THE INTEGRATED DYNAMICS OF MOTIVATION
AND PERFORMANCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Beverley M. Taylor, PhD
The relationship between people and their work environment affect motivation to work and
perform. The work environment includes the organizational culture, management style, goals
and values, job demands and support, incentives and rewards, and much more. Together,
these aspects form the contextual level and interact at the situational level. Feedback and
consequences at the situational level either improve or reduce individual and collective
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Performance can be improved by focusing on
motivation. Research studies in the areas of performance and motivation look at contributing
factors. The potential for change in motivation may take place in the work environment and
within the individual, or even more powerfully by addressing both levels of motivation.
RECENT RESEARCH and a growing body of work tie our
human need for autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
status to the intriguing question: “Which mechanisms
elicit either the best or the beast in each of us” (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013, p. 263)? The same holds true for organizations: Which mechanisms elicit the best or beast
in our company? Motivation matters for organizations.
Costs are not only financial, they are cultural, psychological, emotional, physical, and spiritual. What are the costs
of unsatisfied or disengaged employees? What are the
costs associated with employee turnover? What are the
inflicted costs when employees are terminated or leave
voluntarily? What are the costs of providing quality-of-life
programs versus not offering such programs and not attracting motivated and talented employees? How can performance be improved through programs that contribute
to a more motivated workforce?
King and DeMarie (2014) point out that organizational
culture should be at the forefront of every manager’s
considerations, and they compare culture to background
music. When culture is in tune, the workplace becomes a
place where employees want to come to work. When culture is out of tune, business problems rise to the surface;
this was the case in General Motors with its massive recall
28
Performance Improvement, vol. 54, no. 5, May/June 2015
©2015 International Society for Performance Improvement
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.21481
based on safety issues that were known and not divulged.
What message does the company send to employees
about values? How does the company apply culture when
making decisions about selecting, retaining, and promoting employees? Organizational culture evolves based on
the leadership, management, and employees.
There are integrated dynamics affecting motivation and performance in the workplace. When viewed
through the lens of the hierarchical model of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation (Vallerand, 1997), as shown in
Figure 1, organizations change based on recursive topdown and bottom-up dynamics. Positive work environments typically lead to positive situations, feedback, and
consequences. When individuals are motivated, motivation trends upward, becoming more positive at the contextual level of work with greater autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. Conversely, negative situations and
related negative consequences contribute to less positive
or diminished motivation. Repeated situations, positive
and negative, have a cumulative effect on the individual’s
contextual level of motivation for work. Collectively, all
of an organization’s employees contribute to an overall
cumulative effect, positive or negative or somewhere in
between.
Source. Adapted and used with kind permission by Robert J. Vallerand.
FIGURE 1. THE HIERARCHICAL MODEL OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WORK
DESIGN
• Magnitude of impact: to what degree and duration
Most organizations realize the importance of sharing
with employees their values, goals, and clear expectations. However, from a motivational perspective, do the
employees share these same values and goals? Individuals
strive for purposefulness and meaningfulness in life.
Because of this, work design characteristics that allow
for autonomy and task variety provide greater relevance
when employees are able to tie personal goals with work
goals. The dimension of motivation and type of goal are
intertwined. Performance improvement professionals in
organizations seek to identify and eliminate demotivating
factors or barriers that lead to frustration and to enhance
motivating factors that lead to satisfying and improved
job performance.
Grant (2007), author of Give and Take, looks at
motivation from the perspective of meaningful work to
make a prosocial difference and relational job design. He
expands beyond a job-task orientation with a job-impact
framework and describes how employees experience
their collections of tasks. The global properties of the
job as a whole appear to be substantially more influential
than any of the single tasks. He singles out the following
dimensions:
• Frequency of impact: how often
• Scope of impact: number and breadth of people
• Focus: to prevent harm or promote gains
The greater the extent of these dimensions, the stronger the employee’s affective commitment. “Employees’
reactions to relational job design are likely influenced
by social information that shapes the ways in which
the employees evaluate the beliefs, emotions, behaviors,
group membership, and intrinsic worth of beneficiaries”
(Grant, 2007, p. 402).
While Grant’s focus on employee motivation is geared
toward prosocial motivation, he points out that the
research and themes of competence, self-determination,
and social worth can be traced back to the etymology of
the term “impact” and of the Latin root “impactus,” meaning “effective action of one thing or person on another.”
At work, people have an impact on the lives of others, and
Grant refers to them as beneficiaries—for example, health
workers and patients, flight crew and passengers, educators and learners, service workers and customers. Grant
proposes that it is the relational connection they have
that contributes to greater motivation and willingness to
invest time and energy to make a difference.
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 5
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
29
In the absence of job
resources, employees are
hindered from achieving
significant work goals, thereby
affecting goal attainment and
job satisfaction.
RELATEDNESS
We spend a large portion of our time at work and develop
relationships with coworkers, customers, suppliers, and others. Grant (2007) maintains that relational job design opens
up opportunities for employees to incorporate activities into
their jobs in order to help beneficiaries. Job roles expand as
employees become competent, self-determined, and socially
valued individuals. “Jobs have important relational architectures that can motivate mployees to care about improving
the welfare of other people” (Grant, 2007, p. 409).
Some individuals choose professions where they will be
able to relate to others and contribute to prosocial causes
as depicted in Melody Hinsdale’s profile, which follows.
Similarly, organizations that communicate and model
values consistently are more likely to attract and retain
employees who share those values.
Passionate Professional
Melody Hinsdale always wanted to be a nurse.
She graduated at the top of her class because she
studied to know as much as possible. Her goal is
to be the best nurse possible, because she cares
about her patients and people in general. She is
considered to be the epitome of dedication, arriving
early and leaving late. She makes sure everything
and everyone is attended to before she goes home.
All of the other staff appreciate her efforts and often
bring her goodies and memorabilia to show her how
much they care, and she often reciprocates. She
also attends and teaches others in the profession.
To her, it is a way of sharing and helping others to
grow in this much-needed, important profession. At
the end of her shift, Melody enjoys the quietness
of her home and the opportunity to catch up on
reading—usually nursing journals. She smiles as
she thinks about her life; she’s quite content with her
choices and proud to be a nurse.
Disclaimer: This profile and those that follow are composites.
Any resemblance to real individuals or organizations is purely
coincidental.
30
www.ispi.org
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MAY/JUNE 2015
Individuals relate to one another as they collaborate, work with others, and work with beneficiaries.
Individual motivation is often affected by the motivation and personality constructs of those around us.
Bartel and Saavedra (2000) found that in 70 work teams
across diverse industries, people who were in meetings
together ended up sharing moods. One study asked
teams of nurses and accountants to monitor their moods
over weeks. Researchers discovered that their emotions
tracked together and were largely independent of each
team’s shared hassles. Researchers have seen again and
again how emotions spread irresistibly in this way whenever people are near one another. Humans function in an
open loop design that scientists describe as interpersonal
limbic regulation, which can alter hormone levels, cardiovascular functions, sleep rhythms, and even immune
functions based on those around us. For example, scientists have captured the attunement of emotions in the
laboratory by measuring physiological indicators such as
heart rate when two people share in a good conversation.
In addition to individual competence, people often
gauge the competence of coworkers and team members.
Emich (2012) investigated how transpersonal efficacy
(i.e., beliefs and confidence about the other people’s taskrelated abilities that are not trust related) drives performance. Since dyads are common in various forms within
organizations, he set up two very simple half-hour-long
studies involving simple tasks to determine how self and
transpersonal efficacy jointly influence task performance
in cooperative and competitive situations. He found that
the implication for working with others depends on that
interaction. When others in the environment directly
influence one’s task outcome, transpersonal efficacy has
a direct effect on performance. If two skilled team members work together, they may view the other as impeding
their own contribution. If both members were made
aware that both are necessary for performance and if they
positively view one another, they increase their individual
performance. In competitive scenarios, such as negotiations, perceived competence can improve performance in
the counterpart. Individuals who are less comfortable
competing with others are likely to perform below their
capability.
JOB RESOURCES AND SUPPORT
“Empirical evidence suggests that job resources are
involved not only in the motivational process, but
also in the energetic process, suggesting that a lack of
resources contributes to job strain” (Fernet, Austin, &
Vallerand, 2012, p. 214). In the absence of job resources,
employees are hindered from achieving significant work
When the task is simple,
the stakes are high, or
compliance is tantamount
to performance and safety,
a direct incentive can be
beneficial. In work contexts
that involve teamwork
and creativity, incentives
often crowd out intrinsic
motivation and may actually
encourage unethical or
counterproductive behaviors.
goals, thereby affecting goal attainment and job satisfaction. Employees feel frustration and less autonomy,
leading to reduced motivation to perform their jobs.
This in turn tends to deplete emotional energy, resulting
in greater exhaustion and less commitment. Emotional
exhaustion has been correlated with job strain and work
ineffectiveness.
The job demands and resources (JD-R) model and
its underlying processes, including self-determination
theory, have been a leading framework for researching
employee well-being and ill-being. Fernet et al. (2012)
studied 586 school principals over a 9-month period,
combining the JD-R model and self-determination theory. They conducted a study with a proposed model relating employee motivation to job resources, occupational
commitment, and emotional exhaustion. They found that
job resources affect both types of employee motivation,
autonomous and controlled. However, the type of motivation influenced the nature of emotional exhaustion and
occupational commitment, suggesting that the quality
of work motivation plays a significant role in employee
functioning. This longitudinal study, which examines the
interrelationship between job resources, self-determined
motivation, and work-related outcomes, indicates that
engaging in work by choice or interest, rather than
internal or external pressures, leads to more positive
outcomes. Demerouti and Bakker (2011) reviewed quantitative and qualitative studies on the JD-R model, confirming that the two suggested processes and use of the
framework in predicting work-based identity, well-being,
and performance.
Rousseau and Aubé (2010) conducted a study to test the
addition of supervisor and coworker support on affective
commitment to the organization. They set up two contextual work characteristics: job resource adequacy and ambient conditions related to work accomplishment. Results
showed that supervisor and coworker support are directly
and simultaneously related as each contributed independently to the variances of supervisor support and coworker
support. The situational factor of job resource adequacy
exerted a moderating effect. This inadequacy, a major
impediment to task accomplishment, was not overcome
through support by supervisors and coworkers. Ambient
conditions were a non-significant moderating effect, perhaps because individuals realized they and their colleagues
had to attain work-related goals in the same setting.
Parker, Jimmieson, and Amiot (2010) conducted a
research study of employees in a health insurance organization. The study revealed that individuals high in self-determination, who perceived having higher control including
autonomy in their jobs, experienced greater engagement
including dedication to work. Individuals in work situations with low job control described work as stress exacerbating and reported an increased number of health issues.
Contrary to expectations, individuals who were high
in non–self-determination, extrinsically or unmotivated,
were less affected by high job control as a stress buffer.
Some individuals, such as Sandy Bell in the following
profile, find work intrinsically motivating because they
enjoy what they do. However, these same individuals, in
an environment where they are micromanaged, might
begin to feel stressed and find work less enjoyable. In
contrast, other individuals may prefer, or at least not
mind, management and structure. Organizations that
understand culture and job fit match individuals with the
preferred work environment and offer opportunities to
succeed in current and future positions.
Motivated
Sandy Bell knows how to write apps. He receives
a lot of positive feedback about his work and often
spends hours tweaking a program or an app to make
it better and better. His supervisors give him plenty
of time and resources to meet his deliverables. Still,
he often works well over 40 hours per week and
not because he is expected to do so. He wants the
client to be “wowed” by what he produces, even
though it thrills him when he sees his work come
to animated life. Sandy has the same enthusiasm
for other areas of his life. He plays guitar in a
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 5
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
31
garage band, attends concerts, eats out, exercises,
spends time with friends (especially his girlfriend),
and regularly turns to his mobile devices to look
up facts or play games. Even when he is under
pressure, he seems energized and happy. Sandy
wishes there were more hours in a day. He’s very
satisfied in his current situation because he knows
his supervisors and coworkers are receptive to his
ideas and will give him new opportunities.
INCENTIVES, REWARDS, AND
RECOGNITION
There are subtle differences between incentives, rewards,
and recognition and in the ways they can be used and
abused when it comes to motivation. Incentives might be
compared to a carrot dangled to achieve something—pull
toward. A reward is a tangible benefit given to recognize
service, effort, or achievement. Recognition is based on
how work was accomplished and may be offered in the
form of verbal praise, public announcement, or an award.
Despite more than 40 years of research to the contrary,
many organizations continue to buy into obsolete or
inefficient incentive and reward programs designed to
increase motivation and employee engagement.
Gilbert (2007) viewed rewards associated with motivation as having two equally important aspects. Performance
will be negatively affected if individuals expect to be
rewarded and are not. Conversely, performance will be
substandard if individuals do not desire to perform,
regardless of rewards. Rewards are contingent on what
a given reward is, how it is delivered, and how it is perceived. In general, overreliance on outer motivational
resources generally regulates behavior by
• Changing how an individual perceives an activity
• Increasing expectation for continued reward for engaging in the activity
• Affecting an individual’s sense of personal competence
and mastery
• Affecting an individual’s attributions of personal control versus extrinsic constraint
The long-standing debate about how extrinsic rewards
affect motivation continues. In a meta-analytic review,
Condly, Clark, and Stolovitch (2003) selected 45 studies
from a pool of 600 based on adequate field and laboratory
research in the area of the use of incentives to motivate
performance. The overall effect size was a 22% gain in
performance, higher for long-term programs and for
manual work as against cognitive work. Furthermore,
32
www.ispi.org
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MAY/JUNE 2015
team-directed incentives showed significantly greater
impact than individually directed incentives regardless
of the type of work environment, including school, government, and business. The incentive of money resulted
in higher gains than nonmonetary gifts such as gifts or
travel.
Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) addressed the great
debate by conducting a meta-analysis focused on the
interrelationships among intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
incentives, and performance. They reviewed 40 years of
primary data. An important finding of the meta-analyses
is that intrinsic motivation remains a moderate to strong
predictor of performance regardless of whether incentives
are present. Incentives may coexist with intrinsic motivation. However, it depends on the type of performance and
the contingency of the incentive.
Their findings suggest that organizations should take a
balanced approach to any motivational intervention. Both
intrinsic and extrinsic motives matter, and they interact
with one another. The authors suggest that while it is beneficial to help people find their tasks intrinsically rewarding, extrinsic incentives can and will also play a role. Their
advice to practitioners is: “It depends on the performance
context.” When the task is simple, the stakes are high,
or when compliance is tantamount to performance and
safety, a direct incentive can be beneficial. In work contexts that involve teamwork and creativity, incentives
often crowd out intrinsic motivation and may actually
encourage unethical or counterproductive behaviors.
“Relying on incentives to boost productivity does
nothing to address possible underlying problems and
bring about meaningful change” (Kohn, 1993, p. 58).
Extrinsic motivators do not alter degree of individual
motivation or commitment. Extrinsic motivators may,
however, diminish risk taking and change focus from
excellence to meeting the incentive target. Research indicates that successful outcomes are temporary; once the
rewards or incentives are not offered or become passé,
people revert to their usual behavior.
FEEDBACK AND CONSEQUENCES
In addition to incentives, rewards, and recognition, which
might be considered forms of feedback and consequence,
there is also informational feedback about performance.
The primary aim of performance feedback is to reshape
behavior. Van Dijk and Kluger (2011) point out that
research on the effectiveness of feedback interventions
shows that both positive and negative or corrective
feedback can either increase or decrease performance.
Previous research by them and others examined the effect
of feedback on motivation by including regulatory focus,
promotion focus, or prevention focus. Work that involves
creative and open-minded tasks induced promotion
or an achievement focus. Work that involves vigilance,
accuracy, and adherence to rules induced prevention or
an avoidance of punishment focus. The authors expanded
upon existing research to include the type of task, finding that positive feedback would be more beneficial to
promotion-focused tasks whereas corrective feedback
would be more beneficial in prevention-focused tasks.
They recognize that this may be difficult to apply in modern organizations where employees are encouraged to be
creative while also meeting performance standards.
Employees are often given indications of relative performance individually and through performance metrics. Relative performance information (RPI) was found
to affect allocation of effort. In a 2x3 between-subjects
design, Hannan, McPhee, Newman, and Tafkov (2013)
studied how accounting employees chose to expend effort
between two tasks to simulate multitasking environments.
RPI was varied—none, private, or public. In addition, the
employees were not compensated based on performance
output. In general, RPI induced a motivational effect that
resulted in increased effort. The effects were magnified
when RPI was public versus private. So, while it increased
performance, employees who received public or private
RPI allocated effort differently. “The theory behind the
improved performance findings is that RPI encourages
social comparison, which in turn motivates higher effort
and performance” (p. 555). However, in this experimental
setting, public RPI caused effort distortion detrimental to
performance. The behavioral outcomes shifted from equal
allocation of effort to both tasks to greater focus on the
task that was publicly recognized. This was not the firm’s
preference. The implication: Firms need to consider how
employees are given relative performance information,
similar to the cliche, “You get what you reward.”
TEAMING AND MOTIVATION
Teaming and collaboration have become increasingly
important in the workplace and are particularly important in innovation. In a paper on motivation and performance involving cognitive work, Gardner (2012) assessed
the impact of group interactions and environmental factors in a study of 78 audit and consulting teams from two
global professional firms. When faced with performance
pressure, these highly motivated teams did not perform
as well. Performance pressure consisted of three interrelated factors: shared outcome accountability, heightened
scrutiny and evaluation of work, and significant consequence. Team dynamics and outcomes changed. The
teams did not use expertise-use processes; instead, they
gravitated toward common knowledge. They also shifted
from a focus on learning to one on project completion.
Social dynamics shifted from respect for competence
and expertise to increased conformity to status hierarchy.
Team members were less likely to listen to and apply input
from the domain-specific expert. Rather than customized
deliverables, the teams offered safe solutions that the clients viewed as cookie cutter.
Alexander and Van Knippenberg (2014), who advocate
goal orientation as a framework for effective team leadership, analyzed motivational drivers and the ability of
teams to adapt goal preferences. They point out that there
is a broader range of motivations captured by goal orientations, such as to learn, to demonstrate competence,
and to avoid failure. Innovation is a goal-directed process
that requires knowledge and skill mastery throughout the
process, particularly for radical innovation because of
uncertainty and risk of failure and a need for an all hands
on deck response. Drawing upon the goal-orientation
theory (Dweck, 1986), they differentiate between learning
goals and performance goals.
• Learning goals focus on task mastery, and success is
interpreted in terms of learning and getting better at
knowing or doing something. They are about seeking
out challenges and persisting in difficult situations for
the sake of improvement and getting closer to mastery,
which is viewed as a work in progress.
• Performance goals focus on demonstrating the
required level of skills and knowledge. Thus, they tend
to place individuals on a comparative scale against one
another as they compete based on normative standards
in situations where one expects to do well and the risk
of failure would be perceived as problematic.
Alexander and Van Knippenberg (2014) argue for adaptive shifts in goal orientation in response to specific challenges in the radical innovation process. In their model,
neither type of goal orientation is best. Rather, learning
goals serve best during idea development, and performance
goals serve best during idea promotion. Team goal orientation, with shared goal priorities for the team rather than for
individuals, can be viewed as a team level construct.
Organizations must address teaming at the contextual
and situational levels, taking into consideration individual and team autonomy, competency, relatedness, and
power. Performance and motivation while teaming have
become an area of active research.
GOALS AND JOB FIT
Because individual motivation to pursue higher-order
goals and personality traits may be tied to work roles
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 5
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
33
and task attributes, work design should go beyond person and job fit. The ability to predict general measures
of behavioral effectiveness and motivated behavior over
an extended period at work requires delving deeper into
personality traits, job characteristics, and implicit goals
(Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013). For example, employees
with high potential strongly desire growth and progress.
They often leave when the job environment does not offer
meaningful work or development opportunities.
Some individuals persist in negative environments,
while others leave, such as Jasmine Smith in the following profile. If high performers are leaving the company in
droves, there may be organizational culture or management issues that must be addressed. If there is a particular
department or region within an organization where people are leaving, this may signal a more direct and isolated
culture or management problem.
Motivated to Leave
Jasmine Smith knows what she wants to do
with her life and is willing to work hard to get
there. However, she’s also very independent
and knows she needs to make a living. She’s
intelligent and talented in a number of areas,
so she recently accepted an entry-level position
with a digital media firm because it’s somewhat
related to her long-term goals. She quickly finds
that her primary role involves scheduling and
tracking using numerous spreadsheets and email
communication. In fact, she receives so many
emails, that there’s no possible way to address
them all properly. Yesterday, Jasmine attended a
meeting with her boss where one of the digital
media products was displayed on the screen.
She noticed and commented on a rather obvious
spelling error. Everyone thanked her for her input,
and she was excited that she’d already made a
positive contribution. Later in the day, her boss
took her aside to tell her that she was not hired
as a production editor. As the weeks go by, her
boss criticizes her work, makes snide comments,
and treats her in a manner that makes her feel
subservient. She hates her job, and is beginning
to look for something else to do, even if it means
serving at a restaurant or dog sitting.
In addition to environmental factors, organizations
should be aware of workforce changes that affect motivation and performance. For example, research indicates
there are age-related factors that may affect people’s
goals and motives pertaining to work. Motivation and
behaviors may shift over the lifespan, along with psychological processes and attributes that undergo changes
34
www.ispi.org
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MAY/JUNE 2015
as indicated by research from lifespan development and
occupational and organizational psychology.
Costanzo (2014) pointed out the complexity of situational, biological, and developmental factors for personality traits, each with multiple components. For instance,
the five factor model trait conscientiousness tends to
vary across the span of a person’s life. Socialization
and cultural experiences affect conscientiousness. In
situations where goal attainment is prevented or severely
limited, conscientiousness may become rigid and other
determined rather than self-initiated. In addition, when
socializer reinforcements or developmental demands
require extremely effortful achievement striving, individuals might be led to conscientiously persist even when
the goals are unattainable.
Two studies were conducted using a large sample of UK
working adults of varying ages. Even with demographic
variables controlled, the pattern for older employees indicated that generally they are more motivated by intrinsically rewarding job features (Inceoglu, Segers, & Bartram,
2012). Furthermore, there may be declines in fluid intelligence and an increase in crystallized intelligence—that
is, expertise in a particular area or wisdom that may bear
upon personality, emotion, and affect. For example, work
demands that require a high level of fluid ability involve
more effort and may be demotivating, particularly in
maximum-performance conditions. With increasing age,
employees may have lower expectations of successfully
accomplishing tasks that seem to be more demanding.
They may compensate by adopting strategies to minimize
losses and maximize gains. Work motives may change by
selecting and focusing on fewer goals. Older workers tend
to be less motivated by training and development, career
progression, and extrinsic rewards such as status and
income compared with younger employees.
Elias, Smith, and Barney (2012) also found a difference
in the type of motivation and attitude toward technology
with age moderating the relationship between attitude
towards technology and outcome variables. Employees with
a positive attitude toward technology were also those who
had the highest levels of intrinsic motivation and overall job
satisfaction. In contrast, the older employees with a low attitude toward technology were also significantly more likely
to report the lowest levels of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and overall job satisfaction.
Motivation for work and types of work may change
over time. In particular, as individuals near retirement,
motives may shift toward non–work-related activities, as
with Dean Dunlap and his coworkers in the profile that
follows. Some individuals want to keep working but may
find it more difficult to keep up with the pace of change
and new technologies. However, companies should not
generalize based on age or risk overlooking very motivated and well equipped innovators. Organizations that
value the contributions of older workers realize their intellectual capital and prepare for continuity by tapping into
their expertise in a positive way. Many who are not ready
to retire may want to work fewer hours or work in a different capacity, so that their contributions are maximized.
Motivated to Retire
Dean Dunlap loves sports and recreation, much as
has everyone in his family for generations. Dean
enjoys boating, fishing, and playing softball. In
fact, that’s how Dean prefers spending just about
all of his leisure time. On Monday morning, he
crawls out of bed, gets dressed, and shows up on
time and professionally ready for work. He’s very
competent at his work, relates well with others, and
has a lot of autonomy in his VP role. Still, Dean
counts down the remaining few years until he will
turn 65. Although he knows he’ll miss the regular
paycheck and benefits, he has always believed that
it’s more important to enjoy life. One of the things
he knows he’ll miss will be the camaraderie with
coworkers. One of the things he won’t miss is the
constant changes in technology that keep him from
getting his work done faster so he can be done for
the day. He’s puzzled by his coworkers who have
the means but choose not to retire. He plans to
retire as soon as possible. As he looks back on his
career, he realizes he’s never been very motivated
by work. Surely it is 5 o’clock somewhere!
MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT
In this two-part article (Part 1 appears in Performance
Improvement, volume 54, number 4), we have seen how
individuals perceive and respond to work situations and
how organizations contribute to the employee experience
at the global and contextual levels. The profiles sprinkled
throughout this article were designed to lend insight into
the dynamics of the context of work with individuals,
situations, motivation, and performance. Just as we have
analyzed some of the research concerning motivation at
the individual and workplace levels, we, as performance
improvement practitioners may want to view our own
motivation and development. Are we relying on what has
worked in the past? Are we keeping up with new research
and how it affects individual and workplace performance?
Zaffron and Logan (2009, p. 199) asserted, “The only
thing that matters is performance, and performance
comes down to the actions of people.” They point out that
there are many reasons why gains in performance remain
elusive. The correlation between performance and situations and the time gap between actions and causation
make this difficult. Organizations contribute to these
situations partially, certainly not completely. Therefore,
an integrative approach to performance focuses on the
situational level for both individuals and the leaders of
organizations. Performance improvement professionals
have a role that requires mastery of the following three
laws identified by Zaffron and Logan (2009):
1. How people perform correlates to how situations
occur to them. Explore how the situation occurs to
you and others. Resolving problems means transforming how the situation occurs to you and others. Ask:
What is working and what is not working? Is there
anything beyond a typical performance-improvement
intervention that could permanently resolve the issue
and related issues and improve performance?
2. Observe how a situation arises in language. Notice
what people say and communicate verbally, nonverbally, and in writing. How does the situation occur
to people in this network of conversations? There is
a relationship between the performance issue and a
default future. What do people think the default future
will be? Commit to seeing the situation as it actually
is outside of the problem and solution box. This is
required to move forward and to see the situation in a
way that allows for elevated performance.
3. Future-based language transforms how situations
occur to people. Think about how your own performance would be elevated if the situation were different.
What would it take for you to act in new ways? Look
again to the network of conversations and how they
could be changed to permanently alter how situations
occur. What future would address everyone’s concerns?
The advice from Zaffron and Logan (2009) to take
on breakthrough performance challenges includes using
future oriented language based on integrity and commitment, sharing conversations and knowledge, and
recognizing obstacles as part of the condition. They warn
against reaching a point in our careers of relying on what
has worked in the past just because we do not know how
the future may unfold. “It’s not a future designed to fix
or solve current problems. It’s a future designed to make
a difference for you and others” (Zaffron and Logan, p.
204). We should expect resistance because people resist
new ideas all of the time. Change the wording from What
is wrong? to What is missing?
In addition, because of the individualized nature
of motivation, organizations should focus on giving
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 5
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
35
individuals opportunities for growth and development
to bring about performance improvement—a bottomup approach. As employees become more autonomous
and self-directed, they are able to process events in a
more choice-filled manner even when subjected to the
harmful effects of stressful or threatening situations
(Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). As with emotional intelligence, individuals likely have the capacity to learn to
identify and regulate self-behavior through awareness or
mindfulness. Individuals who are already conscientious
or passionate about their work may learn to identify the
difference between harmonious and obsessive passion
so that they are able to continue enjoyment at work and
outside of work rather than risking burnout. They may
also learn to give positive self-feedback about learning
experiences, viewing consequences more objectively
rather than associating negative situations with challenges to competence.
Alexander, L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Teams in pursuit of radical innovation: A goal orientation perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 423–438. http://dx.doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2012.0044
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of
purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higherorder goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management
Review, 38(1), 132–153. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0479
Bartel, C.A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction
of work group moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2),
197–231.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M., & Ford, M.T. (2014). Intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4),
980–1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661
Condly, S.J., Clark, R.E., & Stolovitch, H.D. (2003). The
effects of incentives on workplace performance: A metaanalytic review of research studies. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 16(3), 46–63.
Costanzo, P. (2014). Conscientiousness in life course context:
A commentary. Developmental Psychology, 50(5), 1460–1464.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A.B. (2011). The Job DemandsResources model: Challenges for future research. SAJIP:
South African Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1–9.
doi:10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
www.ispi.org
•
Emich, K.J. (2012). Transpersonal efficacy: How efficacy perceptions of single others influence task performance. Human
Performance, 25(3), 235–254.
Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Vallerand, R.J. (2012). The effects of
work motivation on employee exhaustion and commitment:
An extension of the JD-R model. Work & Stress, 26(3), 213–
229. doi:10.1080/02678373.2012.713202
Gardner, H.K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double-edged
sword: Enhancing team motivation but undermining the use
of team knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(1),
1–46. doi: 10.1177/0001839212446454
Gilbert, T.F. (2007). Human competence: Engineering worthy
performance (Tribute ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Grant, A.M. (2007). Relational job design and the
motivation to make a prosocial difference.
Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.
doi:10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
References
36
Elias, S., Smith, W., & Barney, C. (2012). Age as a moderator
of attitude toward technology in the workplace: Work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behavior & Information
Technology, 31(5), 453–467. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.24351328
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
•
MAY/JUNE 2015
Hannan, R., McPhee, G.P., Newman, A.H., & Tafkov, I.D.
(2013). The effect of relative performance information on performance and effort allocation in a multi-task environment.
Accounting Review, 88(2), 553–575. doi:10.2308/accr-50312
Inceoglu, I., Segers, J., & Bartram, D. (2012). Age-related
differences in work motivation. Journal of Occupational
& Organizational Psychology, 85(2), 300–329. doi:10.111
1/j.2044–8325.2011.02035.
King, D.R., & DeMarie, S.M. (2014). Tuning up organizational
culture. Industrial Engineer: IE, 46(11), 26–30.
Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work.
Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54–61. Retrieved from:
http://202.154.59.182/ejournal/files/24A30d01.pdf
Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., & Amiot, C.E. (2010). Selfdetermination as a moderator of demands and control:
Implications for employee strain and engagement. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 76, 52–67. doi:10.1016/
j.jvb.2009.06.010
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Social support at work
and affective commitment to the organization: The moderating effect of job resource adequacy and ambient conditions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(4), 321–340.
doi:10.1080/00224540903365380
Vallerand, R.J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A.N. (2011). Task type as a moderator
of positive/negative feedback effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(8), 1084–1105. doi:10.1002/job.725
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. (2013). On psychological
growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction
and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 23(3), 263–280.
Zaffron, S., & Logan, D. (2009). The three laws of performance:
Rewriting the future of your organization and your life. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
BEVERLEY M. TAYLOR, PhD, is an educator and consultant in performance, learning, and development.
Her research interest in motivation first stemmed from observing student motivation, or lack thereof,
in academic environments. Her dissertation involved a study for potential change in motivation for
low-achieving students. She continues to research and apply her interest in motivation and performance improvement in a variety of academic and work environments. She holds a master’s degree in
education from the University of Southern California and a PhD in instructional technology from Georgia
State University. She teaches in the learning technologies program at GSU. She may be reached at
btaylor@knowledgeshared.com
Performance Improvement
•
Volume 54
•
Number 5
•
DOI: 10.1002/pfi
37
Copyright of Performance Improvement is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.