Blog

In the early years of motivational theory, the concept of motivation was thought to lie outside of the person. McClelland argued for the need for internal motives such as achievement to be recognized (Locke & Latham, 2002), but these were still asserted to be on the subconscious level, so only projective tests could be applied to measure motivation. Locke and Latham have also made special mention of the work of Lewin (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944), and although Lewin had studied conscious goals, he would restrict himself to treating levels of aspiration as a dependent variable. As an example of the evolution of motivational research, this once included ruling out conscious regulation of the action of motivation such as introspection. Introspection refers to the examination and reporting on one's own thoughts, feelings and emotions, and is an intriguing area as it might seem too wide open to narrow down in research. There have since been studies (Questienne, van Dijck, & Gevers, 2018) to support the point and show that introspection can be accurately and reliably measured.

Recognized in the background of modern motivational theory was the work of Ryan. Ryan (Ryan, 1970) laid the foundation for modern goal setting theory. He was the exception to the anti-conscious zeitgeist, and he anticipated (Locke & Latham, 2002), the cognitive revolution in psychology by recognizing human behavior is affected by conscious purposes. In the slow evolving field of motivational theory, it was Rousseau (Rousseau, 1985) who wrote a seminal article which has helped to regulate the approach to multi-level research and its’ influence is seen (Locke & Latham, 2004) in modern motivation theory. Locke & Latham focused on the level of task performance as it relates to conscious performance goals. This article will examine connections between the research of Rousseau and Locke & Latham.

Motivation

At the basis of motivational theories are needs theories which fulfill the inner state. Needs are interlaced and three in particular (Ugah, & Arua, 2011) which form a basis for motivation theory are the need for accomplishment, unity and individual needs. The business world has been noted as expressing frustration (Selden & Brewer, 2000) with the imperfect nature of research on motivational theory but have recognized Locke and Latham as giving hope to future research. Respect for motivation theory began to be established only after studies in the 1960’s, and in the early years more closely resembled behaviorist theory which relied on punishers and reinforcers.

Personality

Personality by itself typically shows a low correlation to performance when measured in research. It is therefore not as simple to list it as a variable when successful research. Yet proactive personality (Spitzmuller, Howe, & Fatimah, 2015) has been showing promise, and proactive work behaviors have been associated with various individual and organizational outcomes. Included in the list of traits in how a proactive personality has been defined are initiative taking and self-starting mentalities (Spitzmuller et al, 2015) in proactive workers. When traits of personality have been narrowed down to this degree, the findings of these performance work behaviors are much more promising that previous personality research.

Decision Making

A common theme regarding research on organizational behavior is the concern that previous research was not considering the necessary or correctly variables to have an effective application to organizations. Instilling effective decision making as an organizational behavior has been tied (Latham & Locke, 2002). to motivational theory research. Decision making is one of the three areas which can be affected by motivation. The other two are intensity (effort) and persistence (Latham & Locke, 2002). The factor of context in organizational behavior (Johns, 2017) is one example of an area noted as unrecognized and unappreciated, and this is one area in which the contributions of Latham & Locke have helped bring more clarity. The nature of business environments (Breslin, 2016) have become more interconnected and complex since 1985, due to bureaucratic and technological aspects which call for a more varied research approach. The influence of job characteristics on work motivation (Bipp, 2010) and performance has relied on taking into account individual differences. Decision making is linked to personality as people will decide to choose, keep or quit jobs based on their personality traits.

Connections Between the Research

Rousseau stated that research should not combine different units of measurement or analysis in order to avoid misspecification and aggregation, and that research and theory must clearly address the level and its role in phenomena in organizations. To expand on groundwork laid by Rousseau (Rousseau, 1985), Locke & Latham have been able to integrate several theories (Selden, & Brewer, 2000) of motivation to explain causal relationships in a chain of goals, performance of individuals, job satisfaction, rewards and organizational commitment. Those theories include the theories of goal setting, expectancy, equity, control and reinforcement.

Core findings of Locke and Latham (2002) showed tasks that were either too easy or too difficult resulted in the lowest levels of effort. But moderately difficult tasks (Locke & Latham, 2002), yielded highest levels of effort, so therefore the function is curvilinear-inverse. When difficult goals are specifically laid out performance will be higher than when people are simply urged to do their best. Valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory states a multiplicative combination of the three aspects (Locke & Latham, 2002) of that theory are what comprises the force of the action to achieve a desired result, so the function of expectancy and performance is linear. To resolve the apparent conflict between the two theories, expectancy must be resolved within (Locke & Latham, 2002) instead of between goal conditions. This overcomes the assumptions established by goals-setting theory, where higher expectations might lead to a negative relation on performance.

Recommendations

Current recommendations are to continue the in the path established by Rousseau. Continuing research should continue to expand (Rousseau, 1985) upon cross level (research which examine effects of variables of one variable level on those of another level) and cross-unit measurements. During the time of Rousseau's work, research on the cross level effect was limited primarily to work unit design and leadership.

Rousseau stated the proper specification of competing units of analysis is the underlying issue to successfully completing an analytic model for competing units of analysis. Rousseau called for more research (Rousseau, 1985) in the field of organizational behavior using a multi-level approach. Rousseau recommends that all data be maintained at the lowest level possible. Various levels of human activity which are relevant to the organization (Rousseau, 1985) are integrated into the evolving field of multilevel research. Evidence-based management (Rousseau, 2006) means organizational practices are based on best evidence and have been translated from best evidence. The opposing view to evidence-based management (Morrell, & Learmonth, 2015) stated this approach is too narrow to allow full understanding to management studies and practices. Other researchers have called for improved openness and dialogue (Morrell, & Learmonth, 2017) to advocate for valuing multiple perspectives which reflect real life application, which includes the questioning of basic assumptions. Truly effective organizational research will need to find a way to master the intellectual pluralism and flexibility referred to by authors such as Morrell.

Summary

Research by Rousseau provided a seminal basis for later research of Locke and Latham, who have helped set the stage for modern motivational multi-level research. Organizational environments stand to gain the most through advancements on existing research. New approaches such as goal-setting motivational theory by Locke and Latham and as applied with other theories offer the most promise for incorporating conceptual aspects of the other recommendations to next level research. In studying several types of relationships between general traits and situationally specific motivation, it is recommended that future research specifically focus on measurable aspects of relationships and perform quantitative correlational analysis.

References

Bipp, T. (2010). What do people want from their jobs? The big five, core self-evaluations and work motivation. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 18 (1), 28-39. Retrieved from:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00486.x

Breslin, D. (2016). What evolves in organizational co-evolution?.  Journal Of Management & Governance,  20 (1), 45-67.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216. Retrieved From: http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1991-09869-001

Johns, G. (2017). Reflections on the 2016 decade award: incorporating context in organizational research.  Academy Of Management Review, 42 (4), 577-595. doi:10.5465/amr.2017.0044Invited

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L. & Sears, P. (1944). Level of aspiration. In J. Hunt (Ed.) Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol.1). New York: Ronald Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. doi.org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century.  Academy of Management Review, 29 (3), 388-403. Retrieved from http://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/17%20-%20Locke%20&%20Latham%20AMR%202004.pdf

Morrell, K., & Learmonth, M. (2015). Against evidence-based management for management learning. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14 (4), 520-533. doi:10.5465/amle.2014.0346

Questienne, L., van Dijck, J., & Gevers, W. (2018). Introspection of subjective feelings is sensitive and specific.  Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance, 44 (2), 215-225. doi:10.1037/xhp0000437

Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and Cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37. Retrieved From: https://wweb.uta.edu/management/Dr.Casper/Spring2011/6311/Articles/WK%2010%20-%20Rouseesau.pdf

Ryan, T.A., (1970). Intentional Behavior: An approach to human motivation. New York: Ronald Press

Selden, S.C., & Brewer G.A., (2000). Work motivation in the senior executive service: testing the high performance cycle theory. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory: J-PART, (3), 531. Retrieved from: https://www-jstor-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/stable/3525627

Spitzmuller, M., Sin, H., Howe, M., & Fatimah, S. (2015). Investigating the uniqueness and usefulness of proactive personality in organizational research: a meta-analytic Review. Human Performance, 28(4), 351-379.

Ugah, A. D., & Arua, U. (2011). Expectancy theory, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and cataloguing departments. Library Philosophy & Practice, 121-124.