The Future of Work Motivation Theory

Introduction to finical Topic Forum The Future of hold out indigence Theory Author(s) Richard M. Steers, Richard T. Mowday, Debra L. Shapiro Source The academy of lie withment followup, Vol. 29, no 3 (Jul. , 2004), pp. 379-387 masterduce by academy of watchfulness shelter URL http//www. jstor. org/stable/20159049 . Accessed 25/04/2011 0909 Your office of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, procurable at . http//www. jstor. org/ knave/info/ nigh/policies/terms. jsp.JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you get down obtained prior permission, you may non transfer an entire expiration of a ledger or multiple copies of articles, and you may accustom bailiwick in the JSTOR archive al genius for your personal, non-commercial usance. Please seize the publisher regarding round(prenominal) only intake of this naturalize. Publisher amour information may be obtained at . http//www. jstor. o rg/ arrangeion/showPublisher? publisherCode=aom. . Each copy of whatsoever part of a JSTOR transmission mustinessiness contain the same copyright ceremonial occasion that appears on the screen or printed page of oft dates(prenominal) transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit dish out that helps scholars, re hunt clubers, and students discover, use, and systema skeletale upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technical schoolnology and tools to gain productivity and facilitate bleak forms of scholarship. For to a greater end information about JSTOR, please cont act as emailprotected org. Academy of Management is gaplaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and hold up access to The Academy of Management check over. http//www. jstor. org ? Academy o? Management Re insure 2004, Vol. 29, No. 3, 379-387. INTRODUCTIONTO SPECIAL TOPIC FORUMTHEFUTURE WORKindigence OF THEORY RICHARDM. STEERS RICHARD T. MOWDAY University o? Oregon DEBRA L. SHAPIRO University of Maryland want The result of employee plays a cen tral section in the stadium of worldagement? twain prac consider motiva and supposedly. tically Managers tion as an part of the slaying integral equivalence searchers block at all see re trains, while organisational it as a fundamental building been. an overview This innovation re ranges of the country of mesh pauperism from a theoretic and lays the openation for the arti impassepoint cles The that the Latin on this (mover?. Building as the demand Atkinson defines belief, on direc bring (immediate) con temp for sweat follow. 2 term need derives from b ar-asseds show in the expatiatement of utilitarian theories of utile the Indeed, anxiety practice. of the sub galore(postnominal) theme of indigence perforates the study of guidance, field that compose man teams, carrying into action including live onership, decision ethics, making, It is not surprising, change. so much that this t opic has veritable over the prehistorical some(prenominal)(prenominal) in two decenniums diarys and worry periodicals. xam youthful articles give way several imprint far we fill come in searching agement, managerial and organisational on that pointfore, oversight enquiry Whereas of action tion, vigor, and doggedness (1964 2), while it as a branch Vroom defines governing among choice do alternative by persons forms of voluntary (1964 6). Campbell occupation and Pritchard that suggest pauperism dependent the direction, has to do with a go by of independent/ covariant that ex apparent apprisalships amplitude, and persistence of an ined how on where this finicky forum focuses motif, we be going. That the questions is, we ask is the coming(prenominal) tense of take on pauperism What theories? are What the precise be that must questions if progress in the field is to be made? intercommunicate is the duration to come inquiry What How send word schedule? we or stylishify current expressions some(prenominal)er of put to reach so they continue in the motivation to be relevant are entirely recent models future tense? And where to advance our agniseing motivation studyed of employee bearing and personal logical argument of credit performance contemporary compositions? To netherstand where the field first baseborn go truehearted ever, we must is going, where how it has of in ndividuals constant air, holding fects of aptitude, skill, and sagacity lying-in, and the constraints operating in the the ef of the envi ronment (1976 63-130). These and former(a) definitions construct cardinal com mon denominators. con They are all principally or events cerned with elements that energize, over cadence. and hold on forgiving doings channel, In various ways, of lam theories contemporary motivation to evolve derive from lawsuits with increase precision to square off ter assort how these manner troika factors in or ganizations. inEARLYDEVELOPMENTS IN MOTIVATION THEORY The earliest man motivation to dread hu approaches date from the clipping of the Greek and focus on the conceit of hedo We suss out cial are panel forum. indebted(predicate) to the time staff and of AMR thrust and to the editorial of this spe for their on behalf philosophers 2 1 For motivation, recent see inspections Kanfer of the look literature on bend and For a more than tiny examination see oarlockder of the evolution ostiarius, of cogitation and (1990), Mitchell (1997), Ambrose motivation Steers theories, (2003). (1998) and Bigley,Kulik (1999),and Mitchell and Daniels (2002). 379 380 Academy of Management suss out July a principle force in carriage. driving seen as sprocket wheelitate were Individuals their efforts on seeking and avoiding This pleasure disoblige. was after peachy and further devel principle in the agencyplay of philosophers like Locke, oped nism as Bentham, Mill, and eighteenth Toward electric outlet and Helvetius, centuries. in the seventeenth nism of the ancient. outcomes would actions melt to this past would that led to positive tend to be repeated, whereas outcomes that led to negative Past actions Thorndike he end of the nineteenth the century, to migrate of motivation from the began to the freshlyly realm of philosophy sci uphill ence of psychological science. Challenges immediately arose over the use of hedonism as the basis for the study of motivation. donism had no that exculpated were specification pleasurable or (1911) re of effect, while Hull was that effort or motivation (1943) suggested almostly dictated by drive X habit. Skinner by and by built on these (1953) and others con with the display of op? rant principles to by some as reinforcement (referred ditioning ferred to diminish. s the law theories), joust learn contingent and their that, over relationships and consequences future behavior. guide to thrive idiosyncratics time, action s between that these contin As Vroom explains, he of the painful, type or of even events how gencies models vehicles continue these events could be determined for a particular nor did it make give the axe how persons soulfulness of ways of attaining their conceptions acquired pleasure pain might the hedonistic or pain, or how be modified assumption the by or source of pleasure In short, experience. no empirical con has or understanding as advantageously occupancy performance, various counseling performance 2003). (e. g. , Komaki, go psychologists Reinforcement as explanatory instantly create motivation and as in the piece of buy the farm in programs tent and was untestable (1964 10). scientists search As a result, behavioral began to ex for more base models ing empirically plain motivation. were these primal models inherent aptitude the Among as those proposed ories, much(prenominal) by crowd, Freud, and McDougall. In seat these rational, highly much behavior resulted a s McDougall an tion inherited which charge an or innate determined ere on in counsel were on stincts and drives, managers focusing more pragmatic issues. A recognise development here was the dress of Frederick and his spread Taylor move in the scientific management leagues ment. industrial engineering of (1911), along with mevery cathode-ray oscilloscope, Taylor on the in his associates, foc utilise his maintenance in an increas efficiencies of factory production climax ingly posed industrialized a new and progress toers age. These colleagues pro to paternalistic approach that relied on a combination from an that postulated from instinct, defined by f viewing theorists behavior as psychological its possessor of a authoritative excitement predisposi to perceive, of an class, a partic object, manner to or pay experience ular quality and to act to, objects emotional upon in regard such perceiving to it in a particular (1908 4). James cluded jealousy, identified a list of suc h instincts sociability, that in man agedness of under fetching training, inducement pay-for-performance tech selection systems, employee improved and the intro niques, theorize redesign, including duction of ergonomics.Far from being exploit saw ative in intent, Taylor and his associates as an economic to scientific grace management the use both pee-peeers and management through and through with(predicate) in of improved manufacturing techniques, re and creased shared operating efficiency, the later(prenominal) originate of an in hands, creasingly sophisticated coupled to maximize with efforts company productivity re without increasing simultaneously employee wards. However, to discredit served this sys wards, eventually to the far-flung rise of unioniza tem, atomic number 82 in the 1930s. ion efforts neighborly scientists and managers Meanwhile, to consider the role of favorable ferments began on behavior in the 1930s. The role of congregation dy as com to view emplo yees namics and the need plex beings ences were with multiple as acceptd motivational reasonful influ influences locomotion, curiosity, and sympathy. fear, as in or so the 1920s, however, Beginning to creased of the opening limitations began to be re noted instinct theories emerge, began on drive or reinforcement.Led base by models as Thorndike, Wood by such psychologists worth, the theorists introduced and Hull, drive in actuate of learning and behavior or fu that decisions concerning bounty posited are ture behaviors influenced largely by the concept with past of rewards associated consequences to this as hedo behavior. (1954) referred Allport 2004 Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro 381 re these trounce noted among performance. are Mayos and Roeth search endeavors (1933) Bendix and Dicksons (1939) elaborates. is iceberg lettuceer of this persona summarized the principle movement that human relations by observing as human to treat leaders the failure beings on came low in and, thus, has found considerable popularity on separate to go away factors relating research motivation. and their col While Maslow and McClelland on the role of individual differ focused leagues in motivation, (1966 Herzberg, Herzberg to under & Snyderman, Mausner, 1959) sought activities how work of and the nature stand and performance. nes seam influence motivation ar In his motivation- hygiene scheme, Herzberg is largely influenced that work motivation gued a job is intrinsically to which the extent chal by for recogni and provides opportunities lenging saw the con tion and reinforcement. Herzberg a job (which he referred text skirt to as as being in far more factors) temporal hygiene terms of leading to delight and future moti vation. Herzberg deserves credit for introducing the field to the role of job design? specifically, a key factor in work motiva job enrichment? s tion and Hackman ext cease work job attitudes. and onetime(a)ham this line of In sub resultant work, liv e (1976) and others as it relates to research ences to be regarded craftsmanship, as the intellect of low morale, and con unresponsiveness, fusion (1956294). McGregor (1960) later built on this in his guileless early work, The gentleman Side mo been prin with of Enterprise. new models of work By the 1950s, several tivation emerged, apply which collectively to as conten? since their referred theories, to recognise aim was factors associated cipal is Maslows here motivation.Included need (1954) that, as suggests hierarchy surmisal, which their way individuals up a develop, they work on the fulfillment of a series of based hierarchy necessarily, including physiological, and esteem, security, belongingness, that the first Maslow self-actualization. argued on the list represent three need deficiency before needs that people must master they gage into a healthy while the personality, develop to two represent needs that relate growth of and the development achievement individual human Alderfer (1972) later adapted potential. o encompass exis this model just three needs last tence, cerebrateness, A encourage need introduced growth. possibility of the same (1938) only more by Murray and era, first prioritized condom and and motivation, design, job performance, Deci while others, (1975 Ryan & Deci, including theories 2000), fork out render focusing specif versus on task-based intrinsic inessential ically in motivation factors (e. g. , self-determination guess). richly de veloped by McClelland (1961, 1971), ignored the THE GOLDENAGE OF WORK MOTIVATION THEORIES n the mid to 1960s, a new approach Beginning the study of work motivation which emerged, on delineating focused the influencees underly blood line influence theories ing work motivation. content with the foregoing theories, which sharply on keying focused factors associated with in a relatively motivation stable environment. view work motivation Process theorists from a dynamic tionships to human and olfactory modality for causal rela perspective crosswise as they relate time and events in the employment. ehavior to the process is a series Central surmise genre of cognitive motivation theories of that collec to understand the thought pro tively attempt cesses in find that people go through to be absorb theories on and focused sort of of a hierarchy concept of an start of distinct the motivational potency achieve defined and clearly needs, including and autonomy. McClel ment, affiliation, power, at any given individuals land argued time, that, that often needs several possess competing serve to go when activated.This behavior contrasts notion of a steady pro with Maslows over time up a hypothetical gression hierarchy as individuals grow and mature. By far, most of on in McClellands model focused the attention (defined as behavior of with a standard directed toward competition as a need to and power excellence) (defined over ones environment). have control McCle l the needs for achievement a lands abstractization offered researchers as they connect to set of clearly needs defined to Maslows in contrast behavior, study more annul for abstractizations (e. g. , need versus achievement need for self-actualization) n the workplace. In our view, the the late 1960s and generated during mid-seventies make this period of a early something theories. Never golden age of work motivation never since has before and, some would argue, how 382 Academy of Management Review July in explicating been made the progress of work motivation. etiology best known of the cognitive theories peradventure is forecast (or expectancy-valence) speculation. from the early work forethought conjecture derives saw be of Lewin (1938) and Tolman (1959), who havior based as purposeful, on conscious and largely determination directed, intentions. Vroom (1964) pre formulation of ex systematic o much several models acclivitous ences on work motivation of cross-cultural influ and job performance & of 1982 Earley, 1997 Steers (Bhagat & McQuaid, 2001 Triandis, Sanchez-Runde, 1995). to expectancy In addition theory, a itemize other theories of work moti important cognitive vation have been since the 1960s, developed its own focus. Adams each with (1963), for exam ple, how em lawfulness theory to explain both cognitively and behavior ployees respond to perceived in the workplace un candor ally & Colwell, 2003, and Weick, (see overly Mowday introduced sented the first to the workplace. ectancy theory as it related He argued that employees tend to rationally various treasure work behaviors on-the-job those be harder) and then choose (e. g. , working haviors suppose will lead to their most val they ued work-related rewards and outcomes the attractiveness Thus, promotion). ular task and the energy invested a great appoint on the extent pend employee to valued ostiarius believes outcomes. and its accomplishment (e. g. , a of a partic in it will de t o which the will lead & Maruyama, that 1976). Adams Bougon, argued both conditions of underpayment and overpay can ment influence behavior.Re subsequent cent work on adjectival and distri furtherive justice further develops this scene of action using the fundamen tal concept of fairness and its consequences (Cro & Rupp, 2003 Folger, 1986 Greenberg, panzano & McFarlin, 1993 Sweeney 1993). in the late Goal-setting theory also emerged as researchers to discover that the 1960s, began simple hanced Steers showed prognosticate act of specifying en for behavior targets task performance 1968, 1996 (Locke, in this arena & Porter, 1974). Research and specificity, intention difficulty, to enhance each served task on numerous Based empiricalLawler Vrooms (1968) expanded to recognize the role of individual initial work differences abilities and skills) (e. g. , employee in linking and role clarity job job effort to actual Porter and performance. the relationship between Lawler also elegan t and sub performance that this relation satisfaction, sequent arguing of the ship is mediated by the extent and quality in replacement receive rewards for employees job performance. a Finally, feedback that remainder commitment Porter and to recog in mergedd curl up nize learning about past relation by employees in the That is, if superior ships. erformance to lead to superior failed future rewards, past effort may suffer as incentives and the employee in the employees reward system lose credibility best Lawler eyes. performance. Locke and Latham studies, (1990) subsequently a noble theory of close setting. proposed Earley a time dimension to and Erez (1991) later added this Rosse topic by on examining motivation, the role of cognitive and treat while Crown a summate its initial of Since publication, or further brush up to extend have worked scholars to re the basal framework expectancy cognitive research and new theo flect emerging findings retical developments 1990 Mit ch (e. . , Kanfer, For example, ell, 1997). expectancy theory has to study forms of work behavior been used other than job performance, ab including employee citizen and organizational overthrow, senteeism, Porter, & 1977 Mowday, (Mobley, ship behavior 1973 Steers, 1982 Organ, 1988 Porter & Steers, have also Steers & Rhodes, 1978). Researchers and tender influences linked chemical multitude expectations to individual decisions work motivation (Porter, Lawler, ancy & Hackman, principles have basic expect 1975). Finally, into been incorporated the role of group goals, in (1995) tryd on performance. o individual addition goals, of goal-setting Applications theory in the form of individual and team management-by-objectives are now used widely in programs throughout (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). dustry saw significant this period Finally, develop on the role of fond ments focusing cognition on behavior and self-efficacy and performance as Bandura such researchers by leading a social B andura (1977a,b, 1997). cog proposed nitive that self-confidence suggesting theory, to lies at the heart of an individuals incentive a major act or to be proactive. fter Indeed, on social review of the research literature cog nition and self-efficacy, and Luthans Stajkovic for the (1998, 2003) found considerable support in determining role of self-efficacy work as moder related particularly performance, ated by task knottyity and locus of control. 2004 Sfeers, Mowday, and Shapiro 383 Based posed place izational research, this extending a model through behavior. on this Luthans concept labeled (2001) has pro into the work positive organ An outside this placement in the subject cause it is no izations) observer that either rom solve might we have lost engagement be of work motivation (perhaps in organ issue longer a pressing or that we solved the work motivation the con con its upstart DEVELOPMENTS IN WORK MOTIVATION numerous and 1970s and pool cated nessed of the have ideas em erging from the 1960s been subsequently to reflect an further developed and more of research findings research a series methods. extended thereby eliminating problem long ago, for additional work. neither of these need searchs the clusions On very plausible. economy, trary, and e-commerce, dot. oms, as the more ization (as well facturing is force and service in the new replete change magnitude traditional a instigated a with global manu work Indeed, of refinements and extensions For expanded sophisti the eighties wit of researchers animated example, in conceptual made great strides developments on social and empirical work learning focusing on in new work focusing theory, as they did systems, innovation and justice, punishment, procedural on work influences and cross-cultural creativity, behavior. sideline However, by the 1990s, gifted in work motivation least as mea theory? t goal-setting theory, job design, sured cline sider by journal precipitously. the number articles pub lications? seemed As evidence of theoretical of to de this, con to be reward theories. stylemark of frequently MIT econo Indeed, competitive advantage. over a de mist Lester Thurow (1992) observed cade that successful (and ago companies countries) principally nology vated will on make out the quality their human in the future their based tech of both resources. firms), as cited A moti and a critical work force becomes strategic in such plus then, has Why, competition. so little intellectual there been focus activity we have ing on this important topic? Perhaps the find ideas that can yet to develop level of understanding. push us to the next on work mo While theoretical developments tivation in recent have declined may years, the world ? f work has changed dramatically. one can argue that the past cristal Indeed, has witnessed other than any are both Companies and expanding (often at downsizing or levels in different the same divisions time, is character of the hierarchy). The workforce ized by increased with diver miscellany highly and demands.Information technol gent needs both the manner ogy has changed frequently and location tional forms of work (such now published over the past decade journals & Kulik, & 1999, or Mitchell find some articles that You will Daniels, 2002). in focus on genuine theoretical developments see electric razor area. exten will this Instead, you empirical) science havioral see Ambrose (e. g. , sions, tests, or applications empirical ing theories. While clearly helpful, to breakthrough leads developments of exist this hardly in our (as oppose in leading greater decade workplace in memory. changes of the principles understanding central work motivation.At the same of time, a review recent in the the most editions of textbooks field of management and organizational be havior that most of the theories dis reveals cussed date from the 1960s and 1970s, with to more recent work. references only fleeting searching that some earl y motivation (It is also theories been widely that have subsequently to permeate continue discredited such texts. ) In short, while of management other fields negotiations, tion design) decision (e. g. , leadership, making, and teams, and organiza groups to develop continue conceptually, all important(p) theoretical focus developments on work motivation have not unbroken pace. ng research activities. as those untested found Teams organiza in e-com are re merce) are commonplace. as of hierarchy, distributions. of power is on the rise. Man age workers contingent to perplex continues workers expe knowledge across rienced managers industries. divergent And globalization of man and the challenges specify traditional the notion aging stead across borders are now the norm in of the exception. as well The use 3 See 2003) focusing a key strategic mance. a finical on issue the asset o? Harvard Business Review (January as of employee motivation importance in competition and corporate per for 84 Academy of Management Review July can have a intense These changes influence on how companies to attract, retain, and attempt motivate their employees. Yet we lack new mod in of guiding behavior sure-footed managerial this new era of work. As Cappelli Most notes, observers of the corporate world believe that the traditional between and relationship employer is gone, but there is little understand employee it ended and even is less about what ing of why els that relationship We believe (1999 1). our intellec to redirect time has come new models? and into discovering tual energies new models? f work motiva research toward commensurate tion and with job performance replacing that the this new era. tions work plete, more theories. more for developing thickening motivation that are more valid, broader useful in scope, and, to practitioners theories of more com by implication, than existing In the second, Yitzhak Fried and Linda Haynes examine in which time factors can Slowik wa ys influence and job perfor processes goal-setting mance in work that organizations. They argue the addition of time as a key variable in goal and validity setting theory adds to its heartiness in helping in in behavior explain employee creasingly environments. omplex, continually evolving work THE ROAD AHEAD With this for document motivation. in mind, in 2001 AMR issued a call on the topic of the future of work was A special seminar held at the Next, Myeong-Gu Seo, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and Jean M. Bartunek blow on both psychologi cal and neurobiological of essence affec theories a set of direct and tive experiences to identify indirect paths affec through which work-related can influence tive feelings three dimensions of behavioral and direction, intensity, to direct In addition af influence, persistence. an also influence behavior fective experiences on goal level their make indirectly, through and goal commitment, as well of motivation as on components apprehension expecta ncy, utility, and progress. L. Ackerman Ruth Kanfer and Phillip then use to fa and great(p) development theories life-span an understanding cilitate of the implications of on workplace motivation. aging aging Although as leading to declining is generally viewed cog nitive these au and intellectual capabilities, thors argue that this view may be overly sim is a more that aging Instead, plistic. hey argue in which process, cognitive complex declining are accompanied in other abilities by growth intellectual of motives abilities, shakeup traits. and goals, and changing personality mo how aging influences Fully understanding a large tivation, therefore, requires com of the different and often understanding taking changes this, Naomi Following and S. Alexander Gilder, pensatory place. Ellemers, Haslam Dick de use self the key to relating outcomes of the Academy of Manage 2001 annual meeting ment to stimulate in the interest and discussion to the call, researchers In retort sub topic. ere mitted subse which papers, fifty- vi of space reviewed. quently the journal, some(prenominal) papers worthy accommodated. However, following view six papers emerged cycles, offer new and useful ideas and future directions of the topic. What these for the theoretical In view could limitations not multiple that seem insights development of be re to into in common is a have papers on existing to build of effort theories genuine work motivation and extending by adapting con of the changing them to fit the realities is temporary Todays workplace workplace. hort-term characterized by an increasingly variable, performance among increasing employ interdependence ees in some form of team (often manifested to emotive responses evolving organization), the workplace value increasing experience, on the part of employees, actions and motive nature of the pass(a) and a clear recognition focus, of careers. time as a critical six papers a variety address our understanding The tivation Edwin A . Locke in this special issue appearing to advancing of issues critical of motivation theory and mo social pro categorization theory and identity cesses to examine in which ndividual the ways to determine interact work and group processes in organizations motivation. The fact that work around increasingly organized to understand it is important gests influence how work is teams how sug groups The first paper, by on focuses P. Latham, on work moti of metatheories the development six recommenda vation. These authors present in the workplace. and Gary motivation. Their paper can have in groups participation explores a power 2004 Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro 385 on motivation ful influence can be understood what by on individual-level effects. Finally, Hugo lines of research the influences and bove focusing and beyond Crown, D. F. , & Rosse, J. G. 1995. Yours, through mine the and ours exclusively several Deci, Facilitating of individual and charitable group productivity and group goal s. Decision Processes, motivation. Organizational 64 138-150. refreshing York social across integration demeanor M. Kehr synthesizes on motivation by E. L. 1975. inalienable P. C. 1997. Face, Plenum. structure cultures. An saucily of explicit and on motivation abilities perceived model. using a compensatory workplace answer some model intriguing, helps solved examining implicit motives in the Kehrs unreEarley, of organizational analysis York Oxford University Earley, P. C, and & Erez, norms models. M. and harmony, behavior Press. 1991. Time role Journal of dependency effects treat of on 76 individual questions concerning goal at tainment and why self-set goals may sometimes be nonmotivating. to the these papers contribute Throughout, research and theo long tradition of substantive in the field of work motiva retical development tion that expediency both organizational researchers and practicing alike. managers goals motivational 717-727. The cognitive of Applied Psychology, R. 1986.Rethinking Folger, tions model. In H. W. (Eds. ), Justice berg Plenum. Greenberg, and J. 1993. The informational equity Beirhoff, cogni theory A denotive R. L. Cohen, & J. Green 145-162. upstart York in social relations social classes side of lividity Interpersonal justice. Approach 79-103. In R. Cropanzano ing fairness (Ed. ), Justice in human or organizational in the workplace management Associates. resources Erlbaum G. R. of a REFERENCES Adams, S. J. 1963. Towards of Abnormal and an Journal Alderfer, York Allport, understanding affectionate Psychology, relatedness, and of inequity. 67 422-436. impertinentlyHillsdale, Hackman, design ior and Herzberg, cosmea Herzberg, tion Hull, faces Kanfer, F. NJ Lawrence J. R. f & Oldham, of work Human Test 1976. indigence theory. Organizational 16 250-279. Performance, and the nature of man. the through Behav C. P. Free G. W. 1972. Existence, Press. 1954. In G. The growth. 1966. Work Cleveland Publishing. F. , Mausner, to work. cu tting B. & Snyderman, York Wiley. of behavior. B. 1959. The motiva historical psychology. chology. Ambrose, ment Atkinson, wagon train Bandura, M. Lindzey MA Cambridge, L. , & Kulik, research C. in T. background (Ed. ), Handbook of modern of social psyAddison-Wesley. 1999. Old 1990s. friends, Journal new C. L. 1943. Principles Century-Crofts. R. 1990. Motivation New York Appleton Motivation the of Manage 25 231-292. W. J. Nostrand. A. 1977a. Self-efficacy change. 1977b. Social Toward a unifying 84 Review, Englewood theory of 191-215. Cliffs, 1964. Introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ izational psychology. of (Eds. ), Handbook chology Press. Komaki, 75-170. Palo industrial and organ theory and In M. D. scoldnette & L. D. Hough and organizational industrial psy Alto, CA Consulting Psychologists behavioral Bandura, A. psychological learning J. 2003.Reinforcement theory at work In L. W. theory. and NJ Prentice-Hall. Bandura, York Bendix, Wiley. R. S. , & McQuaid, S. J. 1982. Rol e of internal culture Bhagat, re in organizations A review and directions for future search. of Applied 67 653-685. Journal Psychology, R. D. 1976. Motivation in J. P. , & Pritchard, Campbell, theory industrial and organizational In M. D. Dun psychology. nette of industrial and (Ed. ), Handbook organizational psychology P. Cappelli, Business Cropanzano, zational 63-130. 1999. The shallow Chicago new deal Rand McNally. Boston Harvard R. A. 1997. Self-efficacy Freeman. 956. Worlr and The exercise of control. New what explaining & R. M. Steers Bigley, ior (7th ed. ) 95-113. do. employees (Eds. ), Motivation Burr Ridge, Porter, Enhancing G. A. behav and work IL Irwin/McGraw-Hill. authority in industry. New York K. 1938. The conceptual Lewin, surement of psychological Press. University Locke, E. A. incentives. mance, Locke, E. A. 1968. Towards Organizational 3 157-189. 1996. Motivation and Preventive a and the mea representation forces. NC Duke Durham, of theory air task motivation an d Human and Perfor through Psychology, conscious Applied Locke, goal 5 117-124. etting. E. A. , & Latham, task performance. G. P. 1990. A Englewood case theory Cliffs, of goal setting NJ Prentice-Hall. and at work. Press. Luthans, F. 2001. The Issues ior. Current Maslow, A. H. for positive in Management and organizational 1(1) 10-21. personality. New behav D. E. 2003. An overview of organi for work In motivation. justice Implications L. W. Porter, G. A. Bigley, & R. M. Steers (Eds. ), Motivation and work behavior IL Irwin/ (7th ed. ) 82-95. Burr Ridge, McGraw-Hill. R. , & Rupp, 1954. Motivation York Harper Mayo, E. & Row. 1933. The human problems York macmillan. f an industrial civiliza tion. New 386 Academy of Management Review July E. L. 2000. of intrinsic Self-determination motivation, social and McClelland, cutting edge McClelland, York D. C. Nostrand. D. C. General W. 1961. The achieving society. Princeton, NJ Ryan, R. M. , & Deci, the facilitation and B. F. theory 1971. Asse ssing Press. study introduction human motivation. New ment, Skinner, well-being. 1953. lore American and human Psychologist behavior. develop 55 68-78. New York McDougall, London 1908. An to social psychology. Macmillan. A. D. , & Luthans, Stajkovic, related performance 124 240-261.Bulletin, Stajkovic, and A. D. , & Luthans, F. 1998. Self-efficacy and work A meta-analysis. mental Methuen. D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York McGregor, McGraw-Hill. Mitchell, T. R. 1997. duplicate motivational Research contexts. organizational 19 57-94. havior, Mitchell, D. T. R. , & Daniels, & R. Klimoski Volume 225-254. strategies in Organizational with Be F. 2003. self-efficacy Implications In L. W. G. Porter, practice. (Eds. ), Motivation Burr Ridge, and work IL Irwin/McGraw-Hill. & Porter, L. W. Social cognitive theory for motivation theory and A. Bigley, & R. M.Steers (7th ed. ) 126-140. D. 2002. Motivation. InW. Borman, handbook behavior Ilgen, of psychology. psychology W. Mobley , between nal H. (Eds. ), Comprehensive 12 Industrial and organizational New York Wiley. linkages and employee 62 237-240. Steers, R. M. , 1974. The role of attributes letin, Steers, 1977. Intermediate job satisfaction Psychology, in the relationship turnover. Jour in employee 81 434-452. & Rhodes, performance. Psychological task-goal Bul R. M. , S. R. of Applied ployee to of attendance A process 1978. Major model. influences Journal on em of Applied reactions K. A. 2003.Employee R. T. , & Colwell, Mowday, in the workplace outcomes The contributions unfair to understanding Adams work motivation. equity theory In L. W. vation Porter, and Psychology, Steers, and 63 391-407. C. 2001. Culture, motivation, (Eds. ), Lon R. M. , & Sanchez-Runde, work behavior. In M. Gannon & K. Newman 190-215. & R. M. Steers G. A. Bigley, (Eds. ), Moti IL work behavior (7th ed. ) 65-82. Burr Ridge, Handbook don of cross-cultural management Blackwell. evaluations of four mod Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Mowday, R. T. , Porter, L. W. , & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee of commitment, York donnish P.D. , & McFarlin, D. B. 1993. Workers Sweeney, An examination of the ends and means els of distributive air and and procedural Human Decision organization absenteeism, Press. The psychology linkages turnover. New and tional 40. in personality. New York Taylor, Thorndike, millan. Thurow, F. justice. Organiza 53 23 Processes, H. A. 1938. Exploration Murray, Press. Oxford University Organ, good Pinder, C. D. W. 1911. Scientific E. L. management. intelligence. New York New Harper. Mac The behavior 1988. Organizational citizenship MA Lexington pass Books. Lexington, syndrome. 1998.Work Saddle motivation in organizational NJ Prentice-Hall. R. M. Burr behavior. 1911. Animal York L. 1992. inquiry Japan, to head Europe, The and Upper Porter, and River, L. W. , work G. A. , & Steers, Bigley, behavior (7th ed. ) 2003. Motivation Ridge, IL Irwin/ among Morrow. Tolman, economic coming America. New battle York McGr aw-Hill. Porter, L. W. , & Lawler, E. E. 1968. Managerial IL Irwin. J. R. attitudes and S. Koch behavior. In 1959. Principle of purposive A study of science, vol. 2 239 (Ed. ), Psychology 261. New York McGraw-Hill. H. C. and 1995. Motivation individualistic and cultures. n motivation CT and JAI Press. New G. and York Wiley. 1976. The Human equity Perfor achievement In M. Maehr and in collec & P. Pin E. C. performance. Porter, L. W. , Homewood, Lawler, Triandis, 1975. Behavior in tivist trich vol. work, absenteeism. and Vroom, Weick, and Press. E. E. , & Hackman, New York McGraw-Hill. R. M. organizations. Porter, L. W. , (Eds. ), Advances 9 1-30. Greenwich, achievement, & Steers, factors personal Psychological Roethlisberger, the worker. 1973. Organizational, in employee turnover and 80 151-176. W. MA V. H. 1964. Work motivation. Bulletin, F. , & Dickson, Cambridge, K. E. Bougon, context. M. G. , & Maruyama, Behavior J. 1939. Management Harvard University mance, Organizational 15 32- 65. Richard College atomic number 20 cultural Richard quist M. Steers is the Kazumitsu University His current Shiomi of Oregon. research professor He received of Business, at Irvine. of Management his Ph. D. from in the Lundquist the University of and cross focuses on employee motivation management. T. Mowday is the Gerald B. Bashaw Professor of Management received his and research in the Lund Ph. D. on from leadership the of Business, College at of California University in organizations. University Irvine andHe of Oregon. focuses his teaching Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro Debra ment L. Shapiro, the Willard whole meal flour of Manage Professor formerly bossy at UNC-Chapel is now professor of management in the and organization Hill, R. H. Smith School at College of Business, of Maryland Park, and a particle University of the Academy of Managements Board of Governors. She her Ph. D. received from conflict Her University. in organizations that the cross-cultural challenges research tend of managing focuses on issues regarding employee how to motivate to manage behaviors and northwestern unproductive conflict effectively.