← Web Projects

Motivation Potential Score

Based on Hackman & Oldham's Job Characteristics Model (1975)

The Motivation Potential Score (MPS) measures how motivating a job is likely to be based on five core characteristics. Jobs with high MPS tend to produce higher internal motivation, satisfaction, and work quality — even without external incentives like pay or supervision.

Rate each dimension from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) based on your current job or role. The score updates live.

MPS = ((SV + TI + TS) / 3) × A × F Motivating Potential Score = Motivating Core (average of Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Significance) × Autonomy × Feedback · Range: 1 – 343

Autonomy and Feedback are multiplied rather than averaged because they are considered necessary conditions — a job with zero autonomy or zero feedback has near-zero motivating potential regardless of the other dimensions.

Skill Variety SV

The degree to which a job requires different activities and draws on a range of skills, abilities, and talents.

Consider

  • How many distinct skills, abilities, or areas of expertise does your work draw on?
  • Does your job involve a variety of different tasks, or is it mostly the same routine activities?
  • Are you required to perform complex, challenging tasks that stretch your abilities?
1 · low 4 7 · high
Task Identity TI

The degree to which the job involves completing a whole, identifiable piece of work — from start to finish — with a visible result.

Consider

  • Do you see your work through from beginning to end, or do you hand off to others midway?
  • Can you clearly identify what you produced and take ownership of it?
  • Is your contribution one small step in a long chain, or a complete, identifiable deliverable?
1 · low 4 7 · high
Task Significance TS

The degree to which the job has a meaningful impact on the lives or work of other people — inside or outside the organisation.

Consider

  • Would others' well-being, safety, or effectiveness be noticeably affected if you did your job poorly?
  • Do people you serve — colleagues, clients, or the public — care about what you do?
  • Is your work seen as important in the broader context of the organisation or society?
1 · low 4 7 · high
Autonomy A

The degree to which the job gives the worker freedom and independence in scheduling work and deciding how to carry it out.

Consider

  • How much freedom do you have in deciding how to do your work — methods, sequence, and approach?
  • Can you set your own priorities and schedule, or is your time tightly prescribed?
  • Is your work largely controlled by rules, procedures, supervisors, or machines?
1 · low 4 7 · high
Feedback from the Job F

The degree to which carrying out the work activities provides direct, clear information about how effectively the job is being done.

Consider

  • Does the work itself — not your manager or colleagues — tell you whether you're performing well?
  • Can you tell immediately or shortly after completing a task whether it was done correctly?
  • Do you get clear, timely signals from the work about the quality or impact of your performance?
1 · low 4 7 · high

Interpreting the score

MPS ranges from 1 (all dimensions at minimum) to 343 (all dimensions at maximum). Research benchmarks suggest:

  • Below 80 — Low motivating potential. The job is unlikely to produce strong intrinsic motivation. Consider redesigning tasks to add variety, clearer ownership, or direct feedback loops.
  • 80 – 150 — Moderate motivating potential. Some dimensions are well-developed; others may benefit from targeted changes.
  • Above 150 — High motivating potential. The job is well-designed for intrinsic motivation and is likely to produce satisfaction without heavy reliance on external incentives.

Because Autonomy and Feedback are multiplied, they have a disproportionate effect. A job with very low autonomy or very little direct feedback will score low regardless of the other three dimensions. These two are therefore the highest-leverage levers for redesign.

Limitations: MPS is a diagnostic tool based on self-report perceptions, not an objective measure of job quality. Scores are not comparable across organisations without calibration. Use MPS to identify which dimensions to focus on, not as an absolute standard.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. · Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Addison-Wesley.