The Role of Motivation in the Workplace

There is a growing trend in the business community to focus on the needs and concerns of employees in order to improve overall performance and efficiency of the company as a whole. It has been found that it is not only a development in the technology utilized that marks the progress of a company. Furthermore, technology is no longer viewed as the ultimate indicator of a business’ success in the corporate world. Human resources, and the efficient maintenance of the same, serve as better predictors of future output in companies. Management would thus do well to look into the factors affecting the quality of work output given by employees. It is the successful manipulation of these same factors that will determine the manner in which a company operates, and ultimately the quality of products and service that it renders.

Psychology refers to internal factors that impel action and external factors that can act as inducements to action as motivation (Locke & Latham, 2004). Knowledge of the nature and workings of motivation would be essential in order to ensure consistency and growth in employee efficiency. Motivation as applied in context is further accounted for not simply by its relationship with acts but also according to its perceived source or area of concern. Theorists have come up with many different motivation models and theories encompassing the significant aspects comprising the concept as an entirety.

The study of each of these theories and the manner in which they may be integrated is essential in order to better come up with a strategy to be implemented in a given workplace. Some of the many theories on motivation will be discussed herein and their relationship with one another will be lightly broached. However, it should be borne in mind that a motivated workplace speaks of more than just motivated individuals working in a single environment.

In other words, it is not just the individual employee that needs focus. A company that seeks to motivate organizationally would benefit greater from the extended effort and attention given to their resources than companies who engage in motivation only in individual personnel levels (Locke & Latham, 2004). In order to be able to apply motivational approaches and theories at a macro-level, there is a need to fully grasp the component concepts that lead up to such application.

Theoretical Foundations

Motivation is mostly related with individual actions and the determinants of such actions (Graves, 1999). Motives are thus causes for actions engaged in by individuals. In order to improve the actions performed by employees therefore, the determinants of motives must be accurately assessed. Psychologists have long analyzed the role of reinforcement theories on human behavior. Reinforcement involves the application of consequences following behavior (Graves, 1999). Thus reinforcement may be positive and negative, it may take the form of punishment, or it may be completely absent, as in extinction.

Incentive

Positive reinforcement is the introduction of a reward or a pleasant situation or object following a desired behavior (Graves, 1999). Learning and behavioral researchers consider the repeated introduction of the pleasant stimulus as a cause for the repetition of the behavior. This situation is sometimes referred to as an incentive situation. The incentive may be the situation itself as a whole or it may be the actual reward. Either way, the individual is considered incentivized to repeat the performance of the approved behavior by the reinforcing party. Negative reinforcement on the other hand is the removal of an undesirable stimulus after the performance of a desired behavior (Graves, 1999).

This may not be considered as an incentivizing situation as it is the case that individuals may find it discouraging to continue trying to achieve the desired behavior when such behavior requires skill and effort beyond personal capacity and ability. As long as individuals are unable to attain the behavior demanded they persist in the discomforting state they have been subjected to. Punishment is the introduction of a distasteful situation when the person performs an undesired behavior (Graves, 1999).

This is also known as disincentivizing wherein the distasteful situation is seen as a disincentive to perform particular acts. Finally, extinction is the absence of any reinforcement following a behavior. Such treatment is usually applied when behaviors previously positively or negatively reinforced or punished is no longer affected by the treatment chosen (Graves, 1999). These are the different reinforcement or incentive forms shown to affect motivation. The presence, absence, weight and desirability of the incentive determine whether or not the same serve to birth motivation to commit a desired behavior or to discontinue a behavior not approved.

Intrinsic Motivation

Incentives may cater to internal or external aspects of motivation. The internal aspect of motivation is referred to as intrinsic motivation and it springs out of an interest and enjoyment of a particular task (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Intrinsic motivation thus connects situations with emotional responses and inherent behavioral tendencies (Kehr, 2004). With regard to intrinsic motivation therefore, there is a focus on inclinations already held by persons. The rationale behind the action performed is thus a desire to actually do the act. Kehr (2004) refers to the source of the motivation as natural incentives as the same are not products of stimuli other than the individual’s own desires, traits, and affect.

These same motivations determine the nature of work that individuals would appreciate performing and the same determine the amount of effort that would be exerted in order to meet the demands of the chosen work (Nadler & Lawler, 2004). Intrinsic motivation is also tied down with expectations of self-efficacy. Behavior driven by intrinsic motivation is affected largely in part by the individual’s perception on his or her capacity to perform (Nadler & Lawler, 2004). Low intrinsic motivation might affect the outcome expectation of individuals since this would also reflect low interest in activities (Gagne & Deci, 2005). A marked lack in interest not improved by other factors would certainly promote low qualities of products.

Extrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation may be appended however by extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation involves the presentation of external factors, those outside of the personal will of the individual (Kehr, 2004). It is in extrinsic motivation that the expected outcomes of an act are taken into account and the effects of such actions are anticipated.

The effects are important parts in the taking on or performance of an act because it is the same that determine whether actions would be made or not. Nadler and Lawler (2004) describe the effects as valences which are described as values, worth, or attractiveness of a particular behavior. Valences are different for different people even when these people are placed in identical situations. This is because valences themselves represent individual perspectives and preferences, thus reflecting differences in ideal valences (Nadler & Lawler, 2004).

All this shows that personal characteristics of persons and specific intricacies to given situations should be taken into consideration in order to determine appropriate and effective extrinsic motivators apt to be introduced. Employers must then understand the components of rewards in order to be able to apply rewards appropriate for work performance (Graves, 1999). It should also be understood that a single reward system will not satisfy all employees and what is needed are several incentive plans to cater to dissimilar traits in different people. Apart from the differences in characteristics in persons and situations, management should also take into consideration the interaction effect of internal and external motivations.

In order to have a more autonomous and independent extrinsic motivation system, intrinsic motivations should be fully assessed and accounted for, thus leaving less influence to be exercised by the latter on the efficacy of the former (Gagne & Deci, 2005). With partial analysis of intrinsic motivational systems, unknown intrinsic motivations may cause applied incentives to be ineffective. Let us now proceed to the bases of motivations as proposed by several theorists taking different perspectives as vantages of attack.

Motivation Theories

With the differences in individual needs and goals, there arise different rationales for individual motivations. There is thus required a manner by which to address these needs and goals. Manners of catering to the same are proposed by theorists on the basis mostly of behavioral psychology, accounting for behavior as evoked by a variety of situations. Presented herein are six models on motivation as studied or applied in the workplace. It should be kept in mind however that each of these models are not mutually exclusive rather, they are separate approaches accounting for particular areas in the broad range covered by motivation. Furthermore, the different models interact and work together to create more holistic understandings on the efficacy of incentive and motivation plans.

Abraham Maslow’ Hierarchy of Needs

As early as the 1950s Abraham Maslow posited that there was a need hierarchy observable in every person and that it was this same hierarchy that persons followed in order to achieve self-actualization (Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Self-actualizaton is the highest priority in the pyramid of needs established by Maslow and the lower level priorities are ranked in this order from lowest to highest leading to self-actualizaiton: physiological needs, safety and security needs, belonging needs, esteem needs (Steers et al., 2004; Graves, 1999). Maslow believed that in order to increase levels of motivation, each of these needs should be addressed in a scaling order. Basic salary incentive would therefore not be sufficient to insure motivated employees. Salary would serve to answer only the basic needs of physical sustenance and survival.

There are however greater needs of immediate priority after physiological needs have been met. These needs must also be addressed by employers even if only to a certain extent or degree. Maslow put it forward that the first three needs are needed to develop a healthy personality and the succeeding needs are determinants of achievement and development of human potential (Steers et al., 2004). A serious view on putting incentive plans in place thus requires an approach by managers to understand and answer higher level needs, not just basic physical or security needs.

Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory

Like Maslow’s hierarchy, Herzberg’s two-factor theory recognized the role of needs as motivation for individuals but did not stop there. The greatest contribution Herzberg gave the field of industrial psychology was to look at the actual structure of work functions and to postulate that the enrichment of assigned work would affect levels of motivation (Steers et al., 2004; Graves, 1999). Herzberg looked not only at the possible effects that could be attached to task completion – such as monetary bonuses, recognition, and the like – but also considered the actual attractiveness of the task to individuals. The focus was thus to make the work itself interesting, rewarding and challenging (Locke & Latham, 2004). Job structure thus became a focus of incentive planning.

Earlier it was discussed that intrinsic motivation played a part in perception of efficacy. Taking into account Herzberg’s theory, it can be seen that in relation to innately desiring the completion of a task and claiming knowledge of capacity to accomplish a task well, task completion in itself may become a strong extrinsic motivator for individuals. More so, what Herzberg is postulating with his discussion on job structure and design is that the mere performance of a task and the procedure of accomplishing work is a strong incentive all on its own.

The two factors discussed by Herzberg were motivation and health. Herzberg’s conceptualization of motivation is based largely on incentives such as recognition, achievement, responsibility, and the like, as earlier discussed (Graves, 1999; Locke & Latham, 2004). Hygiene on the other hand is a relatively novel concept of Herzberg’s theory although its roots are found in reinforcement and punishment theories.

Hygiene is based on the desire to avoid deprivation and the discomfort that attaches to the same (Graves, 1999). The focus then is not the presentation of incentives rather, it is the effect of the removal of certain factors that is herein considered. The absence of certain conditions in the workplace, although not necessarily motivating better performance, would lead to dissatisfaction and low quality of production if removed (Graves, 1999).

Clayton Alderfer’s Existence-Relatedness-Growth or ERG Theory

Maslow was further followed by Alderfer who adopted a needs approach of three categories rather than the five needs model started by Maslow (Graves, 1999; Steers et al., 2004). In this manner did Alderfer broaden the needs approach perspective, focusing only on the classes of existence, relatedness and growth, known as the ERG Theory (Steers, et al., 2004). The needs for existence were said to be all needs encompassing the physical well-being, health and sustenance of an individual. Needs for relatedness encompassed all needs for satisfactory relationships.

Needs for growth focused on needs for development of personal potential and the desire for personal growth and increased competence. In the workplace, it is the last need which is of greatest interest. In Maslow’s approach, there was a need to address the different needs one at a time in a single directional approach. Alderfer diffuses of the direction and proposed that movement across levels need not necessarily be straightforward (Graves, 1999). Although, it was also proposed that the failure to meet a higher-level need could lead to regression to a lower-level need (Graves, 1999). The directional movement seems then to be limited within classes as consequent movement between classes is not ruled out as impossibility.

John Adam’s Equity Theory

Where other theories focused solely on individual incentives and performance, Adams also addressed to tendency of persons to compare with others. Thus, Adams built his theory on a sense of distributive justice wherein workers compared individual inputs and outcomes with regard to their work as opposed to that of co-workers (Locke & Latham, 2004; Graves, 1999). Adams’s theory finds application in internal standards as well, as when an individual assesses whether he or she is being equitably compensated for the level of input being given in a certain task (Graves, 1999). Compensation should thus be made commensurate to the input of individuals and the compensation of workers performing identical or similar tasks should be adjusted correspondingly.

It had been found that in both conditions of underpayment and overpayment there was a marked change in the behavioral motivation of workers (Steers et al, 2004). Graves (1999) reflected that with a perceived inequity in compensation, workers sought methods to make the situation more equitable. This was done through adjustments made in the level of input, through requests of increase in compensation, through distortions on views regarding the relationship of input and output, or through the drastic means of leaving the job (Graves, 1999).

In order for incentives to be effected, there is thus an added dimension of equitable distribution of such incentives. It is thus not enough that basic or higher-level needs are met but they should be met in a manner commensurate to input given by workers and in a manner that reflects impartial distribution of the same to the different workers in the workplace. Without such attention given to equitable distribution, the incentives and factors thoughtfully put in place would have no effect on motivating workers.

Vroom’s Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy or VIE Theory

Vroom focused on an expectancy theory which focused on perceived probability that an act would result in a certain goal (Graves, 1999; Steers et al., 2004). It was postulated that workers chose to act on those behaviors which they perceived to result in their most-valued work-related rewards or outcomes (Steers et al., 2004).

Vroom’s theory works in relation with the needs theories as these needs are considered to be present and the end-goals of the person’s acts. Apart from the motivation derived from active pursuit of such needs however, Vroom focuses on the actual expectation to attain such goals or needs. The mere expectation that an action will result in a particular incentive is in itself a source of motivation. Thus, the more likely that the process would result in favored outcomes, the more motivated individuals are in completing the same.

Porter-Lawler Model

Vroom’s work was expanded by Porter and Lawler. In the latter’s model, there was recognition of individual differences and clarity of task as links from job effort to actual job performance (Steers et al, 2004). Good incentives were seen to boost job performance when employees found that better job performance led to rewards (Steers et al., 2004). It was of interest to note the different factors studied by Porter and Lawler as being affected by the presence of absence of incentive.

The presentation of role perception as a mediator in the relationship between performance and expectation is a basic extension of Vroom’s VIE Theory (Kesselman, Hagen, & Wherry, 1974). However, what truly marked the Porter-Lawler model as different was the feedback mechanism acknowledged to take effect when workers perceived less credibility for the incentive plans put in place in the workplace (Steers et al., 2004). This was observed when workers who exhibited superior performance were not awarded superior rewards.

Motivation in the Workplace

Having discussed the different approaches to the study of motivation, one can infer the importance of the same to the workplace. The business world has long been focused on its needs for profit but such a limited view has been unsustainable as corporations, large and small-scale alike, have come to see the internal needs of companies in order to realize better profits. Behind every product and service offered in the market is a workforce tirelessly toiling to meet production standards. Businesses have seen it to be of greater benefit therefore to invest in their human resources. Motivation is key to enhancing productivity of individuals and incentive systems are important to effectively motivate workers.

Such a vision has been observed not just in the workplace but even in schools where faculty work to produce students attractive to the competitive market for employment. The ideal student has come to be the “Straigt A” student or the student who has learned to do a number of things at a marketable level of performance, regardless of whether the student has any interest in or innate talent for the activity, and regardless of whether it pain, joy, or boredom is brought about by such activity (Shepard, 1984). Families and schools unquestioningly praise the standards set by society as reflected in school curriculum.

As long as the grades are good and competitive, then there is positive regard towards the same. It has been seen however that schools are selective about the talents they identify, and represent outside interests in the talents that they choose to develop (Shepard, 1984). It has been found therefore that even in the academe there has been a shift in developing talents and incentivizing behavior sought after by corporations regardless of whether such behavior gives fulfillment to the student personally.

Lorange (2002) supported such a system and even suggested that a faculty reward structure— that is, monetary compensation be used to reinforce the concept of a school as an extension of the marketplace with students seen as clients and large corporations welcomed as training hands. His faculty reward structure is composed of four elements: basic remuneration needed to make the school competitive in the market; individual bonuses based on academic output, teaching and citizenship; a group bonus which includes all faculty and staff and is based on the school’s over-all profit; and extra pay for extra work (Lorange, 2002).

It was thus said that schools which did not produce graduates who were competitive in the business field had failed in it’s goal as an institution. Such conceptualizations fail to take into consideration the intrinsic factors in motivating individuals to work and further delimit motivation to basic needs by assuming that physical and security needs are the main basis for entering into the workforce.

It has been shown by almost all of the motivational theories that individuals are driven to work and to achieve by more than just the basic lower-level needs. There are greater needs which should be addressed in order to ensure effective motivation of individuals leading to more efficient production. One much studied area of application for motivational theories in the workplace are commitment practices engaged in by corporations. Commitment has come to have numerous definitions. Commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action of relevance to one or more targets (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Commitment has been shown to be multi-dimensional, having multiple facets that are characterized depending on the group being related to and the degree of relationship in the same.

Career commitment implies an intentional choice of a line of work and the expectation that loyalty to this choice will transcend a particular job or organizational context. (Harris & Hartman 2002). Harris and Hartman (2002) discuss five forms of career commitment discussing each in a series of five concentric circles with work ethic inner most, followed by career commitment, continuance organizational commitment, affective organizational commitment, and in the outer ring, job involvement.

These commitment forms are positioned in this manner to reflect the idea that inner most circles are more dispositional, cultural, and relatively stable over time while the outer most circles are more situationally determined and therefore more subject to change and influence. There is thus seen an affective relationship across the circles showing that influence made on the outermost circles could well translate to inner circles just as the characteristics of innermost circles influence the outer circles. This relates to the shift on focus regarding the importance of teamwork and empowerment of teams.

It has been observed that corporations place a premium on contributions arising from personal discretion which have not been explicitly required or contractually rewarded yet are practiced by workers to contribute to the organization’s effective functioning (Meyer & Allen, 1997).

The study by Meyer and Allen (1997) has shown that commitment increases employees’ inclination to practice such behavior. This shows the importance of incentivizing Harris and Hartman’s outer circles of commitment in order to encourage the fostering of inner circles of commitment. Individuals who display high levels of commitment to organizations have thus been shown to be highly motivated in performing tasks beneficial to the organization in question regardless of whether or not these same tasks have been required of them or not.

At present, corporate competitiveness has led to practices of layoffs, downsizing and mergers redefining employment relationships. These same practices have been linked to the observed decline in organizational commitment leading to a decline in commitment to the organization and growth in prioritization of individual career growth, thus reflecting low job involvement and low levels of product or service quality (Harris & Hartman, 2002). There is thus a need to motivate individual commitment to the organization as a whole and the reassurance given to workers that the corporation is able and dedicated to meeting their personal needs.

In many firms the process of motivating workers to reflect high levels of commitment has been based on intrinsically motivating employees by sharing a particular vision and mission held by the organization. Linking employees to corporate ideology begins before the worker is even hired, with value-based hiring practices. Value-based hiring involves steps wherein firms first clarify what their basic values are then they enforce procedures for screening new employees, requiring evidence of commitment to the firms’ values, and rejecting large numbers of prospective employees not reflecting the requisite values sought (Dessler, 1999).

The net effect is to select employees whose values and skills match the firm’s ideology and who are thus well on the road to becoming believers of the corporate vision and mission before they are even hired. Such a trend as reflected by organizations shows the importance that corporate goals are in line with individual goals and needs. In such manner, individuals perceive the corporations plans as their own personal means of accomplishing growth.

Motivational theories on equitable justice have also been shown to be put in practice in the workplace to encourage commitment standards. Organizational justice or the extent to which fair procedures and processes are enforced and adhered to has been shown to increase levels of commitment (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). Also important has been the extent to which individuals see their leaders as being fair and sincere and having logic or rationale for the decisions made (Skarlicki & Latham 1996). Studies have concluded that considerable evidence supports a link between procedural justice associated with organizational policies and the affective commitment of employees (Meyer & Allen 1997).

Individual workers found it easier to trust the decisions of superiors where there was shown consistency in the manner of addressing issues and the insight shown as a result of the conclusions made was respectable. It has thus been shown that workers found it of much more value to commit to organizations reflecting high levels of competency and equity in their corporate decisions. Thus, efficiency and fairness in the decisions of higher authorities motivated workers to achieve the same levels of excellence in their own individual tasks.

Another study concluded that discretionary contributions above and beyond those specifically required by the organization increased with increases in perceived organizational justice (Varona, 1995). Organizational justice and value-based hiring has thus been shown to work hand in hand in promoting behavior from employees beyond that required of their work descriptions.

Furthermore, work motivation can be derived from employees who view their workplace as a community with shared input and shared benefits as well. Communal work provides an opportunity for joint effort, with all members, as far as possible, performing all tasks for equal rewards (Dessler, 1999). In Maslow’s hierarchy this could be the reflection of the lower level needs wherein physical, security, and sense of belongingness are all addressed. This would thus leave the individual to focus on improvement of self and work output.

The communal view on work efficacy may also be encouraged with profit sharing. Dessler (1999) presents the case of Microsoft as one notable example. In Microsoft, substantial bonuses, profit sharing, and pay-for-performance plans enable employees throughout the company to appreciate that not only top managers get a sizeable share of the pie, rather, they themselves may enjoy the same benefits as well (Dessler, 1999).

Such a trend has been observed to be the growing trend throughout the industry and more and more corporations have been observed to practice the same. Some reflections of the communal view have been the lack of reserved parking spaces for higher ranking managerial employees, the provision of similar equipment for employee benefit regardless of the rank of the employee base being addressed, and the like (Dessle, 1999). Such seemingly unnoticed differences have been shown to improve employee motivation and work productivity significantly.

Herzberg’s work motivation theories also find application in the perceived importance of fostering employee commitment to organizations. It should be recalled that Herzberg’s model noted the importance of work enrichment in motivating workers to perform efficiently and effectively. Dessler (1999) took note of this by emphasizing that employees come to work bringing needs, aspirations, and hopes leading to commitment being built with employers who have been perceived as having taken concrete steps to helping them develop their abilities and achieving individual potential.

It has also been shown that young graduates or new recruits often start their jobs expecting challenging assignments to help them test and prove their abilities, in fact this is applicable even to old employees who chafe under the grind of routine tasks (Dessler, 1999). Addressing employee needs at this level reflects acknowledgement and answering of higher level needs as opposed to the fundamental sustenance needs offered by basic job compensations.

In a case study made by Dessler (1999) it was shown that new recruits were given big projects amounting to millions of dollars as a sign that companies had confidence in their capabilities. The newer the recruit the more time in the actual presentation to clients was he given to speak. This was shown to boost employee confidence and motivated employees to work harder even as commitment was fostered to the company as employees attributed their personal and career growth to the opportunities offered them by the respective companies (Dessler, 1999).

Corporations and organizations have been seen to have implicit ways of instructing employees regarding careers. The implicit instruction has been shown to be independent of the explicit career planning and development programs that have been adopted by different organizations. Career movement involves moving up the corporate ladder and getting acknowledged and promoted for the level of work being done.

In the same way, reward systems assess the performance of employees answering common motivation deficiencies displayed by individuals, such as needs for status, approval, and power. Accurate plans set up for the incentive systems in a given workplace address such needs driving employees to move up the corporate ladder. Shepard (1984) quoted a vice president of one company to illustrate the role of motivation in the workplace as the executive counseled his subordinates: “The work day is for doing your job; your overtime is for your promotion.”

Conclusion

The character of the workplace has been changing to accommodate the growing needs of human resources. The importance of the human input in short- and long-term productivity has been shown to be more significant than mere costings previously prioritized by organizations. Corporations have thus shifted to investing in the needs and demands of their workers, acknowledging that there is needed more than just the competitive wage requirement in order to achieve optimal productivity in the office. In this regard, psychological and behavioral theories have been resorted to by management in order to accurately plan incentive programs or reward systems to motivate employees to perform better for their respective companies.

Motivation has been defined as internal factors that impel action and external factors that act as inducements to action (Locke & Latham, 2004). Incentives are thus those factors which induce motivation in individuals. Motivation may be extrinsic or intrinsic. Intrinsic motivation refers to inherent goals, aspirations, and drives which impel an individual to act. Extrinsic motivation refers to factors introduced by the environment also inducing action.

These classifications of motivation however are not mutually exclusive, in fact either of the two affects the other proportionally. Motivation has been taken to higher standards with the establishment of motivation models by behavioral scientists. The different motivational theories provide practical approaches as to the basis, components, and effects of motivation. The range of theories varies from focuses on needs and the hierarchy of the same, to work enrichment, to distributive justice and equity, to reward expectation and to role perception.

Each of the views on motivation have affected the application of reward systems by organizations. The practical trend has been to approach corporate needs in a commitment sense. Thus, employees are encouraged to get behind goals of the organization and to foster greater commitment to the same. It has been found out in studies that greater rewards and motivation lead to greater levels of commitment to organizations.

Greater commitment has been found to be related to a greater sense of intrinsic motivation allowing for improved performance in workers to achieve not just individual needs but company goals. Commitment then allows for an affinity with the organization such that role perception is increased. Self-actualization as posited by Maslow as the highest of needs, is accomplished through the addressing of lower level needs and the focusing on promotion and acknowledgment from the organization, which may be sought after by individuals intrinsically motivated to accomplishing corporate visions and upholding corporate missions.

References
Cappelli, P. (2000). Managing Without Commitment. Organizational Dynamics, 28(4), 11-24.
Dessler, G. (1999). How to earn your employee’s commitment. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 58-67.
Gagne, M. and Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Graves, P. (1999). Motivation. Encyclopedia of Business (2nd ed.), USA: Informatio/Reference Group: 148-159.
Harris, O. J. and Hartman, S. J. (2002). Organizational Behavior (ed.), USA: Reid
Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating Implicit Motives, Explicit Motives, and Perceived Abilities: The Compensatory Model of Work Motivation and Volition. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 479-499.
Kesselman, G. A., Hagen, E. L., and Wherry, R. J. Sr. (1974). A Factor Analytic Test of the Porter-Lawler Expectancy Model of Work Motivation. Personnel Psychology, 27, 569-579.
Locke, E. A. and 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.
Lorange, P. (2002). New Vision for Management Education: Leadership Challenges. Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
Meyer, J. P. and Allen, J. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 11, 12
Meyer, J. P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326.
Nadler, D. A. and Lawler, E. E. (). Motivation: A Diagnostic Approach. In The Organizacional behavior reader (eds.). NY: Prentice Hall: 97-103.
Shepard, H. (1984). On The Realization of Human Potential: A Path With A Heart. In Working with Careers. Columbia: Columbia Press: 146-155.
Skarlicki, D. and Latham, G. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior with a labor union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 161-169.
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., and Shapiro, D. I. (2004). The Future of Work Motivation Theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.
Varona, F. (1995). Communication satisfaction and organizational commitment: A study in three Guatemalan organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(9-A), 3048.