Like most typical students, I am prone to periods of procrastination. Whether I’m writing an essay, studying for a test or preparing a project, there are times when this heavy, unshakeable demotivation sets in. Of course, with the right incentive, whatever it is usually gets done. However, there is often a lingering sense that the resulting assignment could have turned out much better.
Interestingly, motivation typically follows incentive; the difference is that motivation exclusively comes from within. Motivation for one cannot come from another, and it is imperative that people, especially students, recognize that the individual is responsible for their own motivation and, consequently, for all behaviors and actions that follow.
One applicable definition for motivation is “the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors.” The concept of motivation persists that it is primarily an internal mechanism, specifically a largely conscious or unconscious cognitive response to some external goal-associated stimulus.
An important note is the distinction between the instigator and the source of motivation; when I say that one cannot be motivated by someone else, for example, I am simply outlining a fallacious assignment of definitions. Other people can most certainly instigate the motivational process, but the actual effort of following through with said process falls solely on the shoulders of the person in question.
When discussing traditional motivation, there are three necessary components to keep in mind: activation, persistence and intensity. Activation involves the initial decision to engage in behavior that will result in obtaining some goal. Persistence is the continuous effort put into said behavior, as well as the maintenance of obstacles and challenges along the way. Intensity depends on the level and variety of concentration and vigor at which one goes about pursuing this behavior.
Notice that the common theme between all three components is that they all must be achieved by the individual. Other factors, such as other people, may be involved in the initial stimulus, but none other than the individual are responsible for coordinating their own response.
This is why I consider the idea of “motivational speakers” misleading; they can only ever be instigators or provide stimuli. The variety and presentation of their words don’t actually “motivate” people; they simply induce warm, uplifting buzzes in the brain.
When people are told that they are more than what they think, that their dreams are attainable or that they are not alone, they merely “feel better”. Children receive the exact same treatment from preschool teachers; do we ever say that they are actually “motivated?” True motivation begins when an individual reaches or constructs a decision, and it depends on how rigorously they work to fulfill that decision moving forward.
It cannot be stressed enough that one should never sit around or trudge through life waiting for something or someone else to motivate them. The external incentives/stimuli and the internal drive/potential are already there. All it takes is a bit of recognition, which in actuality is what these “faux”-tivational speakers are really doing.
Correlational research shows that motivation goes a long way in impacting academic performance, and the same thinking can be applied to work environments. This is extremely evident in the implementation of college workshops, workplace policies and business strategies that are designed to enhance and maintain performance. They all optimize carefully crafted incentives and basic social priming techniques that, when taken out of the context of performance enhancement, seem outright manipulative.
Of course, these are usually well-intentioned and mutually beneficial manipulations but are manipulations nonetheless. The student or employee on the receiving end is the true agent of motivation, and this idea has prompted the development of numerous theories explaining its sources.
One notable theory is the humanistic approach, which evidently ties into psychologist Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs.” This idea is represented by a pyramid that is split into five sections of fundamental motivational goals. The foundational tier of this pyramid concerns biological needs, safety and security. The middle tier describes the sense of belonging and acceptance that we all, on some level, seek and require in our lives. The sections most relevant to humanistic motivational theory, however, are the top two tiers pertaining to self-esteem and self-actualization.
Self-actualization is mainly concerned with the realization and utilization of personal potential. As long as an individual remains focused on their self-fulfillment, they develop a trend of seeking and obtaining what is most important to them. The individualistic aspect of this behavior provides an endless supply of motivational fuel. This type of motivation brings about an efficient perception and tolerance of reality and uncertainty, bouts of spontaneous thought and action, and an unyielding understanding and acceptance of the self and its potential. Basically, it checks off the most common prompters for general motivational discovery.
The irony of this column is not lost on me, but think of it this way: these words aren’t meant to “motivate” readers to “motivate” themselves. This is just a revelation to some and a reminder to others that if you’re looking for motivation, you’ve already found it. Act on it and persist; as cliché as that sounds, that’s really all it takes.
