motivation in organizational behavior: history, advances

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308079419

Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects

Article in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · September 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.002

CITATIONS

17READS

12,945

2 authors, including:

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

Work Science Center View project

Ruth Kanfer

Georgia Institute of Technology

107 PUBLICATIONS 10,217 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Kanfer on 10 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308079419_Motivation_in_organizational_behavior_History_advances_and_prospects?enrichId=rgreq-ca9ceb1529549272bb3de37b6f4bc0fc-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwODA3OTQxOTtBUzo1Njk4NjkxODEyMzExMDRAMTUxMjg3ODgwODQ3Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308079419_Motivation_in_organizational_behavior_History_advances_and_prospects?enrichId=rgreq-ca9ceb1529549272bb3de37b6f4bc0fc-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwODA3OTQxOTtBUzo1Njk4NjkxODEyMzExMDRAMTUxMjg3ODgwODQ3Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Work-Science-Center?enrichId=rgreq-ca9ceb1529549272bb3de37b6f4bc0fc-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwODA3OTQxOTtBUzo1Njk4NjkxODEyMzExMDRAMTUxMjg3ODgwODQ3Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_9&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-ca9ceb1529549272bb3de37b6f4bc0fc-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwODA3OTQxOTtBUzo1Njk4NjkxODEyMzExMDRAMTUxMjg3ODgwODQ3Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_1&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ruth_Kanfer?enrichId=rgreq-ca9ceb1529549272bb3de37b6f4bc0fc-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwODA3OTQxOTtBUzo1Njk4NjkxODEyMzExMDRAMTUxMjg3ODgwODQ3Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_4&_esc=publicationCoverPdf


https://www.researchgate.net/institution/Georgia_Institute_of_Technology?enrichId=rgreq-ca9ceb1529549272bb3de37b6f4bc0fc-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwODA3OTQxOTtBUzo1Njk4NjkxODEyMzExMDRAMTUxMjg3ODgwODQ3Nw%3D%3D&el=1_x_6&_esc=publicationCoverPdf



Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /obhdp

Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.0020749-5978/� 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Kanfer), [email protected].

edu (G. Chen).

Ruth Kanfer a,⇑, Gilad Chen b

a School of Psychology, J.S. Coon Building, MC 0170, 654 Cherry St., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USAbRobert H. Smith School of Business, 4538 Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1815, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 21 October 2015Revised 2 June 2016Accepted 12 June 2016

Keywords:MotivationSelf-regulationGoalsMotivesGoal choiceGoal pursuit

In this article we selectively review major advances in research on motivation in work and organizationalbehavior since the founding of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (now OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes) 50 years ago. Using a goal-based organizing rubric, we highlightthe most impactful articles and summarize research progress over time related to understanding thewhy, where, how, what, and when of motivation during goal choice and goal enactment. We also notemacro-level trends in motivation research published in this journal, including the shift away from pub-lishing new, core theories of work motivation in favor of using new approaches published elsewhere toexamine key micro-regulatory processes involved in goal decisions and goal pursuit. We conclude withdiscussion of promising future research directions.

� 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction cles on goal setting (Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, 1991) and the

In 1966, Jim Naylor and George Briggs introduced the purposeof Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (OBHP, nowtitled Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes[OBHDP]) as a journal aimed at publishing significant research that‘‘contribute(s) to our basic knowledge of human performance”(Naylor & Briggs, 1966, p. 1). Over the past five decades, the journalhas published seminal papers on the determinants, mechanisms,and outcomes of motivation related to decision-making and per-formance in work and achievement settings. New and influentialtheories of motivation have been introduced in the journal, includ-ing Alderfer’s ERG theory (1969), Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behav-ior (1991), Deci’s Cognitive Evaluation Theory (1972), Hackmanand Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (1976), and Locke’s GoalModel (1968). Other articles provide incisive reviews and critiquesof these approaches that had considerable influence on the field(e.g., Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Pritchard, 1969; Wahba &Bridwell, 1976). In 1982, Campion and Lord introduced and testeda control systems model of motivation to explain how goals andperformance feedback operate in tandem to affect motivationand behavior over time, and in 1986 Bandura and Cervone pub-lished empirical support for the role of self-efficacy in maintainingmotivation during goal pursuit. A special issue on theories of cog-nitive self-regulation in 1991 produced additional influential arti-

role of self-efficacy and self-regulation (Bandura, 1991).As the 20th century drew to a close, the motivational research

landscape coalesced around the goal construct, prompting a broadreorganization of findings in terms of understanding the effects ofperson, context, and temporal variables in two goal-related subsys-tems – goal choice and goal pursuit (see Kanfer, 2012). In thisexpansive paradigm, motivation serves as an umbrella term thatencompasses both the purpose and reasons underlying decisionprocesses and goal selection (that set the course of action), andthe regulatory dynamics through which goals and other variablesaffect the allocation of an individual’s cognitive resources acrossactivities and over time for the purpose of goal attainment (i.e.,goal pursuit; Vancouver, 2008). This meta-framework has alsospawned new theories and research directed at more precise mea-surement and understanding of person, social, and contextualinfluences on goal choice, goal construal, and behavioral intentions(Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Chen &Mathieu, 2008; da Motta Veiga & Turban, 2014; Grant et al., 2007),the relationship between goal choice and goal pursuit (Gollwitzer,Heckhausen, & Ratajczak, 1990; Sun, Vancouver, & Weinhardt,2014), motivational dynamics during goal pursuit (Fishbach &Choi, 2012; Seo & Ilies, 2009), and the motivational processes inand of teams (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, & Kozlowski, 2009;Nahrgang et al., 2013).

In this article we provide a selective review of major advancesin motivation related to work and organizational behavior sincethe founding of the journal 50 years ago. In keeping with the cele-bration of the journal’s jubilee, we have organized our review in a

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.002&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.002

mailto:[email protected]



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07495978

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Socio-environmental Influences

Intra-Individual Influences

Goal Choice

Goal Pursuit

Job Design/DemandsWork Rela�ons

LeadershipTeamsDyadic

Implicit/ExplicitNeeds, Mo�ves, Traits

Cogni�ons

Affect/Emo�ons

“Why”

“Where and When”

“How”

“What”

Culture Technology

Fig. 1. A heuristic meta-model of work motivation and the focus of majortheoretical accounts.

R. Kanfer, G. Chen /Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19 7

way that highlights those articles in OBHP/OBHDP that have beenmost widely-cited and have had a major influence on the study ofmotivation in work and organizational psychology. The article isorganized into three sections. The first section sets the stage forthe review by summarizing foundational principles in motivationalscience. Next, we highlight influential articles published in OBHP/OBHDP and review progress by organizing theory and researcharound four principal questions that have long-driven scientificefforts in motivational psychology: (1) Why do individuals allocateresources to specific behaviors and courses of action, (2) What isthe influence of an individual’s environment on motivation – the‘‘where” and ‘‘when” questions, (3) How do goals and goal-linkedprocesses affect motivation and action, and (4) What resourcesdo individuals employ for the purpose of goal accomplishment?In the third and final section, we discuss the representation ofmotivation theory and research in the journal, progress in eachof the four topic areas, and promising future research directions.

2. A brief overview

Motivation in work and organizational psychology is concernedwith the energetic forces that originate both within as well asbeyond an individual’s being that influence the initiation, direction,intensity, and duration of action (cf. Pinder, 1998). Modern viewstypically portray motivation as a time-linked set of recursive andreciprocal affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes andactions that are organized around an individual’s goals. An individ-ual’s goal, defined as the mental representation of a desired out-come, does not exist in isolation but rather within hierarchicallyorganized networks that are developed and modified over timeas a result of the continuous interplay between person, situation,and epigenetic forces (Powers, 1973). The resultant network struc-ture of goals contributes to both the stability and heterogeneityobserved in motivated action.

Over the past half-century there have been numerous accountsof work motivation. Although the development of a comprehensiveintegrative model lies beyond the scope of this article, our reviewof the literature suggests that various conceptualizations may bebroadly differentiated and loosely organized in terms of the pri-mary issues they address and their position along a continuum ofproximity to goal choice. As shown in Fig. 1, the most prominenttheories of work motivation address the proximal, intra-individual psychological forces, mechanisms, and processes thatdetermine goal choice and action (i.e., the why, how, and what ofmotivation). Within-person formulations in this segment of Fig. 1derive from three distinct but related streams of research. ‘‘Why”accounts of motivation may be traced back to early 20th centurywork on the identification of universal humanmotives and tenden-cies. Although motive-based theories also posit a process by whichmotives influenced goal choice, the introduction of cognitive,information-processing approaches and expectancy-value theoriesto organizational psychology beginning in the 1950s rivetedresearch attention on the ‘‘how” question, including for examplethe cognitive processes by which expectancies and outcomes areintegrated, and how best to conceptualize and assess affect. Bythe mid-1960s, however, motivational theorists began to questionbasic tenets of expectancy-value models and their applicability forpredicting performance on new, difficult, prolonged, or ill-definedcareer and task goals, such as becoming a neurosurgeon, or pursu-ing a management promotion.

During the 1970s, social-cognitive theories (Bandura, 1977a,1977b; Carver & Scheier, 1981) and theories of action regulation(Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987; Sun & Frese, 2013) emerged thataddressed the gap between an individual’s goals and performance(the ‘‘what” question). These approaches reconceptualized anindividual’s decision as a goal that instigated (when necessary)

volitional (self-regulatory) processes required for goal accomplish-ment (performance). The introduction of theories of goal pursuit inmotivation psychology shifted attention away from determinantsof goal selection and toward the operation of self-regulatory mech-anisms and dynamic processes by which goals are enacted, modi-fied, or abandoned.

As ‘‘what” approaches gained traction during the late 20th cen-tury, motivation and decision-making researchers focused onincreasingly different topics and questions. Motivational scientistswithin the broader organizational behavior domain focused on theprocesses by which goal attributes and the individual’s construal ofthe goal influenced planning and self-regulatory processes duringgoal pursuit and performance accomplishments. Over the pastfew decades, advances in measurement of implicit motives andevidence for the influence of automatic processes during goal pur-suit have further extended the study of motivation to incorporatethe impact of non-conscious influences on goal construal and goalpursuit.

At the same time, there have been significant advances over thepast half-century in the ‘‘where and when” portion of the motiva-tional network. Theory and research in this segment of the fieldhighlights the contextual variables and processes by which exter-nalities in the work setting influence an individual’s goals, engage-ment, and behavior. Many, though not all of these approaches buildupon sense-making processes by which individuals interpret socialevents and work processes, and studies on the effects of these pro-cesses on trait activation, job attitudes, and affect. In addition toresearch investigating the impact of job design and demands ongoals, new, integrative streams of research have emerged forunderstanding the impact of work relations associated with differ-ent patterns of leadership, team structures, and work-related inter-personal processes (e.g., with co-workers, customers) onmotivation processes. Research findings in this area have beenlinked to a variety of work phenomena such as escalation of com-mitment, ethical decision making, negotiation outcomes, and pro-gress decisions during task goal striving (see Klein, Austin, &Cooper, 2008). Although there has been less work directly linkingbroader constructs such as culture and technology to goal choiceand action, we include these constructs in the figure to signify animportant direction for future research.

3. A biography of journal contributions and progress in the field

3.1. Person-oriented formulations: the ‘‘why” of motivation

The ‘‘why” question of motivation is typically studied from aperson-centric perspective, that focuses on the needs, motives,

8 R. Kanfer, G. Chen /Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19

wants, and likes of individuals. These intra-psychic features pro-vide personal reasons for individual action. Needs and motives giverise to explicit goals and action tendencies. Theorizing andresearch in this area that has been highlighted in OBHP/OBHDPrange from developmental approaches that focus on shifts inmotive salience over time (e.g., Alderfer, 1969) to formulations thatemphasize the role of universal motives (e.g., Deci, 1972), andmotives that affect the construal of task goals (e.g., Dweck, 1986).

3.1.1. Early need approachesMotivation research during the mid-20th century focused on

two issues: (1) how best to organize the numerous motives thatcharacterize human striving, and (2) what brings different needs/-motives to the surface as the driving force for behavior. Maslow’sNeed Hierarchy Theory (1943, 1954) addressed both these issues(cf. Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Maslow initially proposed five basichuman need categories (physiological, safety, love/belonging,esteem, and self-actualization) that were arranged hierarchically,starting with the most basic physiological needs (e.g., food, water,sleep) and progressing to highest-level needs for self-actualization(e.g., creativity, achieving individual potential). He further pro-posed that individuals seek to satisfy unmet needs in a hierarchicalfashion, seeking to satisfy lower-order ‘‘deficiency” needs beforesatisfying unmet higher-level ‘‘growth” needs.

In 1969, Alderfer proposed and tested a modified theory inOBHP that addressed some of early criticisms of the Maslowmodel.Alderfer organized Maslow’s five need categories into threebroader need groupings: existence, relatedness, and growth needs.Rather than imposing a strict hierarchical gratification of needs,Alderfer proposed two major mechanisms for movement acrossneed categories and tested a system in which satisfaction ofhigher-order needs would increase the desire of growth needs.Although Alderfer’s Existence-Relatedness-Growth (ERG) theoryattracted attention among organizational psychologists as a viablealternative to Maslow’s model for understanding employee moti-vation, a later critical review of the theory and evidence supportingMaslow’s theory by Wahba and Bridwell (1976) greatly reducedscholarly interest in broad need approaches, as well as attemptsto organize diverse human motives.

Theorizing and research on motives since the late 1970s dif-fered from earlier work driven by the Maslow and Alderfer modelsin several ways. First, more recent investigations have not focusedon needs per se, but rather on the motives that develop and gainsalience as a function of culture, cognitive biology, and experience.One major stream of research has focused on the conditions thatarouse fundamental motives to action, particularly ‘‘higher-order” motives, such as the desire for achievement, autonomy,and power (e.g. McClelland, 1986). Second, current motive classifi-cation schemes tend to be goal-related and distinguish broadlybetween approach (growth) and avoidance (loss) motivational ori-entations (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997), rather than motive tax-onomies organized around specific content. Third, motives areincreasingly represented as both relatively enduring action prefer-ences and emergent psychological states, suggesting a greater mal-leability over the lifespan as a function of culture and experience.Finally, the Maslow and Alderfer theories address the role of expli-cit, or self-reported motives, whereas recent work has extendedthe study of motives to examine the role of implicit, or non-conscious motives on motivation and performance (e.g.,Tabernero & Wood, 1999).

3.1.2. Intrinsic motivationAbout the same time that Wahba and Bridwell (1976) published

their critique of Maslow’s theory and associated research, Deci(1972) published a pioneering article in OBHP that focused onthe relationship between extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay) and intrinsic

motivation associated with the satisfaction of higher-ordermotives related to sense of competence, autonomy, and control.In his article, Deci presented Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)and reviewed prior empirical findings to support his new theory.The essence of CET for employee motivation is that the applicationof performance-contingent extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay) undermi-nes intrinsic motivation and performance when the extrinsicreward is perceived as controlling (autonomy-reducing) ratherthan informational (autonomy-supportive). Deci’s CET spurredmore than two dozen published studies in OBHP/OBHDP that pro-vided positive (e.g., Erez, Gopher, & Arzi, 1990; Greenberger,Strasser, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989; Shapira, 1989), mixed(Farr, Vance, & McIntyre, 1977; Porac & Meindl, 1982; Shalley &Perry-Smith, 2001), and negative (Boal & Cummings, 1981) resultsfor various portions of the theory.

In the 40 years since Deci’s first publication of CET in OBHP,controversy regarding the detrimental effects of extrinsic rewardson intrinsic motivation has waxed and waned. Debates arose aboutthe applicability of the findings to work settings (Kanfer, 1990),and how to interpret discrepant meta-analytic findings (Cerasoli,Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). In 2000, Deci and his colleagues proposeda revised theory called Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Gagné &Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The revised theory subsumed theoriginal formulation within a broader theory of self-determination that could account for why extrinsic rewards didnot always exert a negative effect on intrinsic employee motivationand performance. The SDT formulation posits six distinct types ofmotivation that vary in degree of self-determination, from Amoti-vation (in which there is no self-regulation), through fully self-determined motivation (Intrinsic Motivation). Most interestingare the four types of extrinsic motivation (external, introjected,identified, and integrated). In these categories, the corrosive effectof the extrinsic reward depends on how the incentive is inter-preted with respect to the self and the regulatory processes thatare instigated as a consequence of that judgement. Thus, SDTallows for a range of outcomes associated with the application ofextrinsic rewards. To date only one study on SDT has been pub-lished in OBHDP (Grant, Nurmohamed, Ashford, & Dekas, 2011).However, in partial support of the new SDT formulation, resultsof a recent meta-analysis by Cerasoli et al. (2014) showed thatthe detrimental effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivationdepends on both the nature of the performance objective (qualita-tive vs quantitative) and the nature of the reward structure (con-tingent vs non-contingent).

Although the original CET formulation has often been cited asarguing against the use of extrinsic rewards to enhance employeemotivation, Deci’s own statements in the 1972 OBHP article areparticularly noteworthy: ‘‘It is possible to pay workers and stillhave them intrinsically motivated . . .. It is not the money per sewhich motivates performance, but rather it is the way that it isadministered” (Deci, 1972, p. 227). Given that contingent paymay be perceived as controlling and so diminish the positiveimpact of intrinsic motivation, Deci (1972) further suggests that‘‘we [should] concentrate on structuring situations and jobs toarouse intrinsic motivation” (Deci, 1972, p. 227). This is preciselythe approach taken in Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Charac-teristics Model, which we discuss later.

3.1.3. Motivational orientation and goal construal theoriesFindings across a range of subdisciplines in psychology provide

convergent evidence for the operation of two distinct motive sys-tems; an appetitive (approach-oriented) system and an avoidancesystem. The appetitive system is concerned with the modulation ofaction for the purpose of attaining pleasurable or desired out-comes; in contrast the avoidance system is concerned with modu-lation of action for the purpose of avoiding unpleasurable


outcomes. Over the past few decades, there has been renewedinterest in understanding the antecedents of these motivationalorientations, their impact on how individuals construe work goals,and their effects on self-regulation and performance (Crowe &Higgins, 1997; Dweck, 1986; Elliot & Harackiewicz; 1996; Kanfer& Heggestad, 1997).

The most well-known formulations in the work and organiza-tional literature are Dweck’s goal orientation theory and Higgins’regulatory focus theory. Dweck’s formulation emphasizes theimplicit theories that individuals hold about their abilities andthe influence of these theories on how individuals construe taskgoals. According to this model, individuals who hold an incremen-tal (or malleable) conception of their ability are posited to apply amastery or learning-oriented cognitive frame during goal pursuit.In contrast, individuals who hold a fixed conception of ability areposited to construe task goals using an avoidance perspective thathighlights the demonstration of competency and avoidance ofshowing incompetence. The development and validation of indi-vidual differences measures of adult goal orientation by Buttonet al. (1996) and VandeWalle (1997) clarified the multidimensionalstructure of the goal orientation construct and stimulated researchover the past two decades in OBHDP and elsewhere examining theeffects of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance (e.g.,Chen & Mathieu, 2008; da Motta Veiga & Turban, 2014; Kozlowskiet al., 2001). Although findings over this period provide generalsupport for the positive influence of learning goal orientation onself-regulation and performance, results are mixed with respectto the negative effects of performance-prove and performance-avoid goal orientations (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).

In Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), Crowe and Higgins (1997)provide an alternative approach to understanding how the selfaffects goal construal and striving processes. According to RFT,individuals who are promotion-focused are oriented towardgrowth and development, and attainment of ideal self. In contrast,individuals who are prevention-focused are oriented toward oughtaspirations, associated with duties and responsibilities. Individualswho engage in goals characterized by regulatory fit between theself and the situation (e.g., promotion focus during pursuit ofachievement goals) are proposed to experience fewer negativeemotions and more effective self-regulation than individuals whoexperience a misfit between their regulatory focus and the natureof the goal (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Similar to Dweck, RFT: (1)builds upon the approach-avoidance dichotomy to understandhow differences in goal valence (promotion or prevention) affectsmotivational processing and (2) proposes that individual differ-ences in regulatory focus may be understood in terms of distalindividual differences in trait tendencies as well as in terms ofproximal motivational states.

3.1.4. Evaluative summary of ‘‘why” approachesOver the past half-century researchers have moved away from

taxonomic issues and developmental models of motivation (e.g.,Maslow) in favor of understanding how cognitive, affective, andsocial information-processing mechanisms affect motive salienceand motivational processes. For example, the growing consensusaround the notion of co-existing approach and avoidance motiva-tional systems, rather than emphasis on stable motive hierarchies,has spurred a new generation of research on motivational orienta-tion. Research in these areas highlight the role of perceptual pro-cesses and identity in goal construal, and help to explain theoften observed variability in goal enactment, affect, and perfor-mance among individuals with seeming similar outcome goals.

Perhaps most importantly, new lines of inquiry are extendingunderstanding of the reasons for action beyond consciously-mediated traits and motives. One area of particular promise per-tains to the role of automatic perceptual and cognitive processes

instantiated outside the individual’s awareness that, in turn, setthe stage for consciously-mediated goal choice (e.g., Andersen &Chen, 2002; Chartrand & Bargh, 1996; Shah, 2003; Stajkovic,Locke, & Blair, 2006). Further research is needed to delineate howsignificant others in the work environment and the social architec-ture of the workplace (e.g., team and multiteam structures) primeor otherwise automatically influence goal construal and pursuit. Asecond area of promise pertains to research directed toward theassessment and role that implicit motives play in motivation. Con-sistent with McClelland, Koestner, and Weinberger (1989) andKehr (2004), recent work indicates that such conflicts may affectintrinsic motivation (Rawolle, Wallis, Badham, & Kehr, 2016), andgoal pursuit (Gröpel & Kehr, 2014).

At the same time, there has been progress in understanding theprocesses by which universal motives, such as autonomy, becomesalient motives that direct action. SDT, for example, links arousal ofintrinsic motives to the self and provides a more precise under-standing of the conditions in which individuals may react nega-tively to the imposition of reward systems. Although manyquestions about this framework remain, the theory attests to therole that perceived discrepancies between the self and the environ-ment have for motivation and action.

3.2. Socio-environmental approaches: the ‘‘where” and ‘‘when” ofmotivation

Research on topics in this area consider how diverse attributesof an individual’s environment, such as the physical and mentaldemands of one’s job, social interactions with colleagues andsupervisors, and the social structure of work influence motivation.Prominent work in this area over the past half-century includestheories of job design, organizational justice, and social influencesof leaders and work teams on motivation.

3.2.1. Job designIn 1976, Hackman and Oldham published one of their first

descriptions and comprehensive tests of Job Characteristics Theoryin OBHP. Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics theory(JCT) specifies how job characteristics interact with individual dif-ferences in growth need strength to affect job satisfaction andwork motivation. Hackman and Oldham identified five key featuresof the immediate job context that were proposed to determine theintrinsic motivating potential of the job; skill variety, task identity,task significance, autonomy, and feedback. According to JCT, thesecharacteristics interact with individual differences in growth needstrength to affect three critical psychological states that serve asthe proximal determinants of affect and motivation; meaningful-ness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. Between 1976 and1983, OBHP published nine studies testing various aspects of thetheory (e.g., Evans, Kiggundu, & House, 1979; Hackman,Brousseau, & Weiss, 1976; Hackman, Pearce, & Wolfe, 1978;Kiggundu, 1983; Rousseau, 1977) as applied to individual andgroup motivation and performance.

Although the JCT model proved practically useful for organiza-tions seeking to increase employee motivation through job rede-sign, conceptual and methodological criticisms of the theorymounted through the early 1980s (e.g., Pierce & Dunham, 1978;Roberts & Glick, 1981). Principal among these concerns was thevalidity of self-report measures used to assess objective task char-acteristics. More recently, motivation researchers have pointed tothe narrowness of the model for work in the 21st century. Grantand Parker (2009) argued that JCT neglects the social characteris-tics and context of work that derive from interdependent workroles. Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) identified five features ofthe social context: social support, interactions outside the organi-zation, initiated interdependence, received interdependence, and


feedback from others. They also showed a significant relationshipbetween these work features and subjective ratings of job perfor-mance. Grant (2008) proposed and tested the notion that the rela-tional architecture of jobs may be designed to enhance intrinsicand prosocial motivations by providing work opportunities to sat-isfy motives related to affiliation and helping others (e.g., clients).Grant and Parker (2009) further summarize early evidence for howfeatures of the social context affect performance through allocationof effort and proactivity during goal pursuit. The extension of workdesign models that take fuller account of how social context andinterpersonal relationships affect the character of goals and goalstriving is an important advance in approaches to motivation inmodern organizational settings.

3.2.2. Equity/social exchange approachesAdams’ (1965) equity theory focuses on the universal motive for

fairness in the distribution of outcomes. According to this theory,individuals value and seek fairness in employee-employer relation-ships. Adams proposed that an individual’s perception of inequityin the ratio of inputs to outcomes between herself and otheremployees arouses an aversive psychological tension state andmotivation to reduce the tension. Early studies of equity theoryexamined the influence of perceived inequity in payment on per-formance. Findings from these studies suggest an asymmetry ininequity perceptions such that individuals are less motivated byperceptions of overpayment than underpayment inequity. Reviewsby Pritchard (1969) and others note the difficulties in applying thetheory to practice given the multiplicity of ways by which individ-uals may reduce perceived inequity. Accordingly, more recentstudies on social comparison processes have tended to focus onthe person and contextual factors that influence perceptions ofoutcome fairness (Sherf & Venkataramani, 2015), rather than theeffects of perceived inequity on motivational variables andprocesses.

During the 1980s, however, burgeoning interest in organiza-tional justice shifted research attention away from perceptions ofinequity in payment outcomes to the determinants and conse-quences of perceptions of inequity in other work-related outcomes(e.g., promotions), organizational procedures and employee-employer relationships (see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan,2005). Meta-analytic findings of this work show that individualswho perceive outcomes, procedures, and relationships as unfairwere more likely to engage in lower levels of job performanceand organizational citizenship behaviors, and/or higher levels ofcounter-productive behavior (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, &Ng, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013).

Although interest in the effects of justice perceptions on behav-ior continues, the theoretical explanation for the effects of injusticeon work behaviors has morphed from a motivational accountbased on psychological tension reduction to explanations basedon principles of social exchange and moral accountability (e.g.,Lyons & Scott, 2012; Rupp, Shao, Jones, & Liao, 2014; Takeuchi,Yun, & Wong, 2011) that make relatively little contact withindividual-level process theories of motivation. Several studiespoint to the importance of motivational variables (such as regula-tory focus) in justice perceptions (Brebels, De Cremer, & Sedikides,2008; Cropanzano, Paddock, Rupp, Bagger, & Baldwin, 2008; Liet al., 2011), and the conditions that increase justice motive sal-ience in goal choice (Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006). Studies byJudge, Scott, and Ilies (2006), Yang and Diefendorff (2009), andFerris, Spence, Brown, and Heller (2012) also provide evidencefor the indirect effect of justice perceptions on behavior throughtrait, affective, and self variables. Recently, Johnson, Lanaj, andBarnes (2014) examined the self-regulatory costs associated withengaging in different forms of justice behavior, and found a posi-tive relationship between enactment of procedural justice behav-

iors and regulatory resources, but a negative relationshipbetween enactment of interpersonal justice behaviors and regula-tory resources.

3.2.3. Social influences of teams and leaders on motivationResearch has also examined social influences on motivation.

Early work in psychology has focused on whether individuals exertdifferent levels of effort when working in the presence of others(Triplett, 1898; Zajonc, 1965). Later work – including research pub-lished in OBHDP – has advanced theories and provided empiricalevidence regarding social loafing and the extent to which individ-uals allocate more (or less) effort as they perform in collectivegroup settings (Loundt & Phillips, 2007; Miles & Greenberg,1993; Mueller, 2012; Price, 1987; Weldon & Mustari, 1988). Thisresearch has suggested that working in group and team settingscan sometime lead to motivational losses – especially when indi-viduals lack accountability and responsibility for important out-comes. However, this research also suggests that, under certainconditions (e.g., when group members share common goals orhave a common threat), group settings can also increase competi-tiveness among individuals and provide individuals with greaterresources to accomplish their tasks.

Since the 1980s, organizational researchers have also becomeincreasingly interested in studying teams as important organiza-tional units. Research has shown that team members’ motivationto perform collective tasks can be increased when members areassigned or share difficult and specific group goals (e.g., Crown &Rosse, 1995; Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997; Mulvey & Klein,1998). Moreover, research has suggested that individual motiva-tional attributes, such as members’ regulatory focus (Beersma,Homan, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2013) and epistemic motivation(or need for closure; Livi, Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti, & Kenny,2015) can influence team processes such as norm formation andteam coordination. Finally, Chen and Kanfer (2006) formulated amultilevel theory of motivation in teams, according to which teamand individual motivational processes are not only functionallysimilar (i.e., capture similar motivational constructs and influenceson performance), but also reinforce each other across levels. Insupport of Chen and Kanfer, Chen et al. (2009) found that team-level allocation of collective effort promoted individual members’allocation of effort toward accomplishing individual roles in theteam, as well as individual members’ performance. Thus, there isample evidence (from research published in OBHDP and else-where) that individual-level motivation is influenced by groupand team processes.

In addition, theories of leadership have proposed that leaderscan motivate employees by engaging in transformational behav-iors (such as inspiring employees to adopt more challenging goals;Bass, 1985), by empowering employees on their jobs (e.g., Chen,Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007), and by developing mutu-ally trusting relationships with their employees (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Empirical research has provided evidence for sucharguments. For example, Benjamin and Flynn (2006) found thattransformational leadership interacted with follower regulatoryfocus (locomotion or approach-oriented regulatory focus) to pre-dict follower willingness to exert extra effort. Zhang and Zhou(2014) further found that followers of more empowering leadersfelt more efficacious in behaving creatively, especially when fol-lowers also trusted their leader, which in turn related positivelyto employees’ creative performance

3.2.4. Evaluative summary of ‘‘where” and ‘‘when” approachesEarly progress in this branch of work motivation psychology

was substantial and yielded important information about the linkbetween particular job characteristics, motives, and work motiva-tion. As research in this stream matured and grew less productive


during the late 20th century, the changing nature of work andadvances in affective neuroscience have encouraged new lines ofinquiry investigating social justice motives and work relations asdrivers of motivated action. To date, findings from social justicehave also focused largely on the antecedents of adherence to jus-tice roles (Scott, Garza, Conlon, & Kim, 2014) or the effects ofunfairness perceptions on (counter-productive or deviant) behav-ior, rather than motivational processes per se.

From a work motivation perspective, studies examining motiva-tion in the context of teams, leadership, and co-worker relationshave yielded substantial insights into our understanding of socio-environmental influences on motivation. However, it is also note-worthy that relatively little systematic research has been doneinvestigating the mechanisms by which ambient factors, such asculture and technology, affect the instantiation of motives, goalorientation, and affective reactions to goal progress. Given theincreasing diversity of the workforce and growing use of technol-ogy in the workplace, further research is needed to better under-stand how the broader work environment impacts employeemotivation.

3.3. Goal selection processes: the ‘‘how” of motivation

Research on the ‘‘how” question delineates the decision-makingprocess in which individuals choose and pursue course of action.Although expectancy-value theories (e.g., Vroom, 1964) dominatedthis area during through the mid-to-late 20th century, formula-tions that focused on goals, such as goal setting (e.g., Locke,1968) and action theory (Gollwitzer, 1990) gained in popularitytoward the end of the 20th century.

3.3.1. Expectancy-value theoryVroom’s (1964) VIE theory is arguably one of the most influen-

tial work motivation theories of the 20th century. The theory pre-dicts an individual’s choice between tasks, jobs, and effort levels asa function of the integration of three sets of psychological vari-ables: (1) expectancies, or the individual’s beliefs about the rela-tionship between levels of behavioral effort and performance, (2)instrumentalities, or the individual’s perception of the relationshipbetween levels of performance and second-level outcomes, such aspay or promotion, and (3) valence, or the anticipated attractivenessof each secondary outcome. In 1966, Vroom published an influen-tial article in OBHP that provided early support for his model withrespect to job choice among management trainees. His findingsshowed a positive relationship between ratings of an organiza-tion’s perceived instrumentality for goal attainment and organiza-tional choice. Interestingly, Vroom’s (1966) also provided earlyevidence for differences in cognitive evaluation before and afterthe job choice decision that served as early evidence for subse-quent work by Gollwitzer (1990, 2003) on the differential process-ing of information during goal choice (a decisional process) andgoal pursuit (an action process). Over the years, numerous studiesinvestigating the components and predictive validity of expectancytheories were published in OBHP/OBHDP (e.g., Hackman & Porter,1968; Lawler & Suttle, 1972, 1973; Pritchard, deLeo, & VonBergen, 1976), with findings that provided general support forthe original and revised models (e.g., Lawler & Suttle, 1973; seeMitchell, 1974, 1982), as well as stronger support for the model’sefficacy in predicting job choice (i.e., decision-making) versusmotivation force or job performance (i.e., action).

3.3.2. Theory of planned behaviorIn social psychology, Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of Rea-

soned Action (TRA) set the stage for extensive examination of therelationships between attitudes, social influences and behavioralintentions. Similar to Vroom’s model, TRA incorporates basic ele-

ments of expectancy-value theory as predictors of behavioralintentions. In contrast to Vroom’s VIE model, however, TRA alsotakes into account the role of attitudes and social influences inthe form of subjective norms in forming an intention. Like Vroom’smodel, however, the episodic nature of the model does not for-mally account for the gap between intention and behavior. In1991, Ajzen introduced an important extension of TRA, namelythe Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in OBHDP. In contrast toTRA, TPB includes measures of control beliefs and perceived behav-ioral control as an additional determinant of the relationshipbetween intentions and behavior. TPA has received considerableattention in the social psychology literature. Meta-analytic find-ings provide general support for the model in predicting intentionsand behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001),although Armitage and Conner (2001) found a strong relationshipbetween measures of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy.

Articles published in OBHP (Schmidt, 1973; Zedeck, 1977) andelsewhere identified a number of conceptual, methodological andtheoretical concerns with expectancy-based models of motivation(e.g., Heneman & Schwab, 1972; Mitchell, 1974). Principal con-cerns pertain to the inability of these models to account for inte-gration of model elements (expectancy, instrumentality, andvalence), assumptions of rationality in decision-making, and themismatch between theory and the methodology used to test thetheory. Although variations of basic expectancy-value modelsremain a staple component of many motivation theories, motiva-tion research in the 21st century has increasingly focused on theautomatic and social processes that contribute to performancevariability in organizational settings.

3.3.3. Goal settingIn his 1968 OBHDP article, ‘‘Toward a Theory of Task Motivation

and Incentives,” Locke launched the outline of a new theory ofmotivation and provided results from diverse studies to supporthis central thesis that an individual’s conscious goals or intentionsfunction as the most proximal determinant of motivation and per-formance. In contrast to expectancy-value based formulations,Locke did not address how individuals form or select goals, butrather focused on the causal effects of goals on performance. In thisseminal work, Locke defined a goal as what the individual is tryingto achieve, and provided evidence for a significant positive rela-tionship between the difficulty of an individual’s behavioral inten-tions or goal and level of task performance. He also reviewedstudies showing that goals mediated the impact of other motiva-tional variables, including external incentives, knowledge ofresults, competition, and verbal reinforcers. Locke also suggestedthat goal commitment was likely related to task persistence.

Locke’s 1968 article stimulated intense research interest in goalsetting as a potentially powerful motivational technique. Earlyresearch published in OBHDP further established the goal-performance relationship (e.g., Frost & Mahoney, 1976; Hamner& Harnett, 1974; Mento et al., 1987; Pritchard & Curtis, 1973),the effects of goal setting at the group level (Forward & Zander,1971), and explored the relationship between expectancy andgoals (Klein, 1991; Mento, Cartledge, & Locke, 1980). In 1981,Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham extended the goal setting formula-tion by proposing that goals affected action through four mecha-nisms: directing attention, mobilizing on-task effort, encouragingtask persistence, and facilitating the development of effective per-formance strategies.

Goal setting research during the 1980s and 1990s increasinglyfocused on a series of issues related to the impact of goal attributeson goal striving. One line of research represented in the journalfocused on the influence of goal origin (assigned vs self-set) andparticipation in goal setting on individual performance (Austin,


1989; Campbell & Gingrich, 1986; Earley & Kanfer, 1985;Hollenbeck & Brief, 1987; Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002) and at the teamlevel (Durham et al., 1997). Another line of inquiry examined theinfluence of feedback characteristics (e.g., Podsakoff & Farh,1989) and judgmental anchors on goal setting (Hinsz, Kalnbach,& Lorentz, 1997). However, the lion’s share of research in goal set-ting focused on the impact of goal setting on elements of goal striv-ing, such as planning (Earley & Perry, 1987; Smith, Locke, & Barry,1990) and resource allocations during learning (DeShon &Alexander, 1996; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). By the time of Mentoet al.’s 1987 OBHDP meta-analytic study of goal setting-performance relations, over 70 studies had been reported on thegoal difficulty-performance relation. Mento et al.’s meta-analyticreview of the goal setting literature showed robust support forthe notion that individuals who commit to difficult and specificgoals outperform individuals who adopt ‘‘do your best” task goals,leading the authors to conclude that ‘‘it is time for a change inresearch emphasis toward underlying mechanisms which con-tribute to these relationships” (Mento et al., 1987, p. 74), and sug-gesting that future research investigate the roles of self-efficacyand strategy development.

During and following the 1990s, the goal setting theoretical tentbroadened as researchers examined the impact of goal construal onthe goal-performance relation in individuals (Drach-Zahavy & Erez,2002) and teams (Nahrgang et al., 2013) and the effects of perfor-mance goals on resource depletion and unethical behavior (Welsh& Ordonez, 2014). Although the rate of published studies in OBHDPon the influence of goal setting on performance has slowed overthe past 15 years, two recently published studies in the journalextended goal setting theory to understanding the effects of goalpriming and subconscious goals on performance (Chen & Latham,2014; Shantz & Latham, 2009).

3.3.4. Theory of action phasesWhereas Locke’s initial theory focused on the causal influence

of conscious goal attributes on performance, Gollwitzer et al.(1990; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987) proposed a formulationthat highlighted differences in cognitive processing before andafter goal adoption, and the influence of post-goal planning inten-tions on performance. According to the Theory of Action Phases(and similar to assumptions underlying goal choice inExpectancy-Value theory), individuals are proposed to be delibera-tive and calculative during the pre-decisional, or goal selectionphase. Key features of this deliberative mindset include greateropenness and recall of information provided by the environmentacross all options and a balanced assessment of the desirabilityof different goals. After making their decision and committing toa particular goal, however, individuals are proposed to shift to animplemental mindset. In contrast to the deliberative mindset, cog-nitive processing during this phase narrows to include goal-relatedinformation and individuals demonstrate an array of cognitivejudgment biases designed to support planning, and persistence,including stronger positive beliefs in goal value, underestimationof risk to goal attainment, overestimation of the probability of goalsuccess, and underestimation of the time needed for goal accom-plishment. Evidence over the past decade provides support forthe notion of differences in cognitive processing before and aftera goal is adopted and the role of implementation planning in per-formance (see Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2012). Findings to supportthe Action Phases model are relatively recent, although the impli-cations for practice appear promising. For example, recent meta-analytic findings by Webb, Gallo, Miles, Gollwitzer, and Sheeran(2012) show a significant positive effect for the development ofemotion control implementation intentions, relative to no emotioncontrol conditions.

3.3.5. Evaluative summary of ‘‘how” approachesFor much of the mid- to late-20th century, expectancy-value

and goal setting models dominated the work motivation literature.These formulations were intended as within-subject explanationsof goal choice and behavior over relatively short periods of time,though many studies tested these models using between-subjectresearch strategies and examined behavior over longer periods oftime (during which the value of various determinants changed).Although tests of revised models show support for their use in pre-dicting job choice and work effort in structured settings, there hasbeen a broad shift in basic work motivation research away fromthese models toward research investigating the role of implicitmotives, cognitions, and affect on goal formation. Theorizing andfindings by Gollwitzer and his colleagues on the role of post-goalimplementation planning, the impact of affective experiences onnon-consciously mediated behaviors (Wegge, van Dick, Fisher,West, & Dawson, 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), and recentstudies on non-conscious goal priming in goal setting (Stajkovicet al., 2006) suggest more research is needed to understand therole of emotional processing in goal choice.

3.4. Action/self regulation processes: the ‘‘what” of motivation

Theorizing and research on ‘‘what” questions address thestrategies that individuals use to allocate and manage cognitiveand temporal resources during goal striving. Research on goal pur-suit burgeoned during the latter part of the 20th century followingthe introduction of theories in psychology aimed at understandingthe processes through which individuals sought to accomplish agoal. Social cognitive formulations by Bandura (1977a, 1977b;Bandura & Cervone, 1986) and Kanfer and Hagerman (1981) con-ceptualized goal pursuit in terms of the self-regulatory processesby which individuals monitor, evaluate, and react to changes inperformance and goal progress. Carver and Scheier (1981) pre-sented a cybernetic control model that highlighted the role ofaction to reduce perceived goal-performance discrepancies. Goll-witzer’s model highlighted the role of planning implementationduring goal pursuit as a key determinant of the goal enactmentprocess. The introduction of these approaches in OBHDP byCampion and Lord (1982) and Bandura (Bandura, 1991; Bandura& Cervone, 1986) was soon followed by an integration of goal set-ting and self-regulation models under the rubric of Goal SettingTheory (Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, 1991), prompting a newgeneration of motivation research that continues today. OBHDPpublished a number of studies documenting the determinants ofself-efficacy judgments in task goal choice and group decision-making (Henry & Sniezek, 1993; Phillips, 2001; Sanna & Mark,1995; Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995; Tabernero & Wood, 1999;Whyte, 1998) and the effects of self-efficacy as a key determinantof goal choice and decision-making (Goncalo, Polman, & Maslach,2010; Klein & Kunda, 1994; Stone, 1994; Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002;Tasa & Whyte, 2005; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990), and duringgoal pursuit (Beck & Schmidt, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Seo &Ilies, 2009).

3.4.1. Self-efficacyOne important research direction in this integrative area of

study pertains to the critical role of self-efficacy in motivation.Self-efficacy judgments (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b) refer to the indi-vidual’s perceived capabilities for attaining specific goals or taskoutcomes. According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy judgmentsdevelop from the integration of information from four sources;performance feedback, vicarious experiences, previous perfor-mance history, and social influence. Findings by Bandura andCervone (1986) and others (see Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) providesupport for notion of a generally positive relationship between

1 These values were obtained using the EBSCO host/Academic Search Completesearch database facility. First we searched for all OBHP/OBHDP publication entriesbetween 1966 and September, 2015. We then searched for all journal entries thaused the word ‘‘motivation” in the subject term, and repeated the process again fothe time periods 1966–1985 and 1986–September 2015.


self-efficacy and indices of task motivation. Using a control theoryperspective, however, Vancouver (2005, 2008, Vancouver &Kendall, 2006; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001) haveargued that these findings are typically obtained using between-subject rather than within-subject designs. Using a within-subject design, Vancouver and his colleagues showed a negative,rather than positive relationship between self-efficacy andperformance.

The inconsistent findings have yielded a lively debate on theoryand research design. Theoretical arguments for the inconsistencyin findings focus on control theory vs. social cognitive explanationsregarding the role of self-efficacy following goal-performance dis-crepancy reduction. Operational arguments point to differences infindings as a function of using between-subject versus within-subject designs. Attempts to reconcile this inconsistency by Sch-midt and his colleagues (Beck & Schmidt, 2012; Schmidt &DeShon, 2009, 2010; Tolli & Schmidt, 2008) found that featuresof the environment, such as prior task performance and perfor-mance ambiguity and change from average level of self-efficacymoderate the within-person relationship between self-efficacyand performance.

Another important issue in goal pursuit pertains to what is reg-ulated. During the 1980s, Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen (1980) andKanfer and Ackerman (1989) proposed models that recast motiva-tion in terms a resource allocation process of time and effort acrossactivities. Integrating both goal choice and self-regulatory models,Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) provided support for the viability ofthe resource perspective for understanding the differential effectsof goal setting in the context of skill acquisition as a function ofindividual differences in cognitive abilities, task demands, andresource allocations to off-task and self-regulatory processing. AsBeck and Schmidt (2012) note, the resource allocation model viewsmotivation as a ‘‘series of decisions about where to allocateresources and how many resources to allocate.” (p. 206), and pro-vides a unifying framework for integrating theories of goal choiceand goal pursuit.

3.4.2. Resource/ego depletionThe conceptualization of motivation during goal pursuit as a

resource allocation process raises an important question aboutthe resource cost of engaging different forms of self-regulation.For example, during learning an individual may need to engagein self-regulatory activities directed toward keeping disruptive,negative emotions at bay. At other times, however, successful goalpursuit may involve engaging in self-regulatory strategies toincrease effort further, despite already high levels of performanceor increasing fatigue. In these instances individuals must oftenemploy self-control, a special form of self-regulation in which theindividual must allocate resources to task performance thatdirectly conflict with prevailing action tendencies. Baumeisterand his colleagues (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,1998) have proposed that individuals possess a limited resourcecapacity, and that self-control exerts a resource cost. Duringrepeated task performance, failures in self-control arise from tem-porary resource depletion. A few studies in OBHDP provide supportfor this model with respect to unethical behavior (Gino,Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011) and daily work engagement(Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014). However, evidence for the notionof self-control as a resource of limited capacity remains mixed,with meta-analytic findings by Hagger, Wood, Stiff, andChatzisarantis (2010) showing strong support, but findings byCarter, Kofler, Forster, and McCullough (2015) provide little sup-port. Inzlicht, Schmeichel, and Macrae (2014) suggested furtherthat ego depletion findings may be more parsimoniously explainedbased by changes in task motivation. Findings by Gino et al. (2011),Lanaj et al. (2014) and others likewise suggest research is needed

to identify key moderators of the resource depletion effect (e.g.,the effect of longevity on this phenomenon, particularly in the con-text of goal pursuit over long periods of time).

3.4.3. Evaluative summary of ‘‘what” approachesResearch on the determinants and consequences of goal pursuit

has burgeoned over the past few decades. An extensive body ofresearch grounded in social cognitive theories of motivation hasaccumulated for the cognitive processes involved in goal pursuitand the role of self-efficacy in effective self-regulation. More recentwork has employed an information-processing framework toinvestigate the processes by which individuals modulate affectand attention in the service of goal attainment (Johnson, Chang,& Lord, 2006). Baumeister et al.’s (1998) theory of ego depletion,while controversial and in need of further evaluation, has alsostimulated a number of important basic questions about how toconceptualize self-regulation and the costs of self-control overtime.

4. Summary and future research directions

Our review of the motivation literature related to work andorganizational psychology over the past half century leads us toform two broad conclusions. First, theory and research findingsin motivation have focused largely on consciously-mediated pro-cesses (e.g., goal choice, self-regulation), predicated on cognitiveformulations of mind and motives established mid-century. As thisreview attests, there is no question that this work has substantiallyadvanced our understanding of the key constructs (e.g., goals) andmechanisms (e.g., self-efficacy) involved in motivation. At thesame time, however, there has been increasing evidence to suggestthat further progress in the field will require new or modifiedframeworks that take greater account of the individual’s experi-ences related to work. For example, as motivational scholars havelong noted, deliberative, consciously-mediated motivational pro-cessing is the exception rather than the rule in daily life, withexplicit modulation of one’s behavior most often required for situ-ations in which emotions and affect do not support the goal inten-tion. In other words, how do situations and events encourageindividuals to actively manage their work experiences and forwhat purposes? Our review suggests a number of nascent andrapidly merging streams of research in different domains of psy-chology that have substantial potential for addressing this funda-mental question, including for example research investigating therole of non-conscious motives, and the role of emotions and affectas they influence perception of context, instigate identity-basedprocesses, influence decision-making, and contribute to conflictduring goal pursuit. In our opinion, while there is still much tobe learned about the consciously-mediated motivational system(discussed below), future research efforts in this area will needto take greater account of the role of non-conscious processesand to more precisely delineate how these processes affect goalchoice and sustained goal pursuit.

Further evidence for the shifting focus in motivation researchappearing in OBHP/OBHDP is provided by the steady decline inthe number of articles on the topic appearing in the journal overthe past 50 years. Across more than 2500 articles published inthe journal between 1966 and September 2015, we found only194 (or about 7.8%) contained the term motivation in the subjectterm.1 More than half of these articles (N = 111) appeared in the

tr


20 years before the journal name change in 1985, with proportion-ately fewer studies (N = 83) appearing during the 30 years after thejournal name change. This trend is particularly interesting, as it cor-responds to the rise of OBHDP as a leading journal in judgment anddecision making since 1985 (see Edwards, 2002; Weber, 1998). Asnoted by Edwards in his 2002 editorial, ‘‘Several board membersexpressed the belief that, while OBHDP had solidified its stature asprimary outlet for research in judgment and decision making, ithad drifted away from organizational behavior and psychology”(pp. 1–2).

In line with this sentiment, our review suggests that articlespublished in OBHP until the mid-1980s focused on core issues ofperson and contextual influences on motivation studied in thefields of organizational behavior and organizational psychology.Seminal works on needs and explicit motives, goals and goal set-ting, and job characteristics appeared during this period and stim-ulated hundreds of additional studies. From the mid-1980sthrough present, however, motivation research published inOBHDP has focused largely on the cognitive and affective processesthat underlie decision making and goal choice (e.g., goal processes,goal orientation, regulatory focus, epistemic motivation, and moti-vational dynamics), rather than the broader context within whichindividuals work in organizations. In line with this trend, thereare fewer citations to articles published in OBHP/OBHDP, relativeto those published in Academy of Management Journal or Journalof Applied Psychology, in large-scale and influential meta-analyses of work design (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,2007), leader-member exchange (Gerstner & Day, 1997), transfor-mational leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), and team processes(LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008).

As such, on the one hand, OBHDP has become an importanttranslator of basic advances in psychology, particularly personalityand social psychology, as they may apply to organizations andwork. On the other hand, we believe that the near exclusive focuson intra-individual psychological processes may miss a greateropportunity to link these processes to important contextual factorsin the person’s history, as well as to the organizational contextwithin which work experiences and behaviors occur. As noted byKanfer, Chen, and Pritchard (2008), over 50 years of research onwork motivation (from middle of the 20th Century until today)has uncovered a great deal of knowledge about the content of workmotivation (i.e., the ‘‘what” and ‘‘how” questions noted above);however, there is more to be learned about motivation from theperspectives of the context in which individuals work (i.e., the‘‘where” and ‘‘when” questions), as well as from the perspectiveof an individual’s experience of change over time (i.e., the ‘‘where”and ‘‘why” questions).

Consistent with these observations, our review of the OBHP/OBHDP literature suggests that there has been substantial, butuneven progress in understanding the building blocks of motiva-tion in work and organizational settings. By far the largest gainhas been in the development and application of expectancy-valuetheories, goal setting formulations, and dynamic formulations ofgoal pursuit to better understand ‘‘how” individuals choose andsustain a course of action. Research on expectancy theory peakedin the late 1970s and early 1980s. Locke’s (1968) landmark articleon the influence of goals on task motivation set in motion a torrentof research activity that continues until today (albeit at a lessintense level), including over two dozen studies in OBHP/OBHDPon the topic to date. The rise of the goal paradigm also sparkedstrong research interest in self-efficacy and self-regulatory pro-cesses. Research on these topics in OBHDP and other journals hashighlighted the need for further research attention in four areas:(1) the role of implicit motives and goal conflicts on regulatory pro-cessing (Gröpel & Kehr, 2014; Sripada, Swain, Ho, & Swain, 2014),(2) identifying key determinants of regulatory dynamics (e.g., per-

ceptions of goal progress, Koo & Fishbach, 2014), (3) the role ofaffective events on cognitive processes during goal pursuit (e.g.,Seo & Ilies, 2009), and (4) how information processing influencesthe affect – motivation relationship (e.g., Forgas & George, 2001).

The goal paradigm has also stimulated renewed scholarly inter-est in the ‘‘what” of motivation, and there is broad agreement thatpurposive motivation involves the allocation of one’s cognitiveresources across activities over time. Although few OBHDP articlesdirectly address resource allocation processes, three topics cur-rently dominate the broader motivation literature. The first per-tains to delineating the independent and joint influence ofperson and contextual factors on resource allocation strategies inmultiple goal environments (Kanfer & Kerry, 2012; Tolli &Schmidt, 2008). The second relates to Baumeister et al.’s (1998)theory of ego depletion and concerns the development of betterassessment tools for evaluating resource costs associated withself-control and other self-regulatory processes. The third pertainsto understanding when and how implicit motives (that presum-ably do not require attentional resources) conflict with purposivegoals, and the potentially different patterns of goal pursuit associ-ated with different conflict patterns.

In contrast to OBHDP articles that continue to advance ourunderstanding of ‘‘how” and (to a lesser extent) ‘‘what” occurs dur-ing motivation, we found less attention given to the ‘‘why,”‘‘where,” and ‘‘when” aspects of motivation. Research in the journalcontinues to focus on the impact of a single trait or state variable(e.g., goal orientation), though there is accumulating evidence towarrant closer attention to the role of motive complexes (Kanfer,2012). With the exception of work on intrinsic motivation, rela-tively few studies in the journal (e.g., Amit & Sagiv, 2013; Kim,Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013) have examined the antece-dents or consequences of other motive complexes (e.g., epistemicmotivation, prosocial motivation) on work goals, motivational tra-jectories and performance patterns over time. Another promisingarea pertains to understanding how particular elements of a workcontext (e.g., team configuration, leadership style) affect goal con-strual and self-regulation processes during goal pursuit. Finally, anascent body of research in need of further research attention indi-cates the importance of individual differences in future time orien-tation and its interaction with features of the environment to affectindividual and organizational outcomes, such as team performance(Mohammed & Harrison, 2013); preferences (Kivetz & Tyler, 2007),work behavior (Kooij, Betts, & Kanfer, 2015), and retirementdecision-making (Feldman, 2013).

4.1. Future research directions

Our review of the decision science literature in OHBDP articleshas also revealed research on topics that have yet to receive sub-stantial attention in the work motivation literature. A samplingof these topic areas are described briefly below.

4.1.1. Temporal discountingSteel and Konig (2006) recently proposed a theory of motivation

that integrates prospect theory and hyperbolic discounting withexpectancy-value and need theories, suggesting that people ‘‘tendto overestimate low-probability events and underestimate high-probability events” (p. 898). Their theory also suggests that addingthe role of time (e.g., timing and/or duration of events) to motiva-tion theories can enrich understanding of goal choice and goalstriving processes. However, few studies have been done to testthe theory or to examine temporal discounting effects in job per-formance. For example, recent findings by Shen, Fishbach, andHsee (2015) indicate that reward uncertainty may increase moti-vation, particularly when individuals focus on the process of goalpursuit, which is more proximal to effort allocation. Another inter-


esting application of discounting of delayed rewards pertains tomotivation and behavior in groups (Charlton et al., 2013). Futureresearch is needed to better understand how multi-team systemand local team goals and priorities may differentially mitigate dis-counting effects at the individual level.

4.1.2. Embodied cognition and motivationThe past few decades have witnessed increased interest in

embodied cognition, or the way in which bodily, automatic emo-tional responses to various features of social environments con-tribute to decision making and action (Damasio, 1999). Althoughthe bulk of research in this area to date has focused on the effectsof emotions and actions on brain processes and their link to cogni-tive processes involved in action, the findings emerging from thisinterdisciplinary paradigm have spurred new research related tomotivation in three promising areas. First, Oettingen andGollwitzer (2009) suggest that the embodied system may affectgoal pursuit through its effects on implementation planning.Wieber, Thurmer, and Gollwitzer (2015) integrated cognitive andphysiological findings on implementation planning effects to sug-gest that action control through implementation intentions (thatincorporate embodied emotion regulation processes) may demandless effort than action control through goal intentions. Furtherresearch examining the impact of different implementation planson goal accomplishment is needed to evaluate this and relatedhypotheses.

A second area of interest pertains to the impact of incentives.Many organizations employ multiple and diverse types of incen-tive plans to promote work motivation, including for examplemonetary incentives (e.g., bonus pay) and non-monetary incen-tives (e.g., employee recognition, free food, or travel). Understand-ing how individuals integrate these incentives and their role indecision-making and motivational processing has theoretical andpractical implications, particularly for human resource manage-ment practices that seek to promote engagement and build newbehavior patterns. Research by Braver and his colleagues (e.g.,Chiew & Braver, 2014; Krug & Braver, 2014) provides initial exper-imental and neuroscience evidence for how these incentives areintegrated and their emotional influence on cognitive control intask performance. Studies to examine the scale-up of these find-ings to the workplace represent an exciting and important newdirection in work motivation.

A third area of interest in theory and research pertains to theself and social identity as it affects motivation. Identity-basedmotivation (e.g., Oyserman, 2007, 2015) highlights the role ofbroad social factors, such as gender, social class, and ethnicity, onidentity activation and the role of identity-congruence in behav-ioral choice and action. Although the theory has been focused todate largely on the effects of situationally-cued identity andidentity-congruence effects in educational, social and health con-texts, findings by Lewis and Oyserman (2015) on the role of iden-tity congruence in retirement saving suggests new directions forfuture research investigating identity congruence in other work-related behaviors, such as innovation in teams.

5. A final observation

Overall, our review of the OBHP/OBHDP literature shows aremarkable progress in motivation over the past half century, par-ticularly with respect to understanding the basic psychologicalmechanisms involved in deliberate goal choice, self-regulation,and decision-making and the influence of explicit motives and abil-ities on these processes. These advances have been made possiblelargely by drawing on advances in the neighboring subdisciplinesof cognitive and social-personality psychology. As we contemplate

changes in the nature of work and working over the next half-century, we think it will be important to cast a wider net going for-ward, and more closely evaluate how advances in more distantsubdisciplines, such as lifespan psychology, affective neuroscience,and the broader organization sciences may inform research onmotivation in organized work settings. Research in lifespan psy-chology, for example, provides evidence for important age-related differences in cognitive abilities and work motives thathave been shown to have important consequences for motivationin the context of skill training and work engagement. However,to integrate these and other developments in psychology andrelated fields, motivation researchers may well need to expandbeyond the standard, time-limited experimental paradigm, whichhas become commonplace in this journal. We strongly encouragethe use of multi-level, longitudinal field experiments, experience-sampling studies, and intervention studies to allow for the evalua-tion of motivational and behavioral variability as a function oftime, work events, the individual’s history, and the social contextof action – determinants of motivation particularly important formanaging many modern organizational behavior problem spaces,such as expatriation, work transitions, employee diversity, multi-team systems, and high-stakes work. We believe such a broaden-ing is essential for maintaining the journal’s eminent role in thefield going forward.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Linn Van Dyne and the three review-ers for their insightful suggestions on earlier versions of thismanuscript.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: AcademicPress.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 143–175.

Amit, A., & Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ responseto decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,121, 104–117.

Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social–cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: Ameta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

Austin, J. T. (1989). Effects of shifts in goal origin on goal acceptance and attainment.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 415–435.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive

influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 38, 92–113.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:Free Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Isthe active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1252–1265.

Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2012). Taken out of context? Cross-level effects ofbetween-person self-efficacy and difficulty on the within-person relationship ofself-efficacy with resource allocation and performance. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 119, 195–208.

Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcomeinterdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes andperformance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121,194–203.

Benjamin, L., & Flynn, F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value fromfit? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 100, 216–230.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0749-5978(16)30351-X/h0005










































Boal, K. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1981). Cognitive evaluation theory: An experimentaltest of processes and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 28, 289–310.

Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Retaliation as a response toprocedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 95, 1511–1525.

Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for thestudy of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 86, 35–66.

Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizationalresearch: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.

Campbell, D. J., & Gingrich, K. F. (1986). The interactive effects of task complexityand participation on task performance: A field experiment. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 162–180.

Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of thegoal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 30, 265–287.

Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series of meta-analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self-control does not seem to rely on alimited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 796–815.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theoryapproach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsicincentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin, 140, 980–1008.

Charlton, S. R., Yi, R., Poerter, C., Carter, A. E., Bickel, W., & Rachlin, H. (2013). Nowfor me, later for us? Effects of group context on temporal discounting. Journal ofBehavioral Decision Making, 26, 118–127.

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formationand memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects ofexplicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,464–478.

Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior inwork teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.

Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). Themotivating potential of teams: A test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006)model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45–55.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study ofleadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 331–346.

Chen, X., & Latham, G. P. (2014). The effect of priming learning vs. performancegoals on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,125, 88–97.

Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2008). Goal orientation dispositions and performancetrajectories: The roles of supplementary and complementary situationalinducements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 21–38.

Chiew, K. S., & Braver, T. S. (2014). Dissociable influences of reward motivation andpositive emotion on cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & BehavioralNeuroscience, 14, 509–529.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justiceat the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justiceresearch. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizationaljustice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook oforganizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., &Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytictest of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 98, 199–236.

Cropanzano, R., Paddock, L., Rupp, D. E., Bagger, J., & Baldwin, A. (2008). Howregulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceivedfairness and emotions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,105, 36–51.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations:Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.

Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, mine, and ours: Facilitating groupproductivity through the integration of individual and group goals.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 138–150.

da Motta Veiga, S. P., & Turban, D. B. (2014). Are affect and perceived stressdetrimental or beneficial to job seekers? The role of learning goal orientation injob search and self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 125, 193–204.

Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making ofconsciousness. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controlson intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8,217–229.

DeShon, R. P., & Alexander, R. A. (1996). Goal setting effects on implicit and explicitlearning of complex tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 65, 18–36.

Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 88, 667–682.

Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goaldifficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 72, 203–231.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. AmericanPsychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and rolemodels on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378–390.

Earley, P. C., & Perry, B. C. (1987). Work plan availability and performance: Anassessment of task strategy priming on subsequent task completion.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 279–302.

Edwards, J. R. (2002). The past, present, and future of Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,87, 1–4.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goalsand intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 70, 461–475.

Erez, M., Gopher, D., & Arzi, N. (1990). Effects of goal difficulty, self-set goals, andmonetary rewards on dual task performance. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 47, 247–269.

Evans, M. G., Kiggundu, M. N., & House, R. J. (1979). A partial test and extension ofthe job characteristics model of motivation. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 24, 354–381.

Farr, J. L., Vance, R. J., & McIntyre, R. M. (1977). Further examinations of therelationship between reward contingency and intrinsic motivation.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 31–53.

Feldman, Daniel C. (2013). Feeling lit it’s time to retire: A fit perspective on earlyretirement decisions. In M. Wang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of retirement(pp. 280–292). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal injustice andworkplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38,1788–1811.

Fishbach, A., & Choi, J. (2012). When thinking about goals undermines goal pursuit.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 99–107.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: Anintroduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behaviorin organizations: An information processing perspective. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34.

Forward, J., & Zander, A. (1971). Choice of unattainable group goals andeffects on performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6,184–199.

Frost, P. J., & Mahoney, T. A. (1976). Goal setting and the task process: I. Aninteractive influence on individual performance. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 17, 328–350.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.

Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–memberexchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 827–844.

Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resisttemptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 191–203.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M.Sorrentino (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of socialbehavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (2003). Why we thought that action mindsets affect illusions ofcontrol. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 259–267.

Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Ratajczak, H. (1990). From weighing to willing:Approaching a change decision through pre- or postdecisional mentation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 41–65.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2012). Goal pursuit. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxfordhandbook of human motivation (pp. 208–231). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon?Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 13–24.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6,219–247.

Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivationalsynergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 93, 48–58.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007).Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact withbeneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 103, 53–67.

Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Dekas, K. (2011). The performanceimplications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous andcontrolled motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,116, 241–251.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise ofrelational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3,317–375.












































































































































































Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impactof personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 43, 29–51.

Gröpel, P., & Kehr, H. M. (2014). Motivation and self-control: Implicit motivesmoderate the exertion of self-control in motive-related tasks. Journal ofPersonality, 82, 317–328.

Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task designand group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 350–365.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Testof a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.

Hackman, J. R., Pearce, J. L., & Wolfe, J. C. (1978). Effects of changes in jobcharacteristics on work attitudes and behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 289–304.

Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of workeffectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417–426.

Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion andthe strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136,495–525.

Hamner, W. C., & Harnett, D. L. (1974). Goal setting, performance and satisfaction inan interdependent task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12,217–230.

Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitivefunctioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation andEmotion, 11, 101–120.

Heneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancytheory predictions of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 1–9.

Henry, R. A., & Sniezek, J. A. (1993). Situational factors affecting judgments of futureperformance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54,104–132.

Hinsz, V. B., Kalnbach, L. R., & Lorentz, N. R. (1997). Using judgmental anchors toestablish challenging self-set goals without jeopardizing commitment.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 287–308.

Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. P. (1987). The effects of individual differences and goalorigin on goal setting and performance. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 40, 392–414.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational,social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary andtheoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 1332–1356.

Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (butmay not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009.

Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Lord, R. G. (2006). Moving from cognition to behavior:What the research says. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 381–415.

Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair:Effects of procedural and interactional justice behaviors on actors’ regulatoryresources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 635–650.

Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and theself-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175–201.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: Ameta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,755–768.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplacedeviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: Anintegrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.

Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. (2008). Work motivation: Forging newperspectives and directions in the post-millennium. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R.D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 601–632).New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology. Theory in industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1,pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanfer, F. H., & Hagerman, S. M. (1981). The role of self-regulation. In L. P. Rehm(Ed.), Behavior therapy for depression: Present status and future directions(pp. 143–179). New York: Academic Press.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19,1–56.

Kanfer, R., & Kerry, M. (2012). Motivation in multiteam systems. In S. J. Zaccaro, M.A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organization form fordynamic and complex environments. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Kanfer, R. (2012). Work motivation: Theory, practice, and future directions. In S. W.J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 455–495). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and perceivedabilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy ofManagement Review, 29, 470–499.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145–172.

Kim, Y.-J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Why and when domotives matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social

support as predictors of OCB. Organizational behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 121, 231–245.

Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspectiveon the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 102, 193–211.

Klein, H. J. (1991). Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting andexpectancy theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49,230–257.

Klein, H. J., Austin, J. T., & Cooper, J. T. (2008). Goal choice and decision processes. InR. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, andfuture (pp. 101–150). New York: Routledge/Taylor Francis Group.

Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1994). Exaggerated self-assessments and the preferencefor controllable risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59,410–427.

Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplishedgoal actions affect motivation. Motivation Science, 1, 73–90.

Kooij, D. T., Betts, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Future time perspective: A systematic reviewand meta-analysis Unpublished manuscript : . Tilberg University.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R.(2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensionaltraining outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 85, 1–31.

Krug, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2014). Motivation and cognitive control: Going beyondmonetary incentives. In E. Bijleveld & H. Aarts (Eds.), The psychological science ofmoney (pp. 137–162). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet alreadydepleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 11–23.

Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.

Lawler, E. E., III, & Suttle, J. L. (1972). A causal correlational test of the need hierarchyconcept. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 265–287.

Lawler, E. E., III, & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 482–503.

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model andrelationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61,273–307.

Lewis, N. A., Jr., & Oyserman, D. (2015). When does the future begin? Time andmetrics matter, connecting present to future selves. Psychological Science, 26,816–825.

Li, A., Evans, J., Christian, M. S., Gilliland, S. W., Kausel, E. E., & Stein, J. H. (2011). Theeffects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 268–282.

Livi, S., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Kenny, D. A. (2015). Epistemicmotivation and perpetuation of group culture: Effects of need for cognitiveclosure on trans-generational norm transmission. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 129, 105–112.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189.

Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and themotivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,288–299.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and taskperformance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.

Loundt, R. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: Theimpact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 103, 214–224.

Lyons, B. J., & Scott, B. A. (2012). Integrating social exchange and affectiveexplanations for the receipt of help and harm: A social network approach.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 66–79.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,370–396.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harpers.McClelland, D. C. (1986). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and

Company.McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and

implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D., & Locke, E. A. (1980). Maryland vs Michigan vs

Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty totask performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419–440.

Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects ofgoal-setting on task-performance: 1966 to 1984. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 39, 52–83.

Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate socialloafing effects among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 56, 246–265.

Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupationalpreference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal.Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053–1077.

Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation – new directions for theory, research, and practice.Academy of Management Review, 7, 80–88.

Mohammed, S., & Harrison, D. A. (2013). The clocks that time us are not the same: Atheory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 244–256.









































http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.12.009



































































































































Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job designand the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.

Mueller, J. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 111–124.

Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collectiveefficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87.

Nahrgang, J. D., DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Spitzmuller, M., Jundt, D. K., & Ilgen, D.R. (2013). Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goalson process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 122, 12–21.

Naylor, J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1966). Statement of editorial policy. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 1, 1–2.

Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior inorganizations. New York: Academic Press.

Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Embodied goal pursuit. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 39, 1210–1213.

Oyserman, D. (2015). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T.Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 432–453).New York: Guilford Press.

Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). Meta-analytic examinationof the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,128–150.

Phillips, J. M. (2001). The role of decision influence and team performance inmember self-efficacy, withdrawal, satisfaction with the leader, and willingnessto return. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 122–147.

Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1978). The measurement of perceived jobcharacteristics: The job diagnostic survey versus the job characteristicsinventory. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 123–128.

Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J.-L. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goalsetting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 44, 45–67.

Porac, J. F., & Meindl, J. (1982). Undermining overjustification: Inducing intrinsicand extrinsic task representations. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 29, 208–226.

Powers, W. T. (1973). Feedback: Beyond behaviorism. Science, 179, 351–356.Price, K. H. (1987). Decision responsibility, task responsibility, identifiability, and

social loafing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40,330–345.

Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 4, 176–211.

Pritchard, R. D., & Curtis, M. I. (1973). The influence of goal setting and financialincentives on task performance. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 10, 175–183.

Pritchard, R. D., deLeo, P. J., & Von Bergen, C. W. (1976). A field experimental test ofexpectancy-valence incentive motivation techniques. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 15, 355–406.

Rawolle, M., Wallis, M. S. v., Badham, R., & Kehr, H. M. (2016). No fit, no fun: Theeffect of motive incongruence on job burnout and the mediating role of intrinsicmotivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 65–68.

Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: Acritical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217.

Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employeesatisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis of job design research andsociotechnical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 19, 18–42.

Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifoci approachto the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into theconsideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, andsocial exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123,159–185.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). When rewards compete with nature: Theundermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In C. Sansone & J. M.Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimalmotivation and performance (pp. 13–54). New York: Academic Press.

Sanna, L. J., & Mark, M. M. (1995). Self-handicapping, expected evaluation, andperformance: Accentuating the positive and attenuating the negative.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 84–102.

Schmidt, F. L. (1973). Implications of a measurement problem for expectancy theoryresearch. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 243–251.

Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2009). Prior performance and goal progress asmoderators of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. HumanPerformance, 22, 191–203.

Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performanceambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 572–581.

Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairlyin the first place? A daily investigation of ‘‘hot” and ‘‘cold” motives anddiscretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1571–1591.

Seo, M., & Ilies, R. (2009). The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamicmotivational self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 109, 120–133.

Shah, J. (2003). The motivational looking glass: How significant others implicitlyaffect goal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 424–439.

Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors oncreative performance: The role of informational and controlling expectedevaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 84, 1–22.

Shantz, A., & Latham, G. P. (2009). An exploratory field experiment of the effect ofsubconscious and conscious goals on employee performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 9–17.

Shapira, Z. (1989). Task choice and assigned goals as determinants of taskmotivation and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 44, 141–165.

Shen, L., Fishbach, A., & Hsee, C. K. (2015). The motivating-uncertainty effect:Uncertainty increases resource investment in the process of reward pursuit.Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1301–1315.

Sherf, E. N., & Venkataramani, V. (2015). Friend or foe? The impact of relational tieswith comparison others on outcome fairness and satisfaction judgments.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 1–14.

Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful andunsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on therelationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 62, 286–299.

Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A., & Barry, D. (1990). Goal setting, planning, andorganizational performance: An experimental simulation. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 118–134.

Sripada, C., Swain, J. D., Ho, S. S., & Swain, J. E. (2014). Automatic goals and consciousregulation in social cognitive affective neuroscience. Behavioral and BrainSciences, 156–157.

Stajkovic, A. D., Locke, E. A., & Blair, E. S. (2006). A first examination of therelationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals,and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1172–1180.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: Ameta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.

Steel, P., & Konig, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy ofManagement Review, 31, 889–913.

Stone, D. N. (1994). Overconfidence in initial self-efficacy judgments: Effects ondecision processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 59, 452–474.

Sue-Chan, C., & Ong, M. (2002). Goal assignment and performance: Assessing themediating roles of goal commitment and self-efficacy and the moderating roleof power distance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89,1140–1161.

Sun, S. H., & Frese, M. (2013). Multiple goal pursuit. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham(Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 177–194).New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Sun, S., Vancouver, J. B., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2014). Goal choices and planning:Distinct expectancy and value effects in two goal processes. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 220–233.

Tabernero, C., & Wood, R. E. (1999). Implicit theories versus the social construal ofability in self-regulation and performance on a complex task. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 104–127.

Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Wong, K. F. E. (2011). Social influence of a coworker: A test ofthe effect of employee and coworker exchange ideologies on employees’exchange qualities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115,226–237.

Tasa, K., & Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving ingroup decision making: A non-linear model. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 96, 119–129.

Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, andself-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 692–701.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. TheAmerican Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.

Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane forpsychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 38–52.

Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation intoa dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 1–18.

Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates tomotivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology,91, 1146–1153.

Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., &Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in therelationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 605–620.

VandeWalle, D. M. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goalorientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57,995–1015.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and postdecision

processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 212–225.Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research

on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,15, 212–240.












































































































































































Webb, T. L., Gallo, I. S., Miles, E., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Effectiveregulation of affect: An action control perspective on emotion regulation.European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 143–186.

Weber, E. U. (1998). From performance to decision processes in 33 years: A historyof Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes under James C. Naylor.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 209–222.

Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test ofbasic assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) in call centre work. BritishJournal of Management, 17, 237–254.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoreticaldiscussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences atwork. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummigs (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weldon, E., & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: Theeffects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 330–351.

Welsh, D. T., & Ordonez, L. D. (2014). The dark side of consecutive high performancegoals: Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 79–89.

View publication statsView publication stats

Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’s groupthink model: The key role of collectiveefficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 73, 185–209.

Wieber, F., Thurmer, J. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). Promoting the translation ofintentions into action by implementation intentions: Behavioral effects andphysiological correlates. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00395.

Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizationalperformance in complex decision-making environments. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181–201.

Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductiveworkplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personalitymoderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259–295.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.Zedeck, S. (1977). An information processing model and approach to the study of

motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 47–77.Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust,

and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 124, 150–164.























http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00395

http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00395













https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308079419

motivation in organizational behavior: history, advances

Documents