Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores common reasons previously high-performing employees can lose their initial motivation and drive over time in the workplace. Drawing on motivation theory and academic research, four primary explanations are examined: unrealistic or unsustainable expectations that diminish self-efficacy; lack of autonomy, variety and intellectual challenge in daily tasks that renders work unstimulating; insufficient positive feedback and appreciation for efforts; and poor person-organization fit due to disconnected leadership styles, values or goals. Each explanation is supported by an organizational example and research citations. The article then offers six practical, evidence-based recommendations companies can consider to help reinvigorate motivation levels in employees showing reduced engagement, including conducting motivational check-ins, offering developmental assignments, meaningful recognition, role modifications, fostering supportive leadership, and empowering autonomy. The suggestions aim to renew enthusiasm and productivity in capable individuals whose passion has waned.
As managers and leaders, we've all witnessed it - once stellar performers who seemed exceptionally motivated suddenly appear less engaged or inspired in their work. As researchers who study workplace motivation and employee engagement, we're naturally curious about what factors might undermine an otherwise top-notch employee's drive and initiative over time. Through my own experience advising clients and reviewing relevant academic literature, I've come to better understand some of the most common reasons previously high-performing individuals can lose their initial motivational momentum.
Today we will explore several potential explanations grounded in motivation theory, followed by practical suggestions companies may consider to help reinvigorate discouraged yet still capable employees.
Reason 1: Unrealistic or Unsustainable Expectations
Setting the bar too high without consideration for human limitations is a motivation killer (Amabile & Kramer, 2011). Researchers have found goal-setting can enhance performance when targets are specific, challenging yet attainable (Locke & Latham, 1990). However, constantly raising objectives without regard for burnout or workload capacity undermines self-efficacy over time (Vancouver, 2005).
Take the case of "Jane," a star sales rep who exceeded her targets quarter after quarter due largely to 80-hour work weeks. Her manager kept increasing quotas assuming Jane's output could scale indefinitely. Within a year, Jane experienced frustration, exhaustion and a significant decline in sales as unreasonable demands depleted her motivation (Sas-Perez et al, 2022). Companies should thoughtfully calibrate expectations to consider both business needs and human capacity for sustainability.
Reason 2: Lack of Autonomy and Challenge in Daily Tasks
Hackman and Oldham's (1976, 1980) job characteristics model proposes enhancing motivation through task significance, identity, variety, autonomy and feedback. Yet for some roles, tasks become repetitive and menial months or years into a position as new challenges fail to emerge.
Consider "Mark," an analyst who thrived on complex problem-solving but over time was given more routinized data entry and reporting duties with little discretion. His motivation waned as he no longer felt intellectually stimulated (Lam et al., 1999). To maintain enthusiasm, roles may need modification, rotation or enrichment as skills and interests evolve over a career.
Reason 3: Insufficient Feedback and Appreciation
A lack of acknowledgment for good work leaves people wondering if efforts make a difference, damaging intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999; Pink, 2009). Unfortunately, continuous feedback is often reserved for poor performance rather than excellence.
For instance, "Maria" led several successful projects that transformed her department but rarely heard compliments from her direct manager. Over two years, declining recognition took a toll despite ongoing successes. A simple "thank you" costs nothing but can renew motivation when delivered sincerely (Narciss et al., 2014).
Reason 4: Poor Leadership and Culture Mismatches
Leadership style strongly impacts workplace motivation. Toxic, abusive or inauthentic managers diminish enthusiasm and well-being (Tews et al., 2013; Yagil, 2006). Incongruence between personal and organizational culture values also undermines drive over time (Kristof, 1996; O'Reilly et al., 1991).
For example, "Jenna" thrived in fast-paced, entrepreneurial cultures but found herself demotivated under a micromanaging boss leading a risk-averse organization. The misalignment caused her to reconsider her longer-term career fit (Lee et al., 2018). Building trust with authentic leaders remains key to sustaining motivation.
Practical Recommendations for Organizations
With a deeper understanding of common motivation eroders, organizations can take proactive steps to rekindle purpose and enthusiasm in previously high performers showing reduced initiative or commitment. Some suggestions include:
Conduct Motivational Check-Ins: Schedule candid conversations to understand factors draining individual drive from the employee perspective. Inquire about workload balance, role design, recognition experiences, leadership perceptions and cultural congruence. Adjust strategies accordingly versus assuming causes (Farr, 2022).
Offer Developmental Rotations or Projects: Provide enriched assignments, rotations or stretch projects for those needing fresh challenges to maintain motivation over the long-term (Lam et al., 1999). Rotations broaden skillsets while avoiding role stagnation.
Provide Meaningful Feedback and Appreciation: Institute more frequent yet brief check-ins for positive affirmation versus relying on annual reviews alone (Narciss et al., 2014). Encourage peer-to-peer recognition too. Sincere acknowledgement of contributions renews enthusiasm.
Consider Role Modification or Transition: For roles no longer optimally using talents, discuss potential job crafting, internal transfers or even promotions for the right candidates versus hoping for prolonged endurance alone (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001).
Foster Supportive Leadership and Culture: Develop supervisors’ people skills through coaching. Clarify culture and values regularly to ensure ongoing alignment. An empowering work environment significantly impacts employee drive (Tims & Bakker, 2010).
Empower Autonomy Within Parameters: Allow discretion and choice over specific tasks or processes within set objectives. Perceived control motivates better than rote compliance alone (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The right amount reenergizes performance.
Conclusion
What initially sparked high motivation can diminish over time due to realistic limits, lack of intellectual challenge or recognition, disconnects between employee needs and environment demands, or poor leadership dynamics. Yet with open communication and targeted interventions addressing root causes case by case, organizations can help previously engaged individuals rediscover their drive and passion for meaningful work. By proactively understanding why excellent performers may lose some of their initial momentum, companies can better sustain top talent through supportive career experiences that optimize skill utilization and motivation in the long run.
References
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2011). The progress principle: Using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work. Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 62-71.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall.
Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.38
Sas-Perez, V., Moriano, J. A., & Molero, F. (2022). Entrepreneurial passion versus business success: The mediating role of work engagement and workaholism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2021.1991501
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.
Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.192
Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The relation of dame, need satisfaction and autonomy support to well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The role of autonomy and control in health behavior change. Hemisphere.
Narciss, S., Sosnovsky, S., Schnaubert, L., Andrés, E., Eichelmann, A., Goguadze, G., & Melis, E. (2014). Exploring feedback and student characteristics relevant for personalizing feedback strategies. Computers & Education, 71, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.011
Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Noe, R. A. (2013). Does fun promote learning? The relationship between fun in the workplace and informal learning. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.05.007
Yagil, D. (2006). The relationship of abusive and supportive workplace supervision to employee burnout and upwards influence tactics. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 6(1), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v06n01_03
O'Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/256404
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Lee, T. W., Mowday, R. T., & McDermott, K. (2018). Employee-organization relationships. In S. Rogelberg (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). SAGE. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781483386874.n162
Farr, R. (2022, March 1). How to boost employee motivation and engagement with check-ins. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/03/how-to-boost-employee-motivation-and-engagement-with-check-ins
Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1999). Enhancing employee motivation to upgrade service quality. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819910282126
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378011
Tims, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.841
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Losing Motivational Momentum: Understanding Why Good Employees Sometimes Lose Their Drive. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.14.1.2
