TL;DR The MICE model from spycraft explains recruitment and betrayal. Money, Ideology, Coercion, Ego helps explain why people leave organisations just as it explains why spies betray nations. When money feels unfair, ideology misaligns, pressure builds, or ego goes unacknowledged, people detach. Organizational psychology offers the antidotes: equity, purpose, autonomy, and recognition. Treat MICE not as a threat model but as a design guide for meaningful work and be careful what you use as your leverage. Remember, intrinsic motivation is most resilient.
When an intelligence officer recruits a potential spy, they ask: what’s their price, their cause, their fear, or their pride? You might ask the same of your own teams. Not because anyone is stealing secrets, but because disengagement often looks like a slow-motion betrayal, the kind that starts in silence and ends in resignation letters, or worse quiet quitting.
In espionage, money buys loyalty. In organisations, it buys only attention unless fairness and recognition follow.
Herzberg’s (1966) Two-Factor Theory showed that pay is a “hygiene factor,” preventing dissatisfaction but not creating motivation. When employees perceive pay inequity (Adams’ Equity Theory, 1965), trust erodes, and flight risk rises.
Retention reframing: Make compensation transparent and recognition personal. Don’t overpay cynically; reward contribution credibly.
Pay inequity is a significant source of dissatisfaction. It is also increasingly illegal across jurisdictions.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-pay-gap-reporting-guidance-for-employers
Ideological spies act from belief. Employees do too.
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) emphasises autonomy, competence, and relatedness as the roots of intrinsic motivation. When people feel their personal values resonate with the organisation’s mission, loyalty becomes self-sustaining.
Retention reframing: Let employees see their impact. Invite dissent and debate to keep your corporate ideology alive, not dogmatic. Monitor the alignment of values, beliefs and behaviours to avoid increasing cognitive dissonance and other stress factors.
Some spies are coerced through fear or entrapment. In corporate life, “coercion” can take subtler forms, chronic overwork, psychological safety gaps, or manipulative performance metrics.
Amy Edmondson’s (1999) research on psychological safety shows that when people fear blame, they hide errors and disengage. Burnout, according to Bakker & Demerouti’s Job Demands–Resources Model (2007), grows where demands outweigh control.
Retention reframing: Replace fear with fairness. Build systems that protect wellbeing and encourage recovery as much as output.
Ego-driven spies crave validation; so do employees who feel unseen.
Albert Bandura’s (1997) Self-Efficacy Theory links confidence in one’s ability to sustained performance and resilience. When that belief erodes through neglect or micromanagement, defection follows.
Retention reframing: Offer visible growth paths, not just titles. Recognition should affirm both effort and learning.
MICE is not neccesarily a cynical view of human nature it’s a reminder that loyalty is emotional and conditional. Each letter, when neglected, becomes a leak in the system. But when nourished, they form the foundations of what Aristotle might have called eudaimonia at work, flourishing through purpose, virtue, and belonging.
This is the essence of understanding human nature and organisational psychology and politics in the work place. This is what organisational psychology can help you to understand where you work.
The espionage metaphor cuts both ways. Not all departures are betrayals; sometimes they’re acts of integrity. People leave when systems ask for loyalty without reciprocity. While MICE helps decode motives, applying it ethically requires humility and systemic reform, not manipulation. True retention comes from designing organisations where people want to stay, not feel trapped to.
Robert Greene on Human Nature, book summarised by author video
Bakker & Demerouti’s Job Demands–Resources Model (2007),