to go. In
other words, we need to reflect on the meaning we are giving to our work
in this life’s journey and decide if we want to look for a higher one. Next
follows some final remarks about this book and this exciting personal task
of searching for higher meaningful work in organisations.
In search of higher meaningful work and life

As I have discussed throughout the pages of this book, from a humanistic
concept of management, motivations in organisations cannot be conceived
as an automatic consequence of the simple application of incentive systems
or motivational techniques. Human motivations are the result of the free
human choice of each person working in the organisation.
For this reason, this book has offered a humanistic theory of motiva-
tions in organisations that integrates the most widespread mechanistic and
organicist views into a broader holistic perspective, a dialogical approach
that respects and complements the findings of the other theories.
In the future, it would be wonderful to have a text analysing to what
extent managers can facilitate all these human motivations to grow and
flourish in organisations, but this book had to come first. Moreover, it
would also be desirable to have some text describing how organisations
can align their organisational purposes with the motivations and personal
purposes of all its members.
We need more humanistic explanations of management that consider all
dimensions of human nature to govern people in a holistic manner. This
book wants to be a complement to other works that have studied purpose
in organisations but have not explored the moral or spiritual dimensions
(Rey et al., 2019).
Being able to find similarities between one’s own personal meanings and
purposes in work and life and those of one’s employer will help workers
feel more motivated to support the missions of organisations. Moreover,
it should help workers feel that their work makes their lives better overall
by supporting their meaning in life (Nielsen & Randall, 2009; Steger et al.,
2012; Steger, 2017).
It is important to clarify that not every organisational purpose contributes
to the truly human good and the flourishing of the organisation’s members
nor to society as a whole. An organisation that does not contribute to the
common good of society is an ethically unhealthy organisation (Bañón et al.,
2012). Therefore, the study of the organisational purpose should always be
accompanied by the analysis of the nature of the good pursued by those
organisations.
Regarding the purpose of this book and having presented the map of
motivations, its coordinates, the compass to use it and now the roadmap,
the last thing I would like to do is leave it up to each reader to decide if they
want to use the map and its various navigation tools. Maps are just that –
maps. Their purpose is to help travellers reach their destinations.
Today, the maps are digital, and GPS systems help us get anywhere. In the
end, however, it is always each person who decides where they want to go
and has the means to reach their final destination. We all have to decide the
meaning we want to give to our work and if we want to search for higher
meaningful work.
Figure 9.6 shows the roadmap that we have finished outlining. It is a map
that reflects the simple idea that motivations in organisations depend on the

A Meaningful HIGHER CALLING

Spiritual Spiritual
Receiving with Achieving with Giving with Returning with
Growth Love
Joy &for
Good
Higher Spiritual Mindfulness Docility Dedication J Peace
Realm
the Other
Moral A Meaningful CALLING
Givi
ving with
t Returning with
Good Growth Love for
Ethical Realm
E
Exem p Reverence
others Growing
Psychological A Meaningful CAREER in Love
chie
hie g with
wi Giving with Returning with
Growth with order
Good
Psychological Realm
Gratitude Love for Simplicity
imp
im p Cheerfulness Devotion
ourselves Auton
omy
A Meaningful JOB
Useful Receiving
cei g with
ceiv witt Achieving with Giving with Returning with
Good Love
Awareness
Awa
w rre Humility Generosity Faithfulness
Physical Realm
from others
Figure 9.6 Roadmap for motivations: Searching for higher meaningful work
love that we are able to receive, achieve, give and return in our daily work.
The dignity of work is based on love, a love that can grow high and wide.
Two people who work with similar responsibilities in the same organisa-
tion, in the same department and even sharing a desk may end up having
very different motivations in their work. The reason is very simple: love
at work depends on each of our decisions, and all things being equal, love
can be as different as the meaning that each person decides to give to their
work.
As we decide to move up and to the right on our map of motivations, we
will be able to love higher and more transcendent goods in our lives and
work. This means that we need to be conscious of our fears, convert and
change (the three Cs). Every time we feel fear, we should be able to look
higher, think bigger and try to love more (see Figure 9.6).
If we realise that the meaning of our work is only that of a mere job, we
can always improve it if we gain professional enthusiasm and develop a
good career but even more so if we discover our inner calling and, for those
who have faith, if work becomes an occasion for a greater love for God,
others and ourselves.
As I have said, people in similar conditions in an organisation may have
very different motivations. However, anyone at any time can find up to six-
teen different kinds of motivations (4x4) to love their work more. These
motivations are all compatible and complementary, and for the most part,
they depend on each of us.
Today, we are all eager to lead a healthy physical life (with balanced diets,
regular exercise, going outside, staying hydrated, sleeping well, etc.). The
same is true at the psychological level; there is a general interest in having a
healthy psychological life (going offline, going dancing, getting a pet, stop-
ping multitasking, laughing more, etc.). Unfortunately, little is said about
leading a healthy moral and spiritual life. I still think that the moral and
spiritual dimensions have been neglected in the workplace (Guillén et al.,
2015), and we should do something to recover them.
I hope that a humanistic view of motivations like the one I have presented
in this book can help us to think about how to achieve some healthier habits
on the physical and psychological plane in our work and lives but also how
to achieve some healthier habits on the moral and spiritual plane.
As I said at the outset, one of my main motivations for writing this book
was to be able to help many people. I would love for some of the ideas
in this book to help many find a higher meaning in their work, as they
have helped me. With that purpose in mind, I have added Figure 9.7, which
shows the content of this book displayed on the map of motivations itself.
This will be particularly useful if you want to use the map to diagnose
your own motivations. The goal is to help you revisit or review any part
of the book you deem appropriate. This “map of the map” will allow you
to remember where each of the motivations was detailed, as well as the

Chapter 5 Chapter 6
Spiritual Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary desire
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4

Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary desire
Moral
Ethical Realm
Chapter 7
Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary desire
V
Vo
Pleasant
Good pleasant good pleasant good pleasant good p
pleasant good
Psychological Realm
Relatedness, Affiliation, Esteem Self-actualisation, Growth, Self-esteem Compassion, Kindness,
ss Care
C Gratitude, Thanks, Appreciation
Chapter 1 Chapters 8 & 9

Voluntary desire Voluntary desire Voluntary
V
Vo l r d
ry desire Voluntary desire
Useful
to receive to achieve tto give to return
Good
Physical Realm
u useful good
Figure 9.7 Content of the book: A “map of the map”
practical tips that you might want to try to put into practice (Chapters 1–6).
You also will be able to find the map’s navigation tools whenever necessary,
including the coordinates (Chapter 7), the compass (Chapter 8) and the
roadmap (Chapter 9) (see Figure 9.7).
To conclude, here are some questions that might help us consider how we
could foster a higher meaning for our work. Following the roadmap that
leads us to more meaningful work, let us ask ourselves to what extent we
can be more motivated every day in our organisations, to what extent we
can love our work more.
First, a final thought. To be honest, I must say that there is no secret or
magic solution to finding a meaningful work-life balance because life is an
adventure, a journey with all its risks and difficulties, including the tension
between personal and professional spheres. Life’s journey also has all its
grandeur, though. We can grow if we learn to face our fears; if we face them
with courage and look for higher and wider goods; if we keep thinking
about our destination, our dreams and ideals day after day and, ultimately,
if we continue to love our work and lives more each day. This is the real
secret of human motivations in organisations, as the border police officer
told me on my entry to the US.

1 How often am I aware of and appreciate the goodness of having a job,
if I have one?
2 How often do I recognise the good I receive from others in my work
with gratitude?
3 How often do I see my career as an opportunity to grow and to become
better in what I do?
4 How often do I see every hour of work as an opportunity to contribute
and to serve others?
5 How often do I try to transmit passion to others by showing enthusiasm
for my work?
6 How often do I strive to convey a good example for others with my
work?
7 How often do I attempt to attain and bring peace and joy to others
through my work?
8 How often do I show others respect in my work, letting them know that
they matter?
9 How often do I give others freedom to do their work in their way and
respect their choices?
10 How often do I perceive my work as an opportunity to do the will of
God and give Him glory (if I am a believer)?
Notes
1 Many researchers have described this disordered or unreasonable kind of fear,
but I normally recommend my students to read the popular book The Happiness
Trap, which presents some findings of the cognitive behavioural therapy approach
in this area and offers practical recommendations from acceptance and commit-
ment therapy (Harris, 2014). It is interesting to see how all the modern psycho-
logical descriptions and treatments of unhealthy fear fit perfectly with the classic
philosophical reflections made centuries ago.
2 Unfortunately, this is not the place to reflect on the hidden work of so many, nor
the occupations of the elderly and infirm. That subject is worthy of another entire
book, and I must focus here on motivations at work in organisations in general.
3 In this same book, the authors describe what they call “the four fatal fears”, inher-
ent in those who are looking for success in their professional careers. Unsurpris-
ingly, the four fatal fears correspond exactly to the four fears reflected in the lower
quadrant of our map, the one that conceives work as a career (see Figure 8.4).
I normally recommend my business students read this book, as it is based on real-
life case studies and the training programme successfully given over decades.
4 In an effort to pull together the many threads of meaningful work into a useful
framework for fostering it within organisations, Professor Steger developed what
he calls the SPIRE (Strength, Personalisation, Integration, Resonance and Expan-
sion) model that focuses on some of the potentially important levers for building
higher meaningful work, one conceived as a vocation or calling.
5 This universal calling to holiness has always been part of the Christian faith and
was formally underlined more recently by the Catholic Church during its Second
Vatican Council in the 1960s (Lumen Gentium, n. 41).
6 The Pope St John Paul II canonised the Founder of Opus Dei, Josemaría Escrivá
on 6 October 2002. In his address, he called him “the saint of ordinary life”. To
learn more about work sanctification and the institution, see: https://opusdei.org/
en-us/article/message/
References
Bañón, A. J., Guillén, M. & Gil, I. (2012). Ethics and learning organizations in the
New Economy. In Human Resource Management in the Digital Economy: Creat-
ing Synergy Between Competency Models and Information. Hershey (Pennsylva-
nia, EE.UU.): IGI Global. pp. 67–79.
Baviera, T., English, W. & Guillén, M. (2016). The ‘logic of gift’: Inspiring behavior
in organizations beyond the limits of duty and exchange. Business Ethics Quar-
terly, 26(2), 159–180.
Crane, R. (2017). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy- Distinctive Features. Lon-
don and New York: Routledge.
Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A, Autin, K. L. & Douglass, R. P. (2014). Living a calling
and work wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61,
605–615.
Escrivá, J. (1985). Conversations with Monsignor Escrivá de Balaguer. Manila:
Sinag-Tala. A Public digital edition can be found at www.escrivaworks.org/book/
conversations.htm.
Frankl, V. (1959). Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Damon, W. (2001). Good Work: When Excel-
lence and Ethics Meet. New York: Basic Books.
Hagmaier, T. & Abele, A. E. (2012). The multidimensionality of calling: Conceptu-
alization, measurement and a bicultural perspective. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 81, 39–51.
Harris, R. (2014). The Happiness Trap Pocketbook. New York: Constable &
Robinson.
Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F. & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person – organ-
ization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group
effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 779–796.
Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership:
A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755–768.
Littman-Ovadia, H. & Steger, M. F. (2010). Character strengths and well-being
among volunteers and employees: Towards an integrative model. Journal of Posi-
tive Psychology, 5, 419–430.
Nielsen, K. & Randall, R. (2009). Managers’ active support when implementing
teams: The impact on employee well-being. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-
Being, 1, 374–390.
Steger, M. F. (2009). Meaning in life. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Posi-
tive Psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 679–687.
Steger, M. F. (2017). Creating Meaning and Purpose at Work. The Wiley Black-
well Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches
at Work. Chapter 5, Eds. Lindsay G. Oades, Michael F. Steger, Antonella Delle
Fave, & Jonathan Passmore. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Steger, M. F. & Dik, B. J. (2009). If one is searching for meaning in life, does mean-
ing in work help? Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1, 303–320.
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J. & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work:
The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20,
322–337.
Rey, C., Bastons, M. & Sotok, P. (2019). Purpose-driven Organizations. Manage-
ment Ideas for a Better World. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walker, A. G., Jones, M. N., Wuensch, K. L., Aziz, S. & Cope, J. G. (2008). Sanctify-
ing work: Effects on satisfaction, commitment, and intent to leave. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(2), 132–145.
Wilson, L. & Wilson, H. (1998). Play to Win. Choosing Growth Over Fear in Work
and Life. Austin, TX: Bard Press.
Index
Page numbers in italics indicate figures.
Abigail Adams Institute (AAI) 44, 65n2 of work as higher 192 – 195, 194;
Abrahamic faiths 102, 108, 121, 125, transcendent motivation 78; word
145n3, 171, 174, 176, 218 193
Adams, John Stacey 31 Catholic faith 124, 134, 141, 165,
agnostics 100, 117 223n5
applied sciences, understanding human Christianity 102, 121, 125, 135, 145n3
motivations 152, 152 Colorado University 183
Aquinas, St. Thomas 52, 177n1 compass for motivations 177; map of
Aristotle 44, 47, 52, 56, 59, 107, 177n1; motivations and 198–199; meaning
comparing Maslow’s hierarchy with in life and motivations 179–181;
conceptions of good 25–29; dialogue meaning of work and motivations
with Maslow and Herzberg 22–25; 181–183; meaning of work as a calling
extrinsic and intrinsic motivations 188–192; meaning of work as a career
160; on friends 154–155; ideas on 186–188; meaning of work as a higher
human nature and moral goodness calling 192–195; meaning of work as a
44–46; kinds of goods 25–29, 50; on job 183–186; searching for meaningful
love 151, 155, 165–166; moral good work-life balance 195–198; see also
31; motives for acting 25 roadmap for motivations
atheists 100, 106, 112, 117, 120, 125, Conant, Douglas 34
127 – 129, 131, 139, 143, 150 Confucianism 101, 117n2
Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine) conscientiousness 46, 49, 96
120, 122, 159, 160, 166 content theories of motivation 13, 20n2
autonomy, concepts of 27 Covey, Stephen 34
behaviourism 9 Dawkins, Richard 69

Benefiel, Margaret 114 dignity, ten elements of 38
bonum est diffusivum sui (the good Dostoevsky, Fyodor 143
diffuses itself) 188 Duhigg, Charles 55
Boston College 104
Buddhism 101, 108, 121 EBEN (European Business Ethics
business ethics 58 Network) 42, 215
effectiveness 58, 185
calling: calling orientation model efficiency 58, 185
191 – 192; concept of 192; concept of Enron 69
higher 193; inner 189, 193; meaning Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
of work as 188 – 192, 190; meaning (documentary) 91n1
Index 227
equity theory, Adam’s 31 – 32 free moral character, intrinsic moral
Escrivá, Josemaria 219, 223n6 motivations demanding 57 – 59
esteem needs 8; comparing motivation friendship: love of 154 – 155; as moral
theories 11, 12, 13 good 159 – 160
ethical: level 52; order 51 – 52; realm Fundamentals of Management class 21
50, 53
ethically unhealthy organisation 206, Gandhi, Mahatma 112
220 Gardner, Howard 62 – 63
ethics 27, 58 – 59; business 50, 58, 69; gift, logic of 78, 79, 168, 216
understanding human motivation gift-giving, logic of 73, 78
152, 153 Giles, Sunnie 34
external goods 27 Give and Take (Grant) 77
extrinsic moral motivations 30 – 33, 43, giving motivation 71; see also
48; accuracy of 39 – 40; examples of transcendent motivations
37; human dignity and trust 33 – 35; God: belief in 99 – 102, 108 – 111,
practical tips for 36 – 39; ten elements 117; contemplation of 143 – 144;
of dignity 38 discovering God’s love 124 – 127;
extrinsic motivations 70 – 71; attitude faith in 115 – 116, 123, 171; higher
of gratitude 210; Herzberg 3 – 6; love calling of 217 – 218; Love of 111,
as summary of human motivations 171; natural and supernatural good
in organisations 150; negative, 204; from 161; personal relationship with
for pleasant good 27; practical tips 96, 102, 112, 121 – 124; prayer and
17 – 18; for useful good 26 112, 113, 115; spiritual goods as
extrinsic pleasant motivations 28, gifts from 102; spiritual joy and 105;
186, 208 spiritual motivations 114; willing
extrinsic spiritual motivations 106 – 108 to return moral good to 134 – 136;
extrinsic spiritual needs 107 willing to return pleasant good to
extrinsic useful motivations 28, 86, 133 – 134; willing to return spiritual
174, 184 good to 136 – 139; willing to return
useful good to 130 – 132, 132; see
Farther Reaches of Human Nature, The also religious motivations; spiritual
(Maslow) 44 motivations
Fastow, Andrew 69 Golden Rule 173 – 175
fear: from logic of, to logic of González, Tomás 33, 42
love 203 – 205; map of negative good, kinds of 25 – 29
motivations 204 GoodWork Project 62
Ferrero, Ignacio 94, 95 Grant, Adam 77, 78, 89
Five Factor Model 46 growth, concepts of 27
Fordham University 120
formal sciences: understanding human Hancock, Jennifer 145n2
motivations 152, 152 Happiness Trap, The (Harris) 223n1
fortitude 59 Harvard Business School 65n5
Four Loves, The (Lewis) 157 Harvard Divinity School 108
framework: accuracy of 19 – 20; map of Harvard Kennedy School 94, 172
motivations 14 – 15 Harvard Medical School 63
Frankl, Viktor 77, 207, 209 Harvard University 3, 20n1, 40n1, 104,
freedom 49, 168, 213; ethical 53; fake 149, 191
55; human 117, 121, 176; kinds of Herzberg, Frederick Irving 4, 18;
54; moral 54 – 55, 58, 70; personal Aristotle and 22 – 25; comparing
137; psychological 54, 55; religious motivation theories 11, 12, 13;
123, 141, 142 – 143, 160 – 161, 171; extrinsic and intrinsic motivations of
seeking meaning in work 199; of 3 – 6; two-factor theory 32
thought 103, 171; of will 77 HEXACO model of personality 46
228 Index
Hicks, Donna 30, 33, 34, 35, 38, 209 human sciences: disciplines
hierarchy of needs, Maslow’s 7 – 10, understanding human motivations
23 – 25, 172 152; logic of love in 151 – 153
higher meaningful work: searching hygienic factors 4
for 201 – 202; search of, and life
219 – 222; search of, in calling idealism 91n3
212 – 216, 214; search of, in career IESE Business School 72
208 – 212, 210; search of, in higher injustice 21, 35, 54
calling 217 – 219, 218; search of, in Institute for Ethics in Communication
job 205 – 208, 208; see also work and Organizations (IECO) 40n1,
higher spiritual realm 52, 98, 102, 105, 117n1
109, 111, 116, 123, 151, 217 internal goods 27
Hinduism 101, 102, 121 International Association for
Hodson, Randy 34 Humanistic Management (IHMA)
Hoffman, W. Michael 94, 95 120, 121, 125, 141, 145nn1 – 2
honest good 26 intrinsic moral motivations 40, 43,
human behaviour 10, 20, 65, 90 – 91; 48; accuracy of 64 – 65; defining 47;
amorality of 48, 90; drivers of 17, demanding free moral character
24 – 25, 82, 128; extrinsic motivations 57 – 59; human desire to do good
of 74; framework of 69; predicting 47 – 49; as manifestation of human
51 – 52; realms of 84; religion and 121 ideals 59 – 62; participants’ ideals and
human dignity, extrinsic moral 61; practical tips for 62 – 64; shaping
motivation 33 – 35 moral virtues and moral conscience
human generosity, transcendent 55 – 57
motivations or 74 – 78 intrinsic motivations 70 – 71; Herzberg
human goods: achieving truly, in 3 – 6; love as summary of human
organisations 161 – 166; definition motivations in organisations 150;
of motivations for Aristotle’s type negative 205; for pleasant good
28; giving truly, in organisations 27; practical tips 17 – 18; for useful
166 – 169; Maslow’s hierarchy vs good 26
Aristotle’s types of 26; receiving intrinsic pleasant motivations 28, 187, 208
truly, in organisations 157 – 161; intrinsic spiritual motivations 108,
returning truly, in organisations 109 – 111
169 – 172; spiritual motivations as intrinsic useful motivations 28, 187, 208
highest 95 – 97; truly 199n1; see also Islam 102, 121, 125, 135, 145n3
organisations
human ideals, intrinsic moral Japanese Shinto 102
motivations manifesting 59 – 62 Judaism 102, 121, 125, 135, 137,
humanistic management 120, 127, 145n3
145n1, 153, 169, 172 – 173, 189, Jung, Carl 77
191, 202 justice 21, 30, 60, 97; equity or 31;
human motivations 202; framework fairness or 19, 26; God and 131, 134;
of 70; love as summary of 128; virtue of 59, 64; workplaces and 157
overcoming self-centered vision of
69 – 71 Kennedy, John F. 188
human nature: anthropological Kreeft, Peter 110, 124
dimensions of 104; Aristotle
investigating 154; hierarchical Langer, Ellen 115
order of human goods and 53; Lay, Kenneth 69
moral goodness and 44 – 46; moral Leading with Dignity (Hicks) 34
philosophy 56; realms of 157 Lewis, C. S. 157
human organisations: logic of love in life and work, logic of love in 149 – 151;
153 – 157, 156; see also organisations see also work
Index 229
logic of love 149; friendship and useful motivations 131, 132; spiritual
154 – 155; Golden Rule and 173 – 175; and religious 105, 117; using 14 – 17
in human organisations 153 – 157, map of negative motivations, logic of
156; in human sciences 151 – 153; in fear 204
life and work 149 – 151; from logic of Marcel, Gabriel 161
fear to 203 – 205; map of motivations Maslow, Abraham Harold 7,
and 176 – 177; order of love and 20n2, 86; Aristotle and 22 – 25;
order of loves 172 – 176, 176; being values (B-values) 97, 107,
term 153 111, 122; comparing Aristotle’s
love: achieving love at work 162; conceptions of good with hierarchy
discovering God’s 124 – 127; of 25 – 29; comparing motivation
friendship and 154 – 155; giving theories 11, 12, 13; hierarchy of
love at work 168; Golden Rule and needs 7 – 10, 23 – 25, 172; idealism
173 – 175; logic of 130; order of 91n3; idea on moral dimension
172 – 176; others-love 166; religious of motivations 42 – 44; ideas on
motivations all about 127 – 130; human nature and moral goodness
returning love at work 170; self-love 44 – 46; meta-needs 97 – 98, 104,
162, 164 – 167, 212; summary of 107; spiritual motivations and
human motivations 128; summary of 97 – 99, 122
human motivations in organisations meta-motivations 91n3, 93, 98
150; term 153; see also logic of love mindfulness 94 – 95, 101, 106, 111;
concept of 217; of God’s love 217,
McLean, Bethany 91n1 218; higher levels of 110; promoting
Majeres, Kevin 63 ethical behaviours 114 – 116
Man’s Search for Meaning (Frankl) 207 mirror neurons 82
map of human motivations 3, 20, MIT (Massachusetts Institute of
40, 104: diagnosing personal Technology) 104
drivers 163; expanded 72, 74, moral conscience 55, 57 – 58, 189
78; humanistic 117; logic of love moral freedom 54 – 55, 58, 70; see also
in 150; order of love 172, 175; freedom
physical, psychological and ethical moral good 26, 29, 30, 32, 50;
levels 46, 47, 50 religious spiritual extrinsic moral motivation 37;
motivation and 104, 112, 136, 141, friendship as 159 – 160; human
150, 170; truly human good in nature and human goods 53; intrinsic
162 – 163; work as calling 189; work moral motivation 47, 57 – 58; in
as higher calling 193 – 195; work organisations 157, 158, 158, 160,
as career 186 – 187; see also map of 162, 168, 170; participants’ intrinsic
motivations moral motivations or ideals 61;
map of motivations 8, 9, 36, 56, transcendent motivations 83 – 85, 84
65; accuracy of 19 – 20; adding morality, human motivation theories
religious motivations 129, 130; neglecting 21 – 22
building 10 – 14; coordinates moral motivation: Aristotle’s types of
for 175; coordinates of 156; human good 32; higher than useful
hierarchical levels of 151, 152; logic and pleasant motivations 49 – 55; role
of love in 156; map coordinates in rebuilding trust 35 – 36
for motivations 175; Maslow’s moral principles 54 – 55
hierarchy and Aristotle’s human moral realm 20, 49 – 50
good 26; meaning in life and 180; moral relativism 46, 54 – 55
meaning in work and 182; religious moral virtues 42 – 43, 59, 83; attaining
moral motivations 135; religious 58, 64, 165; intrinsic moral
motivations 140, 141; religious motivations shaping 55 – 57; specific
pleasant motivations 133; religious 63 – 64; work and 213, 216
spiritual motivation 137; religious Mother Teresa 75, 112
230 Index
motivation(s): Aristotle’s types of personalisation 214, 215, 223n4
human good 28; content vs process physical nature 54
theories 20 n2; hierarchical order physical realm 49, 158; see also useful
of human nature and human goods goods
53; meaning of life and 179 – 181; physiological needs 8, 28, 49;
meaning of work and 181 – 183; comparing motivation theories 11,
philosophical distinction from 12, 13; Maslow 8, 13
motives 24; three Cs (consciousness, Pink, Daniel 73, 75
conversion and change) 197, 206; Plato 44, 47, 56, 59, 107, 177n1
see also compass for motivations; Play to Win! Choosing Growth over
roadmap for motivations Fear in Work and Life (Wilson &
motivation theories: comparing Wilson) 209
Maslow’s, Herzberg’s and other 13; pleasant goods 26, 27, 29, 49, 50;
comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s extrinsic moral motivation 37;
11, 12; diagnosis of students’ human nature and human goods
motivations 15; neglecting moral 53; intrinsic moral motivation
dimension of 21 – 22; recovering 47, 57 – 58; in organisations
neglected moral dimension 29 – 33 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 168,
motivator factors 4 170; participants’ intrinsic
Muslim 102, 124 – 125, 137, 219; see moral motivations or ideals 61;
also Islam transcendent motivations 80 – 83, 81
Power of Habit, The (Duhigg) 55
natural sciences, understanding human practical wisdom 59, 100, 107, 213
motivations 152, 152 process theories, motivation 20n2
nature 51; human reality by 50; laws psychoanalysis 9
of moral 51 – 52; love for others 166, psychological freedom 54, 55
168; see also human nature psychological level 52, 159, 164, 221
neuroscience 31 psychological nature, laws of 54
New England Alumni Association 94 psychological realm 51, 54, 65; see also
Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) 25, pleasant goods
154, 164 psychology 9, 46, 71, 83, 96, 216
Nietzsche 126
Noahide Code 125 Quality Management 33; Total (TQM)
non-religious spiritualities 100 42, 65n1
Notre Dame University 82
Real Colegio Complutense (RCC)
Optimal Work project 63 20n1, 93, 94, 116, 117n1
order of love 155, 159, 175, 175, 176 reciprocity 77, 89, 173
order of loves 175, 175, 176 religious moral motivations: examples
organisations: achieving truly human of 140, 140; map of motivations 135;
good in 161–166; giving truly human willing to return moral good to God
good in 166–169; logic of love in 134–136
human 153–157, 156; logic of love religious motivations: accuracy of
in life and work 149–151; love as 144 – 145; all about love 127 – 130;
summary of human motivations in Book of Psalms 129; concept of 126;
150; receiving truly human good in discovering God’s love 124 – 127;
157–161; returning truly human good evidence of 139 – 142; examples of
in 169–172; three Cs (consciousness, 140; human 129; human reality
conversion and change) 197, 206 120 – 121; love as summary of
others-esteem 12, 12 human motivations in organisations
150; love as summary of human
Parmenides 107 motivations 128; map of motivations
Pérez-López, Juan Antonio 50, 52, 129, 130; negative 205; personal
65n5, 72 relationship with God 121 – 124;
Index 231
practical tips for 142 – 144; see also social sciences, understanding human
spiritual motivations motivations 152, 152
religious pleasant motivations: Socrates 44, 46, 47, 107, 177n1
examples of 140, 140; map of Spanish Higher Education system 20n1
motivations 133; willing to return SPIRE (Strength, Personalisation,
pleasant good to God 133 – 134 Integration, Resonance and
religious spiritualities 100; in a broad Expansion) model 216, 223n4
sense 101; in its narrowest sense 102 spiritual goods 94; defined 95;
religious spiritual motivations: highest of human goods 95 – 97;
definition of 137; examples of 140, in organisations 157, 158, 159,
141; map of motivations 137; willing 160, 162, 168, 170; willingness to
to return spiritual good to God acquire 109 – 111; willingness to
136 – 139 give 111 – 112; willingness to receive
religious useful motivations: examples 106 – 108
of 140, 140; willing to return useful spiritual intelligence 114
good to God 130 – 132, 132 spiritual motivations 91; accuracy of
roadmap for motivations 145, 195, 116 – 117; concept of 94; different
198 – 199; in search of higher conceptions 99 – 103; evidence of
meaningful work and life 219 – 222; 112 – 113; examples of 114; extrinsic
in search of higher meaning in a 106 – 108, 107; intrinsic 109,
calling 212 – 216, 214; in search of 109 – 111, 113; mapping territory
higher meaning in a career 208 – 212, of 105; in Maslow’s latest enquiries
210; in search of higher meaning in 97 – 99; neglected 93 – 95; practical
a higher calling 217 – 219, 218; in tips for 113 – 116; pursuing highest
search of higher meaning in a job human goods 95 – 97; spiritual good
205 – 208, 208; from logic of fear defined 95; transcendent 111 – 112,
to logic of love 203 – 205; map of 113; universal recognition and
the map 222; searching for higher respect 103 – 106; willingness to
meaningful work 201 – 202 acquire spiritual good 109 – 111;
willingness to give spiritual good
safety needs 8, 28, 49; comparing 111 – 112; willingness to receive
motivation theories 11, 12, 13 spiritual good 106 – 108; see also
St. Teresa of Calcutta 75 religious motivations
sanctification of work 194, 223n6 St. Augustine of Hippo 155, 177n1
science, term 152 St. John Paul II (pope) 223n6
Second Vatican Council 223n5 Steger, Michael F. 183, 216, 223n4
self-actualisation 8, 43; comparing students’ motivations, diagnosis using
motivation theories 11, 12, 13; 2x2 map 15
concepts of 27; growing tip of Subhanallah 137 – 138
humanity 44 suicide 183
self-actualisers 44
self-esteem 8, 12 Taoism 101, 102, 117n2, 121, 123
self-fulfilment 8, 10, 25, 43 TED Talk, Pink’s “The puzzle of
Selfish Gene 70 motivation” 73
Selfish Gene, The (Dawkins) 69 temperament, Cloninger’s general
self-love 162, 164 – 167, 212 model of 77
self-transcendence 72 temperance 59
self-transcendent motivation 87 theology 120, 124, 152, 153, 171
Shintoism 101 Theory of Moral Sentiments (Smith) 74
Sikhism 101 Theresa of Jesus 211
Skilling, Jeff 69 Total Quality Management (TQM)
Smith, Adam 74, 75 Programme 42, 65n1
social needs 8; comparing motivation transcendent moral motivations:
theories 11, 12, 13 human willingness to give moral
232 Index
good (to do good) 83 – 85; mapping universal needs, spiritual motivations
the territory 84 103 – 106
transcendent motivations 71, 215; University of Valencia 33, 42
accuracy of 90; defining 72; Unselfish Gene 70
examples from participants’ 88; useful goods 26, 49, 50; extrinsic
human generosity in academic moral motivation 37; human nature
debate 74 – 78; human willingness and human goods 53; intrinsic
to give 71 – 74; logic of gift-giving moral motivation 47, 57 – 58; in
73; love as summary of human organisations 157, 158, 159, 162,
motivations in organisations 150; 168, 170; participants’ intrinsic
love for others 167 – 169; map of moral motivations or ideals 61;
motivations 85, 87; moral good transcendent motivations 78 – 80, 79
83 – 85, 84, 87; negative 205; in
ordinary and professional life Wealth of Nations, The (Smith) 74
85 – 88; pleasant good 80 – 83, 81; Wharton Business School 77, 78
practical tips for 88 – 90; useful good White, Thomas 45, 46, 65n3
78 – 80, 79, 88 work: achieving love at 162; giving
transcendent pleasant motivations: love at 168; meaning of, and
human willingness to give pleasant motivations 181 – 183; meaning of,
good (to please) 80 – 83; mapping the as a calling 188 – 192, 190; meaning
territory 81 of, as a career 186 – 188; meaning
transcendent spiritual motivations 108, of, as a higher calling 192 – 195,
111 – 112 194; meaning of, as a job 183 – 186,
transcendent useful motivations: 185; receiving love at 158; returning
human willingness to give useful love at 170; sanctification of 194;
good (to serve) 78 – 80; mapping the searching for higher meaningful
territory 79 201 – 202; searching for meaningful
transcenders 71, 75, 85, 111, 166 work-life balance 195 – 198, 196;
trust: extrinsic moral motivation in search of higher meaningful
33 – 35; role of moral motivation for 219 – 222; three C’s (consciousness,
rebuilding 35 – 36 conversion and change) 197; see
also higher meaningful work;
United Nations, Universal Declaration organisations
of Human Rights 103 World War II 103

Motivation in Organisations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation in Organisations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation in Organisations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motivation in Organisations

Motivation in Organisations: Searching for a Meaningful Work-Life

Manuel Guillén is Associate Professor of Management, Organisational

Humanistic Management draws together the concepts of social business,

Aesthetics, Organization, and Humanistic Management

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com

1 Human motivation theories: Are they really human? 3

2 The extrinsic moral motivations: Human yearning for dignity 21

3 The intrinsic moral motivations: Aiming to do the right thing 42

4 The transcendent motivations: Human readiness to give 69

5 The spiritual motivations: Human aspiration

6 The religious motivations: Human longing for God’s Love 120

7 The map coordinates for motivations: The logic of love

8 The compass for motivations: Searching for a meaningful

9 The roadmap for motivations: Always searching for higher

1.1 Comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s motivation theories 11

Motivation in organisations: Searching for a meaningful

I had just led a one-day seminar on human motivations in organisations for

“This is something quite personal . . .”

My gratitude starts with two people: Danilo Petranovich, the Director of

Mapping the territory

Understanding Herzberg’s extrinsic and intrinsic motivations

Building a map of motivations

Figure 1.1 Comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s motivation theories

It is precisely because this comparison is not clear-cut that I suggest think-

In Figure 1.2, this others-esteem is distinguished from self-esteem precisely

Social (Maslow, 1943) Self-actualisation (Maslow, 1943)

Lower Safety (Maslow, 1943)

Using the map of motivations

- Aspiring to better jobs

- Being able to travel

Figure 1.4 Using the 2x2 map: Diagnosis of students’ motivations

Some practical tips

Some questions for reflection

A final critical thought on why the map is not

Human motivation theories neglecting the moral dimension

Inviting Aristotle to join the conversation with Maslow

Social (Maslow 1943) Self-actualisation (Maslow 1943)

Lower Safety (Maslow 1943)

Figure 2.1 Philosophical distinction between motives and motivations

Comparing Maslow’s hierarchy with Aristotle’s

Social (Maslow 1943) Self-actualisation (Maslow 1943)

Lower Safety (Maslow 1943)

Figure 2.3 Definition of motivations based on Aristotle’s types of human good

Recovering the neglected moral dimension in human

Extrinsic moral motivation founded on human dignity

The crucial role of moral motivation to rebuild trust

Some practical tips

- Aspiring to better jobs

- Being able to travel

Figure 2.5 Examples of the extrinsic moral motivation

Some questions for reflection

A final critical thought on why the map is not

Revisiting Maslow’s latest ideas on the moral dimension

Maslow’s and Aristotle’s common ideas on human nature

Figure 3.1 Defining intrinsic moral motivation

Intrinsic moral motivations: The human desire to do good,

Moral motivations are higher than useful and pleasant

Useful Lower-order goods

Intrinsic moral motivations shape our moral virtues

1 Human motivation theories: Are they really human? 3

2 The extrinsic moral motivations: Human yearning for dignity 21

3 The intrinsic moral motivations: Aiming to do the right thing 42

4 The transcendent motivations: Human readiness to give 69

6 The religious motivations: Human longing for God’s Love 120

1.1 Comparing Maslow’s and Herzberg’s motivation theories 11