Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T05:45:29.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Work Motivation: Identifying Use-Inspired Research Directions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Ruth Kanfer
Ruth Kanfer*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology
*
E-mail: rk64@prism.gatech.edu, Address: School of Psychology, 654 Cherry St., mc0170, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of work motivation progresses through the inspiration that comes from creating new alignments between scientific understanding and considerations of practical use (cf. D. E. Stokes, 1997). Using the 3 C’s framework for work motivation (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008a, b), I coordinate 5 practical concerns related to work motivation with recent scientific trends in order to encourage the development of new research agendas in the field.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 77 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Georgia Institute of Technology.

References

Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85–93.Google Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Tests of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722.10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43Google Scholar
Baumann, N., Kaschel, R., & Kuhl, J. (2005). Striving for unwanted goals: Stress-dependent discrepancies between explicit and implicit achievement motives reduce subjective well-being and increase psychosomatic symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 781–799.Google Scholar
Brunstein, J. C., & Maier, G. W. (2005). Implicit and self-attributed motives to achieve: Two separate but interacting needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 205–222.10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.205Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S., & Hulin, C. L. (2008). Motivation for what: A multivariate, dynamic perspective of the criterion. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 63–100). New York: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256Google Scholar
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63.Google Scholar
Hough, L. M., & Schneider, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organizations. In Murphy, K. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 31–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131–163.10.1177/109442819812001Google Scholar
James, L. R., McIntyre, M. D., Glisson, C. A., Bowler, J. L., & Mitchell, T. R. (2004). The conditional reasoning measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human Performance, 17, 271–295.Google Scholar
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541.10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Jackson, C. L., Shaw, J. C., Scott, B. A., & Rich, B. L. (2007). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: The integral role of individual differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 901–910.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458.10.2307/20159053Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2007). Aging and work motivation. In Wankel, C. (Ed.), Handbook of 21st century management. (Vol. 2: pp. 160–169) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008a). The three C’s of work motivation: Content, context, and change. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 1–16). New York: Taylor Francis.10.4324/9780203809501Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008b). Work motivation: Forging new perspectives and directions in the post-millennium. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 601–632). New York: Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Kehr, H. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives and perceived abilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of Management Review, 29, 479–499.10.5465/amr.2004.13670963Google Scholar
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality system interactions. In Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 111–169). New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50034-2Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Barksdale, C. D., Robin, J. D., and James, L. R. (2007). Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: Indirect measurement and test faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1–16.Google Scholar
Lord, R. G., & Moon, S. M. (2006). Individual differences in automatic and controlled regulation of emotion and task performance. Human Performance, 19, 327–356.Google Scholar
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 690–702.Google Scholar
Michalak, J., Puschel, O., Joormann, J., & Schulte, D. (2006). Implicit motives and explicit goals: Two distinctive modes of motivational functioning and their relations to psychopathology. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13, 81–96.10.1002/cpp.440Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E. (2008). The measurement and analysis of motivation: Looking past, moving forward. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 17–62). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum/Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Raynor, J. O., & Entin, E. E. (Eds.). (1982). Motivation, career striving, and aging. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Scheffer, D., Eichstaedt, J., Chasiotis, A., & Kuhl, J. (2007). Towards an integrated measure of need affiliation and agreeableness derived from the operant motive test. Psychology Science, 49, 308–324.Google Scholar
Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 1–31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Schooler, K., Mulatu, M. S., & Oates, G. (2004). Occupational self-direction, intellectual functioning, and self-directed orientation in older workers: Findings and implications for individuals and societies. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 161–197.Google Scholar
Schultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 603–633). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1978). Theory and method for research on aptitude processes. Intelligence, 2, 225–278.Google Scholar
Sokolowski, K., Schmalt, H., Langens, T. A., & Puca, R. M. (2000). Assessing achievement, affiliation, and power motives all at once: The multi-motive grid (MMG). Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 126–145.10.1207/S15327752JPA740109Google Scholar
Sonnentag, S. (2001). Work, recovery activities, and individual well-being: A diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 196–210.Google Scholar
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140–154.10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.140Google Scholar
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar