See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275043577

From motivation to motivating: change and

context in motivational processes.

Conference Paper · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

0 21

3 authors:

Jose Navarro Lucia Ceja

University of Barcelona Universidad de Navarra
179 PUBLICATIONS 434 CITATIONS 43 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carlos Arrieta
University of Costa Rica
22 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trabajo en Equipo: Evaluación de la Competencia y Diagnóstico de la Situación en Alumnos de Grado

de la Universidad de Barcelona View project

Evaluation and Selection of Public Managers: equality measures and procedures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Navarro on 13 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
From motivation to motivating: change and context in motivational processes

José Navarro¹, Lucía Ceja² and Carlos Arrieta³

¹ Social Psychology Department, University of Barcelona. Paseo Valle de Hebron, 171 s/n.

08035 Barcelona, Spain. j.navarro@ub.edu

² IESE Business School, University of Navarra. Av. Pearson 21. 08034 Barcelona, Spain.

LCeja@iese.edu

³ School of Psychology, University of Costa Rica. P.O. Box 2050-1638 San Pedro, Costa Rica.

clas14@gmail.com

Abstract

Work motivation is one of the most well-established research fields in organizational

behaviour. In this article we propose two approaches aimed at revitalizing and breadthening

the field with new epistemological approximations, which are different from the ones that

have been used more often for studying the process of motivation (e.g. logical positivism). On

the one hand, we are interested in the dynamic of change in work motivation, an aspect in

which the complexity science can add value to the field, through the methodological and

conceptual contributions that this approximation promulgates. On the other hand, inquiring

about the context in which work motivation is produced, and studying it as a phenomenon that

is created within the person-context (i.e. organizational and socio-cultural contexts)

interaction. Considering work motivation as a phenomenon that is in permanent change and

experiences a continuous interaction with the context, may contribute to forgo the static vision

of the phenomenon and start promoting a new vision, which does justice to its complexity.
 2

Caminante, son tus huellas el camino y nada más;

Caminante, no hay camino, se hace camino al andar.

Al andar se hace el camino, y al volver la vista atrás

se ve la senda que nunca se ha de volver a pisar.

Caminante, no hay camino, sino estelas en la mar.

Walker, your footsteps are the road, and nothing more.

Walker, there is no road, the road is made by walking.

Walking you make the road, and turning to look behind

you see the path you never again will step upon.

Walker, there is no road, only foam trails on the sea.

Antonio Machado, Cantares

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged, the existence of two main epistemological approaches,

which guide our understanding about organizational phenomena and the human processes that

occur within organizational behaviour. On the one hand, the positivism approach and the

rational model derived from it, which emphasizes the understanding of organizations as stable

entities, with a series of fundamental and universal characteristics: the constitution of

individuals and/or groups, directed toward collective goals, with internal differentiation and

integration mechanisms, with a specific time frame. On the other hand, we encounter the

constructivist approximation and the cultural and political models, which accentuate the

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 3

action of organizing as the basic mechanism of social interaction, through which a group of

people, attempt to reduce ambiguity and manage uncertainty.

Hand in hand with the two pervading epistemological frameworks, a third approach

appears to be emerging from the theoretical perspective known as the complexity science (see

Munné, 2005). The complexity theory is generally compatible with some of the proposals

from the former approximations; more specifically, it contemplates organizations as further

examples of the so called complex adaptive systems (CAS). It is interested in revealing some

of the fundamental characteristics of such systems: non-linearity, emergent processes,

chaoticity, fractal structures, etc.

In this sense, there are some scholars who emphasize that the complexity science

approach can unify dualities in existing epistemological approaches within work and

organizational psychology (Dooley, 2009). Also, through the lenses of complexity science, we

can view organizational phenomena within a broader ontological context. Moreover, if we

look at the history of successful scientific disciplines (i.e. physics and medicine), they

normally follow a course that moves from static to dynamic concepts and definitions of

phenomena (West, 1985). Therefore, it seems that the time is arriving for work and

organizational psychology to start moving from a positivism standpoint, which means a static

conception of psychological phenomena, to the “somewhat complicated” nonlinear dynamics

of human processes in the workplace. As Dooley (2009, p. 445) state “After all, organizations

are the most complex entities we know of”.

Within the field of work motivation, which is the focus of the present article, the

positivism approach has dominated the research and theoretical activity, generating a myriad

of theories attempting to explain the phenomenon of motivation from a positivism

perspective. Consequently, and as we shall try to justify in the present essay, the field of work

motivation, is in need of new approaches, particularly coming from different epistemological

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 4

positions and with the ability to revitalize the field. In this sense, we believe that complexity

science can offer many benefits to existing epistemological approaches in the field of work

motivation.

The field of work motivation

Understanding the mechanisms that guide employee behaviour, has been an activity of

interest for organizational behaviour scholars throughout history. The scientific and applied

literature about work motivation is wide, and a myriad of theoretical and applied models, have

been developed with the aim of understanding the “how” and “why” of motivated behaviour.

In this sense, it is often argued, that thanks to the development if these theories, scholars in

the field, have acquired extensive knowledge regarding work motivation, as well as the

specific mechanisms, which operate at different levels in the motivational process (Kanfer,

Chen & Pritchard, 2008).

Most of these theoretical propositions, are firmly consolidated within the field of work

and organizational psychology, such as the needs fulfilment theory (Maslow, McClelland &

Alferder), the valences-expectancies theories (Vroom, Porter & Lawler), the goal setting

theory (Locke & Latham), the organizational justice and fairness theory (Adams, Leventhal,

Greenberg, Cropanzano), the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham), the self-

determination theory (Decy & Ryan), and the social cognitive theory (Bandura). It is

important to emphasize, however, that all these theoretical approaches are shaped within a

classic conceptualization of the organization and therefore are far away from the

constructivist and/or complex perspectives.

However, as we stated before, we are currently witnessing a growing feeling of

dissatisfaction regarding some of the propositions held by these classic theories, and their core

hypotheses have been challenged. These critiques have emerged within the selfsame classical

paradigm, and lamentably, just a few have emphasized new ways of understanding motivation

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 5

through alternative theoretical approaches. A tenet that has received important criticism is the

one concerning the stability of motivation. This is, to perceive motivation as a stable process

that can be monitored by the commonly used tools, such as general questionnaires. Building

on these arguments, the following questions come to our mind: What are the main

contributions of these critiques? What is their reason for existing? And why have they

appeared now? These are all relevant questions, which we will try to assess in the present

document.

Work motivation as a process

It is commonly assumed that motivation is a function of the interaction between the

individual and his context, and since both can experience changes (for example alterations in

the individual needs or modifications in the organizational management system) motivation

can be therefore, considered as a changing process. We can illustrate this, with an applied

example: a secretary, who works for a Business School, is in charge of the general

management department, which includes looking after the demands of five full professors.

She usually has a high workload that keeps her busy. Yet, the way she experiences her work as

“heaven” or as “hell” changes from hour to hour, from day to day, from month to month,

depending on weather she gets a heavy or a light workload from the five professors she works

for. She loves the challenge of being efficient and finishing her work on time, this challenge

keeps her levels of motivation quite high. However with too many demands from the

professors at the same time, she feels anxious and with too little or no demands, she gets

bored and her motivation goes down sharply. Moreover, her motivation depends on the

feedback she gets from each of the professors. The secretary knows that there is an optimal

number of demands she can deal with from each professor within a day: 1 big errand from

one professor and 2 small errands from each of the other four professors. Yet, how can she

control the demands placed on her? Because the demands she gets from the professors are

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 6

relatively unpredictable, each work day is different from the former and from the next

working day. Thus, the motivation of the secretary will never reflect a static picture. This is an

example of the inherent instability of employee motivation in any working day. The work life

of this secretary is never repeating itself, every week, every day is different (the demands

placed on her from the professors are never of the same difficulty) although there may be

similarities across situations and work days, her daily work activities, will be changing

continuously.

As we can see from the former example the dynamic nature of work motivation is

evident. However, research focusing on its changes and evolution over time is almost non-

existent. In contrast, cross-sectional research, focusing in the antecedent processes that

determine the level of motivation, or the effects that motivation has on specific areas of

organizational behaviour (i.e. performance) has dominated the field. Consequently, the

process vision that has been applied to the study of work motivation has been clearly

incomplete (Arrieta & Navarro, 2008). This situation, has given way to the paradox of

extensively studying the processes determining employee motivation (for example, self-

efficacy beliefs and the experience of performing a meaningful work) yet, hardly analysing

how employee motivation changes and evolves over time. Therefore, the phenomenon of

work motivation has more often been considered using “episodic” lenses, rather than utilizing

an authentic process vision.

Another repercussion of the over reliance on cross-sectional research, is the shared

understanding of motivation as a stable process. Nonetheless, this has stimulated new ways of

understanding work motivation through alternative theoretical (Dalal & Hulin, 2008) and

empirical propositions (Ceja & Navarro 2009; Navarro & Arrieta, in press), which suggest

and show that motivation is rather an unstable, uncertain and volatile process that depicts

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 7

constant changes and fluctuations over time. This has also been detected in other areas of

organizational research (i.e. performance; Yeo & Neal, 2004).

Going deeper into these theoretical and empirical contributions, Dalal & Hulin (2008)

came to the conclusion, that over 50 % of the variability encountered during the assessment of

work motivation, can be attributed to intra-individual fluctuations. These findings, entice the

importance of including the study of intra-individual fluctuations in the research agenda for

future investigations, since research on the area has predominantly focused on inter-individual

variability.

Likewise, it is important to lay emphasis on recent research efforts developed by Ceja

& Navarro (2009) and Navarro & Arrieta (in press), which based on longitudinal designs,

have used the experience sampling method and the diary technique, to study employee

behaviour. The findings from these studies show that basic motivational processes, such as

flow (intrinsic motivation), self-efficacy beliefs or perceptions of instrumentality, delineate

high levels of variability and instability over time. More specifically, 80 % of the participants

showed complex and chaotic dynamics, while the participants revealing lineal dynamics, were

the exception. These findings tell us that when we observe motivation behaviour over time,

and we explore how it evolves (without paying much attention to any antecedent factors) we

find that it is highly unstable.

We argue that the appearance of these findings can no longer be considered as casual.

The classical theories were formulated during the last century, the 50s and 70s, when the

organizational reality, as well as the social and cultural contexts, were significantly more

stable than nowadays. Thus, since the process of motivation is continuously interacting with

the context, it becomes evident that at this point in time, it should present greater signs of

instability as opposed to stability.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 8

Building on the reasoning described above, we emphasize the urgency to formulate

new theories and models that can challenge the established propositions. To achieve this, we

are going to propose two key avenues of thought: 1) to consider motivation as a process that

evolves and presents continuous changes across time, and 2) to contemplate motivation in

relation to the context (organizational, social and cultural) in which it evolves.

Motivation in action: changes in work motivation

The current state of motivation theories deserves to be acknowledged as fruitful, since

it has successfully described the precise mechanisms underlying work motivation, however, a

more holistic understanding of the phenomenon is yet to come into sight (Kanfer, Chen &

Pitchard, 2008). We should recognize that during the inquiry process, there has been some

recognition of the complexity related to the study of work motivation, in that scholars have

only been able to access the phenomenon partly, through the analysis of the principal aspects

that underlie the motivation process. This limited research span, of the studies we have to

date, is possible to understand as a manifestation of the immaturity of the field. Hence, it is

not surprising, to find the following proposition in the literature: “rather than debating the

merits of each approach and formulating criticisms of opposing models, future work should

be directed towards the development and validation of an integrated, goal-based model of

self-regulation that incorporates the important components of these various theories”

(Donovan, 2001, p. 69).

However, we can conceive work motivation, from a holistic perspective: impossible to

approach from a single angle or with a single glance (methodological, epistemological); or by

delineating multiple aspects that can only be studied separately. Through these holistic lenses,

one can reach a conclusion that questions the maxim of Kanfer, Chen & Pritchard (2008): not

only have we focused in the development of specific knowledge against a more holistic

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 9

understanding, but additionally, by doing so, we have been able to generate knowledge, which

is as specific as it is irrelevant. Such statement, as tough as it sounds, deserves our attention.

Theories like valences-expectancies, the goal setting, the social cognitive or the

organizational justice and fairness, are the ones that enjoy the highest academic recognition,

due to their scientific rigor. Nonetheless, they are hardly recognized in the applied field,

where the most utilized theories, such as the Maslow (1954) hierarchy of needs, or the

Herzberg et al. (1959) bifactorial theory, are expressly the ones that paradoxically, have been

criticised the most within the academic world, as a result of their lack of scientific rigor. The

first group of theories have in common the precision with which they describe the various

relationships between different cognitive processes, which are essential for understanding

motivated behaviour. They carefully operationalize (here is the essence, in our opinion) the

different concepts, they use to explain such relationships. Contrastingly, the second group of

theories have been much vaguer in the operationalization of their concepts (the most

representative example is the concept of self-actualization coined by Maslow). However, as a

result of being less accurate in defining their constructs, they have allowed for more

flexibility in their interpretation, a very useful quality in applied contexts.

The paradox that arises from generating precise and at the same time, irrelevant

knowledge, is not new for the complexity theory. For example, the theory of fuzzy systems,

proposed the so-called incompatibility theorem (Zadeh, 1965), which argues that as the

complexity of a system increases, our ability to formulate valuable statements about the

behaviour of the system, decreases to a point, in which accuracy and significance become

features that are almost mutually exclusive. This theorem has been synthesized by Kosko

(1993) to the following sentence: “as more accurate, less relevant” (see Munné, 2005). Here

we encounter the first demonstration that work motivation may be an object of study for the

complexity science.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 10

Focusing on time and its influence on work motivation, this is, to conceive motivation

as a process; appears particularly appealing, specially to probe how Maslow’s hierarchy of

needs theory, successfully describes the basic steps for understanding the evolution of work

motivation over time: the satisfied needs, give way to the appearance of new ascending needs

in the hierarchy, in such a way, that a fulfilled need is no longer a motive to act. In this sense,

Maslow’s theory, which has been highly criticized by the positivism literature, due to its lack

of empirical support, has been especially helpful for managers, as it gives a basic description

of how motivation evolves over time. This has been an important insight for executives,

especially for those who have noticed, that the incentives they once used for motivating their

workforce, are no longer attractive to their employees.

Likewise, Maslow’s approach recognises a double mechanism within the dynamic of

work motivation, which managers often find particularly useful, due to its paradoxical nature.

On the one hand, fulfilling a need increases the level of motivation and reduces the tension

(up to here, we can recognize the model often used by different behavioural psychologists, to

explain the motivated behaviour of several animals in experimental settings). On the other

hand, the development of new tensions and imbalanced situations also increases the level of

motivation and when a need is satisfied a new one becomes active. The paradoxical dynamic

of “reducing tension-activating new tensions” is clearly consistent with the also paradoxical

nature of organizational settings. In this sense, it is often argued that one of the most

important competencies that managers must develop if they wish to thrive is working with

paradoxes: how to lead without guidelines, how to maintain the authority without having

control, etc. (Zimmerman, Lindberg and Plsek, 2001).

This paradoxical behaviour of reducing-creating tension has a clear simile with the

Lewinian concept of level of aspiration (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger & Sears, 1944). The level

of aspiration refers to the perception that one has in relation to a goal, the expectations to

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 11

reach the goal and the value of attaining the goal. More precisely, Lewin was interested in

how the aspiration level does not have a specific value, but it is a rather changing value,

resulting from each of the experiences that the person has, in relation to the goal he or she is

pursuing. For example, when an athlete is motivated to run the 100 meters in 12 seconds and

meets the target several times, the activity stops being motivating for the person, thus he sets a

more ambitious target (to run 100 meters in 10 seconds). Once more, the paradox of reaching

a goal and the emergence of a new one becomes apparent.

The dynamic composed by the reduction-activation of tensions, can be clearly

understood from a complexity perspective, especially if we look at the phenomena of

stretching-compression, produced in the self-organizing dynamics of several complex

systems: population dynamics, spread of diseases, the emergence of a new fashion, etc. This is

further evidence, demonstrating how work motivation, can be an interesting object of study

from a complexity theory approach.

More recently, some theoretical contributions have shown greater sensibility to the

dynamical and changeable nature of work motivation, such as the studies on flow experiences,

a construct first coined by Csikszentmihalyi (1990), which looks at the experience of

complete immersion in an activity or in other words, the subjective experience of intrinsic

motivation. When Csikszentmihalyi studies flow, he usually utilizes the experience sampling

method for collecting the data. Through this method, the author has obtained a myriad of

longitudinal records related to the experience of flow. Flow has been studied within numerous

occupations, but especially in the sports domain, where the context has been truly useful for

the conceptualization of the phenomenon.

To our knowledge, Csikszentmihalyi has not been interested in describing the

dynamics of the flow experience, however, other scholars have recently become concerned

about this issue (Ceja & Navarro, 2009) and other motivational processes, such as

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 12

instrumentality perceptions or self-efficacy beliefs (Navarro & Arrieta, in press). All these

investigations, as we have discussed earlier, report the same finding: The majority of

participants show non-linear or chaotic dynamics (in 80% of the cases) being the lineal

pattern an exception.

These results, challenge several classic approaches; although, there has been some

work in what is known as dynamic criteria (Dalal & Hulin, 2008), it is generally assumed that

fluctuations in the motivated behaviour do not occur within short periods of time (days,

hours). Nevertheless, the presence of chaotic behaviour in the dynamic of motivation puts

forward important evidence about the complex nature of work motivation.

In this sense, we are witnessing a growing research interest for intra-individual

variability across time that is looming in the horizon, as a wave that bids to bring change in

the field of work and organizational psychology. In our opinion, there are several sources of

influence for this change. One influence is the realization by researchers that the level of

predictability and explanation offered by static representations of psychological phenomena in

the workplace is very low, and therefore a general dissatisfaction within the field is growing.

Indeed, various classical theories have failed to address psychological phenomena across time

and how it changes and evolves from one situation to the next, leaving the need of further

elaboration and going beyond the established research paradigms, which look at

psychological behaviour as “frozen in time” (Koopmans, 2009; Van Geert, 2009). Another

source of influence for bringing change is the realization of scholars, about the usefulness of

bringing to the field, analytic methods from other disciplines that can assess more

complicated dynamical systems and therefore, develop further existing theories in work and

organizational psychology (Boker, 2002; Guastello & Liebovicth, 1999).

At this point, we shall propose that work motivation represents a complex phenomena

that exhibit the basic characteristics of complex systems, such as its fuzziness (difficulty to

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 13

formulate precise statements about the object of study), self-organization (paradoxical and

self-contained dynamics) and chaoticity (apparently random fluctuations over time that

conceal specific patterns of behaviour). Moreover, other features of complex systems such as

fractals and catastrophism (to name a few), could also be explored within the process of work

motivation.

Building on the above arguments, most of the research to date, has been based on the

principle of stability. Meaning that the process of motivation is stable over time and the

variables involved in it, hold linear relationships between them. In this sense, findings from

these investigations must be taken with caution. We therefore propose new ways of

understanding work motivation, this is, more than studying motivation as a static object that is

being influenced by a myriad of elements (i.e. perceptions of equity, value of goals, self-

efficacy beliefs, etc), it may be more appropriate to conceive it as a process, which evolves

over time and discloses self-organizing properties (like self-control dynamics: our motivation

is never permanently increasing or decreasing), and non-random fluctuations (chaotic). In the

following sections, we will suggest how to implement research designs following the vision

of “motivating”.

Motivation in action: contexts in work motivation

We must appreciate the fact that most classical motivation theories, have emerged

within the North American context. Moreover, most of them have their origins, in classical

organizational contexts from the XX century. If we consider that work motivation (and the

concept of motivating) is an interaction between the person and the context we could

formulate the next question: has the context, in which the classical theories have been

developed, influenced the principles about motivation they have generated? We shall try to

tackle this question in the following section.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 14

If we look closely at the most well-known theories that are often considered as classic

(needs, expectancies-valences, goal setting, social cognitive, job characteristic model,

organizational justice, self-determination, etc.) we should notice that all of them share an

individualistic an pragmatic perspective, elements that are characteristic features of the US

culture. In this sense, Hofstede (1980) located the US as a clearly individualistic and

masculine (related to the pragmatic value) country.

Therefore, we could say that classic motivation theories tend to be individualistic, such

that the concept of motivation is individualistic and research at the collective or group level is

often very uncommon in the field. Reviewing the classic theories, Maslow is the only one,

who barely includes the group level within the concept of belonging (this concept was

recognized later on, by other theorists such as Alderfer or McClelland). However, all of the

other classic theories, including the rest of needs in Maslow’s hierarchy, present an

individualistic spirit.

Nonetheless, the classic theories have made an important contribution to the field of

work motivation, in terms of practicality. Human beings become motivated with the aim of

fulfilling a specific need (Maslow), to obtain something that conveys a determined value

(Vroom), to reach a goal (Locke & Luthan), and to re-establish a balance of social comparison

(Adams). This pragmatism is also changing in pursue of attaining higher levels of rationality.

This is not surprising, as most classic theories are based on the assumption that people are

rational beings, whose motivation seems to follow a conscious decision making process. This

explains the predominance of studies looking at the cognitive processes underlying motivated

behaviour; while other processes, like the emotional ones, which are generally considered as

less rational, have hardly been explored as key elements in the process of employee

motivation. Within this framework, and as we can expect, unconscious aspects have been

excluded from the research agenda. The approximation that has been closer to studying the

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 15

unconscious elements of motivation, and which has received a myriad of criticisms, comprise

the research efforts of McClelland (1961), who developed a methodology for measuring the

achievement, power and affiliation needs.

We also find surprising the lack of motivation theories formulated in other cultural

contexts apart from the US. Not meaning that they do not exist, but rather they have been

clearly neglected. For example, the work of González (1995) a Cuban psychologist, follower

of important social psychologists from the Soviet Union like Iadov and Leontiev, who

considers the socio-historic character of the motivational process, emphasizing the

predominance of the social and historical motivational factors over the individualistic ones.

Taking into account that Cuba is considered as a collectivist nation, his way of conceiving the

process of motivation is hardly surprising. Likewise, the individualistic perspective, that most

classic theories hold, should not surprise us either; and surely, a myriad of different

approximations, which have not been mentioned by the classic theories, can be also found.

Cross-cultural investigations, which are much common, usually focus on the cultural

differences in relation to, for example, the most important needs, key antecedents of work

motivation, performance determinants, etc. (see Silverthone, 2005). Nevertheless, the

understanding of motivation in different cultures, or whether employees from different

countries have different concepts of motivation, has been hardly researched. Generally, the

cross-cultural studies on motivation, have explored the differences across cultures, without

challenging the validity of the classic theories in different cultural settings and without

questioning what people from different cultures understand as motivation.

It is also interesting, to consider that the way classic theories understand motivation,

changes in relation to the socio-cultural context in which these theories have been formulated.

For example, at the beginning of the XX century, right in the middle of the industrialization of

British and US cities, Taylor develops an economic perception of motivation. However,

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 16

decades after, when labour unions were established as legitimate organizations, with the duty

of representing the interests of employees and the hippie movement was emerging, Maslow

conceived motivation as an expression of the personal values. Similarly, Locke, a more

contemporary scholar, describes motivation in terms of attaining goals (performance based on

organizational objectives) as a result of the era of competition. With these examples, we have

enough evidence for probing that the conceptualization of motivation, depends upon the place

and time in which we are located.

As we have seen above, the way of conceptualizing motivation is related to a specific

cultural reality and thus, to be able to study its complexity, we need to incorporate information

regarding the context in which we are working. In this sense, we have to consider not only the

cultural context but also de organizational context. At this point, it is worthwhile mentioning,

some important contributions from the educational field, which have found that theories such

as the self-determination theory by Decy & Ryan, 1985, can be useful for explaining work

motivation. In this sense, we cannot assume that the concept of motivation is the same in

different contexts (i.e organizational, educational or a context of innovation).

From our point of view, considering the context to study work motivation, means,

firstly, to study work motivation and its relationship with other organizational processes (i.e.

culture, structure, management practices, climate, leadership, team work, satisfaction,

commitment, stress, etc.). These elements represent the organizational context in which the

action of motivating is produced, and without paying attention to them, the approximation to

work motivation remains incomplete. Within complex systems, to analyse a phenomenon by

breaking it down to several parts is not useful, if we wish to reveal the global behaviour of the

system, instead, a systemic view of the phenomenon is needed.

Secondly, paying studying the socio-cultural context in which the organization

operates. This is extremely important, and especially in western countries (i.e. Europe and the

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 17

US), where one of the most pressing concerns for the world of management is the retention of

young talent. Younger generations that have been recently incorporated to the labour market,

often do not share the same set of values than older generations. By this, we are saying, that

the motivational practices that were once used in the past, may no longer be useful in the

present socio-cultural context.

The discussion above urges us to the following methodological reflection: most

research on work motivation conducted to date can be challenged for a number of reasons.

Firstly, most investigations have not paid due attention to the contextual elements that affect

work motivation. Secondly, researchers have treated motivation as an object of study that can

be broken down into parts (beliefs, expectancies, values, etc.), and by studying these

constituent parts, they try to produce, somehow, completely precise knowledge. By

acknowledging these challenges, we propose a new approach for studying work motivation,

which may give us a more complete account of the phenomenon. To achieve this, we need to

include the perceptions of the study participants without assuming that everyone understands

the concept of motivation the same way. By considering the former point, we may be able to

have a more complete vision of work motivation and its interaction with the organizational,

social and cultural contexts in which it is produced.

How can we study motivation in action?

If so far, we have understood, that motivating emphasizes the action of motivating, and

within this conceptualization we understand work motivation as a process that changes and

evolves over time, as a process linked to the context (organizational and socio-historical) in

which it is generated. We surely can hear a call for reviewing the motivation research agenda

and develop study designs, which consider the temporal dimension, as well as the subjective

experience of the study participants.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 18

It is worthwhile mentioning, that even the most representative authors of the classical

approximations, have recognized the little attention that the temporal dimension has received

within the field of work motivation (Kanfer, Chen & Pritchard, 2008) they even argue that it

has been underestimated. These statements are important, in the sense that traditional models

have dedicated much attention to the direction and magnitude, two of the three indicators,

regarded as key factors within the motivational process, neglecting the third indicator,

persistence, the one that demands methodological approximations, in which the temporal

dimension is vital. Interestingly, the investigations that have studied the temporality of work

motivation, have found that it is more unstable than classical theories had assumed. Therefore,

if we would like to continue promoting epistemological approximations that consider the

organization as a stable entity; we may have to rethink its inclusion, as an indicator of

motivated behaviour.

Likewise, it is important to develop research designs that include the vision of the

study participants. In this sense, it is imperative to promote ethnographic studies, which allow

us to gain a deeper understanding, regarding how employees’ experience the process of

motivation. What is the meaning of motivation for an employee? How this meaning changes

over time? How do changes in the context across time affect such meaning? Moreover, a

research task, that is as simple as asking employees about their understanding of motivation;

may be of great interest and relevance to the field, as new elements, that have not been

considered by previous classic theories, will undoubtedly emerge, enriching these classic

approximations.

Within a nutshell, we must incorporate to the current research agenda studies that use

longitudinal designs and incorporate time to analyze the evolution of motivation as well as

ethnographic studies, which can contribute to the understanding of how the individual and

context interact with each other to shape motivational behaviour. The approach that should be

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 19

adopted is to go beyond the perception of motivation as an object and conceptualize it as an

interactive process that is continuously evolving and self-organizing.

Conclusions

Just like other phenomena within organizational behaviour, as in the case of leadership

when new epistemological approaches emerged conceiving the role as a generator of meaning

(an aspect that is clearly linked to the organizing approach and results far away from the

classic approximations), the field of work motivation, if it is flexible enough, can profit from

new epistemological and methodological approximations.

In this sense, the challenge ahead is very inspiring and lies within the progress to a

more complex and dynamical representation of work motivation, which will renovate and

take the motivation research and theory from the classical between-subjects and cross-

sectional designs, to a more dynamical scholarship, offering a new and fresh perspective in

the field. Therefore, the dare for motivation scholars, lies in moving from the designs and

methods that we have always used as researchers and in which we have been trained for most

of our careers, towards the discovery of new research tools that can unfold the mystery of

work motivation as a complex phenomenon.

Moreover, in our opinion, and as we have supported throughout the present document,

two main research activities would be useful to revitalize the field of work motivation. The

first one refers to considering work motivation as a complex process, changeable and self-

organized, that evolves over time. The second task is to recover the clearly subjective nature

of work motivation, and bring to light, the personal vision of the study participants, as well as

their social construction of the motivation process.

We firmly believe that by incorporating these two elements to the design of

investigations, we can acquire new information about the “what”, “why” and “how” of work

motivation. In this sense, an attitude of curiosity towards the research process, and the

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 20

courage to challenge the widely accepted principles, established by the classic motivation

theories (stability, pragmatism, individualism, etc), may be a good avenue for revitalizing one

of most valuable research fields concerning our behaviour in organizational contexts.

References

Arrieta, C. & Navarro, J. (2008). Motivación en el trabajo: Viejas teorías, nuevos horizontes

[Work motivation: old theories, new horizons]. Actualidades en Psicología, 22, 67-90.

Boker, S.M. (2002). Consequences of continuity: The hunt for intrinsic properties within

parameters of dynamics in psychological processes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37,

405-422.

Ceja, L. & Navarro, J. (2009). Dynamics of flow: a nonlinear perspective. Journal of

Happiness Studies, DOI 10.1007/s10902-008-9113-6.

Csikszentmihayli, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper

and Row Publishers.

Dalal, R. S. & Hulin, C. L. (2008). Motivation for what? A multivariante dynamic perspective

of the criterion. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation. Past,

present, and future (pp. 63-100). New York: Routledge.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.

Donovan, J. J. (2001). Work motivation. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinagil & C.

Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology. Volume

2. Organizational psychology (pp. 53-76). London: SAGE.

Dooley, K. J. (2009). Organizational Psychology. In S.J. Guastello, M. Koopmans & D.

Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology, the theory of nonlinear dynamical

systems (pp. 434-451). Cambridge: Canbridge University Press.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 21

González, D. J. (1995). Teoría de la motivación y práctica profesional [Motivation theory and

professional practice]. La Habana: Editorial Pueblo y Educación.

Guastello, S.J. & Liebovitch, L.S. (2009). Introduction to Nonlinear Dynamics and

Complexity. In S.J. Guastello, M. Koopmans & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in

psychology, the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 1-40). Cambridge: Canbridge

University Press.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:

Wiley.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivational theory and indutrial and organizational psychology. In M.

Dunnette & L. M. Hughs (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

(pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Kanfer, R., Chen, G. & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). The three c's of work motivation: Content,

context, and change. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation. Past,

present, and future (pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge.

Koopmans, M. (2009). Epilogue: Psychology at the Edge of Chaos. In S.J. Guastello, M.

Koopmans & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology, the theory of

nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 506-526). Cambridge: Canbridge University Press.

Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy thinking. The new science of fuzzy logic. New York: Hyperion.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L. & Sears, p. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. M. Hunt

(Ed.): Personality and the behaviour disorders (p. 333-378). New York: Ronald Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009
 22

Munné, F. (2005). ¿Qué es la complejidad? [What's complexity?]. Encuentros de Psicología

Social, 3(2), 6-17.

Navarro, J. & Arrieta, C. (in press). Chaos in human behaviour: The case of work motivation.

The Spanish Journal of Psychology.

Silverthorne, C. P. (2005). Organizational psychology in cross-cultural perspective. New

York: New York University Press.

Van Geert, P. (2009). Nonlinear Complex Dynamical Systems in Developmental Psychology.

In S.J. Guastello, M. Koopmans & D. Pincus (Eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology,

the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 242-281). Cambridge: Canbridge University

Press.

West, B. J. (1985). An Essay on the Importance of Being Nonlinear. Lecture Notes in

Biomathematics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Yeo, G. B. & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance:

effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology,

89, 231-247.

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338-353.

Zimmerman, B., Linberg, C. & Plsek, P. (1998). Edgeware: insights from complexity science

for health care leaders. Irving, TX: VRH, Inc.

Paper presented in the International Symposium on Process Organization Studies

Cyprus, June 2009

View publication stats