Discussion Question
Read the Chapter 7-9 of the book,I uploaded) Out of all the reading assignments, prepare a Discussion Question (DQ). The DQ should focus on something about the material that you found to be INTERESTING, STIMULATING, IMPORTANT, UNCLEAR, or CONTROVERSIAL. Prepare only one DQ (not one from each reading source or chapter). (I don’t think you should read all of those, just skim it and find a part you are interested in and write the DQ based on that)
The DQ example: — When implementing Management by Walking Around (p. 12), how do you find a balance between being holed up at your desk versus risking your employees feeling that you are micromanaging them? Do you see examples of this happening in your office?
Besides, you should also reply to other two DQs from others. You can comment on others’ DQ once you have submitted yours. So after you deliver the answer of your DQ, I’ll send you two of others’ DQs and please reply to them.
214
Motivation Concepts7
7-1 Describe the three key elements of
motivation.
7-2 Compare the early theories of
motivation.
7-3 Contrast the elements of
self-determination theory and
goal-setting theory.
7-4 Understand the differences among
self-efficacy theory, reinforcement
theory, and expectancy theory.
7-5 Describe the forms of organizational
justice, including distributive justice,
procedural justice, informational
justice, and interactional justice.
7-6 Identify the implications of employee
job engagement for managers.
7-7 Describe how the contemporary
theories of motivation complement
one another.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
So
ur
ce
: R
ic
k
W
ilk
in
g/
R
eu
te
rs
/A
la
m
y
S
to
ck
P
ho
to
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 214 29/09/17 5:37 pm
Motivation Concepts CHAPTER 7 215
Myth or
Science?
Career
OBjectives
An Ethical
Choice
Point/
Counterpoint
Experiential
Exercise
Ethical
Dilemma
Case
Incident 1
Case
Incident 2
Critical
Thinking
Communication
Collaboration
Knowledge
Application and
Analysis
Social
Responsibility
Employability Skills Matrix (ESM)
WHEN GOALS GO OUT OF CONTROL
Next week, Ill be on the beach in Kauai, sipping a mai tai in the sun, as the waves lap the shore . . . and 500 of my employees, franchise part-
ners, and their families will be there with me. Brian Scudamore, the founder
and CEO of O2E Brands, and his company made their trip to Hawaii happen.
In 2012, in the wake of the financial crisis, they set a challenging goal: to
double their revenue over a five-year period. Scudamore attests to the power
of setting specific, challenging goals and even recognizes that, when done
correctly, goal setting can even help pay for the reward to the goal you set.
Goal-setting theory has had an undeniable impact on the study of motiva-
tion in organizational behavior. A voluminous literature suggests that goal set-
ting can help improve motivation and performance in employees, and many
organizations recognize this and try to harness their power. But sometimes
goal setting may not be used in the right way and can lead to perceptions
of unfairness or injustice from employees, who may even engage in counter-
productive work behaviors (like cheating) to accomplish the goal.
For example, in September 2016, it was revealed that over 5,000 employees
of the Wells Fargo bank cheated the system by opening more than 2 million
unauthorized customer accounts using personally identifiable information
to meet indiscriminate sales goals. Essentially, an employee would move
funds from cardholders accounts into new accounts to meet their sales goals.
MyLab Management Chapter Warm Up
If your instructor has assigned this activity, go to www.pearson.com/
mylab/management to complete the chapter warm up.
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 215 29/09/17 5:37 pm
216 PART 2 The Individual
Tomake matters worse, nearly 15,000 customers were charged interest, over-
draft, and annual fees for accounts they never authorized to be opened.
Although likely satirical or exaggerated, early cartoon YouTube videos
using the site xtranormal.com perhaps tapped into employees underlying
perceptions of injustice. For example, one 2011 depiction of a conversa-
tion between a banking manager and supervisor provides insight into these
unrealistic goals: Please share with me how you plan to hit 400 checking
accounts and 2,000 solutions this month, asks the supervisor. The man-
ager answers, Well, I plan to work 90 hours a week for the next four weeks.
Thats not good enough, responds the supervisor. Susan Fischer, one bank
manager from Phoenix, recalled, [T]he challenges that I faced were the
astronomical goals that were set . . . it was the pressure of having to hold the
team accountable to very unrealistic standards. Not only have these events
upset customers, clients, and employees alike, but shareholders were irate
as well: Prior to an annual shareholders meeting, the Sisters of St. Francis
of Philadelphia, an order of nuns who were also shareholders in Wells Fargo,
wanted to see real, systematic change in culture, ethics, values and finan-
cial sustainability, further characterizing the perceptions of injustice.
Despite these challenges, Wells Fargo tried to repair their relationships
with their customers, employees, and all involved. It appears as if the current
goal system is on its way out, and the organization has already engaged in
remedial action. Wells Fargo has since fired most of the employees who par-
ticipated in the practices and will also be paying millions in fines and refunds
to the customers affected. Paradoxically, some research suggests that, when
organizations go above and beyond to repair damaged relationships after
ethical transgressions or injustices, sometimes employees and customers
can become more satisfied than if the transgressions never occurred at all.
Sources: Based on M. Egan, 5,300 Wells Fargo Employees Fired over 2 Million Phony
Accounts, CNN Money, September 9, 2016, http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/
wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/?iid=EL; M. Egan, Wells Fargo Still Faces over a
Dozen Probes Tied to Fake Account Scandal, CNN Money, March 31, 2017, http://money.cnn
.com/2017/03/31/investing/wells-fargo-investigations-fake-account-scandal/; E. A. Locke
and G. P. Latham, Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation,
American Psychologist 57, no. 9 (2002): 70517; L. D. Ordez, M. E. Schweitzer, A. D. Galin-
sky, and M. H. Bazerman, Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing
Goal Setting, Academy of Management Perspectives 31, no. 1 (2017): 616; M. P. Regan,
Wells Fargo Scandal Gets Cartoonish, Bloomberg: Gadfly, October 21, 2016, https://www
.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-21/psst-regulators-watch-videos-for-bank-scandal-
after-wells-fargo; M. Schminke, J. Caldwell, M. L. Ambrose, and S. R. McMahon, Better
Than Ever? Employee Reactions to Ethical Failures in Organizations, and the Ethical Recov-
ery Paradox, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 123 (2014): 20619;
B.Scudamore, Why Im Spending My Spring Break with 500 of My Closest Co-Workers, Inc.,
March 14, 2017, http://www.inc.com/brian-scudamore/we-put-500-employees-on-a-plane-to-
hawaii-for-1-very-good-reason.html; S. Woolley, Next Time Your Boss Sets a Crazy Sales Goal,
Show Him This, Bloomberg, September 14, 2016, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2016-09-14/how-sales-targets-encourage-wrongdoing-inside-america-s-companies.
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 216 29/09/17 5:37 pm
Motivation Concepts CHAPTER 7 217
As we read in the chapter-opening vignette, motivation is a powerful force: It can drive employees through encouragement and reward to accom-
plish challenging goals. It can also drive employees to cheat when they
experience injustice or are threatened by unattainable goals. As a manager,
navigating and attempting to predict these forces becomes a challenge, but
knowing more about different theories of motivation can help increase an
understanding of how motivation may operate and how employees become
motivated.
Motivation is one of the most frequently researched topics in organizational
behavior (OB).1 In one survey, 69 percent of workers reported wasting time at
work every day, and nearly a quarter said they waste between 30 and 60 minutes
each day. How? Usually by surfing the Internet (checking the news and visiting
social network sites) and chatting with coworkers.2 Although times change, the
problem of motivating a workforce stays the same.
In this chapter, well review the basics of motivation, assess motivation theo-
ries, and provide an integrative model that fits these theories together. But first,
look at the potential that a little motivation to ask for a raise can yield, shown
in the OB Poll.
Motivation Defined
The same young student who struggles to read a textbook for more than
20 minutes may devour a Harry Potter book in a day. The difference is the situ-
ation. As we analyze the concept of motivation, keep in mind that the level of
motivation varies both between individuals and within individuals at different
times.
We define motivation as the processes that account for an individuals inten-
sity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.3 While general
motivation is concerned with effort toward any goal, well narrow the focus to
organizational goals.
Intensity describes how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us
focus on when we talk about motivation. However, high intensity is unlikely
7-1 Describe the three key elements of motivation.
motivation The processes that account
for an individuals intensity, direction, and
persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.
Asking for a Raise: Business Executives
Note: Survey of 3,900 executives from 31 countries.
Source: Based on Accenture, The Path Forward (2012), http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-
IWD-Research-Deck-2012-FINAL.pdf#zoom=50, 36.
When you asked for
a pay raise, did you
receive one?
Yes
79%
No
21%
OB POLL
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 217 29/09/17 5:37 pm
218 PART 2 The Individual
to lead to favorable job performance outcomes unless the effort is channeled
in a direction that benefits the organization. Therefore, we consider the qual-
ity of effort as well as its intensity. Effort directed toward, and consistent with,
the organizations goals is the kind of effort we should be seeking. Finally,
motivation has a persistence dimension. This measures how long a person can
maintain effort. Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve
their goals.
Early Theories of Motivation
Three theories of employee motivation formulated during the 1950s are prob-
ably the best known. Although they are now of questionable validity (as well
discuss), they represent a foundation of motivation theory, and many practic-
ing managers still use their terminology.
Hierarchy of Needs Theory
The best-known theory of motivation is Abraham Maslows hierarchy of needs,4
which hypothesizes that within every human being there is a hierarchy of five
needs. Recently, a sixth need has been proposed for a highest levelintrinsic
valueswhich is said to have originated from Maslow, but it has yet to gain
widespread acceptance.5 The original five needs are:
1. Physiological. Includes hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and other bodily
needs.
2. Safety-security. Security and protection from physical and emotional
harm.
3. Social-belongingness. Affection, belongingness, acceptance, and friendship.
4. Esteem. Internal factors such as self-respect, autonomy, and achievement,
and external factors such as status, recognition, and attention.
5. Self-actualization. Drive to become what we are capable of becoming;
includes growth, achieving our potential, and self-fulfillment.
According to Maslow, as each need becomes substantially satisfied, the
next one becomes dominant. So if you want to motivate someone, you need
to understand what level of the hierarchy that person is currently on and focus
on satisfying needs at or above that level. We depict the hierarchy as a pyramid
in Exhibit 7-1 because this is its best-known presentation, but Maslow referred
to the needs only in terms of levels.
Maslows theory has received long-standing wide recognition, particularly
among practicing managers. It is intuitively logical and easy to understand,
and some research has validated it.6 Unfortunately, however, most research
does not, and it hasnt been frequently researched since the 1960s.7 But old
theories, especially intuitively logical ones, die hard. It is thus important to be
aware of the prevailing public acceptance of the hierarchy when discussing
motivation.
7-2 Compare the early theories of motivation.
hierarchy of needs Abraham Maslows
hierarchy of five needsphysiological, safety,
social, esteem, and self-actualizationin
which, as each need is substantially satisfied,
the next need becomes dominant.
MyLab Management Watch It
If your instructor has assigned this activity, go to www.pearson.com/
mylab/management to complete the video exercise.
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 218 29/09/17 5:37 pm
Motivation Concepts CHAPTER 7 219
Two-Factor Theory
Believing an individuals relationship to work is basic, and that the attitude
toward work can determine success or failure, psychologist Frederick Her-
zberg wondered, What do people want from their jobs? He asked people
to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad
about their jobs. The responses differed significantly and led Hertzberg to his
two-factor theory (also called motivation-hygiene theory, but this term is not used
much today).8
As shown in Exhibit 7-2, intrinsic factors such as advancement, recogni-
tion, responsibility, and achievement seem related to job satisfaction. Respon-
dents who felt good about their work tended to attribute these factors to their
two-factor theory A theory that relates
intrinsic factors to job satisfaction and associ-
ates extrinsic factors with dissatisfaction. Also
called motivation-hygiene theory.
Maslows Hierarchy of NeedsExhibit 7-1
Self-
actualization
Esteem
Social-belongingness
Safety-security
Physiological
Source: Based on H. Skelsey, Maslows Hierarchy of Needsthe Sixth Level, Psychologist (2014): 98283.
Comparison of Satisfiers and DissatisfiersExhibit 7-2
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Ac
hi
ev
em
en
t
Re
co
gn
iti
on
W
or
k
its
el
f
Re
sp
on
sib
ili
ty
Ad
va
nc
em
en
t
G
ro
w
th
Factors characterizing 1,753
events on the job that lead to
extreme satisfaction
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Po
lic
y
an
d
ad
m
in
ist
ra
tio
n
Su
pe
rv
isi
on
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
w
ith
su
pe
rv
iso
r
W
or
k
co
nd
iti
on
s
Sa
la
ry
Re
la
tio
ns
hi
p
w
ith
p
ee
rs
Factors characterizing 1,844
events on the job that lead to
extreme dissatisfaction
Source: Based on Harvard Business Review, Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers, An exhibit from One More Time: How Do You
Motivate Employees? by Frederick Herzberg, January 2003. Copyright 2003 by the Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
All rights reserved.
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 219 29/09/17 5:37 pm
220 PART 2 The Individual
situations, while dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors, such
as supervision, pay, company policies, and work conditions.
To Herzberg, the data suggest that the opposite of satisfaction is not dis-
satisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics
from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed
a dual continuum: The opposite of satisfaction is no satisfaction, and the
opposite of dissatisfaction is no dissatisfaction (see Exhibit 7-3).
Under two-factor theory, the factors that lead to job satisfaction are separate
and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers
who seek to eliminate factors that can create job dissatisfaction may bring about
peace but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating rather than moti-
vating their workers. Conditions such as quality of supervision, pay, company
policies, physical work conditions, relationships with others, and job security
are hygiene factors. When theyre adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; nei-
ther will they be satisfied. If we want to motivate people on their jobs, we should
emphasize factors associated with the work itself or with outcomes directly
derived from it, such as promotional opportunities, personal growth opportu-
nities, recognition, responsibility, and achievement. These are the characteris-
tics people find intrinsically rewarding.
The two-factor theory has not been well supported in research. Criticisms
center on Herzbergs original methodology and his assumptions, such as how
the participants may be biased in thinking back to times when they felt good
or bad about their jobs.9 Furthermore, if hygiene and motivational factors are
equally important to a person, both should be capable of motivating.
Regardless of the criticisms, Herzbergs theory has been quite influential
and has been used in many studies in Asian countries, such as Japan and
India.10 Few managers worldwide are unfamiliar with its recommendations.
McClellands Theory of Needs
You have one beanbag and five targets set up in front of you, each farther
away than the last. Target A sits almost within arms reach. If you hit it, you
get $2. Target B is a bit farther out and pays $4, but only about 80 percent of
the people who try can hit it. Target C pays $8, and about half the people who
try can hit it. Very few people can hit Target D, but the payoff is $16 for those
who do. Finally, Target E pays $32, but its almost impossible to achieve. Which
would you try for? If you selected C, youre likely to be a high achiever. Why?
Read on.
hygiene factors Factorssuch as company
policy and administration, supervision, and
salarythat, when adequate in a job, placate
workers. When these factors are adequate,
people will not be dissatisfied.
Contrasting View of Satisfaction and DissatisfactionExhibit 7-3
Satisfaction
Traditional view
Herzbergs view
Dissatisfaction
Satisfaction No satisfaction
No dissatisfaction Dissatisfaction
Motivators
Hygiene factors
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 220 29/09/17 5:37 pm
Motivation Concepts CHAPTER 7 221
McClellands theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his
associates.11 Compared to Maslows hierarchy, these needs are more akin to
motivating factors than strict needs for survival. There are three:
Need for achievement (nAch) is the drive to excel, to achieve in relation-
ship to a set of standards.
Need for power (nPow) is the need to make others behave in a way they
would not have otherwise.
Need for affiliation (nAff) is the desire for friendly and close interper-
sonal relationships.
McClelland and subsequent researchers focused most of their attention on
nAch. In general, high achievers perform best when they perceive their proba-
bility of success as 0.5that is, a 5050 chance. They dislike gambling with high
odds because they get no achievement satisfaction from success that comes
by pure chance. Similarly, they dislike low odds (high probability of success)
because then there is no challenge to their skills. They like to set goals that
require stretching themselves a little.
McClellands theory has research support across cultures, particularly
(when cultural dimensions including power distance are considered).12 Based
on prior nAch research, we can predict some relationships between nAch and
job performance. First, when employees have a high level of nAch, they tend
to exhibit more positive moods and be more interested in the task at hand.13
Second, employees high on nAch tend to perform very well in high-stakes
conditions on the job, like work walkthroughs or sales encounters.14
The need for achievement has received a great deal of research attention
and acceptance in a wide array of fields, including organizational behavior, psy-
chology, and general business.15 The nPow also has research support, but it
may be more familiar to people in broad terms (e.g., a need to obtain power)
than in relation to the original definition (e.g., a need to make others behave
in a way that you want them to).16 We will discuss power much more in Chapter
13. The nAff is also well established and accepted in researchfor example,
one recent study of 145 teams from Korean organizations suggests that, out
McClellands theory of needs A theory that
states achievement, power, and affiliation
are three important needs that help explain
motivation.
need for achievement (nAch) The drive to
excel, to achieve in relationship to a set of
standards, and to strive to succeed.
need for power (nPow) The need to make
others behave in a way in which they would
not have behaved otherwise.
need for affiliation (nAff) The desire for
friendly and close interpersonal relationships.
Entrepreneur Fred DeLuca is a high
achiever motivated by work that
demands a high degree of personal
responsibility. He cofounded a Subway
sandwich shop in 1965 at the age of
17 to help finance his college educa-
tion and grew the company into the
worlds largest fast-food franchise,
with almost 44,000 shops in more
than 100 countries.
Source: Geoff Caddick/EMPPL PA Wire/AP Images
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 221 29/09/17 5:37 pm
222 PART 2 The Individual
of all the needs, groups composed of employees with a high nAff tend to per-
form the best, exhibit the most open communication, and experience the least
amount of conflict.17 Both nAff and nPow tend to be closely related to manage-
rial success. The best managers may be high in their need for power and low in
their need for affiliation.18
Additional research on Cameroonian and German adults suggests that our
personalities may affect whether we can satisfy these needs. For example, a
high degree of neuroticism can prevent one from fulfilling the nAff, whereas
agreeableness supports fulfillment of this need; interestingly, extraversion had
no significant effect.19
The degree to which we have each of the three needs is difficult to measure,
and therefore the theory is difficult to put into practice. A behavior may be
directed at satisfying many different needs, and many different behaviors may
be directed at satisfying one given need, making needs difficult to isolate and
examine.20 It is more common to find situations in which managers aware of
these motivational drivers label employees based on observations made over
time. Therefore, the concepts are helpful, but they are not often used objectively.
Career OBjectives
Why wont he take my advice?
The new guy in the office is nice
enough, but hes straight out of col-
lege, and I have 20 years of experi-
ence in the field. Id like to help him
out, but he wont take it no matter
how I approach him. Is there anything
I can do to motivate him to accept my
advice? He badly needs a few pointers.
James
Dear James:
Its great that you want to help, and
surely you have wisdom to offer. But
lets start with this: When is the last
time you took someone elses advice?
Chances are its easier for you to
remember the last time you didnt take
someones advice than when you did.
Thats because we want success on our
own terms, and we dont like the idea
that a ready answer was out there all
along (and we missed it). When some-
body says, You should do something,
the subtext is: Youre an idiot for not
already doing it, said psychologist
Alan Goldberg. Nobody takes advice
under those conditions. So under what
conditions do people take advice?
There are two parts to the motiva-
tion equation for advice: what your
coworker wants to hear, and how you
can approach him. For the first part,
keep this rule in mind: He wants to
hear that whatever decisions hes
made are brilliant. If he hears anything
different from that, hes likely to tune
you out or keep talking until you come
over to his side.
For the second part, your coworkers
motivation to accept and, more impor-
tant, act on advice has a lot to do with
how you approach him. Are you likely
to impart your wisdom to the younger
generation? Anything like I wish I
had known this when I was just start-
ing out like you advice will likely have
him thinking you (and your advice) are
out of date. Are you going to give if I
were you, I would do this advice? He
may resent your intrusion. According to
research, what is most likely to work
is a gentle suggestion, phrased as a
request. Ravi Dhar, a director at Yale,
said, Interrogatives have less reac-
tance and may be more effective. You
might say, for instance, Would you con-
sider trying out this idea?
Take heart. The problem isnt that
we dont like advicewe do, as long as
we seek it. According to research, we
are more motivated toward advice when
we are facing important decisions, so
good timing may work in your favor.
When he does ask, you may suggest
that he writes down the parameters of
his choices and his interpretations of
the ethics of each decision. Researcher
Dan Ariely has found that we are much
more motivated to make morally right
decisions when weve considered the
moral implications in a forthright man-
ner. In this way, your coworker may
motivate himself to make the right
decisions.
Keep trying!
Sources: Based on D. Ariely, What Price for
the Soul of a Stranger? The Wall Street Jour-
nal, May 1011, 2014, C12; J. Queenan, A
Word to the Wise, The Wall Street Journal,
February 89, 2014, C1C2; and S. Reddy,
The Trick to Getting People to Take the
Stairs? Just Ask, The Wall Street Journal,
February 17, 2015, R4.
The opinions provided here are of the manag-
ers and authors only and do not necessar-
ily reflect those of their organizations. The
authors or managers are not responsible for
any errors or omissions, or for the results
obtained from the use of this information.
In no event will the authors or managers,
or their related partnerships or corporations
thereof, be liable to you or anyone else for
any decision made or action taken in reliance
on the opinions provided here.
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 222 29/09/17 5:37 pm
Motivation Concepts CHAPTER 7 223
Contemporary Theories of Motivation
Contemporary theories of motivation have one thing in common: Each has a
reasonable degree of valid supporting documentation. We call them contempo-
rary theories because they represent the latest thinking in explaining employee
motivation. This doesnt mean they are unquestionably right, however.
Self-Determination Theory
Its strange, said Marcia. I started work at the Humane Society as a volunteer.
I put in 15 hours a week helping people adopt pets. I loved coming to work; but
then, 3 months ago, they hired me full-time at $11 an hour. Im doing the same
work I did before. But Im not finding it as much fun.
Does Marcias reaction seem counterintuitive? Theres an explanation for
it. It can be found in self-determination theory, which proposes (in part) that
people prefer to feel they have control over their actions, and anything that
makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely cho-
sen activity undermines motivation.21 The theory is widely used in psychology,
management, education, and medical research.
Much research on self-determination theory in OB has focused on
cognitive evaluation theory, a complementary theory hypothesizing that extrin-
sic rewards reduce intrinsic interest in a task. When people are paid for work,
it feels less like something they want to do and more like something they have
to do. Self-determination theory proposes that, in addition to being driven by a
need for autonomy, people seek ways to achieve competence and make positive
connections with others. Of all the three needs, however, the autonomy need is
the most important for attitudinal and affective outcomes, whereas the compe-
tence need appears to be most important for predicting performance.22
What does self-determination theory suggest about providing rewards? It
suggests that some caution in the use of extrinsic rewards to motivate is wise
and that pursuing goals from intrinsic motives (such as a strong interest in the
work itself) is more sustaining to human motivation than are extrinsic rewards.
Similarly, cognitive evaluation theory suggests that providing extrinsic incen-
tives may, in many cases, undermine intrinsic motivation. For example, if a
computer programmer values writing code because she likes to solve problems,
a bonus for writing a certain number of lines of code every day could feel coer-
cive, and her intrinsic motivation would suffer. She may or may not increase
her number of lines of code per day in response to the extrinsic motivator.
In support, a recent meta-analysis confirms that intrinsic motivation contrib-
utes to the quality of work, while incentives contribute to the quantity of work.
Although intrinsic motivation predicts performance regardless of incentives,
it may be less of a predictor when incentives are tied to performance directly
(such as with monetary bonuses) rather than indirectly.23
A more recent outgrowth of self-determination theory is self-concordance,
which considers how strongly peoples reasons for pursuing goals are consis-
tent with their interests and core values. OB research suggests that people who
pursue work goals for intrinsic reasons are more satisfied with their jobs, feel
they fit into their organizations better, and may perform better.24 Across cul-
tures, if individuals pursue goals because of intrinsic interest, they are more
likely to attain goals, are happier when they do so, and are happy even when
they are unable to attain them.25 Why? Because the process of striving toward
goals is fun regardless of whether the goal is achieved. Recent research reveals
that when people do not enjoy their work for intrinsic reasons, those who
work because they feel obligated to do so can still perform acceptably, though
7-3 Contrast the elements of self-determination theory
and goal-setting theory.
self-determination theory A theory of mo-
tivation that is concerned with the beneficial
effects of intrinsic motivation and the harmful
effects of extrinsic motivation.
cognitive evaluation theory A version of
self-determination theory in which allocating
extrinsic rewards for behavior that had been
previously intrinsically rewarding tends to
decrease the overall level of motivation if the
rewards are seen as controlling.
self-concordance The degree to which
peoples reasons for pursuing goals are con-
sistent with their interests and core values.
M07_ROBB9329_18_SE_C07.indd 223 29/09/17 5:37 pm
224 PART 2 The Individual
they experience higher levels of strain.26 Research on Australian, British, and
American employees suggests that organizations can increase certain behaviors
of interest from their employees, such as environmentally sustainable behaviors
(e.g., conserving energy and commuting), by connecting them with goals that
are important to them.27
What does all this mean? For individuals, it means you should choose your
job for reasons other than extrinsic rewards. For organizations, it means man-
agers should provide intrinsic as well as extrinsic incentives. Managers need
to make the work interesting, provide recognition, link organizational and
employee goals, and support employee growth and development. Employees
who feel that what they do is within their control and a result of free choice are
likely to be more motivated by their work and committed to their employers.28
Goal-Setting Theory
Youve likely heard this sentiment several times: Just do your best. Thats all
anyone can ask. But what does do your best mean? Do we ever know whether
weve achieved that vague goal? Research on goal-setting theory, proposed by
Edwin Locke, reveals the impressive effects of goal specificity, challenge, and
feedback on performance. Under the theory, intentions to work toward a goal
are considered a major source of work motivation.29
Goal-setting theory is well supported. Evidence
