FH 17 eN 01 IPADE

FH 17 eN 01
September, 2017

ABOUT MOTIVATION

Case developed by Introduction

professor German
Céspedes Herrera of the Motivation is associated with better performance and retention and
Organizational Behavior it is arguably one of the most important jobs of a leader. Many of
Department of the
the incentive systems adopted by organizations assume that money
Instituto Panamericano
de Alta Dirección de is the most important element of motivation or at least, the only
Empresa, for it to be used one that a Company can handle. Researchers and experienced
as basis for discussion managers agree that money is not enough and many managerial,
and not as an example of cultural and organizational practices have been building on more
adequate or inadequate comprehensive approaches.
management in a specific
situation. This note is an introductory summary of the main theories and
elements in the motivation arena and proposes a model to
understand motivation from three perspectives: extrinsic, intrinsic
and transcendent.

It is difficult to establish a unique definition, because motivation

is an internal and subjective event that we can neither see nor
measure. However, motivation has been associated with
fundamental knowledge of the human being and some of the
greatest realities of human nature. It is a concept that embraces the
influence of many forces, both internal and environmental, in the
understanding individual behavior. Campbell and Pritchard (1983)
propose that motivation comprises:

a) a choice to initiate effort on a certain task (direction);

↑

b) the choice to expend a certain amount of effort (intensity); and

c) the choice to persist in expending effort over a period of time
(duration).

Copyright © 2017 Sociedad Panamericana de Estudios Empresariales, A.C. (Instituto

Panamericano de Alta Dirección de Empresa, IPADE).
Printed by EDAC, S.A. de C.V., Cairo Nº 29, 02080, México, D.F.
All rights reserved. The content of this document, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced
10 pages by any means –including electronic means– without prior written permission of the copyright

-1-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

IPADE FH 17 eN 01

Understanding motivation means recognizing the presumed causes of behavior, in which many aspects
intervene. Among the many mediating factors, we can easily identify reward, type of task, personal aptitude,
individual skill, alternative options, peer reference and supporters. The combination of motivational factors
for each person in a given circumstance is denominated motivational profile.1 This motivational profile is
dynamic and changes over time, and it is a critical aspect for understanding and inspiring each person, as
well as retaining talent and attracting the right people into an organization.

Motivation Theories

Because motivation is an internal and invisible phenomenon, theories are required to recognize and measure
observable manifestations of work motivation (Bacharach, 1989). Some theories (e.g. equity theory)
propose that work motivation manifests in attitudinal and behavioral dimensions such as satisfaction and
performance, while others (e.g. goal-setting) rely mainly on behavioral measures (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999).
Ambrose and Kulik (1999) suggest that seven traditional theories should be taken into consideration when
talking about motivation: motives and needs, expectancy theory, equity theory, goal-setting, work design,
reinforcement theory, and cognitive evaluation theory, also known as self-determination theory.

Motives distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic factors regarding job attributes (Herzberg, 1964).
Intrinsic factors are motivators that nurture satisfaction, such as recognition or achievement, while extrinsic
factors are hygiene factors that avoid dissatisfaction, such as money or status. Hygiene factors demotivate
when absent, but do not generate positive motivation when present.

Needs theory relates to the progressive accomplishment of certain basic factors, such as safety, belonging
and self-esteem (Maslow, 1943). Maslow stated, as part of a new theory for the study of humankind, that
human needs are arranged in a hierarchy according to the urgency of their satisfaction. This is one of the
most extended theories used to explain human motivation, and provides a very intuitive approach to
personal experience.

Individuals first seek the satisfaction of basic needs, before being able to move forward to higher
dimensions. People’s various needs are present simultaneously, and the urgency of their satisfaction gives
them relative predominance. However, people tend to satisfy them in a particular order, moving from
physiological needs (e.g. food, sleep), to security needs (e.g. order, routine), to affiliation needs (e.g.
acceptance, membership), to affection needs (e.g. achievement, recognition) and finally to self-actualization
needs 2 (e.g. perfection, integrity). The higher the necessity on this scale (taking into account that
physiological needs are at the base of the pyramid and self-actualization is at its peak), the weaker their
demands and the easier to ignore or suppress through tradition or habit.

1Pablo Cardona and Álvaro Espejo, Basics on Work Motivation. IESE, 2004.
2The correct term for this category is co-actualization, since humans actualize themselves through others and not by themselves.
This idea appears throughout Maslow’s writings, but is not mentioned in this hierarchy.

-2-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

FH 17 eN 01 IPADE

Both theories have considerable intuitive appeal and are closely related, since both focus primarily on
factors that stimulate motivated action. Basic needs are similar to hygiene factors, while superior needs
correspond with intrinsic motivators. These theories based their analysis on the existence of needs, a lack
of something that is an innate requisite or desire of the human being and that can be fulfilled with different
types of goods.

Other group of theories based their analysis on an understanding of the internal process within each person
to be motivated.

According to expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), motivation is a multiplicative function of three elements:
expectancy, instrumentality and valence. Expectancy is the belief that one’s effort will result in attainment
of desired performance; instrumentality is the belief that one will receive a reward if the performance
expectation is met; and valence is the value that one places on the rewards of an outcome, based on one’s
needs, goals or values.

Motivation = Expectancy x Instrumentality x Valence

If one condition is missing (value of zero), motivation disappears. For example: if the bonus is linked with
the task but the task (expectancy) is impossible, motivation disappears; if the bonus is linked with the task,
the task is possible but the employee does not care about the reward (valence) –i.e. promotion–, motivation
is not present; if the employee believes that his boss is unfair and will not give him the bonus, motivation
disappears. This theory makes some important assumptions that appear in later studies, but it has been
difficult to establish its practical applicability.

Equity theory explores how employees react to situations in which they are treated more or less favorably
in comparison with referent others (Pritchard, 1969). Research has consistently found that under-
compensated workers produce lower performance and reduce motivation when feeling undervalued (Cosier
& Dalton, 1983), but the findings on over-compensated workers are less consistent, and the theory is vague
about other variables of human behavior (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). It works on the negative side –hygiene
factors–, but not clearly on the positive motivation.

-3-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

IPADE FH 17 eN 01

Most recent research on equity theory relates to a framework of justice, and more specifically to the impact
of justice on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), according to which employees will increase or
decrease discretionary activities as a way of adjusting their equity relationships (Allen, Evans & White,
2011).

An important theory in the motivation field over the last 25 years is goal-setting theory (Lunenburg, 2011)
which assumes that human behavior is guided by fixed goals. Its basic principles are:

• assuming commitment, knowledge and skills, setting a specific higher goal leads to better performance
than specific easy or general goals, or no goals (Locke, Latham & Erez, 1988);
• goal setting is most effective when constant feedback on progress is provided (Locke & Latham, 2004);
• participation and self-set goals enhance goal commitment (Kanfer et al., 1994);
• self-efficacy (task-specific self-confidence) has a positive influence on commitment and acceptance of
the level of difficulty of the goal (Pajares, 2003).

Among other important findings, goal-setting theory proposes that when a goal is particularly complex, a
general objective, such as “do your best,” may lead to better performance (Mone & Shalley, 1995).
However, a specific high goal will be more effective when the individual or team knows the path to be
taken, or when the task is more operational. Goal-setting theory focuses mainly on the behavioral
consequences of observable variables.

Work design focuses primarily on job characteristics theory (JCT), proposed by Oldham and Hackman
(1981). It emphasizes the importance of five core job characteristics –skill variety, task identity, task
significance, feedback and autonomy– that affect individual and organizational outcomes, such as
motivation, satisfaction, performance and turnover, through three psychological states: experienced
meaningfulness, responsibility and knowledge of results (Oldham & Hackman, 1980).

An individual must experience these three psychological states in order to achieve the outcomes, meaning
that a person must feel responsible and have a meaningful job in order to be motivated. Job characteristics
are somehow responsible for psychological states. For example, when a job scores highly on job
characteristics, the three psychological states will be generated, which will lead to positive work outcomes
(Oldham & Hackman, 2010).

This theory proposes moderators that link job characteristics to psychological states, and psychological
states to outcomes. These include growth-need-strength (GNS), knowledge and skills, and context
satisfaction (Kulik, Oldham & Hackman, 1987). GNS refers to the strength of need for personal
accomplishment, learning and development.

Finally, there are also some theories that reduce motivation to a conditioning and downgrade free will to a
psychological illusion. Reinforcement theory highlights the relationship between behavior and its
consequences, mediated by an antecedent stimulus such as reward or punishment.

If the consequence of a previous action is bad, the action is discouraged; on the contrary, if the consequence
of an action is good, there is a high probability that it will be repeated. The most systematic effort to apply
reinforcement theory uses the organizational behavior modification (OBMod) paradigm of systematic
reinforcement of desirable work behavior and punishment of unwanted work behavior (Kreitner & Luthans,
1984), which draws heavily on the work of Skinner (1953). Today, organizations are aware that Skinner’s
assumptions offer an inadequate understanding of human nature that ignores freedom and builds mainly on
instincts. A community called Twin Oaks was founded to live on Skinner´s principles in 1967, but Skinner´s
vision quickly faded and it continued under different ideas.

-4-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

FH 17 eN 01 IPADE

Self-Determination Theory

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) boomed during the 1970s and 1980s, and has been incorporated into
a much broader theory called Self-Determination theory (SDT) (Gagné & Deci, 2005). A lively and
dynamic community is developing further analysis and application of this theory (for a wide collection of
articles and experiments, see www.selfdeterminationtheory.org). Building on Vroom’s (1964) theory and
Porter and Lawler’s model (Schuster, Clark & Rogers, 1971), Deci (1967) proposed a distinction between
autonomous and controlled motivation.

Intrinsic motivation emerges from spontaneous satisfaction with the activity itself (“I like to”), contrasting
with extrinsic motivation, which requires instrumentality between the activity and the consequences to
which the activity leads (“I have to”) (Deci, 1975). Emphasis on external factors, such as tangible rewards,
deadlines, evaluations, and surveillance, decreases the feeling of autonomy and changes the perceived locus
of causality (PLOC) from internal to external. In contrast, providing a choice about aspects of the task
enhances feelings of autonomy, increasing intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Autonomy is a significant concept within SDT, and takes a profound philosophical perspective.
Etymologically, autonomy means self-governance (nomos means “law” in Greek), as opposed to
heteronomy (heteros means “other”). An autonomous action means a self-determined act, an act caused by
the individual, and relates to a sense of personal causation (Ryan & Deci, 2006). For SDT, autonomy entails
not the absence of external influences but its endorsement. A person may be self-determined, even when
acting in accordance with external demands in consenting to external inducements: “Autonomy is thus not
equivalent to independence” (Miller, Deci & Ryan, 1988).

SDT maintains that heteronomy and autonomy lie on a continuum with five levels of motivation: externally
regulated; introjected or partial assimilation; identification or personal valuing; integration or synthesis with
the totality of personal values and belief; and intrinsic.

Internalization is the process that describes the movement from extrinsic to more intrinsic motivation, so
that we can talk of “autonomous –i.e. well-internalized– extrinsic motivation” (Gagné & Deci, 2005). SDT
also distinguishes tendencies in each individual across specific domains and behaviors. A person may be
more inclined to autonomy –or control-oriented, while an impersonal causality orientation refers to people
whose behavioral regulation is impaired and uncontrolled (Sheldon et al., 2004, p.2048).

According to SDT, autonomous motivation is “superior for promoting performance in jobs involving
complex tasks and personally important tasks requiring disciplined engagement, and it has been associated
with satisfaction and adjustment on those jobs” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p.347).3

SDT argues that three basic psychological needs feed intrinsic motivation and internalization processes:
competence, autonomy and relatedness (Sheldon et al., 2004). These are “universal necessities, essential
for optimal human development and integrity” and essential to psychological health. Psychological health
is undermined without them (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Relatedness “concerns establishing a sense of mutual respect and reliance with others” (Sheldon et al.,
2004), and is closely linked with “cognitive processes, emotional patterns, behavioral responses, and health

3 A proposal by Deci, which has hitherto received little experimental support, suggests that “autonomous (versus controlled)
motivation and the job content and context factors that promote autonomous (versus controlled) motivation moderate the
relationship between job satisfaction and job performance” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 353). When work climate supports autonomy,
SDT hypotheses a positive performance-satisfaction relationship. Which “job content” and “context factors” support autonomy?
In autonomy-supportive work climates, “managers are able to take others’ perspective, provide greater choice and encourage self-
initiation” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 350).

-5-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

IPADE FH 17 eN 01

and well-being” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p.522). The need for interpersonal attachment may be one of
the most powerful and integrative constructs through which to understand human nature (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). Patterns associated with group behavior and close relationships can be understood as serving
the need to belong (Baumeister & Wotman, 1992).

In exploring the motivation process, SDT suggests that relatedness plays a central role in the internalization
of values and regulations: “internalization is facilitated by the explicit or implicit endorsement of behaviors
by significant others” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p.339). Research based on SDT has also found that “people
feel most related to those who support their autonomy”, and support for autonomy is associated with
relationship stability and satisfaction (Dickinson, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1565).

Outcome-based Motivation

In the outcome-based theory (OBT) developed by Juan Antonio Pérez-López,4 the motives are related to
the expected outcomes of an action. An action may have three different levels of outcomes (extrinsic,
intrinsic and transcendent) and a person could act considering a combination of those outcomes or
consequences.

Extrinsic motivation is related to the rewards a person will receive by others in exchange for his or her
behavior. These rewards (i.e. money or promotion) come as a consequence of the action but are different
than the action itself and are normally given by other parties, such as the boss, peers, or the organization.
The extrinsic motivation is positive when looking for positive rewards such as money, status, or recognition,
and negative when the action is performed to avoid punishment such as economic sanctions, physic or
emotional damage.

Intrinsic motivation is the willingness to act based on the satisfaction received by performing the specific
behavior. The consequences are the pleasure, learning or satisfaction caused by the action in itself, without
the intervention of others. Research supports that intrinsic motivation create more engagement and effort
in the task performed and during more time. On the contrary, the lack of intrinsic motivation lead to a
decrease in creativity and performance, particularly in tasks associated with more sophisticated skills. The
use of extrinsic rewards for intrinsically motivated activities have the consequence of reducing future
intrinsic motivation. This crowding-out effect is well documented by the SDT research.

Pérez-López also proposed the existence of a transcendent motivation, which is a force that drives
individuals to act due to the benefits of those actions for other people. All of us have two natural tendencies
present in our nature: to receive and to give (Llano, 2010). Many of our relationships, such as love,
paternity, friendship, citizenship and philanthropy, explain this natural tendency: we want to receive from
others, but we also find great satisfaction in giving something to others, to transcend.

Individuals with transcendent motivation will act in the best interests of their family, their country or their
beliefs. It is called transcendent because the consequences go beyond the individual, although they may be
considered as an extension of the individual’s own existence. Transcendent motivation is a source of
profound meaning for human life, and one of few drivers that lead people to self-sacrifice for the benefit of
others. This motivation is also called altruistic motivation or motivation for contribution. Transcendent
motivation may also have a negative side when somebody is motivated to cause damage in others, like in
the case of envy or revenge.

SDT and OBT use similar concepts and propose a complementary approach in the conception of motivation
in terms of extrinsic, intrinsic and transcendent relationships.
4 Pérez-López, J.A. Teoría de la acción humana en las organizaciones. Madrid, Rialp, 1991.

-6-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

FH 17 eN 01 IPADE

Motivation and freedom

We are self-activating organisms able, to some extent, of controlling our own destinies and responses to
pressures, deciding on goals and choosing the paths toward them (Handy, 1993). It is also true that we have
a set of needs and desired results, but we can decide how much effort to invest in any particular activity.
Free choice is present in every human being but the personal choice is different for each person. Everyone
makes their own calculus and takes their own decisions, so no one else’s prediction is necessarily right.

That is why it is not possible to motivate anyone without their cooperation, which also implies personal
decisions on the hierarchy of values and needs. In a strict sense, there is no “motivation by others”, but only
self-motivation (Llano, 2010). On a daily basis, we use the word “motivation” to express the possibility of
influencing the behavior of others but the reality is that we only can “propose” and “predispose” with
motives so that each person decides at the end what to do.

Carlos Llano recalls an example from the Spanish literature to illustrate this idea. When Sancho Panza was
nominated governor of Barataria in El Quijote, he condemned a young man to sleep in prison during the
whole night. The young man answered that he cannot do that. He only can imprison him behind bars but
“nobody on earth can make him sleep on prison”. To sleep is a personal choice.

Most of the theories explained focus on a certain dimension of the human choice and each one cooperates
to the understanding about how to influence the “calculus process” regarding how much effort or energy
we choose to assign to a particular set of goals. However, numerous factors intervene in the decision process
–education, history, time, age, organization, emotions, rationality, etc.– so no theory has a final word on
motivation. The volitional component of every individual adds an incommensurable dimension which
cannot be reduced to a limited theory or a mechanism.

Instinctive and Rational

Since this is an introductory note, it is impossible to explain or mention every aspect of motivation, but
some other aspects should be considered, including rationality, context and money.

The so-called “act of calculation” may range from unconscious to entirely deliberate. The unconscious we
label “instinct,” and the conscious “rational.” The instinctive-rational dyad is also associated with the time
span covered, which may vary from immediate to decades. The longer the period, the more variables can
be incorporated into the process and the more complex it becomes. Only a rational being is capable of long-
term motives.

The calculus becomes more difficult if the anticipated results are unclear or invisible, as is common during
long-term projects or relationships. Rationality, in contrast to emotions, is a human faculty that enables us
to maintain our efforts, even in the presence of painful effects or undesirable short-term results.

In fact, an individual’s maturity is associated with the capacity to focus on long-term goals and make
rational decisions over immediate emotional feelings. A simple example is exercise, where the immediate
sacrifice is painful compared with the distant success in health.

Organizational Commitment

Relationships between individuals and organizations also play an important role. There is a psychological
contract between the two. We have a set of expected results from the organization that will satisfy certain
of our needs, in return for which we will expend some our energies and talents. Similarly, the organization
has its own set of expectations and a list of payments or outcomes that it will give us.

-7-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

IPADE FH 17 eN 01

Most of us belong to more than one kind of organization (family, church, company), so we will have more
than one psychological contract, and we will not satisfy all our needs in only one of them. It is therefore a
challenge to harmonize the requirements of the different ambits, including our personal expectations and
goals.

Money

Motivation analysis cannot ignore the role of money, present in all corporate incentive plans. In the business
context, money is a major mechanism for rewarding and modifying behavior based on extrinsic rewards,
basic needs and reinforcement theory. As IPADE´s professor Mauricio Brehm used to say, “Money will
never motivate. But it certainly keeps you moving.”

The value of money as a motivator depends upon the individual’s calculus, but also on the strength of needs
affected by money and the instrumentality of money in meeting those needs. Although money does not
fulfil any need per se, it is a strong instrumental resource. It may embrace almost any need, from hunger to
self-actualization, and it also provides a basis for comparison.

Through money we can compare the past with the present, one organization with another, or one person
with another. Money accompanies increases in status, responsibility, success, independence or security, and
although it is not the underlying factor, it is a powerful measurement and a strong source of information
that materializes the sense of recognition.

Final Thoughts

Motivation is a dynamic concept and is different for every person. It may even differ for the same person
under different circumstances. The factors underlying our deliberations are many and intricate. Motivation
theories give us some indications on how we decide, but no theory is sufficient to encompass the behavior
of people in organizations.

We, as persons who motivate others and who also motivate ourselves, should be conscious about our own
motivations and the motivational profile of those that work with us. A combination of extrinsic, intrinsic
and transcendent factors affects our decisions, and those decisions will lead to certain consequences and
hopefully, to a learning process that will shape future motivation.

The design of incentives schemes should consider the three dimensions and also the type of person that we
want to attract, the values of the organization and the creation of a comparative advantage to the market in
order to retain talent.

During the analysis of these theories we have thought mostly about the “what” –intrinsic value of the
motives to be presented– and the “why” –the reasons or persuasion we use to appeal to the specific
motivational profile–. In another note we will explore the “who” or personal relationship between who
motivates and who is to be motivated.

The strongest scenario of motivation will to inspire by offering something good in itself, attractive for
personal reasons and proposed through somebody who is trustworthy (Carlos Llano, 2010).

-8-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

FH 17 eN 01 IPADE

References

Allen, R. S., Evans, W. R., & White, C. S. (2011). “Affective organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the relationship through the lens of equity sensitivity,”
Organization Management Journal, 8 (4), 218-228.
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). “Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s,” Journal
of Management, 25 (3), 231-292.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). “Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of
performance and well-being in two work settings,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (10),
2045-2068.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). “Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation,” The Academy of
Management Review, 14 (4), 496-515.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). “The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation,” Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497-529.
Baumeister, R. F., & Wotman, S. R. (1992). Breaking Hearts: The Two Sides of Unrequited Love. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Campbell, J., & Pritchard, R. (1983). “Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology.” In
M. Dunette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley and
Sons, 63-130.
Cosier, R. A., & Dalton, D. R. (1983). “Equity theory and time: A reformulation,” Academy of Management
Review, 8 (2), 311-319.
Deci, E. L. (1967). “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 18 (1), 105-115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). “Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation,” Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 15 (1), 130-145.
Dickinson, L. (1995). “Autonomy and motivation: A literature review,” System, 23 (2), 165-174.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). “Self-determination theory and work motivation,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), 331-362.
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Battistelli, A. (2011). “Intrinsic motivation, job autonomy and turnover
intention in the Italian healthcare: The mediating role of affective commitment,” Journal of
Management Research, 3 (2), 1-19.
Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organizations, 4th edition. London: Penguin.
Herzberg, F. (1964). “The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower,” Personnel
Administration, 27 (1), 3-7.
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 of Applied Psychology, 79
(6), 826-835.
Kreitner, R., & Luthans, F. (1984). “A social learning approach to behavioral management: Radical
behaviorists ‘mellowing out’,” Organizational Dynamics 13(2), 47-65.
Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1987). “Work design as an approach to person-environment
fit,” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31 (3), 278-296.
Llano, C. (1983). El Empresario ante la responsabilidad y la motivación. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Llano, C. (2010). Ser del hombre y hacer de la organización. Mexico: Ediciones Ruz.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). “What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations
for the twenty-first century,” The Academy of Management Review, 29 (3), 388-403.
Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). “The determinants of goal commitment,” The Academy of
Management Review, 13 (1), 23-39.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). “Goal-setting theory of motivation,” International Journal of Management,
Business and Administration, 15 (1), 1-6.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). “A theory of human motivation,” Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-396.

-9-

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx

IPADE FH 17 eN 01

Miller, K. A., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1988). “Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Contemporary Sociology, 17(2), 253.
Mone, M. A., & Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of task complexity and goal specificity on change in strategy
and performance over time,” Human Performance, 8 (4), 243-262.
Pérez López, J. A. (1991). Teoría de la Acción Humana en las Organizaciones: La Acción Personal.
Madrid: Rialp.
Oldham, G. R. and Hackman, J. R. (1980). “Work design in the organizational context,” Research in
Organizational Behavior, 2 (51), 247-278.
Oldham, G. R. and Hackman, J. R. (1981). “Relationships between organizational structure and employee
reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (1), 66-83.
Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (2010). “Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design
research,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 (2-3), 463-479.
Pajares, F. (2003). “Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the
literature,” Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 139-158.
Pritchard, R. D. (1969). “Equity theory: A review and critique,” Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4 (2), 176-211.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). “Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology
need choice, self-determination, and will?” Journal of Personality, 74 (6), 1557-1585.
Schuster, J. R., Clark, B., & Rogers, M. (1971). “Testing portions of the Porter and Lawler model regarding
the motivational role of pay,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (3), 187-195.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). “The independent effects of goal contents
and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it,” Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30 (4), 475-86.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Thatcher, J. B, Liu, Y., Stepina, L., & Treadway, D. C. (2006). “IT worker turnover: An empirical
examination of intrinsic motivation,” ACM SIGMIS Database, 37 (2-3), 133-146.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

- 10 -

Please direct any queries or comments regarding this document to casos@ipade.mx