Motivation: New Directions for Theory, Research, and Practice

Author(s): Terence R. Mitchell

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1982), pp. 80-88
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257251
Accessed: 24-06-2017 09:59 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
?Academy of Management Review 1982, Vol. 7, No. 1, 80-88

Motivation: New Directions for Theory,

Research, and Practice
TERENCE R. MITCHELL
University of Washington

The current state of motivation theory is reviewed. Emphasis is placed

the internal, unobservable aspects of motivation and the distinction b
ween motivation and behavior and performance. Major theories of
motivation concerned with the arousal and choice of behavior are examin-
ed, problems of implementation are discussed, and directions for future
research are suggested. They include study of the circumstances under
which any given motivational theory is most effective. The long-run objec-
tive should be a contingency type model of motivation.

Over the last five years various professional com- phasizing social cues and social evaluations also
mitments have led this author to look at the field of have been important. These approaches have all
motivation from both a theory-research perspective been helpful in increasing the understanding of
as well as a practical or applied perspective. The motivation.
analysis of the theoretical and research literature A second trend, however, has not been so widely
has resulted in detailed and comprehensive review recognized. More specifically, when one reviews
papers (Mitchell, 1979; Mitchell, in press). The at- this research, it becomes readily apparent that most
tempts to deal with applications and implications of the studies investigate only one theory in depth.
were prompted by field research endeavors Many studies set out to demonstrate that goal set-
ting, operant conditioning, or expectancy theory
(Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978) and the writing
work. In other cases the research is concerned with
and revision of a textbook (Mitchell, 1978). Several
ideas have emerged from these activities. fine tuning the theory (e.g., Is participative or
First, from the reviews of motivation theory andassigned goal setting better? Should expectancies be
research (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Korman, added to or multiplied by valences? Is a variable or
Greenhaus, & Badin, 1977; Locke, 1975; Staw, continuous schedule of reinforcement best?). These
questions are important, but few studies have been
1977), it became clear that some shifts in the field
were occurring. The overwhelming percentage of designed to integrate theories, to test them com-
current papers are concerned with information pro- petitively, or to analyze the settings in which dif-
cessing or social-environmental explanations of ferent theories work best.
motivation (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1977, 1978) rather Several issues also emerged from the practical ex-
than need-based approaches or approaches that periences and attempts to summarize applied prin-
focus on individual differences. These latter ap- ciples. First, there are some preliminary questions
proaches, represented by people like Maslow, have that must be answered and requirements that need
almost disappeared in the literature. to be met before implementing any motivational
The information processing approaches are il- system. These questions and requirements revolve
lustrated by the large amount of work on expectan- around (1) how people are evaluated and (2) the
cy theory, goal setting, and equity theory. Theories demands of the task. In other words, to apply moti-
focusing on the job environment, such as operant vational principles, one must do some preliminary
conditioning or job enrichment, and theories em- work involving other organizational factors.

80

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Second, in attempting to apply motivational prin- 1964). Thus motivation becomes those psychologi-
ciples in an organization, one often runs into miti- cal processes that cause the arousal, direction, and
gating circumstances. There are situations and set- persistence of voluntary actions that are goal
tings that make it exceptionally difficult for a directed.
motivational system to work. These circumstances Although there is some disagreement about the
may involve the kinds of jobs or people present, the importance of different aspects of this definition
technology, the presence of a union, and so on. The (e.g., whether arousal or choice is more important),
factors that hinder the application of motivational there is consensus about some underlying properties
theory have not been articulated either frequently of this definition. First, motivation traditionally
or systematically. The purpose of this paper is to has been cast as an individual phenomenon. Each
review what is currently known about motivation, individual is unique and all of the major motiva-
describe some theoretical areas in which ambiguity tional theories allow in one way or another for this
exists, and identify some situational constraints on uniqueness to be demonstrated (e.g., different peo-
the utilization of this knowledge. ple have different needs, expectations, values, at-
The goal of this paper is not to provide a com- titudes, reinforcement histories, and goals). Sec-
prehensive source of references on the topic of ond, motivation usually is described as intentional.
motivation. Vast resources are already available for That is, motivation supposedly is under the employ-
that purpose. There are whole books devoted to the ee's control. Most behaviors that are seen as in-
topic (Korman, 1974; Lawler, 1973; Ryan, 1970; fluenced by motivation (e.g., effort on the job)
Vroom, 1964; Weiner, 1972), books of readings typically are viewed as actions the individual has
(McClelland & Steele, 1973; Steers & Porter, 1979; chosen to do.
Tosi, House, & Dunnette, 1972), and many review A third point is that motivation is multifaceted.
articles (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Korman et The two factors of greatest importance have been
al., 1977; Locke, 1975; Mitchell, 1979; Staw, 1977). the arousal (activation, energizers) and direction
The material and principles discussed in this paper (choice) of behavior. The question of persistence
will be dealt with at a fairly global level. This is not has been of minor importance, partly because the
to say that the ideas are not supportable or that a issue of maintenance of behavior (once it is started
detailed level of analysis is not important. In most and directed) has received less attention and partly
cases, at least one representative citation will be because some authors have defined persistence sim-
provided. However, the objective of the paper is to ply as the reaffirmation of the initial choice of ac-
stimulate debate and interest in some issues about tion (March & Simon, 1958).
motivation that (1) have been said infrequently or The arousal question has focused on what gets
(2) have recently emerged and need to be high- people activated. What are the circumstances that
lighted. arouse people so they want to do well? The second
question, that of choice, deals with the force on the
Background
individual to engage in desired behaviors. Given
Many nonacademics would probably describe that the person is aroused, what gets them going in
motivation as the degree to which an individual a particular direction? These distinctions are re-
wants and tries hard to do well at a particular task flected in much of the writing on motivation.
or job. Dictionary definitions describe motivation The fourth point to make is that the purpose of
as the goad to action. The more technical defini- motivational theories is to predict behavior.
tions given by social scientists suggest that motiva- Motivation is concerned with action and the inter-
tion is the psychological processes that cause the nal and external forces that influence one's choice
arousal, direction, and persistence of behavior of action. Motivation is not the behavior itself, and
(Atkinson, 1964; Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & it is not performance. The behavior is the criteri-
Weick, 1970; Huse & Bowditch, 1977; Kast & on-that which is chosen. And in some cases the
Rosenzweig, 1979; Korman, 1974; Luthans, 1977). chosen action will be a good reflection of perfor-
Many authors add a voluntary component or goal mance. But the psychological processes, the actual
directed emphasis to that definition (Hellriegel & behavior, and performance are all different things,
Slocum, 1976; Lawler, 1973; Ryan, 1970; Vroom, and the confusion of the three frequently has caused

81

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
problems in analysis, interpretation, and applica-must have a good performance appraisal instru-
tion. ment. Changes in performance must be detectable
So, given these elaborations, a definition of and demonstrable. There is not enough space to go
motivation becomes somewhat more detailed. Mo- into the merits of various appraisal procedures
tivation becomes the degree to which an individual(Kane & Lawler, 1979; Kavangh, 1981; Landy &
wants and chooses to engage in certain specified Farr, 1980), but there are some generalizations that
behaviors. Different theories propose different can be made about appraisal and its relationship to
reasons, but almost all of them emphasize an indivi- motivation.
dual, intentional choice of behavior analysis. First, it goes without question that a both reliable
and valid system is needed-not only for issues of
Preliminary Questions motivation but for issues of selection, promotion,
counseling, and adherence to legal guidelines. In
Given that one understands what motivation is,
short, a sound appraisal device is necessary for
the next question concerns why it is important to
many personnel functions.
management. Most organizations function under
But besides the methodological properties of the
the principle of rationality (Scott & Hart, 1979).
device, there are some substantive issues as well.
That is, the primary goal of management is to in-
The more closely a performace appraisal device fits
crease efficiency by getting the greatest output at
with the definition of motivation, the easier it will
the lowest cost. Therefore, any behaviors that con-
be to assess the effects of motivational interventions
tribute to greater efficiency will be actions that
or strategies. More specifically, if performance is
management will want to encourage. These actions
defined in behavioral and individual terms and so is
might be coming to work, being punctual, or exert-
motivation, then the concepts and their measures
ing a lot of effort. Because these behaviors often are
show correspondence. They are less likely to be con-
assumed by management to be motivated-volun-
founded by other factors.
tary choices controlled by the individual-manage-
This distinction is very important. Some apprais-
ment often establishes what it calls a motivational
als use group or team goals as performance criteria
system. This system is intended to influence the fac-
as opposed to individual performance. Also, some
tors that cause the behavior in question.
appraisals emphasize outcomes (policies sold) as
The important point to make is that one must be
opposed to behavior (clients visited). The further
clear in distinguishing between this motivation
away one gets from individual behavior, the more
system and the definition of motivation as a cogni-
difficult it is to infer directly and unambiguously a
tive, individual, intentional phenomenon. The mo-
change in motivation rather than a change in per-
tivational system is imposed from the outside. It is
formance.
constructed according to the assumptions held by
To some extent, however, the type of appraisal
management about (1) what behaviors are impor-
may be dictated by the technology or task with
tant for effectiveness and (2) the factors that in-
which people are engaged. In some cases group per-
fluence these behaviors. To make sure these as-
formance or outcomes may be the best one can do.
sumptions are correct, some preliminary work
This is a point that will be covered later, but at this
should be done before any system is tried.
juncture it is sufficient to mention that (1) a good
Performance Appraisal performance appraisal device is necessary and
(2) the closer this device is to measuring individual
Although many organizational factors contribute behavior, the easier it is to evaluate the effects of
to effectiveness, such as turnover, absenteeism, and
motivational systems or technologies introduced by
technology, probably the factor that is described as
management.
most important and one that management feels it
can influence is job performance. Job performance
Factors Influencing Performance
typically is viewed as partially determined by the
motivation to work hard and, therefore, increases Given that a good performance appraisal system
in motivation should result in greater effort and is in place and that it measures individual behavior,
higher performance. However, to have any idea the next question is: Does motivation make a dif-
about the effects of a motivational system, one ference for performance? Many years ago Vroom

82

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
suggested the equation: performance = ability x Oldham, 1980), this is infrequently discussed.
motivation; and somewhat later the term role per- The implications of the points about job analysis,
ceptions was added to the right side of that equation performance appraisal, and the factors that con-
(Porter & Lawler, 1968). More recently, Campbell tribute to performance appraisal, and the factors
and Pritchard (1976) expanded that definition to that contribute to performance boil down to one
performance = f(aptitude level x skill level x crucial point: Performance is not the same as
understanding of the task x choice to expend effort motivation. If one wants to assess changes in
x choice of degree of effort x choice to persist x motivation or the influence of interventions on
facilitating and inhibiting conditions not under the motivation, then one must measure motivation and
control of the individual). These authors recognized its contribution to behavior. If performance is
that performance is caused by at least four and assessed globally or nonbehaviorally, then perfor-
maybe more factors. In order to do well one must mance is not a good indicator of motivation. Even
(1) know what is required (role expectations), when performance is individually and behaviorally
(2) have the ability to do what is required, (3) be assessed, motivation may control substantially less
motivated to do what is required, and (4) work in than 100 percent of the variance in performance.
an environment in which intended actions can be That is, behaviors may be jointly determined by
translated into behavior. ability and motivation or some other combination
The implication is that there probably are some of factors. When either of these two circumstances
jobs for which trying to influence motivation will beis true, the researcher or practitioner should seek to
irrelevant for performance. These circumstances define and assess motivation separately. This point
can occur a variety of ways. There may be situa- is infrequently recognized (Lawler, 1973) and al-
tions in which ability factors or role expectationmost never practiced.
factors are simply more important than motivation. In summary, before any motivation system is in-
For example, the best predictor of high school stalled, one must be sure (a) that there is a good
grades typically is intellectual endowment, not performance appraisal system available, (b) that
hours spent studying. In a paper entitled "Perfor- motivation is an important contributor to perfor-
mance Equals Ability and What," Dunnette con- mance, and (c) that where motivation clearly is not
cluded that "ability differences still are empirically the major contributor to performance, a separate
the most important determiners of differences in measure of motivation or of behaviors clearly caus-
job performance" (1973, p. 22). Some of the prob- ed by motivation is developed. When these three
lems referred to in this quote pertain to inadequate conditions are not being met, there is little point in
performance measures or poorly articulated theo- pursuing the topic further. If they do exist, then one
ries of motivation, but part of the problem is that has the opportunity to put into practice what has
performance on some tasks simply is controlled been learned from previous research on motivation.
more by ability than by motivation.
Another circumstance may occur in which per- Research Review
formance is controlled by technological factors. For
example, on an assembly line, given that minimally As mentioned earlier, theories of motivation typi-
competent and attentive people are there to do the cally are concerned with the questions of arousal
job, performance may not vary from individual to and behavioral choice. The purpose of a review of
individual. Exerting effort may be irrelevant for these topics is not to criticize the different motiva-
performance. tional theories. All of them have revealed some
One way to gain information about these issues is aspects of motivation that have empirical support.
through a thorough job analysis. This type of But some of the factors controlling behavior that
analysis can help to determine what behaviors con- they emphasize are more or less applicable in vari-
tribute to performance and the extent to which ous situations. It is hoped that an understanding of
these behaviors are controlled voluntarily (motivat- these mitigating circumstances can serve as an in-
ed) or controlled by ability factors, social factors, itial step in developing contingency models of moti-
or technology. Except for some recent work by vation: models that describe when and where cer-
Hackman (Hackman & Morris, 1975; Hackman & tain motivational systems will be most effective.

83

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Theories of Arousal new approaches is the idea that the individual
The most popular theories of arousal for many cognitively processes and evaluates a lot of infor-
years have been those that emphasize needs. Theo- mation and that motivation is linked strongly to this
ries that emphasize individual needs (e.g., need information processing activity.
achievement) or groups of needs (e.g., need hierar- In summary, the arousal theories say (1) attend
chies) all postulate that the arousal process is due toto individual differences, (2) try to attend to upper
need deficiencies. That is, people want certain level (intrinsic) needs, (3) note that social expecta-
things in their jobs and they will work to fulfill tions have powerful effects, and (4) note that cur-
those needs. rent information is extremely important. In at-
The major implications of this research have been tempting to implement these ideas, however, diffi-
two-fold. First, these theories clearly recognize and culties often arise. Some of these obstructions are as
make central the idea of individual differences follows.
(Alderfer, 1977). Different people are motivated by First, there is a whole set of organizational fac-
different things. The second widely accepted point tors that make it difficult to individualize rewards
is that organizations generally have overlooked up- and emphasize upper level intrinsic needs. The
per level needs. The works of such people as Mas- larger the organization and the more heterogeneous
low, McGregor, Herzberg, and Alderfer all suggest the work force, the more difficult it becomes. Ideal-
that, in general, organizations spend much more ly one would like to let employees have some choice
time being concerned with the fulfillment of lower in their compensation-for example, cafeteria style
level needs (e.g., through motivational systems em- plans (Lawler, 1976)-and let managers have great-
phasizing pay, hours of work, and the physical set- er flexibility in the administration of rewards. But
ting) than with the fulfillment of upper level needs in practice these strategies are hard to implement.
(e.g., through systems emphasizing autonomy, re- Dealing with unions also tends to restrict this flex-
cognition, creativity, and variety). ibility because their striving for equity often leads to
In recent years there has been a shift away fromsolidifying reward systems rather than increasing
these need-based theories of arousal (Salancik & the latitude of management.
Pfeffer, 1977, 1978; Weiner, 1972) to approaches The theories that focus on social cues and expec-
that emphasize processes such as social facilitation tations require that people be observed and that
or evaluation apprehension (Ferris, Beehr, & Gil- management have some influence on social norms.
more, 1978). These theories suggest that people are One idea that strives to let evaluation apprehension
aroused by the presence of others and the know- operate at the appropriate level is to match the level
ledge that other people are evaluating them. The of appraisal with those people who most frequently
social cues in the form of expectations given off by observe the work of the individual. So, for exam-
subordinates, co-workers, and supervisors become ple, if supervisors do not directly observe the work
important causes of arousal. of subordinates, but co-workers or their subor-
Other current approaches emphasize some ideas dinates do observe this individual, then have peer or
of cognitive inconsistency-for example, Korman's subordinate evaluations be part of the appraisal
(1976) work on self-esteem-or the match between process.
task related needs and the characteristics of the job. Influencing social norms is more problematical.
An example of this latter approach is Hackman and Factors like organizational climate are known to be
Oldham's (1980) theory of job enrichment suggest- important, and processes such as team building may
ing that an enriched job is motivating only for those help to instill norms or expectations for hard work.
who have high needs for growth. However, very little theory or research exists that
What almost all of these theories emphasize in uses these norms as dependent variables. This is an
one way or another is that arousal is seen as (1) cur- area for further work.
rent and (2) highly related to the social or task en- In summary, some important things have been
vironment. Thus, instead of deep-seated needs de- learned about arousal as an individualized process
veloped a long time ago that reside solely within the and one that is frequently related to current social
individual, a much more external and present frame cues. However, practical limitations such as organi-
of reference is emerging. Central to almost all of the zation size, unions, or heterogeneity of personnel

84

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
may limit attempts to implement the knowledge. be dissatisfied, work less, and be absent more fre-
Also, further work is needed on understanding how quently than when they feel that they are being
one can influence social norms and expectations. treated equitably.
Theories of Choice
Without getting into detailed analyses, one can
point out some important differences and similari-
The major theories of behavioral choice are goal ties between these approaches. The most striking
setting, expectancy theory, operant conditioning, difference is the basic underlying motivational
and equity theory. The research on goal setting is mechanism postulated as the cause of behavior.
quite clear. People work harder with goals than There are (1) intentions to reach a goal, (2) expecta-
without goals. This is especially true if the goals are tions of maximum payoff, (3) past reinforcement
specific and difficult and if feedback exists (Locke, histories, and (4) a desire for fairness. The
1978; Steers & Porter, 1974; Yukl & Latham, 1978). similarities are that all four approaches define
The areas of ongoing research emphasize such motivation as an individual, intentional process.
issues as whether participative or assigned goal set- Also, except for the operant approach, all three of
ting works best, whether rewards directly influence the others focus on relatively current information
motivation, or whether they influence motivation processing. In this respect, the arousal and choice
by changing the level of the goal. models seem to be headed in a similar direction.
Expectancy theory and operant conditioning are Finally, three of the models define motivation as
very different in underlying philosophy (cognitive directly influenced by outcomes (expectancy,
versus noncognitive), but they generate similar prin- operant, and equity approaches); goal setting sees
ciples of application. Both approaches argue that outcomes as indirectly influencing motivation
(1) rewards should be closely tied to behavior, through goal level and intentions.
(2) reward administration should be frequent and In order to utilize the information generated
consistent, and (3) people are motivated by out- from these approaches, one must be able to set
comes (expected or past). specific individual goals, tie rewards to individual
Reviews of expectancy theory (Connolly, 1976; behavior, and treat people fairly and equitably. As
Mitchell, 1980; Schwab, Olian-Gottlieb, & usual, this is easier said than done. A number of cir-
Heneman, 1979) and operant conditioning or social cumstances or situations make it difficult to imple-
learning (Babb & Kopp, 1978; Davis & Luthans, ment these ideas.
1980) are available. People doing research on both One major problem is that many jobs involve
theories are concerned with issues that have to do considerable interdependence (Lawler, 1973). Peo-
with how to tie rewards to behavior, what sorts of ple frequently must work with others in order for
schedules to use, how to measure various theoreti- the job to be accomplished successfully. This in-
cal components, and so on. But, except for some terdependence often makes it difficult to specify or
minor disagreements (Mawhinney & Behling, 1973), tease out individual contributions. To the extent to
the approaches are in agreement about principles of which there is failure to assess individual behavioral
application. contributions accurately, there will be trouble with
Equity theory (Carrrell & Dittrich, 1978; Good- individual goal setting and reward administration.
man, 1977) suggests that people are motivated by a Either group goals or rewards may be used.
desire for fairness. When they believe they are being A second important factor is observability. In-
treated unfairly, they will behave in ways that they dividual feedback and reward administration both
believe will restore their sense of equity. Although depend on the extent to which one knows what
overreward (getting more than one should) and employees are doing. In many cases, people work
underreward (getting less than one should) are alone, or in relatively isolated situations (e.g.,
similar from a theoretical perspective, the research within offices, on the road). To the extent that there
suggests otherwise. People are more comfortable is poor information about what people actually do,
(less likely to change their behavior) with over- there will be difficulty with implementation.
reward than with underreward. If people feel that A third problem has to do with change. In certain
they are underrewarded and can do little about situations, jobs and people change fairly rapidly.
directly influencing their rewards, they are liable to The changes in jobs may be due to changes in

85

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
technology, and the changes in people may be due less feasible. With interdependence comes more
to turnover. Note, again, that motivation em- social interaction and the chance to observe the
phasizes an individualized behavioral approach. behavior of others. Social cues and evaluation ap-
Changes in jobs and people necessitate changes in prehension should be more salient. On the other
the motivation system in the form of different hand, interdependence may make it more difficult
behaviors to observe and different rewards to ad- to specify individual contributions and reward
minister. them. At this point there is almost nothing in the
Finally, the heterogeneity of jobs causes difficul- literature that suggests when and where different
ty as well. Each different type of job ideally should motivational strategies will be most appropriate.
require a different job description, different behavi- The third issue complements the other two. Be-
ors, and, therefore, different reward systems. These cause many jobs are, in fact, interdependent, social,
last two points focus on the compromise often re- and subject to change, more theory and research
quired in implementing motivational principles. In needs to be generated on how group processes effect
many cases people or jobs must be lumped together. motivation. Strategies such as team building or
However, it should be recognized that, to the extent other interventions designed to increase commit-
to which there is deviation from the individual ment and motivation need to be studied as motiva-
behavioral conceptualization of motivation, there tional models. An understanding is needed of the
probably will be a reduction in the effectiveness of effects of such interventions on motivated
the motivational program and the ability to behaviors and how these behaviors contribute to
measure its impact. performance. It is hoped that more attention to the
Discussion
above issues will result in a more comprehensive
understanding of not only the causes of motivation,
but how and when and where different strategies
An analysis of both the theory and practice de-
scribed above results in some important statementsshould be used.
about where research on the topic of motivation Hand in hand with these changes in theory and
should go from here. In terms of theoretical devel-research should come changes in practice. One of
opment, it appears as if three things are needed. the first things that should be developed is a set of
First, more integration is needed. Except for adiagnostic questions that any manager should ask
few papers-for example, Locke (1978); and Wof- about the motivational process. A flow chart or
ford (1979)-very little theoretical work has been Exhibit 1
done to suggest the additive or interactive effects of
the various approaches. The empirical studies that A Flow Diagram of Questions
do compare or combine approaches suggest that About Motivation
combining various factors can lead to an increase in 1. Can performance be defined in individual, behavioral terms?
If not, develop a separate measure of motivation.
motivation. For example, a paper by White, Mit- 2. Is motivation important for performance, or are abilities and
chell, and Bell (1977) demonstrates that evaluation situational factors morc imporlant? If motivation is impor-
tant, but not the same as performance, develop a separate
apprehension, goal setting, and social pressure all measure ot motivation.
have significant effects on motivation and that If one cannot meet the requirements of questions 1 and 2, it may
not be worth it to proceed further. If, however, motivation is im-
these effects might be additive. portant for pei formance and performance is a good reflection of
A second implication that follows the above line motivation or a good measure of motivation exists, then proceed
with the analysis.
of reasoning is that contingency type models of 3. Is the reward system rigid and inflexible? In other words, are
motivation need to be developed and tested. More people and tasks grouped into large categories for reward
purposes?
specifically, the question is no longer whether goal 4. Is it difficult to observe what people are actually doing on the
setting or operant approaches work, it is where and job?
5. Is an individual's behavior dependent heavily on the actions
when they work best. The mitigating circumstances of others?
that were described make it more difficult for one 6. Are there lots of changes in people, jobs, or expected
behavior?
theory to work than another. For example, social 7. Are social pressures the major determinants of what people
cues and evaluation apprehension may increase in are doing on the job?
If questions 3 throtigh 7 are answered with a no, then some
importance with interdependence, and goal setting system combining a needs analysis with goal setting, operant, ex-
and expectancy or operant approaches may become pectancy, and equity ideas should be effective.

86

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
decision tree could be developed such as the one the control of interdependencies or social pressures
presented in Exhibit 1. To some extent this looks is severely limited.
like the Vroom and Yetton (1973) model. Unfor- The obvious implication for the practitioner is
tunately, the Vroom and Yetton model is vastly that the cost of implementing one of the more tradi-
superior in its level of detail, analysis, and support. tional motivation systems (e.g., MBO, behavior
For example, the weighting of factors 3 through 7 in modification) might outweigh the benefit under
Exhibit 1 is still unknown. There is little to guide these latter conditions. Until there are better an-
one as to the order in which to ask the questions. swers to the question of how to influence motiva-
But, more importantly, there is little guidance tion when these conditions exist, it will be difficult
about what to do if the answers to 3 through 7 are to develop any sort of comprehensive strategy for
yes. If what people do can be observed, if various enhancing motivation. Thus, although the focus of
rewards can be utilized, and if rewards can be tied current research is coming to recognize the impor-
to individual behavior without concern for social tance of social processes, changes in jobs or people
pressures or changes in the job, then systems are (Katz, 1980), and problems in flexibility and ability
available that are ready to go. However, the situa- to give feedback (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979;
tion is more ambiguous if the reverse of these condi-
Nadler, 1979), few remedies for these problems
tions holds. The knowledge about how to influence have been developed. Until this is done, a substan-
motivation when correct behaviors are hard to tial inadequacy will remain in the.ability to under-
define and observe, constantly changing, and under stand and influence motivation on the job.

References

Alderfer, C. P. A critique of Salancik and Pfeffer's examination Ferris, G. R., Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. Social facilitation:
of need satisfaction theories. Administrative Science Quarter- A review and alternative conceptual model. Academy of
ly, 1977, 22, 658-669. Management Review, 1978, 3, 338-347.

Atkinson, J. W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton, Goodman, P. S. Social comparison process in organizations. In

N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in
Babb, H. W., & Kopp, D. G. Applications of behavior modifica- organizational behavior (Vol. 1). Chicago: St. Clair Press,
1977, 97-132.
tion in organizations: A review and critique. Academy of
Management Review, 1978, 3, 281-290.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, G. G. Group tasks, group interac-
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. Motivation theory in in- tion process, and group performance effectiveness. In L.
dustrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press, 1975.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, 62-130.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Work redesign. Reading,
Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., Ill, & Weick, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980.
K. E., Jr. Managerial behavior, performance, and effec-
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. Organizational behavior:
tiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Contingency views. St. Paul, Minn: West Publishing, 1976.
Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. Equity theory: The recent
literature, methodological considerations, and new directions. Huse, E. F., & Bowditch, J. L. Behavior in organizations: A
Academy of Management Review, 1978, 3, 202-210. systems approach to managing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley, 1977.
Connolly, T. Some conceptual and methodological issues in ex-
pectancy models of work performance motivation. Academy Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. Consequences of in-
of Management Review, 1976, 1 (4), 37-47. dividual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 349-371.
Davis, T. R. V., & Luthans, F. A social learning approach to
organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, Kane, J. S., & Lawler, E. E. Performance appraisal effec-
1980, 5, 281-290. tiveness: Its assessement and determinants. In B. Staw (Ed.),
Dunnette, M. D. Performance equals ability and what? Center Research in organizational behavior. (Vol. 1). Cireenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press, 1979, 425-478.
for the Study of Organizational Performance and Human Ef-
fectiveness, University of Minnesota, Technical Report No. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. Organization and management:
4009, Minneapolis, 1973. A systems approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.

87

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Katz, R. Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In Mitchell, T. R. People in organizations. Understanding their
B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organiza- behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
tional behavior (Vol. 2). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1980,
Nadler, D. A. The effects of feedback on task group behavior: A
81-128.
review of the experimental research. Organizational Behavior
Kavanagh, M. J. Performance appraisal. In K. Rowland & G. and Human Performance, 1979, 23, 309-338.
Ferris (Eds.), Personnel management. Boston, Mass.: Allyn Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E., III. Managerial attitudes and
and Bacon, 1981. performance. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1968.

Korman, A. K. The psychology of motivation. Englewood Ryan, T. A. Intentional behavior: An approach to human
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974. motivation. New York: Ronald Press, 1970.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. An examination of need satisfac-

Korman, A. K. Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an ex-
tension. Academy of Management Review, 1976, 1 (1), 50-63. tion models of job attitudes. Administrative Science Quarter-
ly, 1977, 22, 427-456.
Korman, A. K., Greenhaus, J. H., & Badin, 1. J. Personnel at-
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer. J. A social information processing
titudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 1977,
approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative
28, 175-196.
Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 224-253.
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. Performance rating. Psychological Schwab, D. P., Olian-Gottlieb, J. D., & Heneman, H. G., III.
Bulletin, 1980, 87, 72-107.
Between subjects expectancy theory research: A statistical
Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Dossett, D. L. The impor- review of studies predicting effort and performance.
tance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 86, 139-147.
goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Scott, W. G., & Hart, D. K. Organizational America. Boston:
Psychology, 1978, 63, 163-171. Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Lawler, E. E., III. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, Staw, B. M. Motivation in organizations: Toward synthesis and
Cal.: Brooks/Cole, 1973. redirection. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New direc-
tions in organizational behavior (Vol. 1). Chicago: St. Clair
Lawler, E. E., III. New approaches to pay administration. Per-
Press, 1977, 54-95.
sonnel, 1976, 53, 11-23.
Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. The role of task-goal attributes in
Locke, L. A. Personnel attitudes and motivation. ,.nnual Re- employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81,
view of Psychology, 1975, 26, 457-480. 434-452.

Locke, E. A. The ubiquity of the techniques of goal setting in Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. Motivation and work behavior.
theories and approaches to employee motivation. Academy oj New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
Management Review, 1978, 3, 594-601.
Tosi, H. L., House, R. J., & Dunnette, M. D. Managerial
Luthans, F. Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, motivation and compensation: A selection of readings. East
1977. Lansing, Mich.: MSU Business Studies, 1972.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley, Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
1958.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. Leadership and decision mak-
Mawhinney, T. C., & Behling, O. Differences in predictions of ing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
work behavior from expectancy and operant models of in-
Weiner, B. Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cogni-
dividual motivation. Proceedings of the Academy of Manage-
tion. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972.
ment, 1973, 383-388.
White, S., Mitchell, T. R., & Bell, C. H. Goal setting, evaluation
McClelland, D. C., & Steele, R. S. Human motivation: A book
apprehension and social cues as determinants of job perfor-
of readings. Morristown, N. J.: General Learning Press, 1973. mance and job satisfaction in a simulated organization. Jour-
Mitchell, T. R. Organizational behavior. Annual Review ol nal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 665-673.
Psychology, 1979, 30, 243-281. Wofford, J. C. A goal-energy-effort requirement model (GEER)
Mitchell, T. R. Expectancy-value models in organi/ational of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 1979,
psychology. In N. Feather (Ed.), Expectancy, incentive and 4, 193-201.
action. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum and Associates, 1980.
Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. Interrelationships among
Mitchell, T. R. Motivational strategies. In K. Rowland & G. Fer- employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty,
ris (Eds.), Personnel management. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and goal acceptance, instrumentality and performance. Personnel
Bacon, in press. Psychology, 1978, 31, 305-324.

Terence R. Mitchell is Professor of Management and

Organization and of Psychology at the University of
Washington, Seattle.

88

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:29 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms