Departments of Neurological Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine
University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
Miami, Florida
At first glance definition de fungus purchase diflucan 100 mg online, the principle of difficult goals motivating higher performance than easy goals appears to conflict with expectancy theory fungus gnats eat leaves cheap 100mg diflucan otc. From an expectancy theory standpoint antifungal ayurvedic purchase 150 mg diflucan free shipping, easy goals yield greater effort-to-performance expectancy beliefs fungus gnats uk420 cheap diflucan 50mg without prescription, and thus greater motivation and performance quinolone antifungal order 50mg diflucan otc, than difficult goals antifungal cream for toenails buy diflucan 400mg line. Researchers have resolved this tension by showing that when goal difficulty is held constant kill fungus gnats uk diflucan 400mg with visa, higher expectancy beliefs are associated with higher performance fungus gnats bayer diflucan 150mg low cost, but when goal difficulty varies, more difficult goals are linked with higher performance, as the attention, effort, persistence, and task strategy benefits of difficult goals appear to outweigh the costs of lower expectancy beliefs (Locke, Motowidlo, & Bobko, 1986). Furthermore, expectancy beliefs moderate the effects of goal difficulty on performance, such that setting difficult goals only motivates employees to take action if they believe such action has the potential to achieve the goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). As goal-setting theory gained prominence, scholars began to raise concerns about managers using goals as manipulative tools, and expressed growing interest in understanding the motivational effects of goals that were self-set by employees. This yielded a major controversy emerged about whether participation in goal-setting increases motivation and performance. Holding goal difficulty constant, studies by Latham and colleagues showed null effects of participation, whereas studies by Erez and colleagues identified significant benefits. The authors collaborated, with Locke as a mediator (not a moderator), to jointly design experiments to resolve the dispute. They discovered that the effects of participation in goal-setting depend on goal commitment. When the purpose of the goals is clear, participation offers little benefit, but when the purpose is unclear, allowing employees to participate serves the function of increasing Work Motivation 12 goal commitment, and thereby motivates higher performance (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). Subsequent studies suggested that participation may achieve these benefits not only through motivational mechanisms, but also through cognitive mechanisms of enabling employees to share information about task strategies and building self-efficacy (Locke & Latham, 2002). Moreover, employees who have high self-efficacy with respect to assigned goals tend to set higher goals, experience greater goal commitment, choose better task strategies, and maintain goal pursuit in the face of negative feedback (Locke & Latham, 2002). This raises important ethical issues, as employees can take shortcuts to achieve goals that violate important moral and legal standards. For example, Schweitzer, Ordoсez, and Douma (2004) conducted a laboratory experiment showing that when participants had unmet goals, they were more likely to cheat by overstating their productivity than when they were simply asked to do their best. These effects were observed for goals with and without monetary incentives, and were particularly pronounced when participants narrowly missed goal accomplishment (Schweitzer et al. A heated debate has ensued about whether goal-setting theory adequately addresses and accounts for these and other risks of goal-setting, such as tunnel vision, stress, reduced learning and intrinsic motivation, and excessive risk-taking and competition (Ordoсez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, & Bazerman, 2009a, 2009b; Latham & Locke, 2009; Locke & Latham, 2009). On one hand, goal-setting theorists have acknowledged many of these risks, and demonstrating that goals can increase unethical behavior is consistent with a premise of goal-setting theory that when employees are committed to goals, they will be motivated to discover and create task strategies for achieving them (Locke & Latham, 2002). On Work Motivation 13 the other hand, although much is known about the motivation and performance effects of goalsetting, substantially less theory and research has addressed the conditions under which goals are more versus less likely to encourage unethical behavior and other unintended consequences. This represents an important direction for future research: scholars should systematically build and test theories about the factors that amplify and mitigate the negative effects of goal-setting. The dominant approach to job enrichment is based on the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980), which proposes that motivation, satisfaction, performance quality, and withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover are a function of three critical psychological states: experienced meaningfulness, responsibility for outcomes, and knowledge of results. Thus, from a motivational Work Motivation 14 standpoint, well-designed jobs are high in at least one of the dimensions of skill variety, task identity, and task significance, as well as in autonomy and feedback. These effects are moderated by individual differences in growth need strength, such that employees who value learning and development should be more responsive to both the enriched job characteristics and the critical psychological states, as well as by knowledge, skill, and satisfaction with the work context. Field experiments and meta-analytic reviews have shown that as a whole, these job characteristics have good explanatory power for work motivation (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Griffin, 1983). At the same time, the model has been critiqued and expanded on a number of grounds to include curvilinear effects of jobs that are "too" enriched (Xie & Johns, 1995), consider how job perceptions are shaped by social information as well as objective task structures (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Zalesny & Ford, 1990), account for variations between the different tasks that employees perform (Wong & Campion, 1991) and workday schedules (Elsbach & Hargadon, 2006), include knowledge and learning as well as motivational mechanisms for explaining job design effects (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001), and examine how motivational approaches to job design from organizational psychology may involve tradeoffs with respect to mechanistic approaches from industrial engineering, perceptual-motor approaches from human factors and cognitive psychology, and biological approaches from medicine (Campion & McClelland, 1993; Morgeson & Campion, 2002). From a motivational standpoint, one critique of the Job Characteristics Model is that it focused on the enrichment of assigned tasks, overlooking the important role that interpersonal relationships play in motivation (for a review, see Grant & Parker, 2009). Although early research included relational characteristics of jobs such as interactions with others and friendship opportunities (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Turner & Lawrence, 1965), Work Motivation 15 they fell out of favor as Hackman and Oldham (1976) sought to focus squarely on the task characteristics that composed jobs. Recent research has examined the motivational effects of redesigning jobs to connect employees to their impact on the beneficiaries of their work-the clients, customers, patients, and other end users who are affected by their efforts (Grant, 2007). Studies have shown, for example, that when employees even have a short interaction with an end user of their work, they come to perceive their actions as having a greater impact and as more socially valued, and feel more committed to their end users in general, which motivates them to work harder and achieve higher performance and productivity (Grant, 2008b; Grant et al. As will be discussed in more detail later, this opens up the opportunity to understand how jobs can be designed not only to enhance intrinsic motivation, but also to foster prosocial motivation-the desire to protect and promote the well-being of others (Grant, 2007). Similar to the growing attention to self-set as opposed to manager-set goals, scholars have observed that managers are not the only architects of jobs; employees also take initiative to proactively modify the characteristics of their own jobs (for a review, see Grant & Parker, 2009). Scholars have developed conceptual frameworks to explain the factors that motivate employees to adjust their roles (Nicholson, 1984) and craft or modify their jobs (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Recent research has revealed how employees take initiative to craft their jobs in pursuit of "unanswered callings" (Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010), craft their jobs not only in isolation, but also in collaboration (Leana, Appelbaum, & Shevchuk, 2009), and experience and respond to challenges encountered in job crafting (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, 2010). Research has also explored how managers and employees work together to negotiate "idiosyncratic deals" about the motivational characteristics of jobs (Hornung, Rousseau, Glaser, Angerer, & Weigl, 2010; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). Scholars have long viewed intrinsic motivation-a desire to act based on interest and enjoyment of the work itself-as a key influence on work motivation, especially in the literatures on job design (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and creativity (Amabile & Mueller, 2007; George, 2007; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Self-determination theory has begun to play a central role in expanding our understanding of intrinsic motivation and informing work motivation research more generally (for a review, see Gagnй & Deci, 2005). In work motivation research, self-determination theory has been particularly useful in resolving controversies about the conditions under which rewards and incentives have positive versus negative effects. According to self-determination theory, employees have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy refers to the feeling of choice and discretion, competence refers to feeling capable and efficacious, and relatedness refers to feelings of connectedness and belongingness with others. Self-determination theorists propose that when these three psychological needs are fulfilled, employees are more likely to be intrinsically motivated and internalize external goals and objectives. Thus, when rewards and incentives are delivered in a manner that threatens feelings of autonomy, competence, and/or relatedness, employees will tend to react negatively. On the other hand, as long as rewards and incentives are delivered in a manner that supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness, intrinsic motivation and internalization are more likely. Other research suggests that additional features of compensation systems, such as variable versus fixed pay ratios and the number of people whose performance determines the reward (Gagnй & Forest, Work Motivation 17 2008), as well as the symbolic features of rewards-who distributes them, why, how, and to whom (Mickel & Barron, 2008)-may affect self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory also makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of work motivation by elaborating our understanding of extrinsic motivation. Rather than viewing extrinsic motivation as a unitary construct, Ryan and Deci (2000) proposed that extrinsic motivation is a matter of degree, varying along a continuum of autonomous regulation. In the work domain, researchers have proposed that since external reward and incentive contingencies are virtually omnipresent, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations often coexist (Adler & Chen, 2009; Staw, 1984). If this is true, employees might be expected to invest more time and energy in their work when they find it both intrinsically motivating and are able to identify or integrate it with their values. Consistent with this prediction, research has shown that intrinsic and prosocial motivations interact synergistically to predict higher levels of persistence, performance, and productivity among firefighters and fundraisers (Grant, 2008a), as well as higher levels of creativity achieved by military security officers, water treatment employees, and participants in an experiment helping a local band make money (Grant & Berry, 2010). Thus, intrinsic and identified-integrated motivations appear to be particularly potent in combination. Other research has shown that more autonomous motivations (intrinsic, integrated, autonomous) are more important for performance Work Motivation 18 on complex rather than simple tasks, where autonomous motivations encourage exploration and persistence (for a review, see Gagnй & Deci, 2005) Organizational scholars have also used self-determination theory to explain the motivational effects of transformational leadership-acting to inspire employees, model important values, and provide individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation. Bono and Judge (2003) conducted a field study and a laboratory experiment showing that transformational leaders encouraged employees to set autonomous rather than controlled goals, resulting in more positive attitudes and higher performance. Interestingly, their field study suggested that transformational leadership was associated positively with autonomous motivation but had no relationship with controlled motivation, while their lab experiment indicated that transformational leadership reduced controlled motivation more strongly than it increased autonomous motivation. Further research is still needed to explain this discrepancy, but the difference in the strength and content of rewards and incentives between the field and lab may be one key factor (Bono & Judge, 2003). According to self-determination theory, feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are important for intrinsic motivation. However, intrinsic motivation depends on enjoying the work itself, and some tasks are experienced by employees as "not in themselves interesting" (Gagnй & Deci, 2005, p. Thus, even when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to others, they may not experience intrinsic motivation in tasks that they do not find interesting or enjoyable. Currently, we lack a theoretical framework for specifying how particular task contents are more intrinsically interesting than others, and how different employees find different types of Work Motivation 19 tasks interesting. It may be the case that one of the benefits of providing employees with autonomy is that it gives them the freedom and discretion to craft their jobs in ways that they find intrinsically motivating, but this has yet to be studied. Finally, little research has explored the costs of intrinsic motivation in organizational settings. Research suggests that intrinsic motivation is less effective for performance in tasks that are simple or require considerable self-control and discipline (Gagnй & Deci, 2005; Koestner & Losier, 2002). Scholars have begun to speculate that intrinsic motivation can distract attention away from organizational goals, or at the very least, is not necessarily aligned with them (Grant & Berry, 2010; Osterloh & Frey, 2000). In addition, scholars have raised concerns that employees can be intrinsically motivated toward activities that are directly destructive or harmful, such as theft and sabotage (Osterloh & Frey, 2000). As we noted for goal-setting, more research is needed on the contingencies that affect whether and when intrinsic motivation is conducive to effective task performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Gagnй & Deci, 2005). Motivating New Directions Beyond these core theoretical perspectives, we see a range of contemporary issues and unanswered questions for work motivation research to address. In the following sections, we discuss four key current and new directions for motivation research: group motivation and organizing, motivation over time, motivation and creativity, and the effects of rewards. Moving beyond the dominant emphasis on individual-level motivation, scholars have paid increasing attention to the role of motivation in work groups and teams. They adopt a systems perspective to explain how, at both individual and team levels, motivational states affect goal generation and goal striving, and thus influence performance. They further discuss how team and individual motivational processes reciprocally influence each other, as do individual and team performance. For example, Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, and Kozlowski (2009) demonstrated the cross-level influence of prior team performance on subsequent individual performance in two samples. They found that prior team performance influences self-efficacy by shaping prior individual performance and team efficacy, that team efficacy affects goal striving through self-efficacy and team action processes. One exciting pathway for extending the Chen and Kanfer model involves examining the influence of motivation on organizing. Organizing refers to the processes through which individual members coordinate their actions to achieve collective goals (Weick, 1979), and is among the most important yet neglected topics in all of organizational research (Heath & Sitkin, 2001). For example, there is a large literature on "high-reliability organizing" that examines how groups coordinate actions to achieve consistent, safe performance in uncertain, complex, consequential, high-risk contexts such as nuclear power plants, wildland firefighting, hospital emergency departments, and aircraft carriers. Traditional approaches to increasing reliability have focused on building collective capabilities for systems to manage unexpected events through the structuring of roles, routines, and norms. However, these collective capabilities are near-useless if employees are not motivated to put them into action. Researchers have yet to explore how individual and team motivational processes affect the effective implementation of collective capabilities for high reliability. Moreover, individual and team motivational processes may be important catalysts of the decision to create and develop collective capabilities in the first place. One notable exception to this trend is the fascinating work by Adler and Chen (2009) on large-scale collaborative creativity. These authors focus on how social collectives are able to organize or coordinate efforts to develop and implement novel, useful solutions to problems, such as when hundreds or thousands of software developers collaborate to introduce a new computer program, aircraft engineers collaborate to develop a new design, and scientists create new pharmaceutical drugs. Building on self-determination theory, Adler and Chen (2009) present propositions to explain how large-scale collaborative creativity can be organized effectively through simultaneously activating intrinsic and identified motivations. We hope to see more research follow suit by examining how individual-level and team-level motivations influence the propensity and capacity to organize. Research on social motivations that are directed toward others, such as collectivistic work motivation (Shamir, 1990, 1991), motivation to innovate (Amabile, 1988), and prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007, 2008a; Grant & Berry, 2010), may prove especially useful in drawing sharper theoretical and empirical links between motivation Work Motivation 22 and the organizing of individual efforts into collective outcomes. In addition, recent developments in knowledge about proactive motivation-the desire to take anticipatory action to create change (for reviews, see Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker, Bindl, & Strauss, 2010)-may help to explain the disproportionate influence of particular individual efforts on organizing. In response to critiques that most motivation theory and research is overly static, scholars have begun to examine dynamic and temporal perspectives on motivation. One dynamic view adopts an adult development perspective to explain how motivations change across the life span (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). These authors review research suggesting that aging is associated with declines in fluid intelligence (working memory, abstract reasoning, attention, and processing of novel information), but increases in crystallized intelligence (educational and experiential knowledge). They propose that as employees age, these changes increase the likelihood of enhancing effort to cope with jobs that place heavy demands on fluid intelligence, but this may compromise motivation and performance, as declining performance in the face of increased effort can reduce self-efficacy. In contrast, aging may be associated with more effective maintenance of motivation and performance in jobs that primarily require crystallized intelligence, as employees are able to sustain high performance in the absence of greater effort. As a result, from an instrumentality and valence standpoint, stronger rewards and incentives may be necessary to increase the performance of midlife employees (above current levels) in jobs requiring crystallized intelligence, compared to younger workers. Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) further propose that aging reduces the valence that employees place on effort and on increasing job performance, although the latter effect can be attenuated by performance standards that fit age-graded values, such as rising emphasis on social rather than technical competence. Work Motivation 23 Aging also has important implications for how employees grapple with death awareness and respond to mortality cues, and Grant and Wade-Benzoni (2009) proposed that these changes can have substantial effects on work motivation. These authors distinguished between two states of death awareness-the "hot" death anxiety typically studied by terror management theorists and the "cool" death reflection typically studied by generativity and posttraumatic growth theorists. They proposed that death anxiety is likely to motivate withdrawal behaviors from work, such as absenteeism, tardiness, and turnover, except when work serves as an escape from mortality cues. They argued that in contrast, death reflection has the potential to motivate generative work behaviors, such as helping, mentoring, and transitions to more prosociallyfocused or service-oriented occupations, especially for employees who view work as a calling. However, since empirical research has yet to test, challenge, complicate, and expand the propositions developed by Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) and Grant and Wade-Benzoni (2009), we encourage future studies on the impact of aging and death awareness on work motivation. A different perspective on temporal changes in motivation appears in research on generational differences in work values. Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, and Lance (2010) used a nationally representative sample of U. A key feature of their analytic approach is that while cross-sectional studies confound generational cohorts with age and life experience, longitudinal studies comparing participants at the same ages can isolate these factors. They discovered that on average, leisure values have increased with each new generation, corresponding with declines in work centrality. Extrinsic values, although highest among Generation X, remain higher among Millennials than Baby Boomers. Work Motivation 24 Millennials appear to place less importance on social and intrinsic work values than Baby Boomers, and there were no significant differences in emphasis placed on altruistic work values. There is a heavy debate about the practical significance of the effect sizes in this program of research. However, because of its ability to isolate generational differences from age differences, this is the most rigorous study to date of generational differences in work values. These perspectives on lifespan development and generational differences emphasize relatively macroscopic changes in motivation, but it is also important to understand more microscopic changes in motivation. Compared to research on the direction and intensity of effort, few theoretical model and empirical studies have focused on the maintenance or persistence of effort. Are the factors that sustain motivation different from those that initiate it-and if so, how, why, and when? Furthermore, little research has examined the factors that influence changes in the valence that employees place on different outcomes over time. For example, outside of changes in job designs and incentives, what leads employees to develop more intrinsic motivation toward a specific occupation, job, project, or task? As another example, researchers have established that employees vary in their orientations toward work as a job, a career, or a calling (Wrzesniewski, Work Motivation 25 McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997; see also Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). However, we know little about what leads employees to shift from viewing work as a job to a career or a career to a calling. Motivation is known to play a central role in creativity, or the production of novel and useful ideas, which is a topic of increasing interest and importance to organizations as the pace and uncertainty of work continues to accelerate. Amabile and colleagues have developed a componential theory of creativity that features intrinsic motivation prominently as an important influence on the creative process (Amabile, 1996; Amabile & Mueller, 2007). Intrinsic motivation is thought to enhance creativity by encouraging exploration and risk-taking (Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986; Hennessey, Amabile, & Martinage, 1989), psychological engagement in work and in learning (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994), and active processing of information and selection of novel, challenging tasks (Conti, Amabile, & Pollack, 1995), as well as persistence (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Interestingly, research has shown mixed effects of intrinsic motivation on creativity, with some laboratory and field studies indicating a positive relationship, and others suggesting a null relationship. Grant and Berry (2010) sought to resolve this discrepancy by examining whether the effect of intrinsic motivation on creativity is contingent on prosocial motivation. They proposed that while intrinsic motivation fosters a focus on novel ideas, prosocial motivation is important for encouraging perspective-taking about what others find useful (Grant & Berry, 2010). They found support for these hypotheses across field studies of military officers and water treatment employees, as well as in a laboratory experiment. We hope to see further research build on this Work Motivation 26 evidence to examine other motivational processes that foster a focus on usefulness, complementing the attention to novelty cultivated by intrinsic motivation. Such investigations will further enhance our understanding of the effects of motivation on creativity. More broadly, we hope to see scholars investigate the impact of motivation on a wider range of dependent variables. Our discussion of creativity aligns with increasing attention of organizational researchers to employee behaviors that go beyond core task requirements: organizational citizenship behaviors such as helping and sportsmanship. Different motivations may play a key role in shaping which of these behavioral directions employees pursue. Another key direction involves identifying the conditions under which rewards increase motivation. A debate currently exists about whether managers underestimate the power of intrinsic relative to extrinsic rewards for motivating employees (Heath, 1999), or whether there is a discrepancy between what employees say and what they do, such that employees report that extrinsic rewards are relatively unimportant, but the preferences revealed by their behaviors suggest otherwise (Rynes, Gerhart, & Minette, 2004). Scholars may take steps to resolve this debate by attending not only to the instrumental features of rewards, but also to their symbolic features. For example, Mickel and Barron (2008) propose that rewards will be more likely to increase motivation when they are distributed by high-status authority figures, for high performance and accomplishments, and in public ceremonies. Work Motivation 27 this raises a more general issue with respect to rewards: we believe that lumping all rewards into a common category has obscured the importance of understanding the effects of different types of rewards on motivation. In particular, researchers have focused primarily on pay and financial incentives, giving far less emphasis to more symbolic rewards such as recognition and appreciation, even though these rewards are frequently intended to motivate and can be effective (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2001; see also Frey, 2007, and Grant & Gino, 2010). We hope to see scholars build and test theories about the motivational effects of different types of recognition systems.