In our last two Leadership Labs, I discussed two “gimme” measures of leader development: leader identity (“I am a leader”) and leader self-efficacy (“I can do what it takes to lead”). These measures are “gimmes” because if they’re not measurably improving, then it’s highly unlikely that any meaningful leader development is occurring. This week, I’m going to talk about a third construct, motivation to lead (MTL), that in many ways seems like another “gimme,” as it assesses a similarly fundamental aspect of leadership: whether people actually want to lead when the opportunity arises.
However, the fact is that MTL isn’t something that always needs to be assessed in every leader development program. Indeed, we don’t consistently measure it at the Doerr Institute (keep reading to see why!). Nonetheless, MTL is still an extremely important construct, and when it does need to be measured, it can be an invaluable tool for understanding leader development outcomes.
Defining Motivation to Lead (MTL)
Motivation is one of the most extensively studied constructs in the social sciences, especially psychology, and refers to the internal and external forces that lead people to initiate, guide, and maintain goal-oriented behaviors. In leadership research, motivation is often considered in relation to a specific question:
Why do some people agree to become leaders while others do not?
This question is closely related to both leader identity and leader self-efficacy, but it’s also meaningfully distinct from them. Someone with a strong leader identity is more likely to become a leader, but plenty of people are willing to take on leadership roles even if they do not see themselves leaders. Similarly, individuals may step into leadership positions even when they are uncertain about their abilities. In both cases, despite lower leader identity or leader self-efficacy, a strong motivation to lead can still drive these individuals to assume leadership roles.
Motivation to lead (MTL) is commonly defined based on the work of researchers Kim-Yin Chan and Fritz Drasgow, who described MTL as an individual’s willingness to assume leadership roles and engage in leadership activities, including leadership training and development.
Thus, just as leadership is about more than power, status, or authority, MTL is about more than simply wanting a role that provides those things, instead meaning a person’s willingness to accept the responsibility, accountability, and developmental work required for effective leadership.
This distinction is especially important for leader development, because most programs cannot guarantee that participants will receive formal leadership roles or positional authority. What these programs can do is help individuals develop the knowledge, skills, and judgment necessary to exercise leadership—regardless of their formal title.
For that reason, when we discuss motivation to lead (MTL), we are not referring to the general desire to hold power. Rather, we are referring to the willingness to engage in the work of leadership itself—including the effort required for leadership development.
Why Don’t We Measure MTL?
Given MTL’s implications for leadership and leader development, my earlier statement about the Doerr Institute not consistently measuring it might seem surprising. However, measurement is “expensive.”
Every survey item increases participant fatigue, which can lower response quality and ultimately produce less reliable data.
Thus, we have to be careful and intentional when selecting what we measure.
In our context, we don’t view MTL as an essential measure because our leadership development programs are entirely voluntary. This means there’s a natural selection effect: students who enroll in our programs are, at least in some way, already motivated to develop as leaders. That doesn’t mean they are equally motivated, nor does it mean measuring MTL would be useless; it simply means that consistently assessing MTL isn’t essential in our setting.
When to Measure MTL
There are two situations where measuring MTL can be invaluable.
The first is when it’s important to understand why individuals are pursuing leadership and leadership development. While motivation can be described in simple terms such as intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, leadership researchers often use more detailed frameworks, such as Chan and Drasgow’s three-factor model of motivation to lead. Whatever model you choose, the key is that not all motivations to lead are the same. Different motives can have very different implications for how individuals approach leadership development and, ultimately, how effective their leadership is. When understanding such differences matters, an MTL measure can provide important insight.
The second situation arises when leadership development is not voluntary.
Mandatory leadership programs change the participant pool. Individuals who’d never have self-selected into a program are now required to attend, even though they might have little interest in developing as leaders, and therefore potentially show little improvement in leader identity, leader self-efficacy, or other developmental outcomes. In such cases, even a well-designed program might appear ineffective simply because many participants aren’t motivated to engage in the developmental process.
This is an example of what social scientists call Campbell’s Law. Put simply, when a number or metric becomes important for decision-making, people begin changing their behavior to improve the number itself.
Over time, that number stops reflecting the thing it was supposed to measure. In leader development, something similar can happen when a program that produced measurable improvements for voluntary participants changes to mandatory participation for everyone in a defined population (e.g., everyone majoring in business, all undergraduate students at a particular school). The program’s material might not have changed, but the motivation of its participants has, which can make the program appear less effective than it might otherwise be with all-volunteer participants.
Measuring MTL allows researchers and practitioners alike to account for this phenomenon. By assessing motivation before and after a program, teams can better distinguish between program material’s effectiveness and participant motivation, thereby ensuring that the impact of leadership development efforts is interpreted more accurately.
What to Measure
There are multiple ways to measure MTL. Chan and Drasgow’s three-factor MTL model remains widely used, and numerous validated scales are available that distinguish between their model’s three factors. However, simpler motivational models can also work, depending on the context.
However, regardless of the specific model used, there are three principles that should guide any attempt to measure motivation to lead.
First, don’t conflate motivation to lead with the simple desire for power, position, or authority. Desiring status or influence isn’t the same as wanting to “do the work” of leadership, and good measures should capture the latter. Confusing these concepts risks capturing things like narcissistic entitlement or grandiosity rather than a healthy willingness to lead.
Second, recognize that different motivations to lead exist, and that not all are the same. Different motives can produce very different patterns of behavior, and very different ways of engaging with developmental programs. Effective measurement should distinguish between motives, rather than treating motivation as a single, undifferentiated construct.
Third and finally, make sure that the motives you’re measuring match your context. Leader development motives can differ across settings. In higher ed, motives like promotion opportunities or income might be less relevant than social engagement or reputation. The goal isn’t to measure every potential motivation; it’s to select and assess the ones most relevant to your context.
While MTL might not be a “gimme” measure, it can still be an important one—and when it does matter, meaningfully measuring it can be critical for understanding who engages with leader development, and understanding how that process can most effectively work.
Further Readings:
For more information on Campbell’s Law: https://psychsafety.com/goodharts-law-campbells-law-and-the-cobra-effect/
For more about Chan and Drasgow’s specific model of MTL: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201805/why-would-anyone-want-to-be-a-leader
