Work Motivation: Theory, Practice, and Future Directions

64 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
on the major determinants of work motivation. organized into three broad categories: content (person variables). context ... 3. Motivation emerges as a consequence of the person-in-context; motivation is not univocally or ...... In H. P. Sims. Jr.. &.
CHAPTER

14

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

Work Motivation: Theory, Practice, 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 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 methodologies and analytic merhods have been adopted

that permit the study of motivation over time and the analysis of motivation as it is embedded in ongoing 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 scientific 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 questions 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 activity is a field that looks very little like rhe field in the 1980s. Although Out understanding of work motivation 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 metaanalyses on goal setting (Austin & Klein, 1996; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981), self-regulation (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 settings, including, for example, in teams (Chen & Gogus, 2008; Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008), leadership (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) provides 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 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., behavior, 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 research directions for the study ofwork motivation index motivation, however, is often problematic over the next few decades. since performance is not univocally determined by motivation, but is also determined by employee Foundations for Theory and Research in knowledge and skills and/or the availability (or lack) Work Motivation of external resources (e.g., equipment) necessary for 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 impormechanisms by which individuals form and Com- rantly depends on the extent to which changes mit to work-related goals, formulate plans for in motivation are directly reflected in changes in goal accomplishment, allocate personal and social performance. resources across a range of possible actions, and In general, performance measures to index motiregulate thoughts, behaviors, and affect for the pur- vation are appropriate in contexts where task perfor-' pose of goal attainment. Although there has been mance is effort-sensitive-that is, changes in effort a tendency to view work motivation as a cognitive rroduce proportional changes in performance. phenomena, modern research makes' it clear thar However, when changes in motivation affect permotivational processes are not just cognitive; they formance through effects on cognitions, behavior, are supported by and involve biological processes, or affect, performance indices of motivation are less unconscious perceptions, sensations, affect, and appropriate. In these situations, the more appropricognitions. ate criteria are those changes in behavior, cognitions, More broadly, the study of work motivation also and/or affect that are the direct consequence of a includes theory and research on the person and sit- change in motivation. Thus, researchers often use uation factors that influence motivation processes, multiple measures of behavior (e.g., time spent on a and the pathways by which they do so. Consistent [ask) as well as performance score to index a change with the Latin root of the word motivation, mean- in motivation. In the job search literature, for examing "to move," work motivation researchers and ple, motivation may be assessed by time spent on job scientists seek to understand the internal and exter- search activities (persistence), the type of job search nal forces that facilitate or hinder behavior change, activities performed (direction), and self-reports of Work motivation is also a topic of great practical effort expended on job search (intensity). In studies importance, and includes work on the consequences of motivation during training, motivation is often of motivation for employees and the organizations assessed not just in terms of performance but also in which they work. Work motivation research in.terms of self-report measures that assess the indifocuses on multiple dimensions of behavior change, vidual's goal commitment and self-efficacy, and/or including the direction, intensity, and persistence behavioral measures of attendance, task persistence, of workplace actions and job performance within and self-regulatory activities. the broader, continuing stream of experiences thar characterize the person in relation to his or her work 2.iOutcomes ofmotivation include changes (Kanfer, 1990). iff the initiation, direction, intensity, 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 that originate both within as well as beyond an d~pends upon the question of interest. When the individual's being, to initiate work-related behavquestion is about how motives or contexts "turn on" ior and to determine its form, direction, imensil)', olJlnstigate work-related behaviors, researchers may and duration" (p. 11). Consistent with definitions useinitiation measures. The impact of achievement of motivation found in many areas of psychology, m~tives on innovative performance, for example, definitions of work motivation emphasize the fol~~y be evaluated by assessing the frequency with lowing points: ~ch an employee asks questions or seeks informa~oil. Choice and intention measures are often used 1. Motivation is not directly observed ~~'aSSess the direction of action. Intensity indices and must be inferred. ~ture the proportion of an individual's personal Because motivation cannot be direcdy assessed, ~urces allocated to a goal or task. Intensity meachanges in motivation are inferred by associwtes often assess subjective or subjective task effort, ated changes in behavior, learning, or task/job cti.ergy, time spent on the task, or other personal

resources directed to task performance. Persistence measures represent assessments of the duration of time that an individual allocates personal resources to a particular task or action. As such, persistence integrates direction and the temporal dimension of intensity.

3. Motivation emerges as a consequence of the person-in-context; motivation is not univocally or consistently determined by a single personal attribute orfeature ofthe environment. -'. ,ffifP1nder's (1998) definition indicates, the forces that influence motivation occur both within as well as externally to the individual. That is, although the psychological processes involved in work motivation occur internally, motivation is not a stable characteristic of the person across all situations. Individuals who show high levels of motivation for action in one situation (e.g., reading a novel), may show low levels of motivation for action in another situation (e.g., reading a textbook). The purpose ~(action and the context in which it occurs must always be taken into account. Motivation is also not simply a function of the environment. Even in extremely "strong" situations (e.g., the battlefield), individual differences in personal attributes, such as tolerance for ambiguity, contribute to motivation and performance. In the moderate or weak situations that characterize most workplaces, motivation depends on individual propensities and preferences as well as situational affordances and constraints. As Lewin (1938) suggested over a half century ago, "Motivation can only be properly analyzed by taking into account characteristics of the person in the context of dynamic social, physical, and psychological environments that facilitate and constrain person tendencies for action."

4. Motivation is always in flux. Motivation is a state that changes constantly. Changes in motivation, with associated changes in beliefs, behaviors, and affect, occur over different time cycles (Lord et aI., 2010) 'and are often measured on different timescales, depending on the question of interest (Kanfer et al., 2008). Lord et al. (2010) propose four major cycle levels for motivational phenl?mena that correspond to the measurement of motivation processes and outcomes on different timescales. Examples ofthe different cycles, their associated measurement tim~scales, the dominant motivational foci, and the dominant methods used at different levels are shown in Figure 14.1. KANFER

457

Time Cycle Time Scale Long

Motivational Foci

Lifespan Decades

Motives, Motivational T rairs, Skills

Years Months Weeks Days Hours Minutes Milliseconds

development of new perspectives that address motivational effects on these OUtcomes. On the negative side, there has been a sharp increase in the number of criterion-specific work motivation "mini-theories." On the positive side, the enlarged criterion space has stimulated connections with other fields, such as affective science, personality psychology, and even mental health.

Correlational

Resource Allocations (Direction, Persistence)

Attenrional Effort (Inrensiry)

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 . conditions and tend to focus on differences in motivational intensity toward a targeL In contrast, studies 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 professionals 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 operte on different timescales may be indirect, such :s when changes in organizational culture gate different motives and promot~ the ado~tlon of worker goals that facilitate learning and higher

in~ti­

458

Dominanr Methodol0i:Y

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 (rather than learning goals) that prom~t the use,of 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 accumulated around a single theoretical perspective, and the context for research is often driven by the tar·· hever get theoretical issue. In wor k motivation, 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 . al or conrex' between motivation an d non-tec h nl~ . 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~ . . I structure, an d the extern demands organlzatlona f,

marketpl~ce. The shift in the dimensions of pedr · turn, en courage t mance to be predicte d h as, In

0::

motives are further posited to influence spontaneous, 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. Is there more to work motivation Modern conceptions of implicit motives build than we can tell? upon arguments made by McClelland (1987) that A final foundational issue pertains to the growthe low' co'iia;tion often obtained between direct ing interest in implicit motives and non-conscious (self-report) and indirect (projective; e.g., TAT) processes as they influence work motivation and measures of individual differences in the achievebehavior. The notion of non-conscious influences ment motive reflected the difference between on motivation is certainly not new to psycholimplicit and explicit motives for achievement, rather ogy, but has received little research attention in than measurement error. McClelland (1987) furwork motivation until recently. Over the past few ther proposed three implicit motives: achievement, decades, however, research on implicit motives and affiliation, and power, and argued that each of these non-conscious processes in other areas of psycholmotives were distinct from explicit motives of the ogy has begun to influence mainstream work motisame or similai names. After years of controversy, vation theory and research (see, e.g., James, 1998; t~ suPPOrt McClelland's (1987) notions evidence Johnson & Steinman, 2009; Kehr, 2004; Latham, regarding differences between implicit and explicit Stajkovic, & Locke, 2010; Lord et al., 2010). The motives related to achievement was provided in a impetus for renewed attention to non-conscious meta-analytic review by Spangler (1992). motives and processes stems from advances that Nonetheless, measurement problems conshow: (a) self-report measure~ividual differtinue to thwart progress in the study of implicit ences in non-ability traits and action preferences do motives. Well-founded criticisms of projective and not capture important personal influences on motiquasi-projective measures, such as the Thematic vation, and (b) not all motivation processes are cogApperception Test (TAT), hampered research nitively mediated. In accord with these advances, for decades. In the past 15 years or so, however, recent progress in I/O psychology appears in two new theoretical approaches have been employed areas: (a) the assessment of individual differences to develop measures of non-conscious motives in implicit motives, and (b) theory building on the through perceptual and cognitive processing (see relationship between implicit motives and non-cone.g., Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; James scious processes and goal selection and pursuiL & Rentsch, 2004; Schultheiss & Pang, 2007). One of the most promising new methods for assessing IMPLICIT MOTIVES implicit motive strength builds upon Conditional In COntrast to explicit motives, implicit motives Reasoning Theory (CRT; James, 1998). In CRT are not accessible for conscious self-report. measures, individuals read a series of constructed Individual differences in explicit motives, such as scenarios and select a response based on conditional extraversion, are typically assessed using self-report reasoning, rather than based on affective reactions measures in which persons repOrt their behavioral to a stimuli. Initial evidence for the validity of these tendencies and Outcome preferences. Such self-remeasures and the basic tenets of CRT are provided ports are cognitively mediated in that the individual by a series of studies by James and his colleagues repOrts what she thinks best describes her. In con(Frost, Ko, & James, 2007; James et al., 2005) that trast, implicit motives are not accessible through show negligible correlations between CRT and direct self-repOrt since these motives do not reflect explicit measures, and significant predictive validcognitively mediated action tendencies, but rather ity of CRT measures for achievement, aggressive, alfectively charged motivators that are activated and dominant behaviors in organized settings. by intrinsic OUtcomes associated with action. In Further evidence on the validity of these implicit COntrast to explicit motives, whose impact is typimotive measures will significantly speed progress in cally on cognitively mediated behaviors, implicit implicit motivation.

WORK 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 neuroscience 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 subliminal priming·-~n non-conscious motivational processing and action, and the impact of nonconscious 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 relationship berween implicit and explicit motivational processes (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 motivation when the implicit motive fails to support explicit goals. According to Kehr (2004), a basic purpose for the instigation of goal striving, or selfregulatory 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 motivation 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 processes 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 selfregulatory 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 scientists 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 understanding 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 ourcome states that an individual seeks to realize. In the workplace, goals may refer to learning ourcomes (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 sustain the individual's effort and actions for the purpose of goal accomplishment. Because goals direct behavior toward the accomplishment 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 commitment (the extent to which the individual binds himor herself to goal accomplishment). In these areas, research has focused on a number of related quesrions, 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 mulriple 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 psychology 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 attaining 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 redirect attention to the higher order goal, and may contribute 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, behavioral, 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 different aspects of the articulated goal that, in turn, have different implications for motivational processing 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 formulation (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 represented, each model has its roots in the family of expectancy-value models developed first in economics and subsequently adopted in psychology during the mid-1'90'05;·'Expectancy value formulations make several strong assumptions. These models assume that individuals are rational decision makers who choose among perceived courses of action by applying the hedonic principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. As rational decision makers, an individual's goal choice or behavior intention decision is posited to reflect the outcome of an internal, cognitive analysis regarding the relative costs and benefits 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 accomplishment 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 unattractiveness 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 mid1960s stimulated decades of empirical research on theoretical and methodological aspects of expectancy-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 formulations 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 expectancyvalue 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 performance 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 performing 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 motivation 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 activities, including self-regulatory processes and nontask 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 ongoing behavior and skill acquisition (see Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). Despite the many criticisms of classic expectancy 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 performance 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 during the 1970s, work motivation researchers turned their attention to goal setting. Consistent with other cognitive formulations, Locke (1968) proposed 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 support 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) mobilizing 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 during the late rwentieth century, and goal setting rapidly 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-regulation 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 conditions associated with the beneficial effectS of goal setting on performance. The first issue pertained to observed differences between the differential influence 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 . 0 f action, . but rather IS what factors predict the employee's willingneSS to ' corn' adopt the assigned goal and the emp Ioyees . on . . . f I Ilocatl mltment or lIuensny 0 persona resource a

the goal. Findings by Latham, Erez, and Locke (1988) showed the criticality of the employee's participation 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 setting, 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 attentional demands of the task, the individual's cognitive abilities, and the self-regulatory activities undertaken as a result of goal setting. In accord with predictions, they found that among individuals with lower levels of cognitive abilities, the provision of performance 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 performance 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 hinder 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 accomplishment) in complex task perfotmance exerted a greater beneficial effect on performance than perfo.rmance goals. These findings are also consistent WIth goal orientation theory and research that shows ~t the purpose of action (embedded in this paradigmas goal type) exerts a motivational influence on performance through its effects on the direction of resource allocations during action.

to

GOAL STRIVING

Goal choice sets the stage for action, but when intentions cannot be readily accomplished, individuals activate self-regulatory processes to support goal-directed action. Goal striving refers to the selfregulatory processes and actions by which individuals 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 processes 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 selfregulation in which the individual seeks to atrain a goal that is not supported by prevailing environmental contingencies, such as when an employee seeks to write a report while coworkers are holding a party, or when an employee's goal for completing 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 cognitions, affect, and behavior strategies in goal-directed learning, represents another subset of the broader domain of self-regulation, often studied in educational psychology. In work and organizational psychology, conscious 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 accomplishment 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 clients and coworkers, and is directed toward the accomplishment of complex goals over time, effective self-regulation has become an important feature of performance. Investigation of self-regulatory processes during the mid-twentieth century delineated three key KANFER

subprocesses: self-monitoring, self-evaluations, and self-reactions. Self-monitoring refers to the individual'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 cognitive processes that determine goal progress. Selfevaluation 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 judgment of confidence regarding the likelihood of goal attainment. Broad interest in self-regulation among organizational scientists during the late twentieth century also spurred the development of many research programs on the influence of different self-regulation components, such as self-monitoring and self-efficacy 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 associated with performance, particularly when performance was difficult or occurred over a protracted time period. Early studies on the role of self-regulation 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 setting 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 condition. The theoretical integration of goal setting and self-regulation formulations during the late 1980s (see Locke & Latham, 1990) led to numerous studies investigating the impact of self-efficacy on goal choice, commitment, and performance. Most modern motivation theories accord selfefficacy judgments a major causal role in determining 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 judgments 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 selfefficacy judgments are positively related to motivation and performance (see Bandura & Locke, 2003), several studies have been reported that show a negative, rather than positive relationship between selfefficacy and performance (Vancouver, Thompson, Tischner, & Putka, 2002; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001; Yeo & eal, 2006). Vancouver has argued that these findings are consistent with cybernetic 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-process explanation for reconciliation of the discrepant findings. Schmidt and Deshon (2009, 2010) provide 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 individual'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 formulation 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 motivation 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 useful change in mind-set from deliberative to implemental. He proposed that during the planning and execution phases of goal-directed action (Le., goal striving) individuals adopt an implementation 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 mindset are more attentive to negative goal-related information than individuals who hold an implemental mind-set. Further, individuals who hold an implemental mind-set report stronger illusions of control, increased self-efficacy, and more optimistic outcome expectations abouJ-goal accomplishment than individuals 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 initiation 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 particular 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 processes 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; normative 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 different mind-sets may be involved in goal choice and implementation processes, the Meyer and Allen (1991) conceptualization suggests that the motivation for goal commitment may also affect the manner in which decisions are implemented in action. Consistent with this notion, Meyer et al. (2004) have recently proposed an integrative model of commitment and motivation that links different dimensions 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 proposed linkages between goal purpose and commitment dimension have important implications for practice. For example, in some work settings and collectivist cultures, the formulation of goals-based sense of obligation (e.g., finish assigned work on a team project because others depend on this performance) may yidd higher levels of continuance of goal commitment and stronger self-regulatory processes than goals formulated to maximize pleasure ~nd sustained through affective goal commitment (e.g.: Iinish assigned work on a team project because it is interesting and will bring about feelings of competence).

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

controlling, and their downsrream effects on task interest, enjoyment, and behavior. Over the past decade, Deci and his colleagues have proposed a new formulation; self-determina_ tion theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002). In contrast to CET, SDT provides a detailed descrip_ tion of how environments support and disrupt expression of the self-determination motive. SDT also proposes that the motive for self-determination may be satisfied in some conditions that include exrrinsic rewards or feedback. Specifically, SDT organizes extrinsic and intrinsic motivation conditions along a continuum. At the lowest level on the continuum is a motivation, a condition in which there are no intrinsic or extrinsic prompts or amibutions for action. The next level is external regulation, or the classic condition in which individuals perceive that the reason for their behavior is due solely to obtain the external reward. Beyond that, however, SDT proposes another form of extrinsic motivation called introjected regulation. In this form of extrinsic motivation there is some self-determination and autonomy, as the individual performs in order to satisfy self-worth contingencies, such as wanting to look competent to others. A yet more self-determining form of extrinsic motivation occurs in what Deci refers to as identified regulation contexts, in which the individual performs an activity because he or she identifies with its value or meaning. The most self-determining form of extrinsic motivation is posited to occur in integrated regulation, when an individual performs an activity because it has become part of the individual's sense of self. At the top level of the continuum is intrinsic motivation, in which the individual performs the activity for its own sake and enjoyment. In contrast to previous formulations, the SDT framework is more relevant to the workplace, where extrinsic reward contingencies and feedback are commonplace. Further, the mapping of attributions for action along a single regularion continuum provides a useful framework for systematic investigation of differences in self-regulatory activiries as a function regulation level. As a consequence, research using SDT has begun to attract greater attention among work motivation researchers (e.g., Gagne & Deci, 2005; Gagne & Forest, 2008).

The notion that goals may be adopted for intrinsic and/or extrinsic purposes and, in turn, affect goal pursuit is well-established in psychology, and serves as the foundation for theory and research in intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to psychological processes involved in task performance for the purpose of enjoyment and interest; that is, tasks performed for their own sake. In contrast, extrinsic motivation typically refers to processes involved in task performance for the attainment of Outcomes from others or the environment (extrinsic incentives). Theory and research on intrinsic motivation are arguably the most well-known topic in the domain linking purpose and motivation. Research on intrinsic motivation builds upon theories which assume that all people possess motives for autonomy, competence, and COntrol. Theories of intrinsic motivation hold that individuals are intrinsically motivated when they attribute the cause of their actions to be self-determined, rather than determined by external forces (that do not permit satisfaction of autonomy or control motives). Individuals who attribute their behavior to external causes are said to be extrinsically motivated. Studies by Deci, Lepper, and their colleagues during the 1970s and 1980s (see Kanfer, 1990) showed that the provision of extrinsic rewards (e.g., money) undermined intrinsic motivation, and was associated with reduced task motivation and task persistence. Early theories (Cognitive Evaluation Theory; Deci, 1975) proposed that the detrimental influence of extrinsic events on intrinsic motivation depended on the extent to which the individual perGoal Orientation Formulations ceived the event as controlling (vs. informational). Early intrinsic motivation research focused on the This explanation subsequently focused research effecr of perceived extrinsic control on task motivaon the conditions under which extrinsic events, tion and behavior, but did not examine how the persuch as rewards and feedback, were interpreted as ceived purpose for performance influenced specific

self-regulatory variables or strategies. Intrinsic motivation research also focused on the motivational and performance consequences of the individual's (past-oriented) attributions for the cause of action, rather than the individual's (future-oriented) goals. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, education psychology researcher.sbeganro study how the purpose of task performance affects the goals that an individual adopts and the self-regulatory processes that are used to attain the goal. Nicholls (1984) and Dweck (1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) articulated early goal orientation perspectives in the context of understanding why children who adopted a similar goal often showed different patterns of goal striving, learning, and performance (beyond the effects of cognitive abilities). According to Nicholls (1984) and Dweck (1986), children who hold a learning or task goal orientation also maintain a self-referenced conception of ability (Le., focus on how much had been learned) and tend to view performance improvement and greater task mastery as positive outcomes. In contrast, individuals who hold an ego or performance goal orientation are proposed to regard task performance as a means to an end, and to view performance useful only insofar as it provides a demonstration of one's ability to others. These differences in goal orientation, in turn, affect the quality of goal-striving strategies used to accomplish the goal, persistence following failure or setbacks, and learning and performance. Similar to early research in intrinsic motivation, the applicability of goal orientation formulations to work settings was not readily apparent, and early interest among work motivation researchers was limited (see Kanfer, 1989). However, with the development of two adult measures of individual differences in goal orientation in the late 1990s (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; VandeWalle, 1997), investigations of goal orientation in the work motivation domain grew dramatically. In the development of adult goal orientation measures, Button et al. (1996) and VandeWalle (1997) showed that goal orientation was best understood as a multidimensional construct, and could be fruitfully applied to understanding work motivation in the work setting. Button et a1. (1996) developed a two-dimensional adult measure ofgoal orientation based upon Dweck's formulation; VandeWalle (1997) developed a three-dimensional measure that further distinguished the performance goal dimension into two dimensions-performance goal orientation directed to proving one's competencies and gaining positive judgments from others

(performance-prove), and performance goal orientation directed toward avoiding demonstration of one's lack of ability and negative judgments from others (performance-avoid). Although goal orientation has been conceptualized as both a trait and a state, the majority of workmo.fivation studies to date have examined the effects of goal orientation states (induced through instructions or context) on motivation and performance. Quantitative and qualitative reviews of the goal orientation research literature are provided by Carr, DeShon, and Dobbins (2001), Day, Yeo, and Radosevich (2003), Payne et al. (2007), Rawsthorne and Elliot (1999), and Utman (1997). In general, these reviews provide support for the facilitative effect of learning goal orientation on goal setting, self-regulatory activities, learning, and performance. In contrast, many, but not all, studies find a significant negative relationship between performanceprove or performance-avoid goal orientation, goal striving, and performance. Findings with respect to the impact of performance-prove goal orientation are inconsistent. Building on these findings, current research has broadened to examine the impact of goal orientation in leadership (e.g., Whitford & Moss, 2009), in training (e.g., Chiaburu & Marinova, 2005; Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Cox & Beier, 2009), and job search (e.g., Creed, King, Hood, & McKenzie, 2009; Van Hooft & Noordzij, 2009). Recently, some researchers have proposed integrative formulations that place goal orientation processes within broader self-regulation frameworks (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Yeo, Loft, Xiao, & Kiewitz, 2009).

Motivational Orientation: Trait Conceptualizations In contrast to goal orientation at the state level, stable individual differences in goal and motivational orientation at the trait level operate over a longer timescale. Individuals who are high in trait learning goal orientation, for example, are not only more likely to adopt a learning goal orientation to specific tasks, but also to show higher levels of self-regulatory skill in overcoming obstacles to goal attainment. That is, goal and motivation orientation traits can be expected to exert cross-level effects at multiple points in motivational processing. Elliot and McGregor (2001) and Elliot and Thrash (2001) provide summary reviews of findings with respect to the effects of achievement and avoidance motivational orientations on goals and self-regulatory processes.

WORK MOTIVATION KANFFJ>

During the past two decades, interest in trait-level goal and motivational orientation has burgeoned. Different programs of research in neurobiology, personality and social psychology, and motivation provide convergent evidence for two trait orientations and their differential impacts on motivational processing, learning, and performance. 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 regulatory focus (Higgins, 1998), or performance mastery orientation (Kanfer & Heggestad, 1997) engage in more effective learning, meta-cognitive, and selfregulatory 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 orientation (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 negative 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 influence of approach-related goal and motivational orientation on learning and performance. However, findings on the deleterious impact of avoidancerelated goal and motivational orientations on learning 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 advantage 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 nonconscious 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, understanding 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 individuals are able to effectively modulate non-conscious tendencies that disrupt progress toward goal attainment (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 personality and affect in work motivation and performance 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 selfregulation and performance have declined as work motivation researchers have adopted a more holistic and person-centered view of goals. New personcentered perspectives emphasize the impact of purpose 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 pursuit 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-regulatory 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, individuals are often assigned more than one task, each with unique task demands, goals, and time lines for completion. Understanding how individuals allocate resources and regulate their activities across tasks is likely to yield knowledge that can be used in work design. Another important area in goal dynamics pertains to the personal arid siroationalfactors that contribute to goal revision, the resolution of goal conflicts, and goal abandonment. From a practical perspective, research is needed to understand different ways that individuals cope with goal conflicts and the distinct motivational orientation states and self-regulatory patterns associated with goal revision compared to goal abandonment.

Determinants of Motivation: Content, Context, and Change Organizations and the employees who work in them often turn to work motivation researchers for evidence-based knowledge about the personal and situational characteristics that most influence work motivation and the ways in which this influence occurs. Not surprisingly, a large portion of theory and research in work motivation pertains to the influence of personal attributes and environmental conditions on motivation, learning, and performance. Over the years a multitude of personal characteristics and situational factors have been studied,

alone and in different combinations. Although the development of the five-factor model has helped to organize research on the influence of personality traits on work motivation, there have been few attempts to systematize research on the effects of situation and context on work motivation (see Johns, 2006; Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). And neither the. fiv.ed3.£tor model nor situational frameworks address motivation issues related to time. Recently, Kanfer et al. (2008) proposed a broad "three C's" meta-heuristic scheme for organizing the relevant determinants of work motivation. A nonexhaustive list ofdeterminants in the content, context, and change categories is provided in Table 14.1. Content determinants include variables related to interindividual differences, such as knowledge, skills, abilities, personality traits, motives, affective tendencies, interests, and values. Context determinants refer to exogenous (external to the individual) features of the action setting. Context variables may be further organized into features of the immediate work setting (e.g., supervision, work demands), features associated with the broader socio-technical work context (e.g., organizational policies, organizational climate), variables related to the individual's non-work demands and activities (e.g., care-giving demands), and variables related to the broader sociocultural and economic environment (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 associated with the temporal dimension. Temporal influences 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 motivation 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 outcomes, 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

had been studied (see Guion & Gottier, 1965). The introduction of the five-factor model (FFM) of personality 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 broadened beyond the study of the broad five personality traits. Recent studies have focused on rraits not wellspecified 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 modified version of the framework originally proposed by Thorndike in 1947 for the purpose of categorizing different types of personal influences on test performance. The adapted meta-organizing framework for personal attributes is shown in Figure 14.3. Consistent with the Thorndike scheme, personal 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 abilities, knowledge, and skills, and non-ability traits, such as the FFM personality traits, as lasting influences on motivation and action. These personal

.,..--eoals Goals Striving/Self-Regulation

Behavior/Performance Figure 14.2 A Static Representation of the "Three C's" model of work morivarion.

47°

WORK MOTIVATION

Attribute Permanence Temporary

Fatigue

Cognitive Abilities

Suess

Personaliry Traits

- . "- -..::.

'~-

Attribute Scope

Job Knowledge & Skills I

Specific Regularory Focus Vocational Interests

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 personality 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 general 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 person-situation interaction. These personal characteristics 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 temporary 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 motivational processes. To date, most work motivation

research has focused on general and lasting attributes (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 organization of the personality trait domain (e.g., Guion & Gottier, 1965), the Barrick and Mount (1991) meta-analysis of personality trait-performance relations using the FFM trait scheme revealed significant relationships between individual differences in conscientiousness and neuroticism and diverse measures of performance. Specifically, conscientiousness showed a positive relationship to performance, while neuroticism showed a negative relationship to performance. Subsequent studies on personality-performance 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 influence performance through their effects on motivational 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 traitperformance 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), investigating 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 neuroticism) 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 investigating select naits that are not well-represented in the five-fac[Or structure of personality, such as motivational naits (Kanfer & -Heggestad, 1997), core-selfevaluations 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 motivation research on personality traits has been smdied in isolation from smdies that examine other important general and lasting personal attributes, such as individual differences in cognitive abilities, vocational interests, or values. Ackerman (1997) and Lubinski (2000) have suggested that an integration of historically disparate streams of research in cognitive abilities, personality, vocational interests, knowledge, and values can improve our understanding and prediction of motivation and performance. These researchers argue that commonalities among general and lasting personal attributes arise as a consequence of the common biological influences and environmental affordances that promote the tandem development of individual differences in cognitive and non-cognitive naits over the life course. In developed countries, for example, individual differences 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 unreasonable [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 individual 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 concepmalized 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 integrations of related personal attributes [0 smdy their effects on motivation and performance encourages the development of more parsimonious and practically 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 situations and the life course, even if the particular concepmalization 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 motivational pathways by which perceptions of procedural injustice or unfairness influenced work behavior (see Greenberg & Cropanzano, 1999). Over the past two decades, theories of organizational justice have mamred, and research has expanded [0 examine rhe determinants and consequences of other forms of justice, including interactional 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 characteristics 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 selection and among incumbent employees, respectively. Both smdies found a positive relationship between agreeableness and organizational justice perceptions, and a negative relationship between neuroticism 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, however, there has been little attention [0 the impact of fairness perceptions on motivational orientation and self-regulatory activities used for goal accomplishment. 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 characteristics 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 accumulate research findings and obtain consistent evidence for the relationship between conscientiousness and neuroticism naits and motivational variables and OUtcomes. Emerging programs of research on specific 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 selfevaluations (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 relationship between nait complexes, motivation processes, and performance.

Nonetheless, there are still a number of important 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 motivational 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 differences 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 effectiveness of seif-regula[Ory activities to modulate the emotion. Research to investigate the impact of specific affective person attributes, such as hostility, 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 organizational activities, it does not capture the complex 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 ofvariables 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 relationships between job demands and work conditions KANFER

473

·

'I

;

i l "

i

l'

with work motivation, several factors have contributed 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, information-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 information that is inconsistent with the existing schema (Lord & Foti, 1986). Although SIP models have not anracted a great deal of anention among work motivation researchers, the SIP perspective differs from job-based formulations in several important ways for work motivation. First, SIP approaches formally recognize the role of pre-conscious processes 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 cognitive, information-processing psychology through the 1980s, Lord and his colleagues showed how features ofwork were mentally represented in cognitive schemas, and the impact of schemas for decision making. In modern work motivation research, nonconscious 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 perceptions of the workplace and job context. In the modern work motivation theory, the impact of social cues on work motivation has moved to investigation of the influence that an individual's coworker relations, social network, and social capital play in motivational outcomes, such as organizational citizenship 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 474

WORK MOTIVATION

the immediate work environment to the impact of organizational and national ·cultures on expeCtations 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 organization, 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 orientations 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 production 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 activities should occur often covary in ways that create distinct, complex situation constellations that distinguish occupational families. For example, knowledge 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, noncontingent pay structures, non-hazardous work conditions, and the use of reward structures that reinforce outcomes (e.g., new product development, 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 performed 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 researchers 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 formulation that organizes features of the work sening using rhe psychological concept of "situational strength." Based in part on Mischel's (1968) notion of situational strength, Meyer et al. (20 1~ define situational 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 workplace 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 comprising 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 consequences 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 constraints and consequences have on the relationship between conscientiousness and job performance. Concordant with their theory, Meyer et al. (2009) found that the conscientiousness-performance relation 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 identify 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 example, 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 hospital 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 inflexibility 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 diminishes 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, contemporary models propose more dynamic conceptions of motivation during training. Similarly, the extension of self-regulation to the study of team processes has spurred theoty and'research on the influence of teams and team dynamics on individual motivation 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 typing 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 activity that can be expected to occur with regularity across the career course. In some occupational sectors, 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 workforce, lifelong learning is becoming a prerequisite for career success and employability. In the research arena, investigations of goal serring and self-regulation 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 concerned with continuous learning pertains to understanding 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. Metaanalytic findings by Colquirr et al. (2000) indicate that individual differences in select traits, such as locus of control, play an important role in motivation 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 supported training show higher levels of motivation for training (as reflected in training commitment, allocation of time and effort toward class arrendance, time spent in on-task learning) than employees who are not allowed to participate in the enrollment decision. These findings are consistent with motivation WORK MOTIVATION

theories that emphasize self-determination and participatory 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 psychology, as well as in industrial and organizational psychology, have examined self-regulatory processes during learning and skill acquisition (Elliot, 2008; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). Findings from these complementary 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 trainees the opportunity to make errors and encouraging trainees to learn from their errors during training may improve learning outcomes. In contrast to training approaches that focus on error avoidance, 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 performance are moderated by the extent to which the task and training environment provide clear, unambiguous 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 rraining, (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 performance. Consistent with resource allocation theories (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 emotion control and meta-cognitive activities during training. Specifically, trainees in the error management 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 performance 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 important 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 motivation 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 adaptation. 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 training showed increased levels of self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and meta-cognitiv~ ability. Bell and Kozlowski (2008) also showed that error framing 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 example, recent findings by Pearsall, Christian, and Ellis (2010) show that reward system characteristics play an important role in motivating team member 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 individual- 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 homology between goal choice and self-regulatory motivational 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 crosslevel 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 performance 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, biological 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 performance 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 psychology: 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 motivation focus on the impact of a personal or situational 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 sustained 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 performance 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 processes may be captured at different levels of analysis, and may be assessed directly or indirectly. Repeated measurement of expectancies, goals, goal orientation, 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 motivation over time. Direct methods may be used to assess changes in motivational processes as a function of time on task or to assess changes in motivation 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 variables such as an employee's future time perspective and chronological age affect goal choice, goal striving, 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 motivational 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 expectancyvalue 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 student 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 capacity 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 activities 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-regulation, particularly in situations where they anticipate 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., pacing 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 activities 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 studies designed to identifY the conditions that promote resource recovery following work-related resource depletion. Using experience sampling methodology, Sonnentag investigated work and non-work factors that might influence resource recovery follOWing 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 associated 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 offtask cognitions during skill acquisition than individuals with lower levels of attentional resources. Extending this nnding to the workplace suggests that certain forms of supervisory or coworker support 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 member 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 strategies to reduce or prevent resource depletion associated with job demands. Research in the life span literature suggests two broad strategies, accommodation 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, individuals 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. . Individuals may also use transformation strategies 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 additional resource allocations and are typically only used when accommodation strategies are not possible or are ineffective. I Improving job skills and knowledge is one obvious transformation strategy for resource conservation in the -;orkplace. However, as Heckhausen and Schultz (l995) suggest, the additional resource demands associated with learning 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 understanding motivation over time focuses on a time-linked outcome of considerable importance in the workplace, namely, procrastination. Although there have been several studies investigating the influence of traits (e.g., action control; see Kuhl, 1986) on procrastination, Steel and Konig (2006) have recently proposed a general motivation formulation that specifically 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 allocations 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 Motivational Theory (TMT) for the development of motivational interventions to mitigate the temporal discounting effect on goal choice and allocations 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 demarcation for studying motivation processes over time. Analysis of time effects across single goal performance 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 psychology documents changes within the person that occur across the life span, including declines in select cognitive 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 outcomes, 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 agerelated decline in the arrractiveness of extrinsic rewards, these findings suggest that older workers (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 nonorganizationally 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 strategies 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 effective self-regulation strategies.

Transactional Perspectives The allocation of personal resources to workrelated 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 environment. In this section, I briefly review recent work on the motivational processes by which personenvironment 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, interests, and competencies facilitates work motivation, positive job attitudes and job intentions (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), and performance. These models do not posit that values, objectives, and competencies needed by the organization and possessed by the individual be identical, 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 congruence 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 sensitive, and research has shown the impact of a wide range of personal and situational variables on different fit perceptions (Kristof, 1996, for a review). Organizational change programs and the way in which they are implemented, for example, may substantially change employee perceptions of fit and congruence at one or more levels, including organizational, 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 perceived congruence between the cognitive demands of the job and one's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Over time, however, the perception of abilitiesdemand 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 consequences of different forms of fit between an individual and his or her work environment (Kristof, 1996). Surprisingly, however, only a relatively small portion of this research focuses directly on motivational processes. During the 1980s, Dawis and Lofquist (l984) proposed a theory of work adjustment that emphasized the importance of person-environment 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 validity of the their proposed pathways between fit and work outcomes. From a different but complementary perspective, French, Caplan, and Van Harrison (l982) highlighted the negative motivational consequences associated with perceptions of poor personenvironment (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 theories, 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 managers provide support for the mediating role of individual 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