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

net/publication/261699808

Work Motivation: Theory, Practice, and Future Directions

Chapter · January 2012

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0014

CITATIONS READS

27 8,916

1 author:

Ruth Kanfer
Georgia Institute of Technology
107 PUBLICATIONS   10,704 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Work Science Center View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Kanfer on 23 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 In S. W. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
CHAPTER

Work Motivation: Theory, Practice,

14 and Future Directions

Ruth Kanfer

Abstract
This chapter focuses on recent scientific advances and use-inspired research on motivation related
to adult work. The chapter is divided into four sections. The first section reviews basic motivation
constructs and processes, and the issues that delineate the scope an'd content of the field. The
second section reports on research progress and the implications of new conceptualizations for
understanding and predicting work behaviors and performance. The third section reviews findings
on the major determinants of work motivation. organized into three broad categories: content (person
variables). context (situation variables). and change (temporal variables). The fourth and final section
identifies current gaps in our knowledge, practical challenges. and promising new research directions.
Key Words: Employee motivation. self-regulation, goals, implicit motives, self-efficacy, self-determination,
motivational dynarilics. motivational traits, trait-performance relations. work environment

Introduction that permit the study of motivation over time and

Work motivation is arguably one of the most
vibrant areas in work and organizational psychology
today. Since 1990 rhere has been astonishing progress
on many topics that were largely undeveloped two
decades ago (see Kanfer, 1990). The most important
change in the field pertains to the way that dissimilar
theories and research streams have coalesced around
the goal construct to form a complex but viable
"big picture" of motivation related to work. As the
broad outlines of this picture continue to become
clearer, more researchers are developing and testing
fOtmulations that integrate different portions of the
motivation domain. Organizational scientists have
also sought out and incorporated advances in allied
fields of psychology, economics, communications,
and sociology to help fill in remaining gaps in our
understanding of non-conscious processes and the
impact of multilevel, multifaceted social contexts on
work motivation and behaviors. New research meth-
odologies and analytic merhods have been adopted
the analysis of motivation as it is embedded in ongo-
ing work relationships, teams, organizations, and the
employee life course. Theories developed during the
mid-twentieth century (that continued to dominate
the scene in the 1980s) have been transformed into
formulations that provide a better fit to the scien-
tific questions and organizational concerns salient
in the early twenty-first century. Prior questions
about the applicability of work motivation findings
to real-world problems have been replaced by ques-
tions about work motivation driven by real-world
problems in specific contexts. New views of rhe self,
affect, and the context in which work motivation
operates have also spurred -the development of new
research programs, many of which have adopted a
person-centered perspective. The result of rhis activ-
ity is a field that looks very little like rhe field in the
1980s. Although Out understanding of work moti-
vation remains far from complete, rhe field is clearly
on the move.

455
 Overview
The purpose of this chapter is to review advances
and emerging trends in work motivation over the
past few decades, and to identifY ptomising topics
for future work. Reviews that provide greater detail
on earlier developments in the field are available from
a number of sources. Historically oriented reviews
of the field through the latter part of the twentieth
century are provided by Ambrose and Kulik (1999),
Campbell and Pritchard (1976), Kanfer (1990,
1992), Kanfer, Chen, and Pritchard (2008), Katzell
and Thompson (1990), Latham (2007), Latham
and Pinder (2005), Mitchell and Daniels (2003),
and Pinder (2008). In addition, a number of reviews
6tganized around specific theoretical perspectives are
available, including qualitative reviews and meta-
analyses on goal setting (Austin & Klein, 1996;
Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981), self-regula-
tion (Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010),
goal orientation (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien,
2007), expectancy-value and decision theories
(Klein, Austin, & Cooper, 2008; Mitchell, 1974,
1982), organizational justice (Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Folger & Cropanzano,
1998), self-determination theory (Gagne & Deci,
2005), and work design (Fried & Ferris, 1987;
Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Parker
& Ohly, 2008). Reviews are also available on the
'"
role of motivation in specific situations and set-
tings, including, for example, in teams (Chen &
Gogus, 2008; Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kozlowski &
Ilgen, 2006; Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008), lead-
ership (Zaccaro, Ely, & Nelson, 2008), job search
.,' (Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001), workforce
~
aging (Kanfer, 2009; Shultz & Adams, 2007), and
in learning and skill training (Beier & Kanfer, 2009;
Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000). Erez (2008) pro-
vides a review of social-cultural influences on work
motivation and Gelfand, Erez, and Aycan (2007)
provide a review of work motivation across cultures.
The chapter is organized into four sections. The
first section highlights foundational issues and a
I· work motivation definition that delineates the broad
scope and content of the field. The second section
describes scientific progress on basic motivational
processes, and their relationships to outcomes of
individual and organizational interest (e.g., behav-
ior, sense of competency, job performance). The
third section describes recent findings on major
determinants of work motivation, organized into
three broad categories: content (person variables),
context (situation variables), and change (temporal
variables). The fourth section identifies some of the
WORK MOTIVATION
I "
current gaps in our knowledge, and promising new perfotmance. The use of performance measures to resources directed to task performance. Persistence
research directions for the study ofwork motivation index motivation, however, is often problematic measures represent assessments of the duration of
over the next few decades. since performance is not univocally determined time that an individual allocates personal resources
by motivation, but is also determined by employee to a particular task or action. As such, persistence
Foundations for Theory and Research in knowledge and skills and/or the availability (or lack) integrates direction and the temporal dimension of
Work Motivation of external resources (e.g., equipment) necessary for intensity.
In the narrow sense, the study of work moti- successful performance. The use of performance
vation examines the psychological processes and ratings or scores to index motivation impor- 3. Motivation emerges as a consequence of
mechanisms by which individuals form and Com- rantly depends on the extent to which changes the person-in-context; motivation is not
mit to work-related goals, formulate plans for in motivation are directly reflected in changes in univocally or consistently determined by a
goal accomplishment, allocate personal and social performance. single personal attribute orfeature ofthe
resources across a range of possible actions, and In general, performance measures to index moti- environment.
regulate thoughts, behaviors, and affect for the pur- vation are appropriate in contexts where task perfor-' -'. ,ffifP1nder's (1998) definition indicates, the forces
pose of goal attainment. Although there has been mance is effort-sensitive-that is, changes in effort that influence motivation occur both within as well
a tendency to view work motivation as a cognitive rroduce proportional changes in performance. as externally to the individual. That is, although
phenomena, modern research makes' it clear thar However, when changes in motivation affect per- the psychological processes involved in work moti-
motivational processes are not just cognitive; they formance through effects on cognitions, behavior, vation occur internally, motivation is not a stable
are supported by and involve biological processes, or affect, performance indices of motivation are less characteristic of the person across all situations.
unconscious perceptions, sensations, affect, and appropriate. In these situations, the more appropri- Individuals who show high levels of motivation for
cognitions. ate criteria are those changes in behavior, cognitions, action in one situation (e.g., reading a novel), may
More broadly, the study of work motivation also and/or affect that are the direct consequence of a show low levels of motivation for action in another
includes theory and research on the person and sit- change in motivation. Thus, researchers often use situation (e.g., reading a textbook). The purpose
uation factors that influence motivation processes, multiple measures of behavior (e.g., time spent on a ~(action and the context in which it occurs must
and the pathways by which they do so. Consistent [ask) as well as performance score to index a change always be taken into account.
with the Latin root of the word motivation, mean- in motivation. In the job search literature, for exam- Motivation is also not simply a function of the
ing "to move," work motivation researchers and ple, motivation may be assessed by time spent on job environment. Even in extremely "strong" situations
scientists seek to understand the internal and exter- search activities (persistence), the type of job search (e.g., the battlefield), individual differences in per-
nal forces that facilitate or hinder behavior change, activities performed (direction), and self-reports of sonal attributes, such as tolerance for ambiguity,
Work motivation is also a topic of great practical effort expended on job search (intensity). In studies contribute to motivation and performance. In the
importance, and includes work on the consequences of motivation during training, motivation is often moderate or weak situations that characterize most
of motivation for employees and the organizations assessed not just in terms of performance but also workplaces, motivation depends on individual pro-
in which they work. Work motivation research in.terms of self-report measures that assess the indi- pensities and preferences as well as situational affor-
focuses on multiple dimensions of behavior change, vidual's goal commitment and self-efficacy, and/or dances and constraints. As Lewin (1938) suggested
including the direction, intensity, and persistence over a half century ago, "Motivation can only be
behavioral measures of attendance, task persistence,
of workplace actions and job performance within and self-regulatory activities. properly analyzed by taking into account character-
the broader, continuing stream of experiences thar istics of the person in the context of dynamic social,
characterize the person in relation to his or her work 2.iOutcomes ofmotivation include changes physical, and psychological environments that facil-
(Kanfer, 1990). iff the initiation, direction, intensity, itate and constrain person tendencies for action."
Pinder (1998) provides an encompassing defini- ~dulation, orpersistence ofaction.
tion of work motivation as "a set of energetic forces .Hhe type of measure used to assess motivation 4. Motivation is always in flux.
that originate both within as well as beyond an d~pends upon the question of interest. When the Motivation is a state that changes constantly.
individual's being, to initiate work-related behav- question is about how motives or contexts "turn on" Changes in motivation, with associated changes
ior and to determine its form, direction, imensil)', olJlnstigate work-related behaviors, researchers may in beliefs, behaviors, and affect, occur over differ-
and duration" (p. 11). Consistent with definitions useinitiation measures. The impact of achievement ent time cycles (Lord et aI., 2010) 'and are often
of motivation found in many areas of psychology, m~tives on innovative performance, for example, measured on different timescales, depending on the
definitions of work motivation emphasize the fol- ~~y be evaluated by assessing the frequency with question of interest (Kanfer et al., 2008). Lord et al.
lowing points: ~ch an employee asks questions or seeks informa- (2010) propose four major cycle levels for motiva-
~oil. Choice and intention measures are often used tional phenl?mena that correspond to the measure-
1. Motivation is not directly observed ~~'aSSess the direction of action. Intensity indices ment of motivation processes and outcomes on
and must be inferred. ~ture the proportion of an individual's personal different timescales. Examples ofthe different cycles,
Because motivation cannot be direcdy assessed, ~urces allocated to a goal or task. Intensity mea- their associated measurement tim~scales, the domi-
changes in motivation are inferred by associ- wtes often assess subjective or subjective task effort, nant motivational foci, and the dominant methods
ated changes in behavior, learning, or task/job cti.ergy, time spent on the task, or other personal used at different levels are shown in Figure 14.1.
KANFER 457
 Time Cycle Time Scale Motivational Foci
Long Lifespan
Decades
Motivational T rairs, Skills
Years
Months
Resource Allocations
Weeks
Days (Direction, Persistence)
Hours
Minutes Attenrional Effort
Milliseconds
L ---' Experimental
As sh~wn iii'Figure 14.1, intraindividual.co~ni­
tive and affective processes involved in motlvatl~n
are typically fast and are assessed in terms of ml~­
liseconds or minutes. Studies at this level of analysIs
are typically conducted in controlled, laboratory . (rather than learning goals) that prom~t the use,of
conditions and tend to focus on differences in moti-
vational intensity toward a targeL In contrast, stud-
ies of work motivation over very long time frames,
such as years or decades, capture information about
the influence of the broader social and work culture
and relatively stable person traits and tendencies. on
motivation and the trajectories of work behaVIOrs
and performance over the life course.
Most work motivation researchers and profes-
sionals focus on motivation changes that occur
during relatively short timescales (e.g., ho.urs, days,
weeks). Analyses at this level capture the Impact of
proximal personal influences (e.~., work goals) and
environmental conditions (e.g., Job autonomy) ~n
motivation, behavior, and job performance. Studies
at this level are both logistically feasible and pr~c­
tically useful for examining the effects of spe~Jfic
organizational interventions, such as goal setting,
on motivation and work performance.
Because motivational processes take place on
different cycles or timescales, multilevel models are
also needed to examine how factors and processes
that operate at one level may influence another
level. Changes in the organizational culture over
the course of a year, for example, are likely to
affect the value that is placed on different aspects
of employee performance, which i~ turn affect the
individual's work and task goal chOices. Cross-level
effects between motivational processes that oper-
te on different timescales may be indirect, such
:s when changes in organizational culture in~ti­
gate different motives and promot~ the ado~tlon
of worker goals that facilitate learning and higher
458 WORK MOTIVATION
Dominanr Methodol0i:Y
Correlational
Motives,
(Inrensiry)
levels of competence. Cross-level effects may also'
be moderated by short cycle motivation processes,
such as when employees who are highly anxious
develop a response of adopting performance goals
less effective learning strategies. Multilevel studies
of work motivation offer an exciting opportunity
for systematizing knowledge about the ~ynamics of
multi-scale motivation processes and their effects on
work behavior and job attitudes.
WOrk motivation is a unique branch of
motivational science.
Work motivation is not just a subordinate section
of the larger field of motivational science.. In orher
branches of human motivation, such as achlevemenr
motivation, research is often organized and accu-
mulated around a single theoretical perspective, and
the context for research is often driven by the tar-
··
get theoretical issue. In wor k motivation, hever
ow. '
research is also driven by the underlying pract~c~
concern for how motivation influences organlza·
·
tionally relevant wor k beh aVlOrs, such as'JO b perfor'
mance. Over the past few decades, changes.'In thed
conceptualization of the criterion space have spurre
new theories of work motivation. In contrast t~ pr~
vious formulations that focused on motivano nd
influences on technical performance, such as spee f
and quality of production, the changing n~rureh~
work has focused more attention on the relations P
between motivation an d non-tec h nl~ . al or conrex'
. for
tual dimensions of job performance, 1l1cludmg, ,
example, the quality of an employee's reiatiO~~hlp~
. . al cwzen
with coworkers and clients, organization .' b
ship behaviors, and adaptabiliry to changes m JO~
. .
demands organlzatlona I structure, an d the extern
f,
marketpl~ce. The shift in the dimensions of pedr 0::
· turn, en courage t
mance to be predicte d h as, In
development of new perspectives that address moti-
vational effects on these OUtcomes. On the negative
side, there has been a sharp increase in the number
of criterion-specific work motivation "mini-theo-
ries." On the positive side, the enlarged criterion
space has stimulated connections with other fields,
such as affective science, personality psychology,
and even mental health.
Is there more to work motivation
than we can tell?
A final foundational issue pertains to the grow-
ing interest in implicit motives and non-conscious
processes as they influence work motivation and
behavior. The notion of non-conscious influences
on motivation is certainly not new to psychol-
ogy, but has received little research attention in
work motivation until recently. Over the past few
decades, however, research on implicit motives and
non-conscious processes in other areas of psychol-
ogy has begun to influence mainstream work moti-
vation theory and research (see, e.g., James, 1998;
Johnson & Steinman, 2009; Kehr, 2004; Latham,
Stajkovic, & Locke, 2010; Lord et al., 2010). The
impetus for renewed attention to non-conscious
motives and processes stems from advances that
show: (a) self-report measure~ividual differ-
ences in non-ability traits and action preferences do
not capture important personal influences on moti-
vation, and (b) not all motivation processes are cog-
nitively mediated. In accord with these advances,
recent progress in I/O psychology appears in two
areas: (a) the assessment of individual differences
in implicit motives, and (b) theory building on the
relationship between implicit motives and non-con-
scious processes and goal selection and pursuiL
IMPLICIT MOTIVES
In COntrast to explicit motives, implicit motives
are not accessible for conscious self-report.
Individual differences in explicit motives, such as
extraversion, are typically assessed using self-report
measures in which persons repOrt their behavioral
tendencies and Outcome preferences. Such self-re-
ports are cognitively mediated in that the individual
repOrts what she thinks best describes her. In con-
trast, implicit motives are not accessible through
direct self-repOrt since these motives do not reflect
cognitively mediated action tendencies, but rather
alfectively charged motivators that are activated
by intrinsic OUtcomes associated with action. In
COntrast to explicit motives, whose impact is typi-
cally on cognitively mediated behaviors, implicit
motives are further posited to influence spontane-
ous, rather than cognitively mediated, behaviors
(Michalak, Puschel, Joormann, & Schulte, 2006).
Individuals who are high in implicit power motive,
for example, would be expected to demonstrate
more Spontaneous power-oriented behaviors dUring
the performance of tasks that afford the opportunity
for acquiring influence over others than individuals
low in implicit motive for power.
Modern conceptions of implicit motives build
upon arguments made by McClelland (1987) that
the low' co'iia;tion often obtained between direct
(self-report) and indirect (projective; e.g., TAT)
measures of individual differences in the achieve-
ment motive reflected the difference between
implicit and explicit motives for achievement, rather
than measurement error. McClelland (1987) fur-
ther proposed three implicit motives: achievement,
affiliation, and power, and argued that each of these
motives were distinct from explicit motives of the
same or similai names. After years of controversy,
evidence t~ suPPOrt McClelland's (1987) notions
regarding differences between implicit and explicit
motives related to achievement was provided in a
meta-analytic review by Spangler (1992).
Nonetheless, measurement problems con-
tinue to thwart progress in the study of implicit
motives. Well-founded criticisms of projective and
quasi-projective measures, such as the Thematic
Apperception Test (TAT), hampered research
for decades. In the past 15 years or so, however,
new theoretical approaches have been employed
to develop measures of non-conscious motives
through perceptual and cognitive processing (see
e.g., Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; James
& Rentsch, 2004; Schultheiss & Pang, 2007). One
of the most promising new methods for assessing
implicit motive strength builds upon Conditional
Reasoning Theory (CRT; James, 1998). In CRT
measures, individuals read a series of constructed
scenarios and select a response based on conditional
reasoning, rather than based on affective reactions
to a stimuli. Initial evidence for the validity of these
measures and the basic tenets of CRT are provided
by a series of studies by James and his colleagues
(Frost, Ko, & James, 2007; James et al., 2005) that
show negligible correlations between CRT and
explicit measures, and significant predictive valid-
ity of CRT measures for achievement, aggressive,
and dominant behaviors in organized settings.
Further evidence on the validity of these implicit
motive measures will significantly speed progress in
implicit motivation.
KANFER 459
NON-CONSCIOUS PROCESSES
A second, complimentary stream of research
focuses on the delineation of a non-conscious
motivation system and its relationship to explicit
goal choice and goal striving. Most evidence for
the existence of non-conscious motivational system
comes from research findings in cognitive neurosci-
ence and social psychology (see Ferguson, Hassin,
& Bargh, 2008). Findings in these areas show the
influence of goals on pre-conscious attentional
processes in sensory systems, the influence of sub-
liminal priming·-~n non-conscious motivational
processing and action, and the impact of non-
conscious neurological processes in explicit goal
choice and self-regulation (see Bargh, Gollwitzer,
& Oettingen, 2010; Ruud & AartS, 2010). Recent
work by Lord and his colleagues Oohnson, Lord,
Rosen, & Chang, 2007; Johnson, Tolentino,
Rodopman, & Cho, 2010; Lord & Moon, 2006)
and others (e.g., Stajkovic, Locke, & Blair, 2006)
have extended this work into the organizational
domain, and have shown that fast, non-conscious,
automatic cognitive processes also affect explicit
motivational processes relevant in the work setting
(see Diefendorff & Lord, 2008).
Another line of inquiry focuses on the relation-
ship berween implicit and explicit motivational pro-
cesses (e.g., Brunstein & Maier, 2005; Schultheiss &
Brunstein, 2001). Lord et al. (2010) have proposed
a dynamic model in which non-conscious motives
and processes may exert influence at multiple levels
in motivational processing, including goal choice as
well as self-regulation. Kehr (2004) has proposed
that implicit motives interfere with explicit moti-
vation when the implicit motive fails to support
explicit goals. According to Kehr (2004), a basic
purpose for the instigation of goal striving, or self-
regulatory processes, is to prevent contrary implicit
motive tendencies from diverting critical resources
away from goal accomplishment.
Rapid progress is being made in elucidating the
influence of implicit motives and non-conscious
processes on explicit motivation and behavior
(see Johnson et al., 2010; Ruud & Aarts, 2010).
The development of valid and reliable measures
of implicit motives remains problematic, but it is
clear that new approaches based on cognitive and
neuroscience advances are overcoming problems
that were for many decades insurmountable. At the
same time, work motivation researchers have begun
to study how implicit motives and non-conscious
processes impact goal choice, self-regulation, and
behavior. Continued progress in this area can be
WORK MOTIVATION
expected to cause a sea-change in how work motiva-
tion is conceptualized and studied over the next few
decades.
Goal Choice and Goal Pursuit
The term motivation is often used in work and
organizational psychology to encompass all the pro-
cesses by which individuals formulare and execute
established goals. In motivational science, however,
a distinction is often made berween the processes
involved in goal choice and goal commitment, and
the processes involved in goal pursuit. Among some
researchers, motivation refers to the choice portion
of the system, while cognitive, affective, and self-
regulatory processes in goal pursuit are regarded as
volition. Consistent with the common use of the
term motivation, I distinguish the rwo, relared
motivational subsystems in terms of goal choice
and goal striving (or pursuit) and reserve the term
motivation to reference both goal choice and goal
striving processes.
Over the past few decades, motivational scien-
tists have come to a consensus on the organizarion
of explicit (or conscious) motivation processes. This
consensus has been achieved by using goals as the
coordinating construct for disparate streams of
research on goal choice and goal striving. Although
some theories remain better suited to understand-
ing and predicting goal choice and other theories
to understanding and predicting goal striving, rhere
has been a sharp rise in the number of studies that
simultaneously examine elements of both systems
(e.g., Kozlowski & Bell, 2006).
To put recent developments in perspective, I
first provide a brief review of late rwentieth century
progress on goals, goal choice, goal setting, and goal
striving. Following this review, I describe recent
work on goal orientation and related perspectives.
Goals
Goals are the mental representations of our-
come states that an individual seeks to realize.
In the workplace, goals may refer to learning our-
comes (e.g., learn to install a pipe), performance
outcomes (e.g., design a web page), or consequence
outcomes (e.g., obtain a registered nursing degree).
Goals direct attention and help to organize and sus-
tain the individual's effort and actions for the pur-
pose of goal accomplishment.
Because goals direct behavior toward the accom-
plishment of desired outcomes, including job p.e~
formance, work motivation researchers have studle
rwo goal-related issues in depth: goal selection (the
goal that an individual adopts) and goal commit-
ment (the extent to which the individual binds him-
or herself to goal accomplishment). In these areas,
research has focused on a number of related ques-
rions, including the role of personal and situational
variables on goal adoption (e.g., Barrick, Mount, &
Strauss, 1993; see Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987), how
individuals allocate.attention and effort across mul-
riple goals (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner,
& Wiechmann, 2004; see Mitchell, Harmon, Lee,
& Lee, 2008), and how and why individuals revise
their goals (Schmidt & DeShon, 2007; Tolli &
Schmidt, 2008).
Research in cognitive and personality-social psy-
chology indicates that goals are rarely developed
in isolation. Rather, goals are situated in a web of
complex, interrelated goal hierarchies. Goals at the
lOp of the hierarchy represent outcomes that occur
as a consequence of accomplishing goals at lower
levels in the hierarchy. Earning a medical degree, for
example, requires accomplishment of lower order
goals distributed over time, such as passing different
courses required for the degree. Higher level goals
are typically distal, complex, and may be ill-defined
with respect to the lower order goals required for
higher order goal accomplishment. The adoption
of a higher order consequence goal, such as attain-
ing a medical degree, sets into motion an integrated
stream of cognitive and motivational processes that
direct attention and action toward interim or lower
order goal accomplishments. Problems encountered
in the execution of lower order goals may also redi-
rect attention to the higher order goal, and may con-
tribute to outcome goal revision or abandonment.
Goals are also distinguished in terms of their
attributes and/or focus. Goals may be specific Ot
vague, easy or difficult, simple or complex, behav-
ioral, cognitive, or affective, proximal or distal, or
adopted for different reasons (e.g., to demonstrate
competence or avoid appearing incompetent).
Different theories of work motivation, such as
Locke's (1976) task goal theory and VandeWalle's
(1997) goal orientation formulation, emphasize dif-
ferent aspects of the articulated goal that, in turn,
have different implications for motivational pro-
cessing and performance.
GOAL CHOICE
Cognitive theories ofmotivation, such as Fishbein
and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action,
Triandis's (1980) theory of interpersonal behavior,
~d Vroom's (1964) expectancy-value formula-
tion (VIE), are frequently used to predict behavior
intentions, goal choice, and motivational force for
goal accomplishment, respectively. Although these
and related models differ in a number of ways, such
as how the criterion is operationalized, the role of
affect, and the way that social influences are rep-
resented, each model has its roots in the family of
expectancy-value models developed first in econom-
ics and subsequently adopted in psychology during
the mid-1'90'05;·'-
Expectancy value formulations make several
strong assumptions. These models assume that indi-
viduals are rational decision makers who choose
among perceived courses of action by applying the
hedonic principle of maximizing pleasure and mini-
mizing pain. As rational decision makers, an indi-
vidual's goal choice or behavior intention decision
is posited to reflect the outcome of an internal, cog-
nitive analysis regarding the relative costs and ben-
efits associated with different choice options. For
example, according to Vroom's (1964) VIE theory,
individuals choose among different possible work
goals based on their subjective perceptions about:
(a) whether the goal can be accomplished with the
effort and other personal resources available to the
individual (e.g., can I accomplish the performance
goal?; expectancy), (b) whether goal accomplish-
ment will bring about the target outcome (e.g., the
instrumentality of achieving the performance goal
for obtaining a pay raise; instrumentality), and (c)
the perceived valence of the performance outcome
(e.g., the attractiveness of a pay raise, the unattrac-
tiveness of feeling fatigued as a result of sustained
mental effort; valence).
The introduction of Vroom's expectancy-value
formulation into the I/O literature in the mid-
1960s stimulated decades of empirical research on
theoretical and methodological aspects of expec-
tancy-value formulations. Excellent reviews of
the empirical evidence on the predictive validity
of expectancy value theories and methodological
issues are provided by Mitchell (1974, 1980) and
Sheppard, Harrwick, and Warshaw (1988). Overall,
empirical findings on expectancy value formula-
tions indicate that these theories are most effective
for predicting choice among mutually incompatible
courses of action, such as which of several job offers
to accept.
As Mitchell (1974, 1980) indicates, VIE and
related models suffer from both conceptual and
methodological problems. Some of the biggest
problems with theory and research in expectancy-
value research pertain to the episodic nature of the
theories, the use ofberween-subject designs to test a
KANFER
within-subject formulation, and the inability of the
theories to account for motivation processes that
occur in the gap between intention and behavior.
Although tests using within-subject designs show
improved predictive validity for behavior and task
performance, expectancy-value formulations remain
more useful for predicting discrete choice than per-
formance streams. An even broader criticism of
expectancy-value theories involves the assumption
that individuals are rational decision makers. There
is substantial evidence in-allied fields which shows
that individuals do not choose goals after perform-
ing a full rational analysis of options or solely on
the basis of maximizing positive outcomes. Image
theory (Beach & Mitchell, 1987) addresses this and
other issues using a match-type model in which
individuals are proposed to make decisions based on
the compatibility match berween images related to
goals and strategy with self-concept. Although there
has been some empirical support for image theory,
this formulation is not often used in work motiva-
tion research.
Later expectancy value formulations by Naylor,
Pritchard, and Ilgen (1980) and Kanfer and
Ackerman (1989) incorporated advances from
cognitive psychology. Extending earlier expectancy
value models, Naylor et al. (1980) and Kanfer and
Ackerman (1989) portrayed personal resources as
multidimensional, including not only attentional
effort and time, but potentially other personal
resources such as social capital. In addition, these
formulations conceptualized choice as a personal
resource allocation process across a range of activi-
ties, including self-regulatory processes and non-
task activities. The conceptualization of choice as a
continuous resource allocation process that occurs
as a function of personal attributes, task demands,
and self-regulatory and non-task activities improved
the viability of these models for predicting ongo-
ing behavior and skill acquisition (see Kanfer &
Ackerman, 1989).
Despite the many criticisms of classic expec-
tancy value formulations, modified formulations
remain popular. Social psychological models, such
as Ajzen's (1991) theory of planned behavior, that
take into explicit account the social context in which
behavioral intentions are formed, continue to attract
research attention, particularly in the prediction of
discrete behaviors, such as attendance and turnover
(see Armitage & Conner, 2001; Fishbein & Ajzen,
2010). Resource allocation models also continue to
be used in studies investigating multiple goals, goal
revision processes, self-regulatory activities, and
WORK MOTIVATION
performance over time in the context of skill acqui.
sition and teams (see Kanfer, Ackerman, Murtha,
Dugdale, & Nelson, 1994; Lam, DeRue, Karam, &
Hollenbeck, 2011; Porter, Webb, & Gogus, 2010).
Using the Naylor et al. (1980) formulation, Pritchard
and his colleagues have also shown the efficacy of
resource allocation models in the development of
programs to enhance work motivation and per-
formance in organizational settings (see Pritchard,
Harrell, DiazGranados, & Guzman, 2008).
GOAL SETTING
As criticisms of expectancy-value formulations
in I/O psychology and related fields mounted dur-
ing the 1970s, work motivation researchers turned
their attention to goal setting. Consistent with
other cognitive formulations, Locke (1968) pro-
posed that goals served as the immediate regularors
of action, and that difficult, specific goals led to
higher levels of performance than easy, non-specific
goals. Goal setting research findings reviewed by
Locke et al. (1981) provided strong empirical sup-
port for the beneficial influence of goal setting on
task performance, particularly with respect to the
setting of difficult and specific goals. Locke et al.
(1981) proposed that goals influenced performance
by: (a) directing attention and action, (b) mobiliz-
ing effort, (c) prolonging goal-directed effort over
time, and (d) motivating the individual to develop
effective strategies for goal attainment.
Goal-setting theory and research flourished dur-
ing the late rwentieth century, and goal setting rap-
idly eclipsed expectancy value as the dominant work
motivation paradigm in the field. A large number
of empirical studies provided general support for
each of the four proposed mechanisms by which
goals influenced performance, and goal-setting
theory quickly expanded to incorporate self-regula-
tion constructs and processes in the explanation of
how goals influenced task performance (Locke &
Latham, 1990).
As goal-setting theory and research progressed,
attention began to focus on potential boundary con-
ditions associated with the beneficial effectS of goal
setting on performance. The first issue pertained to
observed differences between the differential influ-
ence of assigned versus self-set goals (see Locke &
Schweiger, 1979). In most work sertings, employees
are assigned task goals. In these instances, the issue
. not pre d"lctlOg th e d'Irectlon
IS . 0 f action,
. but rather
what factors predict the employee's willingneSS to
adopt the assigned goal and the emp Ioyees .
' corn'
. . . f I Ilocatl on
mltment or lIuensny 0 persona resource a
to the goal. Findings by Latham, Erez, and Locke
(1988) showed the criticality of the employee's par-
ticipation in the goal-setting process, even if only
minimally, when supervisors employed a "sell"
rather than "tell" procedure, for goal setring to exert
a positive effect on performance. The findings on
the effects of psychological participation in goal set-
ting, in turn, spurred a new stream of-theory and
research on goal commirment.
A second condition under which goal setting
might be less effective pertains to the complexity
of the task. Review findings by Wood, Mento, and
Locke (1987) showed that goal setting was more
effective in enhancing motivation and performance
when used with simple tasks than with complex tasks.
Using a complex air traffic simulation task, Kaufer
and Ackerman (1989) showed that the impact of
performance goal setting on performance might be
beneficial or detrimental depending on the atten-
tional demands of the task, the individual's cognitive
abilities, and the self-regulatory activities undertaken
as a result of goal setting. In accord with predic-
tions, they found that among individuals with lower
levels of cognitive abilities, the provision of perfor-
mance goal assignments during the early (cognitively
demanding) phase of skill learning was detrimental
to performance, but that goal assignments made later
in skill acquisition (when the task was cognitively less
demanding) had a beneficial effect on performance.
The differential impact of goal setting on per-
formance as a function of individual differences in
cognitive abilities, task demands, and self-regulatory
activities focused atrention on the characteristics of
goals that might divert artentional resources and hin-
der task performance. Kaufer and Ackerman (1989)
argued that performance goals implemented early
in training diverted critical atrentional resources
needed for performance toward the management
of negative emotions associated with inability to
accomplish the goal. This notion was supported in
subsequent studies by Latham and his colleagues
(Latham & Brown, 2006; Seijts & Latham, 2005;
Winters & Latham, 1996), who showed that the
prOvision oflearning goals (that reduced rather than
exacerbated concern about performance accom-
plishment) in complex task perfotmance exerted a
greater beneficial effect on performance than per-
fo.rmance goals. These findings are also consistent
WIth goal orientation theory and research that shows
~t the purpose of action (embedded in this para-
digmas goal type) exerts a motivational influence
on performance through its effects on the direction
of resource allocations during action.
GOAL STRIVING
Goal choice sets the stage for action, but when
intentions cannot be readily accomplished, indi-
viduals activate self-regulatory processes to support
goal-directed action. Goal striving refers to the self-
regulatory processes and actions by which individu-
als support goal intentions over time and/or in the
face of personal Or env.ir.qnmental obstacles to goal
accomplishment.
Theory and research on self-regulation pro-
cesses have their modern origins in the expansion
of behavioral models during the 1960s and 1970s
(Bandura, 1969, 1973; Kanfer & Phillips, 1969;
Mischel, 1968; Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970). Social
learning, cognitive-behavioral, and social-cognitive
models of action all emphasized the self-regulatory
processes by which individuals exercise control over
their behavior, affect; and cognitions for purposes
of goal atrainment. Self-control is a form of self-
regulation in which the individual seeks to atrain
a goal that is not supported by prevailing environ-
mental contingencies, such as when an employee
seeks to write a report while coworkers are holding
a party, or when an employee's goal for complet-
ing a project requires that he or she work late into
the night despite growing fatigue. Meta-cognition,
defined by Flavell (1979) as the meta-cognitive
knowledge and experiences used to manage cogni-
tions, affect, and behavior strategies in goal-directed
learning, represents another subset of the broader
domain of self-regulation, often studied in educa-
tional psychology.
In work and organizational psychology, con-
scious self-regulation of action is typically not
required when goals can be readily accomplished,
or involve habitual or highly routinized behaviors,
such as typing a letter. However, when goal accom-
plishment requires planning (studying for a test),
coordination of actions (making a presentation),
mid-course adjustments in strategy (e.g., winning
a race), or resisting environmental presses that run
counter to goal accomplishment (working instead
of going out with friends), self-regulatory processes
facilitate sustained motivation "and performance.
In the modern workplace, where work often takes
place in non-work contexts (e.g., home), involves
self-management of emotions in dealing with cli-
ents and coworkers, and is directed toward the
accomplishment of complex goals over time, effec-
tive self-regulation has become an important feature
of performance.
Investigation of self-regulatory processes dur-
ing the mid-twentieth century delineated three key
KANFER
subprocesses: self-monitoring, self-evaluations, and
self-reactions. Self-monitoring refers to the indi-
vidual's attention to the ourcomes of one's actions
related to the goal. Self-monitoring is necessary for
self-evaluation and self-reactions, though what the
individual monitors mayor may not be relevant
for goal attainment. Self-evaluations refer to cog-
nitive processes that determine goal progress. Self-
evaluation processes serve both an informational
and motivational function, providing information
abour whether die current action strategy must be
adjusted for goal attainment and whether personal
resource allocations are sufficient. Self-reactions, the
most well-known ofwhich is self-efficacy, pertain to
the individual's integrated cognitive-affective judg-
ment of confidence regarding the likelihood of goal
attainment.
Broad interest in self-regulation among organi-
zational scientists during the late twentieth century
also spurred the development of many research pro-
grams on the influence of different self-regulation
components, such as self-monitoring and self-effi-
cacy judgments. In 1983, Ashford and Cummings
proposed a theory of feedback seeking based on
the notion that feedback seeking from others was
a primary means by which employees self-monitor
their performance. Consistent with self-regulation
approaches, Ashford and Cummings (1983) showed
that individuals who did not seek feedback from
others (for fear of obtaining negative feedback)
developed less accurate perceptions of performance
than individuals who used active feedback-seeking
strategies. From a motivational perspective, the
Ashford and Cummings (1983) findings suggest
that problems in goal striving may begin early in
the self-regulatory sequence if individuals do not
accurately monitor their performance.
Interest in self-regulation and goal striving
among work motivation researchers also grew in
response to findings that showed that goals and
behavioral intentions were often only weakly asso-
ciated with performance, particularly when perfor-
mance was difficult or occurred over a protracted
time period. Early studies on the role of self-reg-
ulation in work motivation and performance were
conducted by Latham and his colleagues (Frayne
& Latham, 1987; Latham & Frayne, 1989) in the
context of goal-setting research. Latham and Frayne
(1989) examined the effectiveness of self-regulatory
training as an adjunct to goal setting in a field study
designed to increase attendance among employees
with chronic histories of absenteeism. They found
that employees who participated in self-regulatory
WORK MOTIVATION
skills training showed subsequently higher levels of
job attendance than employees who did not receive
self-management training. Subsequent research by
Gist, Bavetta, and Stevens (1990) compared the
relative efficacy of goal setting alone and goal set-
ting plus self-management training on the transfet
of training in a salary negotiation task. Gist et al.
(1990) found that individuals in the goal setting
plus self-management training condition showed
greater transfer of training and overall performance
than individuals in the goal setting-alone condi-
tion. The theoretical integration of goal setting and
self-regulation formulations during the late 1980s
(see Locke & Latham, 1990) led to numerous stud-
ies investigating the impact of self-efficacy on goal
choice, commitment, and performance.
Most modern motivation theories accord self-
efficacy judgments a major causal role in determin-
ing work motivation and performance. Self-efficacy
judgments, rhough powerful predictors of action
in novel contexts or early skill acquisition, have
also been shown to exert weaker causal influence
on motivation and performance in the context of /
skill acquisition (e.g., Heggestad & Kanfer, 2005;
Mitchell, Hopper, Daniels, George-Falvy, & James,
1994; see Kanfer, 1993). One recent controversy
about the relationship between self-efficacy judg-
ments and performance further suggests that our
understanding about the role that self-efficacy plays
at different points in the motivation system may be
incomplete. In essence, the argument pertains to
the relationship between self-efficacy judgments and
performance. Although many studies show that self-
efficacy judgments are positively related to motiva-
tion and performance (see Bandura & Locke, 2003),
several studies have been reported that show a nega-
tive, rather than positive relationship between self-
efficacy and performance (Vancouver, Thompson,
Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Vancouver, Thompson, &
Williams, 2001; Yeo & eal, 2006). Vancouver has
argued that these findings are consistent with cyber-
netic models of self-regulation that posit a negative
(not positive) relationship between self-efficacy and
personal resource allocations when performance
meets or exceeds the goal, in much the same way that
a thermostat turns off the heater when the desired
temperature is reached. Vancouver, More, and Yoder
(2008) have recently proposed a multiple goal-pro-
cess explanation for reconciliation of the discrepant
findings. Schmidt and Deshon (2009, 2010) pro-
vide strong empirical evidence for explanations that
focus on the conditions in which the relationship
is examined, including prior task success and task
ambiguity. Although the controversy continues, it
appears that the discrepancies obtained in the sign
of the self-efficacy-performance relationship reflect
the influence of important, understudied questions
related to the dynamics between task conditions,
the purpose of action, and goal revision over time.
purposive Approaches to'Motivation
Over the past 15 years or so, work motivation
researchers have concentrated on the motivational
and performance consequences of an individu-
al's purpose or reason for goal accomplishment.
Whereas prior goal-setting research focused largely
on the impact of goal attributes such as difficulty
or specificity, purposive approaches focus on the
mental orientation that accompanies the formu-
lation and pursuit of difficult, specific goals. In
this section, I describe several streams of research
in this developing paradigm. First, I describe two
conceptualizations that distinguish and connect the
explicit goal-choice and goal-striving motivation
subsystems: namely, Gollwitzer's (Gollwitzer, 1990;
Gollwitzer & Kinney, 1989) mind-set theory and.
Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe's (2004) inte--·
grative model of employment commitment and
motivation. Next, I discuss theory and research in
intrinsic motivation. Finally, I review theory and
research on the impact of goal orientation on moti-
vation processes and performance.
PURPOSE AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
GOAL CHOICE AND GOAL STRIVING
According to Gollwitzer (1990, 2003), goal
choice and goal striving involve different mind-sets,
or motivational orientations. Individuals engaged in
goal choice are proposed to employ a deliberative
mind-set that emphasizes seeking accurate, unbiased
information and using that information to perform
a cognitive appraisal of goal options. Following goal
choice, however, Gollwitzer argued there is a use-
ful change in mind-set from deliberative to imple-
mental. He proposed that during the planning
and execution phases of goal-directed action (Le.,
goal striving) individuals adopt an implementa-
tion mind-set, characterized by selective attention
to information that supports the desirability of the
chosen goal.
Findings from a series of studies by Gollwitzer
(Gollwitzer & Kinney, 1989; Taylor & Gollwitzer,
1995) and others (e.g., Armor & Taylor, 2003; Webb
& Sheeran, 2008) provide empirical support for the
difference between motivational orientations held
during goal choice and goal striving. These studies
show that individuals who hold a deliberative mind-
set are more attentive to negative goal-related infor-
mation than individuals who hold an implemental
mind-set. Further, individuals who hold an imple-
mental mind-set report stronger illusions of control,
increased self-efficacy, and more optimistic outcome
expectations abouJ-goal accomplishment than indi-
viduals who h~f~fa-deliberativemind-set.
Gollwitzer's mind-set theory underscores the
long-standing distinction between goal choice as
a decisional process and goal striving as an action
process. Mind-set findings also increase the salience
of a second long-standing question in motivation
science; namely, what connects the two mind-set
processes? Heckhausen (1991) suggests that the
strength of the goal. developed in the choice system
is an important variable in determining the initia-
tion and maintenance of goal-striving processes.
One way that goal strength has been conceptualized
in the work motivation literature is in terms of goal
commitment, or the "force that binds an individual
to a course of action that is of relevance to a particu-
lar target" (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
Mind-set theory emphasizes the differences in
mental orientation associated with goal choice and
goal pursuit. In I/O psychology, however, theory
and research have focused on the factors and pro-
cesses that bridge the two motivation subsystems
and bind the individual to the pursuit of selected
goals; namely, goal commitment. The Meyer and
Allen (1991) multidimensional conceptualization
of commitment compliments mind-set theory by
distinguishing among dimensions of commitment
and their influence on goal striving. Specifically,
Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed three forms of
commitment: affective commitment, or the binding
of the goal to action as a function of desire; nor-
mative commitment, or the steadfastness of goal
pursuit our or" a sense of obligation to others; and
continuance commitment, or the resolureness of
goal persistence as a consequence of perceived costs
for not adopting the goal, or goal abandonment
(also see Meyer & Allen, -1997). Although differ-
ent mind-sets may be involved in goal choice and
implementation processes, the Meyer and Allen
(1991) conceptualization suggests that the motiva-
tion for goal commitment may also affect the man-
ner in which decisions are implemented in action.
Consistent with this notion, Meyer et al. (2004)
have recently proposed an integrative model of com-
mitment and motivation that links different dimen-
sions of commitment to different goal purposes or
foci. Although the Meyer et al. (2004) model is
KANFER
 relatively new and in need of empirical testing, the
controlling, and their downsrream effects on task self-regulatory variables or strategies. Intrinsic moti- (performance-prove), and performance goal orien-
proposed linkages between goal purpose and com- interest, enjoyment, and behavior.
mitment dimension have important implications vation research also focused on the motivational tation directed toward avoiding demonstration of
Over the past decade, Deci and his colleagues and performance consequences of the individual's one's lack of ability and negative judgments from
for practice. For example, in some work settings and
have proposed a new formulation; self-determina_ (past-oriented) attributions for the cause of action, others (performance-avoid).
collectivist cultures, the formulation of goals-based
tion theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002). In rather than the individual's (future-oriented) goals. Although goal orientation has been conceptu-
sense of obligation (e.g., finish assigned work on
contrast to CET, SDT provides a detailed descrip_ In the late 1970s and early 1980s, education psy- alized as both a trait and a state, the majority of
a team project because others depend on this per-
tion of how environments support and disrupt chology researcher.sbeganro study how the purpose workmo.fivation studies to date have examined the
formance) may yidd higher levels of continuance
expression of the self-determination motive. SDT of task performance affects the goals that an indi- effects of goal orientation states (induced through
of goal commitment and stronger self-regulatory
also proposes that the motive for self-determination vidual adopts and the self-regulatory processes that instructions or context) on motivation and perfor-
processes than goals formulated to maximize plea-
may be satisfied in some conditions that include mance. Quantitative and qualitative reviews of the
sure ~nd sustained through affective goal commit- are used to attain the goal.
exrrinsic rewards or feedback. Specifically, SDT Nicholls (1984) and Dweck (1986; Dweck & goal orientation research literature are provided by
ment (e.g.: Iinish assigned work on a team project
organizes extrinsic and intrinsic motivation condi- Leggett, 1988) articulated early goal orientation Carr, DeShon, and Dobbins (2001), Day, Yeo, and
because it is interesting and will bring about feelings
tions along a continuum. At the lowest level on the perspectives in the context of understanding why Radosevich (2003), Payne et al. (2007), Rawsthorne
of competence).
continuum is a motivation, a condition in which children who adopted a similar goal often showed and Elliot (1999), and Utman (1997). In general,
there are no intrinsic or extrinsic prompts or ami- different patterns of goal striving, learning, and per- these reviews provide support for the facilitative
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
butions for action. The next level is external regula- formance (beyond the effects of cognitive abilities). effect of learning goal orientation on goal setting,
The notion that goals may be adopted for intrin-
tion, or the classic condition in which individuals According to Nicholls (1984) and Dweck (1986), self-regulatory activities, learning, and performance.
sic and/or extrinsic purposes and, in turn, affect goal
perceive that the reason for their behavior is due children who hold a learning or task goal orientation In contrast, many, but not all, studies find a sig-
pursuit is well-established in psychology, and serves
solely to obtain the external reward. Beyond that, also maintain a self-referenced conception of ability nificant negative relationship between performance-
as the foundation for theory and research in intrin-
however, SDT proposes another form of extrinsic (Le., focus on how much had been learned) and tend prove or performance-avoid goal orientation, goal
sic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to psy-
motivation called introjected regulation. In this to view performance improvement and greater task striving, and performance. Findings with respect to
chological processes involved in task performance
form of extrinsic motivation there is some self-de- mastery as positive outcomes. In contrast, individu- the impact of performance-prove goal orientation
for the purpose of enjoyment and interest; that is,
termination and autonomy, as the individual per- als who hold an ego or performance goal orientation are inconsistent. Building on these findings, cur-
tasks performed for their own sake. In contrast,
forms in order to satisfy self-worth contingencies, are proposed to regard task performance as a means rent research has broadened to examine the impact
extrinsic motivation typically refers to processes
such as wanting to look competent to others. A yet to an end, and to view performance useful only of goal orientation in leadership (e.g., Whitford
involved in task performance for the attainment of
more self-determining form of extrinsic motivation insofar as it provides a demonstration of one's abil- & Moss, 2009), in training (e.g., Chiaburu &
Outcomes from others or the environment (extrinsic
occurs in what Deci refers to as identified regula- ity to others. These differences in goal orientation, Marinova, 2005; Colquitt & Simmering, 1998;
incentives). Theory and research on intrinsic moti-
tion contexts, in which the individual performs an in turn, affect the quality of goal-striving strategies Cox & Beier, 2009), and job search (e.g., Creed,
vation are arguably the most well-known topic in
activity because he or she identifies with its value or used to accomplish the goal, persistence following King, Hood, & McKenzie, 2009; Van Hooft &
the domain linking purpose and motivation.
meaning. The most self-determining form of extrin- failure or setbacks, and learning and performance. Noordzij, 2009). Recently, some researchers have
Research on intrinsic motivation builds upon
sic motivation is posited to occur in integrated Similar to early research in intrinsic motiva- proposed integrative formulations that place goal
theories which assume that all people possess motives
regulation, when an individual performs an activity tion, the applicability of goal orientation formula- orientation processes within broader self-regulation
for autonomy, competence, and COntrol. Theories
because it has become part of the individual's sense tions to work settings was not readily apparent, and frameworks (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Yeo, Loft,
of intrinsic motivation hold that individuals are
of self. At the top level of the continuum is intrinsic early interest among work motivation researchers Xiao, & Kiewitz, 2009).
intrinsically motivated when they attribute the
motivation, in which the individual performs the was limited (see Kanfer, 1989). However, with the
cause of their actions to be self-determined, rather
activity for its own sake and enjoyment. development of two adult measures of individual Motivational Orientation: Trait
than determined by external forces (that do not per-
In contrast to previous formulations, the SDT differences in goal orientation in the late 1990s Conceptualizations
mit satisfaction of autonomy or control motives).
framework is more relevant to the workplace, where (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; DeShon & In contrast to goal orientation at the state level,
Individuals who attribute their behavior to external
extrinsic reward contingencies and feedback are com- Gillespie, 2005; VandeWalle, 1997), investigations stable individual differences in goal and motiva-
causes are said to be extrinsically motivated.
monplace. Further, the mapping of attributions for of goal orientation in the work motivation domain tional orientation at the trait level operate over a
Studies by Deci, Lepper, and their colleagues
action along a single regularion continuum provides grew dramatically. In the development of adult longer timescale. Individuals who are high in trait
during the 1970s and 1980s (see Kanfer, 1990)
a useful framework for systematic investigation of goal orientation measures, Button et al. (1996) and learning goal orientation, for example, are not only
showed that the provision of extrinsic rewards
differences in self-regulatory activiries as a function VandeWalle (1997) showed that goal orientation was more likely to adopt a learning goal orientation
(e.g., money) undermined intrinsic motivation, and
regulation level. As a consequence, research using best understood as a multidimensional construct, to specific tasks, but also to show higher levels of
was associated with reduced task motivation and task
SDT has begun to attract greater attention among and could be fruitfully applied to understanding self-regulatory skill in overcoming obstacles to goal
persistence. Early theories (Cognitive Evaluation
work motivation researchers (e.g., Gagne & Deci, work motivation in the work setting. Button et a1. attainment. That is, goal and motivation orienta-
Theory; Deci, 1975) proposed that the detrimental
2005; Gagne & Forest, 2008). (1996) developed a two-dimensional adult measure
influence of extrinsic events on intrinsic motivation tion traits can be expected to exert cross-level effects
depended on the extent to which the individual per- ofgoal orientation based upon Dweck's formulation; at multiple points in motivational processing. Elliot
Goal Orientation Formulations VandeWalle (1997) developed a three-dimensional and McGregor (2001) and Elliot and Thrash (2001)
ceived the event as controlling (vs. informational).
Early intrinsic motivation research focused on the measure that further distinguished the performance provide summary reviews of findings with respect
This explanation subsequently focused research
effecr of perceived extrinsic control on task motiva- goal dimension into two dimensions-performance to the effects of achievement and avoidance moti-
on the conditions under which extrinsic events,
tion and behavior, but did not examine how the per- goal orientation directed to proving one's compe- vational orientations on goals and self-regulatory
such as rewards and feedback, were interpreted as
ceived purpose for performance influenced specific tencies and gaining positive judgments from others processes.
WORK MOTIVATION
KANFFJ>
 During the past two decades, interest in
trait-level goal and motivational orientation has
burgeoned. Different programs of research in neu-
robiology, personality and social psychology, and
motivation provide convergent evidence for two
trait orientations and their differential impacts
on motivational processing, learning, and perfor-
mance. Formulations by Elliot and Harackiewicz
(1996), Higgins (1998), and Kanfer and Heggestad
(1997) posit that individuals who score high on
what is variously described as approach motivation
(Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), promotion regula-
tory focus (Higgins, 1998), or performance mastery
orientation (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997) engage in
more effective learning, meta-cognitive, and self-
regulatory activities during goal adoption and goal
striving than persons who score high in avoidance
motivation (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Kanfer
& Heggestad, 1997), prevention regulatory focus
(Higgins, 1998), or performance-avoid goal ori-
entation (VandeWalle, 1997). These motivational
orientations are further consistent with evidence
from neurobiology theory and research on the
existence of two general neurobehavioral systems:
a behavioral activation system (BAS) sensitive to
rewards and characterized by positive emotion and
approach; and a behavioral inhibition system (BIS)
sensitive to punishment and characterized by nega-
tive emotion and inhibition.
Although the antecedents, mechanisms, and
consequences studied in different approaches vary,
findings across these research paradigms provide
convergent empirical evidence for the positive influ-
ence of approach-related goal and motivational ori-
entation on learning and performance. However,
findings on the deleterious impact of avoidance-
related goal and motivational orientations on learn-
ing and performance are less uniform and appear
to depend on the nature of the task as well as the
motivation and performance outcomes studied. In
the organizational domain, Diefendorff & Mehta
(2007) found that workplace deviance measures
were negatively related to approach motivation traits,
but positively related to avoidance motivation traits.
Similarly, Heimerdinger and Hinsz (2008) found
that avoidance motivation was negatively related to
performance in an idea-generation task.
Summary
Work motivation researchers have taken advan-
tage of recent advances in other areas of psychology
to develop new theories and to conduct research
directed toward understanding the impact of
WORK MOTIVATION
implicit motives and non-conscious processes on
explicit goal setting and self-regulation processes.
Two issues currently hinder further advances in
these areas. First, the development of reliable and
valid measures of individual differences in implicit
motives is still in the early stages. Second, mOSt
research to date has looked at the influence of non-
conscious processes on behaviors and motivational
mechanisms as they occur in controlled settings
using carefully designed tasks. Research is needed
to determine whether these findings scale up to
affect goal choice and behavior in work settings.
Questions about the generalizability of findings to
the workplace include, but are not limited to, under-
standing when non-conscious processes are most
likely to affect behavior, the role of non-conscious
affect-driven processes in goal commitment and
goal shielding, and the extent to which individu-
als are able to effectively modulate non-conscious
tendencies that disrupt progress toward goal attain-
ment (e.g., to control feelings of fatigue in order to
complete a project). During the past decade, work
motivation researchers have worked on both these
issues. Early findings suggest that investigation of
implicit motives and non-conscious processes offers
great promise in further clarifying the role of per-
sonality and affect in work motivation and perfor-
mance outcomes.
Goals remain the focal point for most work
motivation theorizing and research. But the focus
of goal-related research has changed. Investigations
of how specific attributes of the goal affect self-
regulation and performance have declined as work
motivation researchers have adopted a more holistic
and person-centered view of goals. New person-
centered perspectives emphasize the impact of pur-
pose on how information is processed (mind-sets
associated with selecting a goal and accomplishing
a goal) and the meta-cognitive strategies used in
self-regulatory activities in goal pursuit. With the
exception of self-efficacy, theory and research on
self-regulatory processes that occur during goal pur-
suit have also shifted. In contrast to earlier research
focused on the impact of goal attributes on specific
self-regulatory components (such as performance
monitoring), recent studies have focused on the
relationship between goal orientation and self-regu-
latory strategies and patterns during goal pursuit.
Work motivation research has also begun to
focus on abiding and difficult questions about the
impact of goal dynamics on motivational processes
and performance. In many instances, the impetUS
for research on these questions comes from the
real-world work setting. In the workplace, individu- alone and in different combinations. Although the
als are often assigned more than one task, each with development of the five-factor model has helped
unique task demands, goals, and time lines for com- to organize research on the influence of person-
pletion. Understanding how individuals allocate ality traits on work motivation, there have been
resources and regulate their activities across tasks is few attempts to systematize research on the effects
likely to yield knowledge that can be used in work of situation and context on work motivation (see
design. Another important area in goal dynamics Johns, 2006; Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). And
pertains to the personal arid siroationalfactors that neither the. fiv.ed3.£tor model nor situational frame-
contribute to goal revision, the resolution of goal works address motivation issues related to time.
conflicts, and goal abandonment. From a practical Recently, Kanfer et al. (2008) proposed a broad
perspective, research is needed to understand differ- "three C's" meta-heuristic scheme for organizing the
ent ways that individuals cope with goal conflicts relevant determinants of work motivation. A non-
and the distinct motivational orientation states and exhaustive list ofdeterminants in the content, context,
self-regulatory patterns associated with goal revision and change categories is provided in Table 14.1.
compared to goal abandonment. Content determinants include variables related
to interindividual differences, such as knowledge,
Determinants of Motivation: Content, skills, abilities, personality traits, motives, affective
Context, and Change tendencies, interests, and values. Context determi-
Organizations and the employees who work in nants refer to exogenous (external to the individual)
them often turn to work motivation researchers for features of the action setting. Context variables may
evidence-based knowledge about the personal and be further organized into features of the immedi-
situational characteristics that most influence work ate work setting (e.g., supervision, work demands),
motivation and the ways in which this influence features associated with the broader socio-technical
occurs. Not surprisingly, a large portion of theory work context (e.g., organizational policies, orga-
and research in work motivation pertains to the nizational climate), variables related to the indi-
influence of personal attributes and environmental vidual's non-work demands and activities (e.g.,
conditions on motivation, learning, and perfor- care-giving demands), and variables related to the
mance. Over the years a multitude of personal char- broader sociocultural and economic environment
acteristics and situational factors have been studied, (e.g., cultural norms, values, unemployment rate).
Table 14.1 Work Motivation Determinants Organized by Content, Context, and Change Domain
COntent (Interindividual) Influences on Work Motivation
Cognitive abilities Personality and motivational traits
Knowledge and skills Affective/implicit and explicit motives
Interests Values
Beliefs, attitudes Self-concepts
Context Influences on Work Motivation
Culture (societal) Off-job demands and constraints
Organizational and team culture/climate Organizarional practices and policies
~dership/ social relations Work role and job demands/design
Change-Related Influences on Work Motivation
~ganizational change Adult development (within-person change)
~processes Self-regulatory activities
~k role/job redesign Job experience/learning
KANFER
The third C refers to change; that is, factors associ-
ated with the temporal dimension. Temporal influ-
ences on work motivation may come into play in
several ways. In terms of motivational processes
per se, time-sensitive factors, such as fatigue, may
influence goal pursuit and the willingness to revise
one's goal. Alternatively, time-sensitive factors, such
as the development of knowledge and skills as a
result of job performance, may affect work motiva-
tion by altering perceived p"e!~on-task or person-job
fit. Time also plays a role in distinguishing among
employees. Changes in cognitive abilities, motives,
and interests over the life course can affect work
motivation through their impact on self-efficacy,
the utility of performance for attaining valued out-
comes, and age-related changes in the utility of
high levels of cognitive and physical effort (Kanfer,
1987). Figure 14.2 displays a schematic of the "three
C's" and their relationship to motivation processes.
In the remainder of this section, I describe notable
advances in each determinant class.
Content Influences: Personal Attributes
and Traits
In 1990, with the exception of research in
achievement motivation, there was relatively little
systematic research on the influence of personality
traits on work motivation and behavior (see Kanfer,
1990). A major reason for this state of affairs was
the absence of a conceptually sound structure for
organizing the multitude of personality traits that
.,..--eoals
Goals Striving/Self-Regulation
Behavior/Performance
Figure 14.2 A Static Representation of the "Three C's" model of work morivarion.
WORK MOTIVATION
47°
had been studied (see Guion & Gottier, 1965). The
introduction of the five-factor model (FFM) of per-
sonality suucture into I/O psychology in the early
1990s provided a much-needed solution [0 this
problem, and launched a prolific period of research
on the impact of personality traits on motivation
and performance (see Judge & Hies, 2002, and
Kanfer & Kantrowitz, 2002, for reviews).
Over the past two decades, research on personal
determinants of work morivation has also broad-
ened beyond the study of the broad five personality
traits. Recent studies have focused on rraits not well-
specified in the FFM, including affective traits (e.g.,
negative and positive affecrivity), motivational traits
(e.g., action orientation), and self-related traits (e.g.,
core self-evaluations, personal iniriative). To further
organize the broad array ofperson attributes currently
under investigation in work motivation, I use a mod-
ified version of the framework originally proposed by
Thorndike in 1947 for the purpose of categorizing
different types of personal influences on test perfor-
mance. The adapted meta-organizing framework for
personal attributes is shown in Figure 14.3.
Consistent with the Thorndike scheme, per-
sonal attributes are classified on the basis of their
permanence (i.e., lasting or temporary) and scope
(i.e., general or specific). For present purposes, I
classify individual differences in cognitive abili-
ties, knowledge, and skills, and non-ability traits,
such as the FFM personality traits, as lasting influ-
ences on motivation and action. These personal
Attribute Permanence
Temporary
Fatigue
Suess
Attribute Scope
I
Specific Regularory Focus
Figure 14.3 An Organizing Framework for Personal Amibutes That Influence Work Motivation (Adapted from Thorndike) and
Examples of Personal Amibures
characteristics are not posited [0 vary appreciably
across contexrs (although their expression may vary
across contexts) or time, and are generally viewed as
exerting an indirect or distal influence on motivation
through their effects on goals. Permanent personal
arrtibutes that are also general include most person-
ality traits, such as conscientiousness. Lasting but
specific personal attributes, such as job knowledge,
exert their influence on motivation in a narrower
range of contexts. In contrast to lasting and gen-
eral personal attributes, lasting but specific personal
characteristics, such as interests, are likely to affect
motivation through their impact on select variables,
such as goal commitment and self-efficacy.
Transient personal attributes refer to personal
influences that occur as a consequence of the per-
son-situation interaction. These personal character-
istics contribute to motivation by creating what is
often referred to as a motivational state. Biologically
based personal attributes, such as fatigue and stress,
are examples of general (pervasive) but tempo-
rary personal attributes that can affect motivation
through their impact on resource availability. In
COntrast, transient and context-specific personal
~ttributes, such as regulatory focus or anger, are
hkely to influence motivation through their effect
on self-regulation processes.
The organization of personal influences on
motivation using Thorndike's (1947) classification
scheme is generally consistent with findings across
disparate research literatures that show an indirect
~nfluence of general personal attributes and a direct
Influence of transient personal attributes on moti-
vational processes. To date, most work motivation
Cognitive Abilities
Personaliry Traits
- . "- -..::.
'~-
Job Knowledge & Skills
Vocational Interests
research has focused on general and lasting attri-
butes (such as personality traits) and transient and
specific personal characteristics (such as anger).
PERSONALITY TRAITS
In contrast to earlier reviews of the relationship
between personality traits and performance that did
not benefit from an empirically derived organiza-
tion of the personality trait domain (e.g., Guion
& Gottier, 1965), the Barrick and Mount (1991)
meta-analysis of personality trait-performance rela-
tions using the FFM trait scheme revealed signifi-
cant relationships between individual differences in
conscientiousness and neuroticism and diverse mea-
sures of performance. Specifically, conscientiousness
showed a positive relationship to performance, while
neuroticism showed a negative relationship to per-
formance. Subsequent studies on personality-per-
formance relations (see Hurtz & Donovan, 2000)
provide further support for the predictive validities
of these broad personality traits on performance.
In an attempt [0 explain these observed relations,
Kanfer (1992) suggested that personality traits influ-
ence performance through their effects on motiva-
tional processes. Empirical support for this norion
was obtained in studies by Barrick et al. (1993) and
Barrick, Stewart, and Piorrowski (2002), in which
motivational variables were found to mediate the trait-
performance relationship, and in a study by Chen,
Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen (2000), which found
that the impact of trait variables on performance
was mediated by goals and self-efficacy. Results of a
later meta-analysis by Judge and Hies (2002), inves-
tigating the relationship between personality traits
KANFER 47 1
and motivational variables (e.g., goal level) further
indicated the robustness of the relationship between
two personality naits (conscientiousness and neuroti-
cism) and motivation using criterion variables from
three different work motivation theories. Although
research investigating the influence of the FFM nait
dimensions on motivation and performance remains
popular, there have also been more smdies investigat-
ing select naits that are not well-represented in the
five-fac[Or structure of personality, such as motiva-
tional naits (Kanfer & -Heggestad, 1997), core-self-
evaluations Oudge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), and
personal initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001; Frese, Kring,
Soose, & Zempel, 1996).
The Thorndike meta-organizational scheme
implies that general and lasting personal attributes
(personality and other non-ability traits such as
interests) operate in a similar manner [0 affect work
motivation. However, [0 date, most work motiva-
tion research on personality traits has been smdied
in isolation from smdies that examine other impor-
tant general and lasting personal attributes, such as
individual differences in cognitive abilities, voca-
tional interests, or values. Ackerman (1997) and
Lubinski (2000) have suggested that an integra-
tion of historically disparate streams of research in
cognitive abilities, personality, vocational interests,
knowledge, and values can improve our understand-
ing and prediction of motivation and performance.
These researchers argue that commonalities among
general and lasting personal attributes arise as a con-
sequence of the common biological influences and
environmental affordances that promote the tan-
dem development of individual differences in cog-
nitive and non-cognitive naits over the life course.
In developed countries, for example, individual dif-
ferences in cognitive abilities are rypically assessed
prior [0 entry into elementary school and are used
[0 place students in different learning environments
that are considered optimal for the child's aptimdes.
These environments directly impact the level and
type of intellecmal and social challenges the child
experiences in the school setting. It is not unreason-
able [0 expect that the interaction of the individual's
characteristics and his or her school environment, in
mrn, influences later work interests, work values, as
well as the work opportunities available [0 the indi-
vidual during the transition [0 adult employment.
From a structural perspective, the association of
different general and lasting personal characteristics
into broad constellations or complexes may be con-
cepmalized hierarchically, with basic dimensions of
cognition, temperament, and motives often showing
47
2
I WORK MOTIVATION
snong associations with the development of seleCt
personality naits, vocational interests, and even
work values. Research that uses theory-driven inte-
grations of related personal attributes [0 smdy their
effects on motivation and performance encourages
the development of more parsimonious and practi-
cally useful approaches [0 understanding personal
influences on motivation and performance.
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE MOTIVES
One complex of general and lasting personal
attributes that continues [0 command attention in
the work motivation literature pertains [0 universal
motives for justice. Similar [0 naits, interests, and
values, universal motives for justice reflect outcome
preferences that remain relatively stable across situa-
tions and the life course, even if the particular con-
cepmalization of justice may be culmre-specific. In
contrast [0 personality traits, however, individuals
do not appreciably differ in strength for satisfaction
of justice motives. Rather, justice motives activate
motivational processes as a consequence of the
person-simation transaction. In this sense, although
justice motives are lasting and general, the influence
of the motive on motivation and action occurs only
when the individual perceives a threat [0 motive
satisfaction.
Early theories of organizational justice grew out
of equity and exchange formulations (e.g., Adams,
1965). According [0 equity theories, simations that
an individual perceives [0 be unfair or unjust create
heightened psychological tension. Motivation arises
from the desire [0 reduce the psychological tension,
though the way that individuals accomplish this
reduction in tension may be through changes in
cognition rather than changes in behavior. Theory
and research on organizational justice through the
1980s focused largely on delineating the motiva-
tional pathways by which perceptions of procedural
injustice or unfairness influenced work behavior
(see Greenberg & Cropanzano, 1999).
Over the past two decades, theories of organi-
zational justice have mamred, and research has
expanded [0 examine rhe determinants and conse-
quences of other forms of justice, including interac-
tional justice, relational justice, and informational
justice. As with research on procedural justice,
research on relational and informational forms
of justice has focused primarily on the contextual
feamres that elicit perceptions of injustice a~d
subsequent behavior change. In a comprehenSive
meta-analysis of justice research findings between
1975 and 1999, Colquitt et al. (2001) found thaI
both distributive and procedural forms of justice
were positively related [0 motivational outcomes,
such as job commitment and task performance.
In the past few years, research on the impact
of motive violations has declined as attention has
shifted [0 examining impact of personal character-
istics on justice perceptions. Smdies by Truxillo,
Bauer, Campion, and Paronto' (200b) and Shi, Lin,
Wang, and Wang (2009), for example, examined the
relationship between the FFM personality traits and
justice perceptions in the context of personnel selec-
tion and among incumbent employees, respectively.
Both smdies found a positive relationship between
agreeableness and organizational justice percep-
tions, and a negative relationship between neuroti-
cism and organizational justice perceptions. From a
motivational perspective, these results suggest that
violations of justice motives in the workplace may
be more salient to individuals high in neuroticism
than individuals low in neuroticism. To date, how-
ever, there has been little attention [0 the impact
of fairness perceptions on motivational orientation
and self-regulatory activities used for goal accom-
plishment. Studies are also needed [0 illuminate the
relationship between different forms of perceived
injustice and associated patterns of motivation and
behavior over time.
Summary
Research on the influence of personal character-
istics on work motivation has increased dramatically
over the past two decades. This increase is due largely
to the introduction of the FFM of personality into
the organizational domain. Using this scheme, work
motivation researchers have been able [0 accumu-
late research findings and obtain consistent evidence
for the relationship between conscientiousness and
neuroticism naits and motivational variables and
OUtcomes. Emerging programs of research on spe-
cific variables, such as personal initiative, reflect a
further maturation of this portion of the field, as
researchers attempt to identif}r and smdy the impact
of key behavioral tendencies for work motivation.
Consistent with recommendations by Ackerman
(1996, 1997) and Lubinski (2000), programs of
research by Judge and his colleagues on core self-
evaluations (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge &
Hurst, 2007) and Kanfer and Ackerman and their
colleagues (e.g., Kanfer, Ackerman, & Heggestad,
1996; Kanfer, Wolf, Kantrowitz, & Ackerman,
2009) have also focused on delineating the relation-
ship between nait complexes, motivation processes,
and performance.
Nonetheless, there are still a number of impor-
tant gaps in our knowledge. Theory and research on
the impact of personal attributes in the general but
temporary category, including health, stress, and
fatigue variables, have received substantial research
:utention in the occupational health literature, but
have yet to be incorporated into mainsneam work
on motivation': Similarly, there is also surprisingly
little research directed toward the influence of
individual differences in affect on motivation and
performance. Seo, Feldman-Barrett, and Bartunek
(2004) proposed an integrative model for the role
of affective experience in work motivation, using
the concept of "core affective experience" [0 capture
the impact of affective experiences on goal choice
and goal commitment. In addition, there has been
little attention to identif}ring the distinct motiva-
tional signamres' of discrete emotions (Kanfer &
Stubblebine, 2008). Research [0 identif}r the goal
characteristics and self-regulatory snategies that are
uniquely associated with different emotions is likely
[0 be helpful to supervisors in the services sec[Or.
It may also be, for example, that individual differ-
ences in affective tendencies influence not only the
experience of an emotion, but also the goals that are
formed in response to the emotion and the effec-
tiveness of seif-regula[Ory activities to modulate
the emotion. Research to investigate the impact of
specific affective person attributes, such as hostil-
ity, on emotion and motivation is another area that
has potentially important theoretica:l and practical
implications.
Contextual Influences on Motivation
Context refers [0 the milieu in which work
motivation takes place, and may be described in a
multitude of ways. At the simplest level, context
may be distinguished in terms of function, such as
skill acquisition, job search, or teamwork. Although
such an organizing scheme is useful for noting the
importance of motivation across the range of orga-
nizational activities, it does not capture the com-
plex relationships among simational variables or the
communalities and distincti-~ns among contextual
variables across settings.
Most work motivation theory and research over
the past 50 years have focused on the impact ofvari-
ables active in the immediate performance setting,
such as rewards, decision latitude, social interactions,
and task variety (see Hackman & Oldham, 1976;
Karasek, 1979, 1989). Although research findings
in these perspectives often show significant relation-
ships between job demands and work conditions
KANFER 473
 with work motivation, several factors have con-
tributed to a general decline in scientific study of
context using these models. First, researchers have
identified several conceptual and methodological
problems with formulations that focus primarily on
job task variables. In addition, the changing nature
of work has shifted anention to the question of
whether and how other layers of context, such as
societal culture, influence ~ork motivation (e.g., see
Gelfand et al., 2007).
In a related vein, the introduction ofsocial, infor-
mation-processing- (SIP) approaches by Salancik
and Pfeffer (1978) and Lord and Foti (1986)
encouraged new ways of thinking about context
and its effects on work motivation. Specifically,
these researchers argued that individuals actively
construct perceptions of the work context based on
social cues in the environment. These perceptions
are then organized and stored in schemas that, once
developed, tend to promote the neglect of informa-
'I · ; tion that is inconsistent with the existing schema
(Lord & Foti, 1986). Although SIP models have
i l
not anracted a great deal of anention among work
"
i
motivation researchers, the SIP perspective differs
l'
from job-based formulations in several important
ways for work motivation. First, SIP approaches
formally recognize the role of pre-conscious pro-
cesses that direct anention to particular features of
the work environment. Contemporary research in
non-conscious motivation processes expand upon
this notion. Second, building on advances in cog-
nitive, information-processing psychology through
the 1980s, Lord and his colleagues showed how fea-
tures ofwork were mentally represented in cognitive
schemas, and the impact of schemas for decision
making. In modern work motivation research, non-
conscious schemas contribute to the development
of automaticity, as well to problems in behavior
change. Third, SIP approaches refocus anention to
the role that interpersonal relations play in percep-
tions of the workplace and job context. In the mod-
ern work motivation theory, the impact of social
cues on work motivation has moved to investiga-
tion of the influence that an individual's coworker
relations, social network, and social capital play in
motivational outcomes, such as organizational citi-
zenship behavior (e.g., Bowler & Brass, 2006) and
turnover (Randel & Ranft, 2007).
As the physical and psychological context for job
performance broadens (e.g., coffee shop meetings;
teamwork), organizational researchers have begun
to study context influences from a variety of levels,
ranging from the impact of features associated with
WORK MOTIVATION
474
the immediate work environment to the impact of
organizational and national ·cultures on expeCta-
tions and norms for work behavior. One potentially
useful heuristic for thinking about different levels
of context is to use the analogy of an onion. Like
an onion, people perform work in a context that
is multilayered, with each layer influencing other
layers. With the individual at the center, variables
that capture features of the immediate work setting,
such as task demands and social relations, can be
represented as the layer that is most proximal to the
individual, yet fully embedded in the broader orga-
nization, represented as the next layer of the onion.
Salient socio-technical features of the organization
context that may exert direct or indirect effects on
the individual include, for example, the unique
culture, climate, and norms of the organization. In
turn, organizations are embedded in societies and
cultures that may also be distinguished in terIns of
characteristics such as norms, values, and orienta-
tions with respect to social relations and power.
Similar to an onion, changes at any layer may
exert direct and lagged impact on other layers and
the individual. The introduction of new produc-
tion technology, such as the desktop computer in
the 1980s, for example, can rapidly change the
individual's context of work within a work unit and
the schedule of intrinsic rewards associated with
performance of reconfigured jobs. Perhaps the most
important point in using the onion analogy is that
changes at different levels of context rarely occur in
isolation. Features of the workplace, compensation,
the organization, leadership, and societal norms for
how and when non-work family and leisure activi-
ties should occur often covary in ways that create
distinct, complex situation constellations that dis-
tinguish occupational families. For example, knowl-
edge work, whether it be directed toward product
design, software development, or teaching, is often
performed in settings characterized by high levels
of decision latitude, task interdependence, non-
contingent pay structures, non-hazardous work
conditions, and the use of reward structures that
reinforce outcomes (e.g., new product develop-
ment, teamwork) rather than single behaviors (e.g.,
attendance). Further, these features of work are
often associated with the use of a management sryle
and an organizational culture and climate that differ
significantly from the style and culture that exists in
production work. Even more broadly, organizations
that produce knowledge, rather than products, tend
to grow best in stable economic mediums and in
developed or rapidly developing countries.
Managing the context in which work is per-
formed in order to promote work motivation and
positive work anitudes is arguably the principal task
of most supervisors and unit leaders. Unfortunately,
however, there is currently no theory of situations
to guide managers or work motivation research-
ers in systemizing and aggregating findings about
the effects of con"text on motivation Oohns,. 2006).
Meyer and his colleagues (Meyer & Dalal, 2009;
Meyer, Dalal, & Bonaccio, 2009; Meyer, Dalal, &
Hermida, 2010) have recently proposed a formula-
tion that organizes features of the work sening using
rhe psychological concept of "situational strength."
Based in part on Mischel's (1968) notion of situ-
ational strength, Meyer et al. (20 1~ define situa-
tional strength as "implicit or explicit cues provided
by external entities regarding the desirability of
potential behaviors" (p. 122). According to Meyer
et al. (2010), the overall strength of a work situation
is comprised of strength in four dimensions: clarity,
consistency, consequences, and constraints. Clarity
refers to the extent to which attributes of the work-
place and social cues create a clear understanding
of work role and job responsibilities. Consistency
refers to the extent that workplace anributes and
social cues create perceptions of the job as compris-
ing compatible tasks and roles. Constraints refer to
the extent to which physical, technical, and social
atttibutes of the job place limits on the influence
of an individual's decisions and behaviors. The con-
sequences dimension refers to the extent to which
contextual variables affect the significance of action
for self, coworkers, the unit, and the organization.
Meyer et al. (2009) provide initial evidence for
the feasibility of this framework in an investigation
of the moderating role that occupation-level con-
straints and consequences have on the relationship
between conscientiousness and job performance.
Concordant with their theory, Meyer et al. (2009)
found that the conscientiousness-performance rela-
tion was stronger in occupations characterized by
low levels of constraint on the consequences and
constraint dimensions than those with higher levels
on these dimensions. The utility of this approach
for organizing the impact of various contextual
variables appears promising, but requires further
empirical testing. In particular, research to iden-
tify the differential impact of situational strength
dimensions on self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation
is likely to be quite useful for building a conceptual
bridge between context and motivation.
Both older and newer approaches to contextual
influences on work motivation hold that the impact
of exogenous variables on work motivation obtains
as a consequence of how features of the environment
are perceived and interpreted by the individual. An
important next step in this area will be to illuminate
the' effects of personal attributes, time and variable
constellations on the perception and interpretation
of work milieu, and subsequent influences on goal
cholceand p pursuit. It may well be, for exam-
ple, that the impact of situational variables on work
motivation changes over time as a function of the
individual's goals. Among novice emergency medical
technicians (EMTs), for example, strong situations
that provide detailed guides for what to do and pay
anention to while trying to stabilize a patient for hos-
pital transfer are likely to enhance effective resource
allocations and performance. Among experienced
EMTs, however, strong situations may diminish
work motivation (although not job performance) for
precisely the same reason; namely, perceived inflex-
ibility in how performance is enacted and reduced
opportunity for self-determination. How different
layers of context influence situational strength, and
the conditions in which strength facilitates or dimin-
ishes work motivation, are important questions for
future research in this area.
CONTEXT-GROUNDED MOTIVATION RESEARCH
Motivation is always studied in context, but over
the past few decades, changes in the nature of work
and the workforce have focused anention on the
role of motivation in two specific contexts: namely,
training and teams. The widespread integration of
self-regulation perspectives in training theory and
research and the development of more sophisticated
models of learning have revitalized motivation
research in this context (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002,
2008; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998;
Sitzmann, Bell, Kraiger, & Kanar, 2009). In contrast
to older models of learning that assume stability in
motivation across the course of training, contem-
porary models propose more dynamic conceptions
of motivation during training. Similarly, the exten-
sion of self-regulation to the study of team processes
has spurred theoty and'research on the influence of
teams and team dynamics on individual motiva-
tion and performance in the team context. Recent
advances in these situations are highlighted below.
MOTIVATION IN TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
There is a long history of theoty and research
on the role of motivation in job skill training and
development (Goldstein, 1993), Prior to the laner
part of the twentieth century, however, training and
KANFER 475
development research focused largely on the impact
of training design characteristics (e.g., feedback,
modeling) on performance of new job entrants
engaged in job-specific skill training, such as typ-
ing or operating a printing ptess. Little arrention
was paid to individual differences in motivation to
learn, perform, and transfer training outcomes or
to motivational processes as they unfolded during
training (see Noe, 1986).
Over the past four decades, howevet, there has
been a steady increase in the role that motivation
plays in training and develop-ment. In the current
work world, training is no longer constrained to the
front end of cateers and jobs, but rather is an activ-
ity that can be expected to occur with regularity
across the career course. In some occupational sec-
tors, such as IT and health care, new technologies
are driving major changes in the skill sets required
for maintaining a high level ofjob performance over
time. For individuals who are increasingly likely
to spend five or more decades in the labor work-
force, lifelong learning is becoming a prerequisite
for career success and employability. In the research
arena, investigations of goal serring and self-regu-
lation in learning and training environments have
repeatedly shown the importance of motivational
processing in complex skill acquisition (e.g., Kanfer
& Ackerman, 1989). Given these trends, it is not at
all surprising that theory and research on the role of
motivation in contemporary training contexts have
burgeoned (Kozlowski & Salas, 2010).
One area of great interest to organizations con-
cerned with continuous learning pertains to under-
standing of what motivates individuals to enroll in
development activities. The decision to participate
in skill training represents the first and perhaps most
critical step in training, since failure to participate
makes the question of motivation during learning
and motivation for transfer of training moor. Meta-
analytic findings by Colquirr et al. (2000) indicate
that individual differences in select traits, such as
locus of control, play an important role in motiva-
tion for training. Findings by Baldwin, Magjuka, and
Loher (1991), Guerrero and Sire (2001), and others
(see Mathieu & Martineau, 1997) also indicate that
employees who are allowed to decide whether they
participate in organizationally sponsored or sup-
ported training show higher levels of motivation for
training (as reflected in training commitment, allo-
cation of time and effort toward class arrendance,
time spent in on-task learning) than employees who
are not allowed to participate in the enrollment deci-
sion. These findings are consistent with motivation
WORK MOTIVATION
theories that emphasize self-determination and par-
ticipatory decision making. In terms of voluntary
training participation, Hurtz and Williams (2009)
found that perceived availability of development
activities and high learning goal orientation exerted
significant positive effects on training participation.
However, factors that motivate the decision to
enroll in training may be quite different from factors
that motivate sustained learning over the duration
of training (Beier & Kanfer, 2009). A large numbet
of studies in educational and social/personality psy-
chology, as well as in industrial and organizational
psychology, have examined self-regulatory pro-
cesses during learning and skill acquisition (Elliot,
2008; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Zimmerman &
Schunk, 2001). Findings from these complemen-
tary streams of research indicate the importance of
self-efficacy and active self-regulation of emotion
and behavior during learning for positive learning
outcomes. Many studies also show that performance
goal orientation exerts a negative effect on learning
outcomes, though the mechanisms by which this
negative effect occurs is still not well undersrood
(DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Payne et al., 2007).
Two current streams of research in training, by
Frese and his colleagues and Bell and Kozlowski and
their colleagues, highlight the role of motivation in
modern training environments. In the early 1990s,
Frese and Zapf (1994) suggested that giving train-
ees the opportunity to make errors and encouraging
trainees to learn from their errors during train-
ing may improve learning outcomes. In contrast
to training approaches that focus on error avoid-
ance, error management training (EMT) assumes
that errors are unavoidable in active learning and
that total elimination of errors may be difficult
to achieve in complex tasks. From a motivational
perspective, the EMT-active learning approach is
posited to improve learning in part by enhancing
task engagement. As Keith and Frese (2005) noted,
however, the positive effects of EMT on perfor-
mance are moderated by the extent to which the
task and training environment provide clear, unam-
biguous feedback. Keith and Frese (2005) examined
the motivational influence of EMT compared with
error avoidant training approaches using a sample
of college students learning to use the PowerPoint
2000 computer program. Mter an introduction co
the program, participants were randomly assigned
to one of three conditions: (a) error avoidant rrain-
ing, (b) error management training, or (c) error
management plus meta-cognitive instruction. The
results provided support for the proposed mediaring
role of emotion regulation and meta-cogmtlve
activities in the effects of training condition on per-
formance. Consistent with resource allocation theo-
ries (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), Keith and
Frese (2005) found that the positive effects of the
rwO error management training conditions over the
error avoidant condition on performance were fully
attributable to their influence on enhancing emo-
tion control and meta-cognitive activities during
training. Specifically, trainees in the error manage-
ment conditions reported higher levels of emotion
regular10n following errors than trainees in the error
avoidant conditions.
Results of a recent meta-analysis of EMT effects
on training and transfer task performance by Keith
and Frese (2008) provide support for basic tenets of
the framework. From a motivational perspective, the
positive impact of EMT on adaptive transfer per-
formance appears to occur through two pathways:
(a) reduction of disruptive emotional reactions that
divert arrentional resources away from learning,
and (b) more frequent activation of meta-cognitive
processes following error detection. However, the
findings in EMT research suggest several impor-
tant boundary conditions on the efficacy of EMT
for motivation and enhanced transfer performance,
including the provision of training environments
that provide clear performance feedback and the
impact of training on adaptive transfer performance
(versus analogous or near transfer performance).
In addition, investigations on the effectiveness of
EMT approaches for adaptive transfer performance
have been limited to college-educated adult samples
for use in software skills and other computer-related
skills. Additional research is needed to assess the
generalizability of these findings to other workers in
different domains.
A second distinct, but related stream of motiva-
tion research in the training context by Kozlowski,
Bell, and colleagues has examined the impact of
different active learning interventions on training
performance, as well as skill transfer and adapta-
tion. Bell and Kozlowski (2008) examined three
self-regulatory pathways (cognitive, motivational,
and emotional) by which different active learning
interventions influenced performance. Individuals
who adopted a mastery goal orientation to train-
ing showed increased levels of self-efficacy, intrin-
sic motivation, and meta-cognitiv~ ability. Bell and
Kozlowski (2008) also showed that error fram-
ing interacted with trainees' trait goal orientations
to affect state goal orientation during training.
However, the effect of error framing was largely
to increase state mastery goal orientation among
trainees low in trait mastery goal orientation; error
framing had no effect on individuals already high in
mastery goal orientation. The Bell and Kozlowski
(2008) findings shed light on the importance of
evaluating the interactive effects of trainee traits and
training designs on learning outcomes.
MOTIVATION IN TEAMS
Historically, the bulk of theory and research on
individual-level motivation in the team context
has focused on the impact of group characteristics
(e.g., size) and the downward impact of team-level
phenomena, such as team cohesion, on individual
team member motivation and behavior. For exam-
ple, recent findings by Pearsall, Christian, and Ellis
(2010) show that reward system characteristics
play an important role in motivating team mem-
ber effort and mitigating team-level social loafing
phenomena. Over the past few decades, however,
there has been a trend toward the development of
theories and research on motivation in the team
context that focus on the relationship between indi-
vidual- and team-level processes Recent theoretical
work by Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) and
Chen and Kanfer (2006) on motivational processes
in team contexts build upon evidence of homol-
ogy between goal choice and self-regulatory moti-
vational processes at the individual and team level,
and advances in multilevel modeling (Chen, Bliese,
& Mathieu, 2005; Chen et al., 2002; DeShon et aI.,
2004). Meta-analytic findings by DeChurch and
Mesmer-Magnus (2010) provide empirical support
for the influence of proposed motivational states on
team performance. Micro-analytic studies by Chen,
Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, and Rosen (2007) and
Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, and Kozlowski
(2009) provide additional support for the cross-
level influence of team efficacy on individual level
motivational processes over time.
Change (Temporal) Influences on
Motivation
Most work and organizational theories focus
on the effects of motivation on behavior or per-
formance at a specific point in time or on average
over an aggregated period of time (e.g., a week
or month). Nonetheless, motivational scientists
have long recognized that motivation occurs over
time, and that time and time-sensitive factors can
also exert important influences on the direction
and intensity of resource allocations. Over the
past decade, interest in temporal and time-related
KANFER
I 477

influences on work motivation has blossomed, with
researchers pursuing questions about the influence
of time from many different perspectives (e.g.,
Carstensen, 1992; Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadant, &
Slowik, 2007; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Marks
et al., 2001; Schmidt, Dolis, & Tolli, 2009; Simons,
Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004; Steel &
Konig, 2006; Vancouver et aI., 2001).
The nrst problem that confronts researchers
interested in investigating the effects of time on
motivation is how to conceptualize and assess the
effects of time on motivation separately from the
array of changes in other determinants that take
place over time. For example, endogenous, biologi-
cal factors contribute to increasing levels of fatigue
as a function of time-on-task. Motivation, however,
may mediate the impact of fatigue on performance,
and may support a pattern of sustained perfor-
mance over time (Ackerman, 2011). Investigations
to examine the impact of time on goal choice or
goal pursuit thus require repeated assessment of
proximal internal and external determinants and
consequences of motivation, rather than just distal
traits and performance trends.
The study of temporal influences on motivation
highlights an abiding problem in motivation psy-
chology: namely, the interplay of biological factors,
self-related factors, and environmental demands
(e.g., task demands) on the pattern of resource
allocation observed. Most studies of work moti-
vation focus on the impact of a personal or situ-
ational variable (e.g., performance incentives) on
the allocation of resources to a specinc target task,
independent of other tasks and factors. However,
as Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) note, the impact
of personal and situational factors on motivation
for performance of a single task must also take into
account task demands and time-linked changes in
task demands as a consequence of practice. The
provision of difficulr, specinc goals, for example,
may initially increase motivation and facilitate
learning. For tasks that can be proceduralized (e.g.,
driving), however, the demands on attention lessen
with practice, and task performance may be sus-
tained by changes in knowledge and skill, rather
than continued high levels of resource allocation.
That is, motivation may remain constant over time,
but the impact of motivation on performance
changes as a function of how practice influences
task demands. In these instances, high levels of
performance after practice may be maintained by
knowledge and skill development rather than by
high levels of motivation.
WORK MOTIVATION
In contrast, in jobs and tasks where performance
cannot be improved through the development of
automaticity through practice, sustained levels of
motivation are required to maintain performance.
In these situations, performance provides a relatively
accurate assessment of motivation change over time,
but motivation may be more strongly determined
by within-subject factors than by an intervention
such as goal setting. In summary, the use of per-
formance measures to assess motivation over time
requires consideration of dynamic task demands,
self-processes, and competing goal demands.
The influence of time on work motivation pro-
cesses may be captured at different levels of analysis,
and may be assessed directly or indirectly. Repeated
measurement of expectancies, goals, goal orienta-
tion, self-efficacy, self-evaluative behaviors, the
direction of attentional effort, the use of different
self-regulatory strategies, and time spent on the
task permits direct assessment of changes in moti-
vation over time. Direct methods may be used to
assess changes in motivational processes as a func-
tion of time on task or to assess changes in motiva-
tion across longer timescales, such as during a new
employee's probationary period. The influence of
time-related variables may also be studied indirectly,
using between-subject designs to evaluate how vari-
ables such as an employee's future time perspective
and chronological age affect goal choice, goal striv-
ing, and changes in resource allocation policies over
time within and across tasks.
Research on the effects of time on motivational
strength for performance of a specinc task has
waxed and waned over the past 40 years. Atkinson
and Birch (1970) proposed a theory of motiva-
tional dynamics and task switching in which target
task performance was hypothesized to decline over
time as a function of the declining value of further
performance and the increasing attractiveness of
performing an alternative task. Raynor and Entin
(1982) proposed an extension of the expectancy-
value formulation, taking into account the influence
of the length of the subordinate pathway for nnal
outcome goal accomplishment and the relationship
among elements in the pathway to the nnal goal.
Neither the Atkinson and Birch (1970) nor the
Raynor and Entin (1982) formulations generated
much interest in work motivation, although there
has been some r~cent work on the impact of future
time perspective. For example, Simons, Dewi[(e,
and Lens (2004) suggest that in the context of stu-
dent achievement, individual differences in future
time perspective influence intrinsic motivation and
the self-regulatory strategies used to accomplish task
performance.
One currently prominent line of inquiry on the
effects of time on motivation involves the temporal
depletion and replenishment of personal resources
needed for motivational processes. Baumeister's ego
depletion theory (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven,
& Tice, 1998; Muraven, Tice,'& Baumeister,
1998) posits that the personal resources required
for self-regulation and self-control diminish with
use. According to ego depletion theory, sustained
self-regulatidn (as is often required to perform a
complex task over long periods of time) drains the
personal resource pool and diminishes the capac-
ity for and effectiveness of self-regulatory activities.
Several studies provide support for the notion that
the effectiveness of self-regulation, particularly in
the service of emotion regulation, diminishes over
t~e in situations that involve continuous use.
Resource depletion has also been shown to occur
when individuals must engage in goal choice activi-
ties over time, such as might occur among EMTs
when responding to a disaster. Baumeister argues
that individuals are unlikely to fully deplete their
l:mited resources for goal choice and self-regula-
tion, particularly in situations where they antici-
pate that self-regulation will be required for future
performance. That is, unlike a flashlight battery
that will completely discharge if the flashlight is left
on, Baumeister et al. (1998) and Hobfoll (1989)
argue that individuals attempt to conserve or slow
the rate of resource depletion when they perceive
future demands for self-regulation prior to any
opportunity for resource replenishment (Le., pac-
ing oneself with respect to resource consumption).
Whereas Baumeister's theory emphasizes resource
depletion associated with length of use, Hobfoll's
conservation of resources theory (1989) emphasizes
the impact of job stressors on rate of resource loss
and depletion.
Baumeister also argues that resources needed for
motivation and self-regulation may be replenished
over time through rest and the pursuit of activi-
ties that do not require self-regulation. Sonnentag
and her colleagues (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003;
Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag & Kruel,
2006) have examined this idea in a series of stud-
ies designed to identifY the conditions that promote
resource recovery following work-related resource
depletion. Using experience sampling methodol-
ogy, Sonnentag investigated work and non-work
factors that might influence resource recovery fol-
lOWing depletion associated with job performance
-~...
. ':':
(Binnewies, Sonnentag, & Mojza, 2009; Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2005, 2006).
A central question for future research in this line
ofinquiry is to determine what features ofwork most
strongly influence resource depletion and recovery.
For example, Hobfoll's (1989) theory suggests· that
work conditions, such as supervisory support, may
buffer the negative impact of.J'~urce loss associ-
ated with sustained self-regulation, and a study by
Tice, Baumeister, Shmueli, and Muraven (2007)
suggests that positive affect may ~Iso buffer resource
depletion. Further research is needed to understand
the role of tasks, personal characteristics, and social
context on resource depletion and recovery (Bakker,
Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). For
example, in the context of skill acquisition, Kanfer
and Ackerman (1989) found thaf individuals with
higher levels of attentional resources (Le., cognitive
abilities) reported fewer resource-consumptive off-
task cognitions during skill acquisition than indi-
viduals with lower levels of attentional resources.
Extending this nnding to the workplace suggests
that certain forms of supervisory or coworker sup-
port or technologies that reduce work load may
attenuate resource depletion in demanding tasks.
In emergency situations and high-risk teamwork,
for example, individuals often demonstrate high
levels of sustained motivational intensity over long
periods of time. Investigation of how team mem-
ber interactions operate to slow the pace of resource
depletion, thus facilitating sustained task effort
for long periods of time, is a promising avenue for
future research.
Individuals may also implement their own strat-
egies to reduce or prevent resource depletion associ-
ated with job demands. Research in the life span
literature suggests two broad strategies, accommo-
dation and transformation, by which individuals
may reduce demands on personal resources (e.g.,
Heckhausen & Schultz, 1995). Accommodation
refers to actions an individual may take to alter the
environment in ways that better accommodate per-
.sonal goals, needs, and motives. During the course
of performance, for example, anxious individuals
who experience resource depletion associated with
emotion regulation may revise work goals downward
to conserve resources and shield secondary goals
related to sense of competence. Similarly, individu-
als with more available resources and less demand
for emotion regulation during job performance may
revise work goals upward to sustain task motivation
and satisfY secondary goals related to mastery. To
date, however, there has been little research on what
KANFER
I 479
motivates the use of accommodation strategies in
taxing jobs and tasks. . Motivational Theory (TMT) for the development
Individuals may also use transformation strate-
gies to reduce resource depletion. Transformation
strategies refer to behaviors taken to improve the
person-job fit by making self-changes that promote
resource conservation. As Heckhausen and Schultz
(l995) note, transformation strategies require addi-
tional resource allocations and are typically only used
when accommodation strategies are not possible
or are ineffective. I Improving job skills and knowl-
edge is one obvious transformation strategy for
resource conservation in the -;orkplace. However,
as Heckhausen and Schultz (l995) suggest, the
additional resource demands associated with learn-
ing and behavior change in order to better meet job
demands may make transformation strategies less
attractive than accommodation strategies that shape
the environment to the person. Although research
using Baumeister and Hobfill's resource frameworks
have only recently gained the attention of work
motivation researchers, these conceptualizations
appear quite promising for understanding the costs
of sustained emotion regulation in the workplace
and the most effective interventions for slowing the
rate of depletion and improving resource recovery
in the workplace. In particular, it would be quite
useful to know the conditions that trigger the use
of self-initiated strategies for resource conservation,
and the factors that determine the choice to use
transformation versus accommodation strategies for
resource conservation.
Another interesting approach for understand-
ing motivation over time focuses on a time-linked
outcome of considerable importance in the work-
place, namely, procrastination. Although there have
been several studies investigating the influence of
traits (e.g., action control; see Kuhl, 1986) on pro-
crastination, Steel and Konig (2006) have recently
proposed a general motivation formulation that spe-
cifically addresses resource allocation policies across
activities as a function of time and their effects
on procrastination. According to Steel and Konig
(2006), time influences individual resource alloca-
tions across tasks through its effect on the value that
individuals attach to events and outcomes that occur
in the future. Using temporal discounting theory,
Steel and Konig (2006) propose that individuals
will discount the value of events and outcomes that
occur in the future and will allocate fewer resources
to accomplishment of distal outcomes than to
accomplishment of proximal goals that have not
been discounted. Steel and Konig (2006) describe
WORK MOTIVATION
a number of interesting implications of Temporal
of motivational interventions to mitigate the tem-
poral discounting effect on goal choice and alloca-
tions of time across tasks, and for the mitigation of
procrastination behavior.
As Dalal and Hulin (2008) note, task goals
provide a naturally occurring and useful demarca-
tion for studying motivation processes over time.
Analysis of time effects across single goal perfor-
mance cycles also corresponds well to single-cycle
theories of work motivation. However, other units
of analysis may shed further light on how time
affects resource allocation policies across concurrent
task goals. Use of temporal cycles organized around
personal attributes, such as Type A tendencies, may
also shed light on whether individual differences
exert a separate effect on the speed and quality of
explicit goal choice processes and the strength of
self-regulatory activities over time.
TIME INFLUENCES ON WORK MOTIVATION
ASSOCIATED WITH EMPLOYEE AGE
Research in developmental and lifespan psychol-
ogy documents changes within the person that occur
across the life span, including declines in select cog-
nitive processing abilities that contribute to fluid
intelligence, increases in declarative knowledge that
contributes to crystallized intelligence, changes in
motive primacy, and changes in intensity of select
personality traits (see Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004,
for a review). Intraindividual differences in these
abilities and traits occur very slowly, and the impact
of age-related differences in motivation is typically
studied using cross-sectional samples that compare
individuals at different chronological age periods
(e.g., young, midlife, old). Findings obtained to
date indicate a general downward shift with age in
the valence of common extrinsic rewards, such as a
promotion or increased pay, and a general upward
shift with age in the attractiveness of intrinsic out-
comes, such as autonomy (in the form of flexible
work scheduling) and competency (in the form of
opportunity to utilize skills; Warr, 2008).
Age has also been shown to be negatively
related to training speed and learning self-efficacy,
most likely as a consequence of the age-related
decline in fluid intellectual abilities that influence
both these variables. Taken together with the age-
related decline in the arrractiveness of extrinsic
rewards, these findings suggest that older work-
ers (with lower levels of learning self-efficacy) are
likely to be less motivared to participate in new skill
learning than younger workers. However, findings
by Simpson, Greller, & Stroh (2002) indicate that
older workers are no less motivated than younger
workers for learning opportunities, and were more
likely to participate in such opportunities when
the criterion for participation extended to non-
organizationally sponsored learning opportunities.
Studies by Sitzmann and her colleagues (Sitzmann
et al., 2009; Sitzmann & Ely, 2010) suggest that
the use of prompts to employ self-regulatory strate-
gies during training enhanced learning and reduced
attrition over the course of training. These results
suggest that motivational declines associated with
perceptions of slow progress and poor performance
among olderworkers may be mitigated by the use of
instructional designs that assist and promote effec-
tive self-regulation strategies.
Transactional Perspectives
The allocation of personal resources to work-
related activities is not a single decision, but
rather an ongoing process that is influenced by
changes in the person, the environment, and the
transaction between the person and the environ-
ment. In this section, I briefly review recent work
on the motivational processes by which person-
environment transactions influence performance
and attitudes.
MATCH THEORIES OF JOB PERFORMANCE
AND WORK ATTITUDES
A central thesis in the person-environment
research literature-and a widely held belief among
organizational practitioners-is that alignment
of employee and organization goals, values, inter-
ests, and competencies facilitates work motivation,
positive job attitudes and job intentions (e.g., job
satisfaction, organizational commitment), and per-
formance. These models do not posit that values,
objectives, and competencies needed by the orga-
nization and possessed by the individual be identi-
cal, only that the individual perceives that his or her
values, objectives, and competencies are congruent
with the demands of the job. As George and Brief
(1996) suggested, a high level of perceived congru-
ence between an employee's goals and that of his
or her team members may exert a positive impact
on performance through its effect on adjusting
resource allocation policies, or as Kristof (l996)
suggests, by helping persons know "the right thing"
to do. Similarly, perceptions of poor alignment or
lack of congruence between one's goals and those of
other team members is expected to exert a negative
impact on motivational processes and, in turn, work
behavior and attitudes.
Perceptions of congruence are contextually sensi-
tive, and research has shown the impact of a wide
range of personal and situational variables on dif-
ferent fit perceptions (Kristof, 1996, for a review).
Organizational change programs and the way in
which they are implemented, for example, may sub-
stantially change employee perceptions of fit and
congruence at one or more levels, including orga-
nizational, work group, and job levels. Employee
perceptions of fit may also occur as a function of
job tenure and age-related and/or non-work-related
change associated with the person, rather than the
environment. At hire, employees may perceive job
tasks as challenging and report a high level of per-
ceived congruence between the cognitive demands
of the job and one's knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Over time, however, the perception of abilities-
demand fit may weaken as the demands of the job
no longer require substantial effort or attention. For
these employees, a once challenging job has become
boring.
A large research literature exists on the conse-
quences of different forms of fit between an indi-
vidual and his or her work environment (Kristof,
1996). Surprisingly, however, only a relatively small
portion of this research focuses directly on moti-
vational processes. During the 1980s, Dawis and
Lofquist (l984) proposed a theory of work adjust-
ment that emphasized the importance of person-en-
vironment fit, and described fit in terms of its effects
on employee motivation and need satisfaction.
Although Dawis and Lofquist (l984) delineated
the motivational processes by which perceptions of
fit direct and energize work performance, there has
been relatively little research to examine the valid-
ity of the their proposed pathways between fit and
work outcomes. From a different but complemen-
tary perspective, French, Caplan, and Van Harrison
(l982) highlighted the negative motivational conse-
quences associated with perceptions of poor person-
environment (P-E) in terms of high.er feelings of
job stress, higher levels of negative affect, and more
physical health problems (see Edwards, 1996; Shaw
& Gupta, 2004).
Greguras and Diefendorff (2009) describe a
promising new direction for theory and research
on the motivational processes and mechanisms by
which perceived congruence may affect performance
and attitudes. Noting the communality between
need satisfaction models and universal motive theo-
ries, Greguras and Diefendorff (2009) proposed
KANFER
that intrinsic motives for autonomy, relatedness,
and competence mediate perceived fit-outcome
relations. Findings obtaine d using a sample of man-
agers provide support for the mediating role of indi-
vidual differences in perceived satisfaction of these
motives in different perceived fit-performance and
attitude relations. Consist ent with SDT, as well as
the theory of work adjustm ent (Dawis & Lofquist,
1984), these findings indicate that perceptions of
congruence in different dimensions influence work
performance and attitude s through their influence
on intrinsic motive satisfaction.
The Greguras and Di<:fendorff (2009) findings
represent part of a growing trend in fit research to
investigate the positive, rather than negative, con-
sequences of perceptions of different types of fit
on work behavior and performance (Vancouver &
Schmitt , 1991).
Consequences ofMot ivation : The Criterion
Problem
Most work motivation research evaluates moti-
vation in terms of the behaviors and performance
observed on a single rarget task. In the modern
workplace, however, employees are often assigned
multiple tasks, each with a different deadline for
completion. In these instances, assessments of
motivation require measurement of the individual's
resource allocation across tasks, as well as resource
allocations within each task. In multiple goal or task
situations, the assessment of motivation across tasks
typically involves measures of time allocated to each
task. To fully evaluate motivation in multiple goal or
task environments, however, researchers must also
assess the impact of time to total resource allocation
across all tasks, and how changes in goals, self-effi-
cacy, and goal pursuit in each compon ent task affect
time allocations to other tasks. An excellent exam-
ple of the compleXities and advantages involved in
assessing motivation in a multiple goal regulation
setting is provided by Schmid t et al. (2009).
Changes in the nature of work also raise the
question of what the appropriate indices of work
motivation are. Extant models of work motivation
are designed to provide prediction of effort and per-
sistence on a single, well-defined task (e.g., painting
a room). However, many modern jobs require moti-
vation to accomplish multiple, interdep endent tasks
(e.g., prepare and launch a new store opening) or ill-
defined tasks (e.g., produce a new compan y slogan).
Motivation in these job tasks is likely to involve
complex and interrelated resource allocation poli-
cies governing the use of time, effort intensity, and
WORK MOTIVA TION
the use of personal capital (e.g., social and technical
knowledge) for successful performance. Research is
needed to determine the factors that influence effec-
tive and ineffective strategies for goal pursuit in mul-
tiform and creative task accomplishments. Findings
from this line of work are likely to be of substantial
practical importa nce for the early identification of
motivational problems, and for the development
of effective interventions in these task settings.
WOrk Motiva tion Strategies and Practices
Advances in work motivation are closely con-
nected to changes in the nature of work. During
most of the twentie th century, motivation theory
and practice focused on identifYing the fundamental
determi nants ofwork motivation, the psychological
processes involved in goal choice and goal pursuit,
and effective organizational strategies to increase
employee effort on the job and to reduce turnover.
Expectancy-value theories, goal setting, participa-
tive decision-making approaches, job characteristics
theories, and equity theory generated research thar
added new knowledge to predicting motivation for
a specific work task.
At the start of the twenty-first century, however,
most employees perform multiple work tasks, often
concurrently. Over the course ofa workweek, a regis-
tered nurse may treat a dozen patients, communicate
informa tion about each patient to physicians, radi-
ologists, surgeons, and physical therapists, update
electronic patient files, counsel patient families, and
negotiate schedule and workload wirh orher nurses
on the unit. Accomplishment of each task requires
allocation of personal resources that vary as a func-
tion of task demands, task deadlines, importance,
and intrinsic interest in the task. It is no longer fea-
sible or desirable for organizations to monitor and
reward the performance of each job task as it occurs.
In the twenty-first century job, employees are ofren
tasked with motivating themselves to organize
job tasks, to allocate personal resources to diff~r­
ent task goals as conditio ns dictate, and to modl~
allocation policies when performance progress IS
not sufficient. In short, job performance in many
workplaces today demand s self-management. Fr~m
a resource allocation perspective, the most effecnve
motivational strategy is one in which performan~
accomplishments are associated with attainmenr 0
valued rewards. In short, the most effective strate~
is intrinsic motivation, in which tasks are perfor~sh
for their own sake and performance aCCo mPh •
ments satisfY intrinsic motives for competence;
achievement, control, self_determination, an
autonomy. Consist ent with this notion, purposive
theories, such as Dweck's goal orientat ion theory
and Deci's SDT, have rapidly gained popularity.
Purposive theories of motivation emphasize goal
pursuit and the use of intrinsic incentives to power
self-regulatory activities over time for goal accom-
plishment. As Steel and Konig's (2006) TMT sug-
gests, extrinsic incentives, such as yearly bonuses,
are frequently too far in· the future to motivate allo-
cations of time and effort to the accomplishment
of immediate subgoals prerequisite for achieving
the complex goal outcom e at some future date.
In training, for example, extrinsic incentives (e.g.,
promotion or pay raise conting ent on final course
performance) are not powerful incentives for allo-
cating more time to studyin g at the beginni ng of the
course. And the provision of extrinsic incentives for
attainment of each subgoal is not a realistic option.
SOT and purposive theories of motivation address
rhis practical problem by delineating the conditio ns
that promote sustained self-regulation of effort over
time using intrinsic incentives, such as a sense of
self-determination, commu nion with others, com-
perence, control, and autonomy.
Accordingly, the problem in modern motiva-
tion theory and practice is not whether extrinsic
rewards underm ine intrinsic motivation, but rather
how to use extrinsic rewards to promote and sustain
intrinsic task motivation. Althoug h more empiri-
cal research is needed on this question, the findings
to date suggest that the negative impact of extrin-
sic rewards on intrinsic motivation may be limited
to specific person-situation conditions. In routine
jobs, such as cashiering, initial interest in work tasks
and performance motivation may be low without
the provision of perform ance-co ntingen t extrinsic
bonus payments to stimulate the adoptio n of diffi-
cult goals and goal striving. Over the course of goal
pursuit, however, individuals are likely to become
more proficient at the job, and goal attainm ent
may yield intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. As
intrinsic incentives become more salient, extrinsic
rewards for performance accomplishment may be
phased out, as individuals pursue higher levels of
performance for purposes of intrinsic motive satis-
faction. Depend ing on the task, however, intrinsic
motivation may wane over time as further alloca-
~ions of time and effort yield smaller improvements
I~ performance and correspondingly weaker intrin-
~~c rewards. Experienced cashiers, for example, are
ikely to perform at a high level with less effort due to
~ask proceduralization, making further performance
Improvement and intrinsic rewards for performance
less likely, unless the individual allocates substantial
increases in time and effort. However, the provi-
sion of perform ance-co ntingen t extrinsic rewards
again at this point, in the form of social recogni-
tion or employee/team competi tions among simi-
larly experienced individuals, may stimulate the
higher allocations of time and effort necessary for
improved performance and heightened feelings of
competence aDd self·det erminat ion. In summary,
this analysis suggests that the primary purpose of
extrinsic rewards in the modern workplace (beyond
rewards associated with the employ ment contract)
is to promot e and sustain intrinsic work motivation,
rather than to directly sustain motivation and per-
formance indefinitely.
Findings in goal setting and goal orientat ion
research provide indirect evidence to support this
conceptualization. Numero us studies show that
extrinsic rewards exert a positive influence on goal
choice, but can also exert a detrime ntal impact on
goal pursuit. Findings in goal orientat ion further
show that individuals who adopt goals for purposes
related to the satisfaction of intrinsic motives related
to learning, mastery, and accomp lishmen t employ
more effective self-regulatory strategies and show
higher levels ofperformance than persons who adopt
goals for purposes related to satisfaction of other-
oriented, extrinsic motives (to prove one's ability to
others, to avoid looking incomp etent to others). In
some instances, however, when task demand s are
low or individuals are experienced at the task, the
adoptio n of a performance-prove goal orientat ion
may promot e the use of effective self-regulation
strategies and higher levels of performance.
To date, researchers have focused on the goal
attributes that facilitate intrinsically rewarded forms
of goal pursuit and higher levels of performance.
However, as reviews by Parker and Ohly (2008) and
Fried and Ferris (1987) suggest, intrinsic motivation
may also be promot ed or diminis hed by the con-
text of action. For example, using Meyer's notion of
situational specificity, work contexts that are high in
clarity and consistency are likely to produce envi-
ronmen ts that are conducive to the development of
intrinsic motivation, while environ ments that are
high in constraints and consequences are likely to
diminis h intrinsic motivation. Similarly, the effec-
tiveness of transfor mation leaders in enhanci ng
subordi nate motivat ion may be best underst ood in
terms of what these leaders do to create conditio ns
that induce intrinsic motivation among subordi-
nates. Organiz ing diverse motivational strategies in
terms of their impact on facilitating intrinsic forms
KANFER
 of motivation is likely to greatly facilitate the trans-
lation of research findings into effective managerial
practices.
Practical Challenges and Emerging
Research Directions
The previous sections highlighted recent progress
in work motivation theory and practice. Although
theory and research continues in the quest for basic
understanding (e.g., Stokes, 1997), practical con-
cerns have spurred research in a number of new
directions. In this section, I-describe a few cur-
rent practical challenges, and their implications for
research and practice.
Aging and WOrk Motivation
Over the next three decades, the proportion of
the workforce over the age of 65 is predicted to grow
to nearly 30%. Organizations are already struggling
with how to effectively recruit, manage, motivate,
retrain, and retain older workers. Early theory and
research on work motivation as a function of adult
development suggests that age-related changes in
cognitive abilities and non-ability traits, motives,
and interests exert an important influence on work
motivation and performance. In particular, age-re-
lated changes in abilities and skills among individu-
als who perform jobs that place strong demands on
these abilities and skills (e.g., firefighter) are likely to
have a direct influence on perceptions of person-job
fit, work attitudes, and retirement intentions. Age
and job tenure may also exert a negative influence
on work motivation among individuals who per-
form a routine job that does not make demands on
age-sensitive abilities and skills, but rather affords
few opportunities for skill utilization or intrinsic
motive satisfaction. Employee age may also playa
negative role in work motivation as a consequence
of age-sensitive attitudes and behaviors of cowork-
ers, supervisors, or clients. In these instances, moti-
vation for work may decline sharply as opportunities
for satisfaction of affiliation motives and a positive
self-concept shrink.
To date, organizations have responded to age-
related problems in work motivation using a vari-
ery of strategies, including changing the work role,
. ' providing age-appropriate incentives for staying on
the job, and educating managers about the influ-
ence of age on work competencies. However, ,..few
applications are evidence-based, and studies of age-
related changes in motives, interests, and self-regu-
lation strategies remain sparse (for exceptions, see
Kooij, De Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, & Dikkers, 2011;
WORK MOTIVATION
see Shultz & Lams, 2007, for a review). Future
research in this area will require a reconsideration of
the achievement construct and longitudinal research
designs that permit investigation of how personal
and occupational characteristics influence motiva-
tion to work and motivation at work.
Motivation in Teams
Teams are ubiquitous in organizations, and
new technologies have spurred the increasing use
of inter-professional teams and teams of teams,
or multiteam systems in the workplace (Marks,
DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005).
Corresponding to this trend, theory and research on
team-level processes and motivation surged during
the late twentieth century. Nonetheless, there are
still a number of practically important questions to
be addressed regarding the determinants and conse-
quences of motivational processes in the team con-
text. Marks et al. (2001) suggest that motivational
processes playa crucial role in team-level activities
to manage interpersonal relationships that sup-
port team performance. Despite these advances in
team motivation, our understanding of cross-level
influences between team-level and team member
motivation processes remains incomplete. To dare
there has been relatively little research examining
the relationship between different motivational
states and interpersonal management strategies (see
Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008).
We also do not fully understand the key factors thar
influence the spread of affective states, such as dis-
appointment, across members of the team, or the
cross-level effects of affective states on individual-
and team-level decision making as they may play
out in real-world military, health care, and other
work ream settings. In a related vein, research to
understand the influence of motivational orienta-
tions on action processes and interpersonal goal
conflicts is another promising direction for future
research. Using the adaptive team leadership model
proposed by Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, and
Borero (2009) as an organizing framework for such
research may be quite fruitful.
Relational Dynamics and WOrk Motivation
As jobs move from production to services, rela-
tionships with coworkers, supervisors, and clients
take on increased importance in ratings of job
performance. Findings across a variety of topics
suggest that these social relationships are also poten-
tially important determinants of work motivation
and behavior. Numerous studies in leadership, for
example, have focused on the impact of a leader's
relationship with a subordinate on employee work
motivation, job attitudes, and performance. Studies
of emotion regulation in service jobs, and research
on events that trigger srrong affective reactions, also
suggest that interpersonal conflicts demand addi-
tional resource allocations for emotion regulation
and restoration of attentiortal focus to work goals.
Interpersonal dynamics are also frequently impli-
cated in the direction of resource allocations, such
as toward helping others or engaging in counterpro-
ductive behaviors.
Research is needed to understand how coworker
dynamics facilitate and dampen work motivation
and influence the direction of action. Coworker
relations influence the interpretation of work events
and can also elicit strong, other-oriented affective
feeling states, such as pride, shame, guilt, and jeal-
ousy. Social relations and the individual's social ties
at work can also contribute to an individual's work
identity. Social power is also likely to influence the
success of job crafting efforts. In rhe modern work-
place, coworker relations are typically embedded in
a social network thar can affect motivation for com-
ing to work and for behavior at work (e.g., Bowler
& Brass, 2006). Research is needed ro examine
how attribures of an individual's social network and
changes in relationships with key members of the
network influence an individual's goals and meth-
ods for task accomplishment.
Motivation and Leadership
Motivation is an integral part ofleadership theory
and practice. Advances during the twentieth century
focused on the behaviors and processes by which
supervisors and leaders win the "mind" of their sub-
ordinates and followers. Investigations of how lead-
ers motivate workers in the team context represent
a fertile area for investigating the impact of implicit
leader behaviors on subordinate motivation, as well
as the role of affectively driven leader behaviors on
winning the "hearts" of followers through goal ori-
entation and commitment processes.
WOrk Motivation over Time
As noted previously, we still know relatively little
about the determinants of work motivation cycles
or their natutal timescales. Studies ofwithin-subject
variability have focused largely on affect and mood
states. Within-subject studies to identifY the impact
of personality traits and occupational demands on
variability in the direction of resource allocations,
motivational state, and goal revision cycles will help
to inform the relative contribution of situational
strength and implicit motivation processes on work
behavior. Findings from this line of research also
have practical implications for work design.
Motivation in Training and Development
The development of dynamic models of learn-
ing and investigations. Q{..m otivation within these
models reflect the renaissance that is taking place
in this domain. Although there has been substan-
tial progress made in specifYing the motivational
processes involved in self-regulated learning, orga-
nizations and social policy makers continue to
raise important research questions in this area.
For example, new instructional technologies and
e-learning opportunities raise many questions about
how these structures may affect situational strength
and the self-regulatory strategies used during learn-
ing and for transfer. With tens of millions of adults
currently engaged in online skill learning, a bener
understanding of the motivational implications of
these environments on learning, behavior, and per-
formance is crucial.
Research on motivation in training would also
benefit from closer attention to the trainee's learn-
ing environment. Increasingly, individuals complete
training in groups and classes characterized by diver-
sity in age, gender, and ethnicity. Training is often
conducted online during non-work time. Anecdotal
stories by trainees suggest that trainee class diver-
sity, limited social interactions with other students
and the teacher, evaluation apprehension, and the
cost of training on non-work activities may exert
deleterious effects on training motivation. Research
to identifY best practices for sustaining motivation
during training, particularly among mid- and late-
life trainees, is urgently needed.
Putting Back the "l" in WOrk Motivation
Theory and research in work motivation con-
tinue to focus on the role that self-related variables,
such as self-efficacy and core self-evaluations, play
in goal choice, goal pursuit, and job performance. A
logical next step in this direction is to consider the
role of broader self-constructs, such as work identity
on motivation.
Work identity refers to self-concept that is
grounded in the tasks that individuals perform,
the work roles that they adopt, the organizations in
which they work, the occupations with which they
identifY, and the ways in which they perform their
work (Walsch & Gordon, 2008). As such, work
identity is a developmental process that likely creates
KANFER
 a work schema which may show greater resistance ro
change with age.
A small but growing number of researchers have
begun ro study work motivation from an iden-
tiry perspective. Research by Wrzesniewski (2003;
Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997),
for example, distinguishes berween individuals who
view their work as a job (focused on arrainment of
extrinsic rewards, such as pay), a career (focused on
advancement), or a calling (intrinsically motivated
engagement, for the purpose of performing socially
useful work). In a related vein, Wrzesniewski and
Ourron (2001) introduced the term job crafting ro
refer ro the ways in which individuals arrempt ro
shape the job in a way ro provide greater opportu-
nities for satisfaction of intrinsic and social motives
(similar ro accommodation strategies discussed pre-
viously). Although the main focus of work moti-
vation theory and research will likely remain on
proximal influences on work behavior and job per-
formance, identiry theories offer a higher level con-
ceptualization of motivational orientation that may
be particularly helpful in identifying parrerns of goal
choice, goal pursuit, job crafting, affective reactions,
and work outcomes associated with individuals with
different perceptions of the purpose for their work.
WOrk Motivation and Well-being
Self-concordance theory (Sheldon, 2002;
Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) posits that individuals
who pursue goals and activities that they enjoy
and believe in experience higher levels of subjective
well-being. As applied ro work, this theory suggests
that work motivation plays an important role in
worker well-being. Although work motivation has
been rarely studied in terms of worker well-being
beyond that of job satisfaction (for an exception,
Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005), mounting
societal and organizational concern about worker
well-being suggests that more arrention be given ro
the factors that promote self-concordant motivation
and the consequences of self-concordant motiva-
tion for worker well-being. Findings by Bono and
Judge (2003) indicate the role of transformational
leadership in promoting self-concordant motivation
among subordinates. Further research is needed ro
extend these findings and ro more precisely delin-
eate the motivational processes that enhance worker
I. well-being.
Summary and Discussion
Although work motivation remains an area of
scientific and practical importance, this review
WORK MOTIVATION
mgg'm ,h" mere h" L ml",=",1 ch=ge in <he
key constructs, processes, and issues that currently
command the arrention of motivational scientists
and practitioners. In contrast ro prior theories that
emphasized rational models of goal choice, expliCit
personal motives, and self-management processes,
emerging formulations focus on the determinants
and consequences of the individual's goal orienta-
tion, and the impact of non-conscious processes and
implicit motives on goal choice, goal pursuit, affec-
tive states, and performance. Although self-efficacy,
goals, and personaliry traits continue ro be studied
in work motivation, the focus of arrention has sub-
tly shifted roward understanding the dynamics by
which these inputs change over time. And affect,
long accorded a subordinate role in motivational
processing, continues ro garner research atten-
tion as an independent influence on behavior and
a major determinant of self-regularory processing.
Scientific advances, the changing nature of work,
and the growing emphasis on worker adjustment
has, in turn, shifted research attention ro different
aspects of content, context, and change influences
on work motivation. As discussed previously in this
chapter, Table 14.2 highlights some of the current
gaps in our knowledge and potentially fruitful areas
for future research.
At a more general level, rwo themes permeate
recent theory and research in work motivation. The
first theme pertains ro the increasing use of person-
centric rather than performance-centric approaches.
Performance-centric approaches minimize within-
person dynamics and emphasize how changes in
work design, managerial practices, and organiza-
tion-level variables (e.g., climate) affect motiva-
tion and performance of different individuals at a
particular point in time. Accordingly, performance-
centric approaches tend to bias investigations about
the determinants of motivation and performance
roward the study of stable personal trairs and
changes in the environment. Such approaches have
been quite useful, particularly in the study of moti-
vation in production environments where job strUC-
ture is often high, an individual's goal choice can
be accomplished through an immediate increase
in allocations of effort (rather than prolonged goal
pursuit), and behavior is often closely coupled to
job performance.
In contrast ro performance-centric approaches,
person-centric approaches emphasize the role of
adult development and ongoing person-situation
interactions in work motivation. Personal character-
istics, goals, and experiences are posited ro influence
Table 14.2 Examples of Current Knowledge Gaps in
Work Motivation Research
Content (Person) Influences:
Worker well-being (e.g., health)
Non-conscious/affective motives (e.g., hostility)
Motivational signatures of discrefe emotions
Trait complexes
Context (Environment) Influences:
Situational strength
Intra-team processes (e.g., conflict)
Multi-team processes (e.g., cultural differences, social
networks, goal coordination demands)
E-learning
Change-Related Influences:
Intrinsic motivation processes
Resource depletion, recovery, and fatigue
Adult development (aging)
Work transitions (e.g., reemployment, retirement and
career change)
what features of the environment are salient ro the
individual, the interpretation of these perceptions,
and their translation into motivational variables,
such as self-efficacy. Person-centric approaches also
assume that changes in motivation and work behav-
ior bring about changes in both the individual and
the environment.
The adoption of a person-centric approach to
work motivation offers several distinct theoretical
and practical advantages. Person-centric approaches
encourage multilevel, longitudinal research designs
that can illuminate potential differences in the
impact of context both across persons and within
persons over time, as well as the potential impact
of person traits on context and within-person moti-
vation over time. From a practical perspective,
person-centric approaches provide organizations
with information about age-normed influences on
work motivation and how different interventions
affect different aspects of work behavior over time.
This is particularly important in the modern work-
place, where organizations may not be able ro pre-
cisely predict which behaviors and work outcomes
are going to have the greatest importance for job
performance in the future. The many advantages
of person-centric approaches for studying personal
and situational facrors that influence goal formula-
tion and goal pursuit in the workplace are likely ro
increase the dominance of this perspective for some
time.
A second theme that runs through much of the
recent work in. the tiel~L.p.~rtains to the growing
interest in the role that affect and social relations
play in work motivation. For most of the rwenti-
eth century, theories of work motivation viewed
affect as a static influence on performance, either
in terms of the valence that individuals arrach ro
different work outcomes, or as a work arritude
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). However, research
on implicit motives, non-conscious motivational
processes, and events that ,trigger non-consciously
mediated behaviors (such as anger) maintain a very
different view of affect. These approaches generally
view affect as dynamic and as distinct, biologically
driven, non-conscious processes associated with
behavior tendencies that activate during action in
much the same way that explicit traits influence
cognitively mediated motivational processes. This
conceptualization puts motivation and affect on a
more equal footing, and suggests that motives and
non-conscious affective tendencies operate in uni-
son to influence goal choice and goal pursuit (Le.,
work motivation). Indeed, newer theories suggest
that explicit self-regularory activities largely operate
in the service of managing non-conscious affective
tendencies that conflict with explicit goal accom-
plishment (e.g., Kehr, 2004), and the existence of a
non-conscious goal and regulatory system for these
affectively driven action tendencies (Bargh, 2008).
Work motivation researchers are also devoting
more arrention ro how social interactions and inter-
personal dynamics influence affective states and
non-conscious affective action tendencies. The rich
social medium in which modern work is performed
increases the likelihood that different emotions will
be activated, either as a direct consequence of social
interactions or in the anticipation of social inter-
actions (e.g., anxiety). Research currently in prog-
ress ro investigate the relationship berween social
interactions and the stream of emotions that occur
over the workday can be expected to importantly
contribute to further progress in understanding the
impact of affect on work motivation.
The adoption of person-centric approaches
and the emphasis on social relations and affective
processes increase the salience of several thorny
questions in motivational science, such as how
KANFER

individuals prioritize resource allocarions in mul-
riple goal/task settings, why and how individuals
adjust resource allocarions to mulriple goals/tasks
over rime, and how individuals resolve goal con-
flicts, when individuals abandon goals, and factors
that affect strategy choice for regulation of implicit
motive tendencies and negative emotions. .As this
review attests, there is good reason to be optimistic
that the field will continue to make progress answer-
ing these and other central questions about work
morivarion. Theory and research-advances over the
past two decades also show that work motivarion
researchers are equally inspired by pressing pracri-
cal problems in the workplace. Examples of emerg-
ing research streams inspired by real-world issues
include studies on motivation in and of teams, the
impact of culture and work unit diversity on moti-
vation and performance, the antecedents and con-
sequences ofdifferent motivational strategies during
job search, the effects of motivation on successful
aging in the workplace, the influence of moriva-
tional conflicts on self-regulated job performance,
and morivational influences on creativity and inno-
vation. The nature of recent advances, driven equally
by the goal of translating basic research for practical
use, and the goal of translaring organizational and
worker motivation concerns into workable research
questions bode well for the field.
References
Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A rheory of adult intellectual devel-
opment: Process, personaliry, interests, and knowledge.
Intelligence, 22, 229-259.
Ackerman, P. L. (1997). Personaliry, self-concepr, interests,
and intelligence: Which construct doesn't fir? journal of
Personality, 65, 171-204.
Ackerman, P. L. (2011). 100 years without resting. In P. L.
Ackerman (Ed.), Cognitive fatigue: Multidisciplinary perspec-
tives on current research and future applications (pp. 11-43).
Washington, DC: Americ~ Psychological Association.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequiry in social exchange. Advanced
Experimental Social Psychology, 62,335-343.
Ajzen,1. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces:
Motivation research in the 1990s. journal of Management,
25,231-292.
Armitage, c.]., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of
planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British journal of
Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Armor, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. (2003). The effects of mindset
on behavior: Self-regulation in deliberative and implemental
frames of mind. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
86-95.
Ashford, S. ]., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an
individual resource: Personal strategies for creating informa-
tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Perftrmance, 32,
370-389.
WORK MOTIVATION
(
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics ofaction. New
York: Wiley.
Austin, J. T., & Klein, H.]. (1996). Work motivation and goal
striving. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual diffirences and
behavior in organizations (pp. 209-257). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bakker, A B., Hakanen,]. ]., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou,
D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particu-
larly when job demands are high. journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 274-284.
Baldwin, T. T., Magjuka, R. J., & Loher, B. T. (1991). The perils
of participation: Effects ofchoice of training on trainee moti-
vation and learning. Personnel Psychology, 44, 51-65.
Bandura, A (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bandura, A (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, N]: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A (2003). Negative self-efficacy
and goal effects revisited. journal ofApplied Psychology, 88,
87-99.
Bargh,J. A. (2008). Freewill is un-natural. InJ. Baer,J. Kaufman,
& R. Baumeister (Eds.), Are wefee? The psychology offee will
(pp. 128-154). New York: Oxford Universiry Press.
Bargh, J. A, Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010).
Motivation. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
Handbook ofsocial psychology (5th ed., pp. 268-316). New
York: Wiley.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993).
Conscientiousness and performance of sales representa-
tives: Tests of the mediating effects of goal setting. journal of
Applied Psychology, 78, 715-722.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002).
Personaliry and job performance: Test of the mediating
effects of motivation among sales representatives. journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 43-51.
Baumeister, R. E, Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M.
(1998). Ego-deplerion: Is rhe acrive self a limited resource?
journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252-1265.
Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1987). Image theory: Principles,
goals, and plans in decision-making. Acta Psychologica, 66,
201-220.
Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2009). Motivation in training and
development: A phase perspective. In S. W J. Kozlowski &
E. Salas (Eds.), Learning; training, and development in organi-
zations (pp. 65-97). New York: Psychology Press.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance:
Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, and performance
in technology-based training. Personnel Psychology, 55,
267-306.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W.]. (2008). Active learning: Effects
of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes,
learning, and adaptabiliry. journal ofApplied Psychology, 93,
296--316.
Binnewies, c., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2009). Daily per-
formance ar work: Feeling recovered in the morning as a pre-
dictor ofday-level job performance. journal ofOrganizational
Behavior, 30, 67-93.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance ar work:
Toward understanding the motivational effects of ttan S-
formational leaders. Academy of Management journal, 46,
554-571.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. ]. (2006). Relational correlates of
interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspec-
tive. journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 70-82.
Brunstein, J. c., & Maier, G. W (2005). Implicit and self-attrib-
uted motives to achieve: Two separate but interacting needs.
journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 89, 205-222.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal
orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and
empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 67, 26-48.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. (1976). Motivation theory in
industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), flandbook of industrial and organizational Psychology
(pp. 63~130). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Carr, J. Z., DeShon, R. P., & Dobbins, H. W (2001). A pro-
cess model of goal orientation. In R. P. DeShon (Chair),
New directions-in goal orientation: Exploring the construct and
its measurement. Presented at 16th Annual Meeting of the
Sociery for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Diego, CA
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Motivation for social contact across
the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectiviry. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 40, 209-254..
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual
framework and statistical procedures for delineating and test-
ing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research
Methods, 8,375-409.
Chen, G., & Gogus, C. (2008). Motivation in and of work
teams: A multilevel perspective. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R.
D. Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, andftture (pp.
285-318). New York: Routledge.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, ]. A., & Kilcullen, R. N.
(2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like incli-
vidual differences, state-like individual differences, and learn-
ing performance.journal ofApplied Psychology, 85, 835-847.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of
motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 27, 223-267.
Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E., & Kozlowski,
S. W J. (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and
extension of Chen and Kanfer's (2006) cross-level model of
motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 11 0, 45-55.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B.
(2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment,
and performance in teams. journal ofApplied Psychology, 92,
331-346.
Chen, G., Webber, S. S., Bliese, P. D., Mathieu, J. E., Payne,
S. C, Born, D. H., & Zaccaro, S. ]. (2002). Simultaneous
examination of the antecedents and consequences of efficacy
beliefs at multiple levels of analysis. Human Performance, 15,
381-409.
Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. V (2005). What predicts skill
transfer? Exploratory study of goal orientation, training, self-
efficacy, and organizational supports. Internationaljournal of
Training and Development, 9, II 0-123.
Colquitt, ]. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. ]., Porter, c., &
Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millenium: A meta-analytic
review of 25 years of organizational justice research. journal
ofApplied Psychology, 86,425-445.
ColqUitt, J. A, lePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an
integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic
path analysis of 20 years of research. journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 678-707.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M.]. (1998). Conscientiousness,
goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning
processes: A longitudinal study. journal ofApplied Psychology,
83, 654-665.
Cox, C. B., & Beier, M. E. (2009). The moderating effect of
individual differences on the relationship between the fram-
ing of training and interest in training. International journal
ofTraining and Development, 13,247-261.
Creed, P. A, King, V, Hood, M" & McKenzie, R. (2009). Goal
orientation, self-regulation -strat~g1es, and job-seeking inten-
siry in unemployed adults. journal ofApplied Psychology, 94,
806--813.
Dalal, R. S., & Hulin, C. L. (2008). Motivation for what: A mul-
tivariate, dynamic perspective of the criterion. In R. Kanfer,
G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present,
andfuture (pp. 63-100). New York: Routledge.
Dawis, R. V, & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psycholOgical theory of
work adjustment: An individual-diffirences model and its appli-
cations. Minneapolis: Universiry of Minnesota Press.
Day, E. A., Yeo, S., & Radosevich, D,J. (2003). Comparing two-
and threejactor models ofgoal orientation: A meta-analysis.
Paper Presented at the 18th Annual Meeting of the Sociery
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010) Measuring
shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 1-14.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum
Publishing.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of
goals pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research:
Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M.
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp.
431-441). Rochester, NY: Universiry of Rochester Press.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie,J. Z. (2005). A motivated action the-
ory account of goal orientation. journal ofApplied Psychology,
90, 1096-1127.
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A M., Milner, K.
R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel
model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual
and team performance. journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
1035-1056.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. (2008). Goal striving and
self-regulation processes. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R.
D. Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, and ftture
(pp. 151-196). New York: Routledge.
Diefendorff, J. M., & Mehta, K. (2007). The relations of moti-
vational traits with workplace deviance. journal ofApplied
Psychology, 92, 967-977.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Morivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive
approach to motivation and personaliry. Psychological Review,
95, 256--273.
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions
of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of
Management journal, 39, 292-339.
Elliot, A J. (2008). Handbook ofapproach and avoidance motiva-
tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoid-
ance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A media-
tional analysis. journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70,
461-475.
KANFER

Elliot, A. J., & McGtegot, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievemenr
goal ftamewotk. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology.
80,501-519.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Approach-avoidance moti-
vation in personaliry: Approach and avoidance tempera-
menrs and goals. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology.
82,804-818.
Erez, M. (2008). Social-culrural influences on work motiva-
tion. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.),
Motivation: Past, present, and fUture (pp. 501:"'538). New
York: Routledge.
Ferguson, M. J., Hassin, R., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Implicit
motivation. In J. Y. Shah & W L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook
of motivation science (pp. 150:-166;' -New York: Guilford
Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behav-
ior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology
Press.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring:
A new area of cognitive-developmenral inquiry. American
Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Folger, R., & Ctopanzano, R. (1998). Organizationaljustice and
human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., &
Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orienration, metacog-
nitive activiry, and practice strategies with learning outcomes
and uansfer.Journal ofApplied Psychology. 83(2),218-233.
Frayne, C. A., & Latham, G. P. (1987). The application of social
learning theory to employee self managemenr of attendance.
Journal ofApplied Psychology. 72,387-392.
French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The
mechanisms ofjob stress and strain. New York: Wiley.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative (PI): An active
performance concept for work in the 21st cenrury. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Frese, M., Kring, W, Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal
initiative at work: Differences berween East and West
Germany. Academy ofManagementJournal 39, 37-63.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psy-
chology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D.
Dunnerre, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 271-340). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validiry of the job char-
acteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology. 40,287-322.
Fried, Y., Grant, A. M., Levi, A. S., Hadant, M., & Slowik, L.
H. (2007). Job design in temporal conrext: A career dynam-
ics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28,
911-927.
Fritz, c., & Sonnenrag, S. (2005). Recovery, well-being and
job performance: Effecrs of weekend experiences. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology. 10, 187-199.
Fritz, c., & Sonnenrag, S. (2006). Recovery, well-being, and per-
formance-related outcomes: The role of workload and vaca-
tion experiences. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 91, 936-945.
Frost, B. c., Ko, C. E., & James, L. R. (2007). Implicit and
explicit personaliry: A test of a channeling hypothesis
for aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92,
1299-1319.
WORK MOTIVATION
~
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory
and work motivation. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 26,
331-362.
Gagne, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation
systems through the lens of self-determination theory:
Reconciling 35 years of debate. Canadian Psychology. 49,
225-232.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). CroSS-Cultural
organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology. 58,
479-514.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in
the workplace: The effecrs of feelings on focus of arrenrion
and motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18,
75-109.
Gist, M. E., Baverra, A. G., & Stevens, C. K. (1990). The effec-
tiveness of self-managemenr versus goal serring rraining in
facilitating training transfer. Academy of Management Best
Papers Proceedings, 117-121.
Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations (3rd ed.).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sers. In E. T.
Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motiva-
tion and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford
Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (2003). Why we thought chat action mind-
sers affect illusions of conrrol. Psychological InqUiry. 14,
259-267.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Kinney, R. F. (1989). Effects of deliberative
and implemenral mind-sers in the conrrol of action. Journal
o/Personality and Social Psychology. 59, 1119-1127.
Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Advances in organiza-
tionaljustice. Stanford, CA: Scanford Press.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998).
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The
implicit association test. Journal 0/ Personality and Social
Psychology. 74, 1464-1480.
Greguras, G.J., & Diefendorff,J. M., (2009). Differenrfirs satisfy
differenr needs: Linking person-environmenr fit co employee
attitudes and performance using self-determination theory.
Journal ofApplied Psychology. 94, 465-477-
Guion, R. M., & Gottier, R. F. (1965). Validiry of personality
measures in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 18,
135-164.
Guerrero, S., & Sire, B. (200 I). Motivation to train from
the workers' perspective: Example of French companies.
International Journal of Human Resource Managemertt, 12,
988-1004.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through
the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior
& Human Performance, 16,250-279.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin: Springer
Verlag.
Heckhausen, J., & Schultz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of
conrrol. PsycholOgical Review, 102, 284-304.
Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2005). The predictive validity
of self-efficacy in training performance: Litde more than past
performance. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Applied. 11,
84-97.
Heimerdinger, S. R., & Hinsz, V. B. (2008). Failure avoidance
motivatiolt"in a goal-setting situation. Human Performance,
21,383-395.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatoty
focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp.
1-46). New York: Academic Press.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new
attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44,
513-524.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitmenr
and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospecrs, and pro-
posals for future research. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 72,
212-220.'
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007).
Inregrating motivational, social, and conrextual work design
features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension
of the work deSign literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology.
92, 1332:-1356.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personaliry and job per-
formance: The big five revisited. Journal ofApplied Psychology.
85,869-879.
Hurtz, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (2009). Arrirudinal and motiva-
tional antecedenrs ofparticipation in volunrary employee devel-
opmenr activities. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 94, 635-653.
James, L. R. (1998). Measuremenr of personaliry via conditional
reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, I, 131-163.
James, L. R., McInryre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Green, P. D.,
Patron, T. W, LeBreton, J. M., Frost, B. c., Russell, S. M.,
Sablynski, C. J., Mitchell, T. R., & Williams, L. J. (2005). A
conditional reasoning measure for aggression. Organizational
Research Methods, 8,69-99.
James, L. R., & Renrsch, J. R. (2004). JUSTIFY to explain the
reasons why: A conditional reasoning approach co under-
standing motivated behavior. In B. Schneider & D. B. Smith
(Eds.), Personality andorganizations (pp. 230-250). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johns, G. (2006). The essenrial impact of conrext on orga-
nizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31,
386-408.
Johnson, R. E., Lord, R. G., Rosen, C. c., & Chang, C. H. (2007).
The implicit effecrs of (un)fairness on motivation: What we
aren't aware of might be important! Unpublished manuscript.
Johnson R. E., & Steinman L. (2009). The use of implicit mea-
sures for organizational research: An empirical example.
Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 41, 202-212.
Johnson, R. E., Tolenrino, A. L., Rodopman, O. B., & Cho, E.
(2010). We (sometimes) know not how we feel: Predicting
job performance with an implicit measure of trait affectiviry.
Persormel Psychology. 63, 197-219.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (200 I) Relationship of core self-eval-
uations traits-self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus
of conrrol, and emotional stabiliry-wi th job satisfaction
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 86, 80-92.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005).
Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role
of self-concordance and goal arrainment. Journal ofApplied
Psychology. 90, 257-268.
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2007). Capitalizing on one's advan-
tages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology. 92, 1212-1227.
Judge, T. A., & !lies, R. (2002). Relationship of personaliry to
performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 87, 530-541.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The disposi-
tional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.
.{
. "
Kanfer, R. (1987). Task specific motivation: An inregrative
approach co issues of measuremenr, mechanisms, processes,
and determinanrs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.
5,237-264.
Kanfer, R. (1989). Non-cognitive processes, dispositions, and
performance: Connecting the dors within and across para-
digms. In R. Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman, & R. Cudeck (Eds.),
Abilities, motivation, and methodology: The Minnesota sympo-
sium on learning and individmJl,.Jijferenw (pp. 375-388).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organi-
zational psychology. In M. D. Dunnerre (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp.
75-130). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory
and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Roberrson (Eds.),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (Vol. 7, pp.I-53). London: John Wiley.
Kanfer, R. (1993). Educationfom a workplaceperspective: Issues of
self-management. Resources in Education ERIC Documenr
Reproduction Service No. 348-717.
Kanfer, R. (2009). Work and older adults: Motivation and per-
formance. In C. J. Czaja & J. Sharit (Eds.), The fUture of
work for an aging population. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins
Universiry Press.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cogni-
tive abilities: An inregrative/aptitude-treatmenr interac-
tion approach co skill acquisition. [Monograph). Journal of
Applied Psychology. 74,657---{)90.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult develop-
menr, and work motivation. Academy ofManagement Review,
29,440-458.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. (1996). Motivational
skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective.
Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 185-209.
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). The three C's
of work motivation: Conrenr, conrext, and change. In R.
Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past,
present, andfUture (pp. 1-16). New York: Rou eledge.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. (1997). Motivational trairs and
skills: A person-cenrered approach to work motivation. In
L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organi-
zational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 1-57). Greenwich, CT: JAl
Press.
Kanfer, R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2002). Abiliry and non-
abiliry predictors of performance. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.),
Psychological management of individual performance: A
handbook in the psychology of management in organizations
(pp. 27-50). Oxford: John Wiley.
Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. S. (1969). Learningfoundations of
behavior therapy. Oxford: John Wiley.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. c., Dugdale, B., &
Nelson, L. (1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and
task performance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal
ofApplied Psychology. 79, 826-835.
Kanfer, R., & Stubblebine, P. (2008). Affect and work motiva-
tion. In N. M. Ashkansay & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research
companion to emotions in organizations (pp. 170-182).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, c., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job
search and employmenr: A personaliry-motivational analysis
and meta-analytic review. Journal ofApplied Psychology. 86,
837-855.
KANFER 49 1
Kanfer, R., Wolf. M. B., Kancrowitz. T M., & Ackerman, P. L.
(2009). Ability and crait complex predictors of job perfor-
mance: a person-situation approach. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 59. 40-69.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job decision latitude, job demands and
mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative
Scienu Quarterly, 24. 285-308.
Karasek, R. (1989). The political implications ofpsychosocial work
redesign. Internet journal ofHealth Services. 19,481-508.
Katzell, R. A., & Thompson, D. E. (1990). Work motivation:
Theory and practice. American Psychologist. 45, 144-153.
Kehr, H. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives
and perceived abilities: The compensatory model of work
motivation and volition. Acadony ofManagement Review, 29.
479-499.
Keith, N., & Frese. M. (2005). Self-regulation in error manage-
ment training: Emotion control and metacognition as medi-
ators of performance effects. journal of Applied Psychology.
90(4),677-691.
Keith, N., & Frese, M. (2008). Effectiveness of error manage-
ment rraining: A meta-analysis. journal ofApplied Psychology.
93,59-69.
Klein, H. J., Austin. J. T, & Cooper, J. T (2008). Goal choice
and decision processes. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D.
Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, and fUture (pp.
101-150). New York: Routledge.
Kooij. D. T. A. M., De Lange, A. H .• Jansen. P. G. W, Kanfer.
R., & Dikkers, J. S. E.. (2011). Age and work-related
motives: Results of a meta-analysis. journal ofOrganizational
Behavior, 32, 197-225..
Kozlowski, S. W J., & Bell. B. S. (2006). Disentangling achieve-
ment orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory
processes. journal ofApplied Psychology. 91, 900-916.
Kozlowski, S. W J., & ligen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effec-
tiveness ofwork groups and teams. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 1.77-124.
Kozlowski, S. W J., & Salas, E. (Eds). (2010). Leaming, train-
ing, and development in organizations. New York: Routledge/
Taylor-Francis Group.
Kozlowski. S. W. J., Watola, D. J., Jensen, J. M., Kim, B. H., &
Botero, I. C. (2009). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of
dynamic team leadership. In E. Salas, G. E Goodwin, & C.
S. Burke (Eds.), Team effietiveness in complex organizations:
Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 113-155).
New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative
review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implica-
tions. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Kuhl. J. (1986). Human motivation: From decision making to
action concrol. In B. Rehmer, B. Jungermann, P. Laures. &
G. Sevon (Eds.). New directions in research on decision making
(pp. 5-28). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Lam. C. E. DeRue. D. S.• Karam, E. P.. & Hollenbeck, J. R.
(2011). The impact of feedback frequence on learning and
task performance: Challenging the "more is becrer" assump-
tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
116, 217-228.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: HiJtory, theory, research
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Latham, G. P.• & Brown. T (2006). The effect of learning vs.
outcome goals on self-efficacy. satisfaction and performance
in an MBA program. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 55, 606-623.
49 2 WORK MOTIVATION
Latham, G. P.. & Frayne. C. A. (19~). Self management train-
ing for increasing job attendanc : A follow-up and a replica_
tion.journal ofApplied Psycholo , 4,411-416.
Latham. G. P., Erez. M.• & Locke. E. A. (1988). Resolving sci-
entific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by
the antagonists: Application to the Erez-Latham dispute re
participation in goal setting. journal ofApplied Psychology, 13.
753-772.
Latham. G. P.. & Pinder. C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory
and research at the dawn of the 21st century. Annual Review
ofPsychology. 56,485-516.
Latham. G. P.. Stajkovic. A. D .• & Locke, E. A. (2010). The rel-
evance and viability of subconscious goals in the workplace.
journal ofManagement. 36. 234-255.
Lewin. K. (1938). Conuptual representation and the measurement
ofpsychologicalforces. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Locke. E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and
incentives. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance,
3. 157-189.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction.
In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1319-1328).
Palo Alto. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Locke. E.A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory ofgoal setting and
task performanu. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N .• Saari, L. M .• & Latham, G. P. (1981).
Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological
Bulletin, 90. 125-152.
Locke. E. A.• & Schweiger. D. M. (1979). Participation in
decision-making: One more look. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 1. 265-340.
Lord. R. G .• Diefendorff. J. M .• Schmidt. A. M., & Hall. R. J.
(20 I 0). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review ofPsychology.
61.543-568.
Lord. R. G .• & Foti. R. J. (1986). Schema theories. information
processing and organizational behavior. In H. P. Sims. Jr.. &
D. A. Gioia (Eds.). The thinking organization: Dynamics of
organizational social cognitions (pp. 20-48). San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.
Lord. R. G .• & Moon, S. M. (2006). Individual differences in
automatic and controlled regulation of emotion and task
performance. Human Performance. 19, 327-356.
Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assess-
ing individual differences. "Sinking shafts at a few critical
points." Annual Review ofPsychology. 51. 405-444.
Marks. M. A., DeChurch. L. A., Mathieu. J. E.• Panzer. E J.• &
Alonso. A. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. journal
ofApplied Psychology. 90, 964-971.
Marks, M. A.. Mathieu, J. E.• & Zaccaro. S. J. (2001). A tem-
porally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.
Academy ofManagement Review, 26. 35-376.
Mathieu. J. E.• & Martineau, J. W. (1997). Individual and situ-
ational influences on training motivation. In J. K. Ford &
Associates (Eds.). Improving training ejfictivmess in work
organizations (pp. 193-222). Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Meyer. J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component concep-
tualization of organizational commitment. Human Resources
Management Review, 1,61-89.
Meyer. J. P., & Allen. N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace:
Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Becker. T. E.• & Vandenberghe. C. (2004). Employee
commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and inte-
grative model. journal ofApplied Psychology. 89. 992-1007.
Meyer,J. P.. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the work-
place: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management
Review, 11, 299-326.
Meyer, R. D., & Dalal. R. S. (2009). Situational strength
as a means of conceptualizing context. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspecti,!es on S:ience and Practice,
2,99-102. . Psychology. 95. r83~r9'C
Meyer. R. D.• Dalal. R. S.• & Bonaccio. S. (2009). A meta-ana-
lytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational
strength on the conscientiousness-performance relationship.
. journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 30.1077-1102.
Meyer. R. D.• Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review
and synthesis of situational Strength in the organizational sci-
ences. journal ofManagement, 36.121-140.
Michalak. J., Puschel. 0., Joormann. J., & Schulte. D. (2006).
Implicit motives and explicit goals: Two distinctive modes
of motivational functioning and their relations to psychopa-
thology. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13. 81-96.
Mischel. W (1968). Personality and assessment. New York:
Wiley.
Mischel. W. & Ebbesen. E. B. (1970). Attention in delay of
gratification. journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 16.
329-337.
Mitchell. T R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction.
occupational preference. and effort: A theoretical. method-
ological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81,
1053-1077.
Mitchell. T R. (1980). Expectancy-value models in organiza-
tional psychology. In N. Feather (Ed.). Expectancy, incentive
and action (pp. 293-312). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mitchell, T R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory,
research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 1.
80-88.
Mitchell. T R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W C.
Borman, D. R. ligen, & R. J. K1imoski (Eds.). Handbook of
psychology. Volume 12, Industrial psychology (pp. 225-254).
New York: Wiley.
Mitchell. T R., Harmon, W. S., Lee, T W, & Lee. D-Y. (2008).
Self-regulation and multiple deadline goals. In R. Kanfer, G.
Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present,
andfuture (pp. 197-232). New York: Routledge.
Mitchell, T R., Hopper. H., Daniels. D., George-Falvy, J., &
James. L. R. (1994). Predicting self-efficacy and performance
dUring skill acquisition. journal of Applied Psychology. 19,
506-517.
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M.• & Baumeister. R. E (1998). Self-
conttol as a limited resoutce: Regulatory depletion patterns.
journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 74,774-789.
Naylor.J. c., Pritchard. R. D .• & ligen. D. R. (1980). A theory of
behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press.
Nicholls. J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement
motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.). Research on moti-
vation in education (Vol. I., pp. 39-73). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees' attributes and attitudes: Neglected
influences on training effectiveness. Academy ofManagement
Review, 11,736-749.
Parker. S. K.. & Ohly. S. (2008). Designing motivating jobs:
An expanded framework for linking work characteristics
and motivation. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard
(Eds.). Motivation: Past. present, and fUture (pp. 233-284).
New York: Routledge.
Payne. S. c., Youngcourt. S. S., & Beaubien. J. M. (2007). A
meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomologi-
cal net.jollrnal ofApplied Psychology. 92. 128-150.
Pearsall. M. J .• Christian. M. S., & Ellis. A. P. J. (2010).
Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards.
shared rewards. or something in between? journal ofApplied
Pinder. C. C (1998). WVrk motivation in organizational behavior.
Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pinder. C. C (2008). WVrk motivation in organizational behavior
(2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Porter. C. O. L H., Webb. J. W., & Gogus. C. 1. (2010). When
goal orientations collide: Effects oflearning and performance
orientation on team adaptability in response to workload
imbalance. jOllrnal ofApplied Psychology. 95. 935-943.
Pritchard. R. D .• Harrell, M. M .• DiazGranados. D., & Guzman.
M. J. (2008). The productivity measurement and enhance-
ment system: A meta-analysis. journal ofApplied Psychology.
93.540-567.
Randel. A. E.• & Ranft. A. L. (2007). Motivations to maintain
social ties with coworkers: The moderating role of turnover
intentions on information exchange. Group and Organizatioll
Management. 32. 208-232.
Rawsthorne. L. J .• & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A meta-analytic review. Personality alld
Social Psychology Review, 3, 326-344.
Raynor. J. 0 .. & Entin. E. E. (1982). Theory and research on
future orientation and achievement motivation. In J. O.
Raynor & E. E. Entin (Eds.). Motivation. career striving, and
aging (pp. 13-82). Washington. DC: Hemisphere.
Rico. R.• Sanchez-Manzanares. M .• Gil, E, & Gibson. C.
(2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team
knowledge-based approach. Academy ofManagement Review,
33. 163-184.
Ruud. c., & Aarts, H. (2010). The unconscious will: How the
pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness.
Scimce, 329. 47-50.
Salancik, G. R.• & Pfeffer.J. (1978). Asocial information process-
ing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23(2). 224-253
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J.• & Rosen. M. A. (2008). On teams. team-
work. and team performance: Discoveries and developments.
Human Facton, 50, 540-547.
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2007). What to do? The
effects of discrepancies. incentives, and time on dynamic goal
prioritization. journal ofApplied Psychology. 92, 928-94 I.
Schmidt, A. M.• & DeShon. R. P. (2009). Prior performance
and goal progress as moderators of the relationship between
self-efficacy and performance. Ijuman Performance, 22.
191-203.
Schmidt, A. M.• & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects
of performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-
efficacy and performance. journal ofApplied Psychology. 95,
572-581.
Schmidt, A. M.• Dolis. C. M .• & Tolli. A. P. (2009). A matter of
time: Individual differences. contextual dynamics, and goal
progress effects on multiple goal self-regulation. jourY/al of
Applied Psychology. 94. 692-709.
Schultheiss. O. c.. & Brunstein, J. C. (2001). Assessment of
implicit motives with a research version of the TAT: Picture
KANFER 493

profiles, gender differences, and relarions to other personality
measures. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 77, 71-86.
Schultheiss, O. c., & Pang, J. H. (2007). Measuring implicit
motives. In R. W Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. E Krueger
(Eds.), Handbook ofresearch methods in personality psychology
(pp. 322-344). New York: Guilford Press.
Seo, M., Feldman-Barretr, L. E, & Barrunek, J. M. (2004). The
role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy of
Management, 29, 423-439.
Seijrs, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus per-
formance goals: When should each be used? Academy of
Management Executive, 19, 124-131.
Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2004). Job complexity, performance,
and well-being: When does sUEP!ies-vaIues fit marter?
Personnel Psychology, 57, 847-879.
Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance model of healthy
goal-striving: When personal goals correcrly represenr the
person. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook ofself-
determination theory (pp. 65-86). Rochesrer, NY: University
of Rochester Press.
Sheldon, K M., & Elliot, A J. (1999). Goal striving, need-
sarisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concor-
dance model. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76,
482-497.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The
theoty of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research
with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal ofConsumer Research, 15,325-343.
Shi, J., Lin, H., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2009). Linking rhe big
five constructs to organizarional justice. Social Behavior and
Personality: An InternationaiJournal, 37(2), 209-222.
Shultz, K, & Adams, G. A. (2007). Aging and work in the 21st
century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Simons, J., Dewirte, S., & Lens, W. (2004). The role of differenr
types of insrrumenrali ty in morivarion, study srrategies, and
performance: Know why you learn, so you'll know what you
learn! British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 74, 343-360.
Simons, J., Vansteenkisre, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004).
Placing motivation and future rime perspecrive rheory in a
temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16,
121-139.
Simpson, P. A., Greller, M. M., & Stroh, L. K (2002). Variations
in human capiral invesrment acrivity by age. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 109-138.
Sitzmann, T, Bell, B. S., Kraiger, K, & Kanar, A M. (2009). A
multilevel analysis of the effect of prompring self-regulation
in technology-delivered instruction. Personnel Psychology,
62(4),697-734.
Sitzmann, T, & Ely; K (2010). Sometimes you need a reminder:
The effects of prompting self-regualrory processes, learning
and attrition. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 132-144.
Sonnenrag, S., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizarions.
In W. C. Borman, D. R. ligen, & R. J. K1imoski (Eds.),
Handbook ofpsychology (Vol. 12, pp. 453-491). Hoboken,
NJ:Wiley.
Sonnenrag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience
Quesrionnaire: Developmenr and validarion of a measure for
assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 12,204-221.
Sonnenrag, S., & Kruel, U. (2006). Psychological detachmenr
from work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job
involvemenr, and recovery-related self-efficacy. European
Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 15, 197-217.
WORK MOTI-VATION
494 I
View publication stats
i'l
Wrzesniewski, A., & Durton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job:
Spangler, W D. (1992). Validity of (uesrionnaire and TAT Webb, T L., & Sheeran, P. (2008). Mechanisms of implementa-
Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.
measures of need for achievemeX Two meta-analyses. tion intention effects: The role of goal inrenrions, self-effi-
Academy ofManagement Review, 26, 179-201.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140-154. cacy, and accessibility of plan components. British Journal of Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, c., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B.
Stajkovic, A. D., Locke, E. A., & Blair, E. S. (2006). A firSt Social Psychology, 47, 373-395.
(1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People's relarions to their
examination of the relarionships between primed subcon_ Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective evenrs the-
work. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 31, 21-33. .
scious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance. ory: A rheorerical discussion of the structure, causes, and
Yeo, G., Loft, S., Xiao, T, & Kiewitz, C. (2009). Goal onenra-
Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 1172-1180. consequences of affecrive experiences at work. Research In
rions and performance: Differenrial relarionships across lev-
Steel, P., & Konig, C. J. (2006). Inregrating theories of mOtiva- Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
els of analysis and as a funcrion of task demands. Journal of
rion. Academy ofManagement Review, 31, 889-913. Whitford, T, & Moss, S. A. (2009). Transformarional leader-
ship in distributed work groups: The moderaring role of f~l­ Applied Psychology,. 94, nO:-n('i.·_- .
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteurs quadrant. Washington, DC: Yeo, G., & Neal, A. (2006). An examinarion of the dynamiC
Brookings Insriturion Press. lower regulatory focus and goal orienrarion. Commumcatzon
relarionship between self-efficacy and performance acr~ss
Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindser on Research,35, 1026-1046.
levels of analysis and levels of specificity. Journal ofApplzed
positive illusions. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychowgy. Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect oflearning ver-
sus ouu:ome goals on a simple versus a complex cask. Group Psychology, 91, 1088-1101.
69, 213--226.
Zaccaro, S. J., Ely, K, & Nelson, J. (2008). Leadership pro-
Thorndike, R. L. (Ed.). (1947). Research problems and techniques and O;ganization Management, 21, 235-250.
cesses and work motivarion. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, &
(Rep. No.3). Washington, DC: U.S. Prinring Office. Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A (1987). Task complex-
R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Motivation: Past, preser/t, and future
Tice, D. M., Baumeister, R. E, Shmueli, D., & Muraven, M. ity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of
(pp. 319-360). New York: Routledge.
(2007). Restoring the self: Posirive affect helps improve self- Applied Psychology, 72,416-425. .. .. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated
regulation following ego deplerion. Joumal ofExperimental Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding posltlve mean10g 10 work. In
learning and academic achievement: Theoretical per-
Social Psychology, 43(2), 379-384. K S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
spectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Tolli, A P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, organizational scholarship (pp. 296-308). San Francisco:
Associates.
causal artriburions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal Berrert-Koehler.
ofApplied Psychology, 93, 692-701.
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, artitudes, and inrerpersonal
behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1979: Beliefs,
Attitudes and Values (pp. 195-259). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., Campion, M. A., & Paronro, M.
E. (2006). A field srudy of the role of big five personality
in applicant perceptions of selection fairness, self, and the
hiring organizarion. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 14, 269-277.
Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of morivational state:
A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1,
170-182.
Van Hooft, E. A, & Noordzij, G. (2009). The effecrs of goal
orienrarion on job search and reemploymenr: A field expeti-
menr among unemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94,1581-1590.
Vancouver, J. B., More, K M., & Yoder, R. J. (2008). Self-
efficacy and resource allocation: Supporr for a nonmono-
tonic, disconrinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93,35-47.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmirt, N. (1991). An exploratory exami-
narion of person-organizarion fit: Organizarional goal con-
gruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333-352.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., Tischner, E. c., & Putka,
D. J. (2002). Two studies examining the negative effect of
self-efficacy on performance. Journal of Applied Psychowgy,
87,506-516.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A (2001).
The changing signs in the relarionships between self-effi-
cacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 605-620.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Developmenr and validarion of a
work domain goal orientarion instrumenr. Educational and
PsycholOgical Measurement, 8,995-1015.
Vroom, V. (1964)~ Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Walsch, K, & Gordon, J. R. (2008). Creating an individual work
idenrity. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 46-61.
Warr, P. B. (2008). Work values: Some demographic and cul-
tural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 81,751-775.
KANFER 495