TITLE:
Leaders and Followers: The Role of Achievement Motives and Their
Effects on Motivating Strategies for Enhancing Performance
AUTHORS:
Patricia Ann Castelli, Ph.D.
Lawrence Technological University, USA
Frank Castronova, Ph.D.
Lawrence Technological University, USA
Jacqueline Stavros, EDM
Lawrence Technological University, USA
Jane Galloway Seiling, Ph.D.
Taos Institute, USA
ABSTRACT:
Recognizing achievement motive disposition is important for leaders in
understanding what motivates their followers. Incorporating motivating
strategies into this process with the goal of enhancing performance, however,
has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature. This study provided an
analysis of low and high self-attributed need for achievement and their effects
on the motivation needs of followers. The findings provide recommendations
on how leaders can increase followers’ interest and effort to enhance
performance.
KEYWORDS:
Achievement motive, leaders, followers, motivating strategies, motivation,
performance
TYPE OF
PAPER:
LEAD
CONTACT:
Journal Article
Patricia Castelli, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Outcomes Assessment Coordinator
College of Management
Lawrence Technological University
21000 West Ten Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075-1058
248.204.3066
castelli@ltu.edu
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
1
LEADERS AND FOLLOWERS: THE ROLE OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVES AND
THEIR EFFECTS ON MOTIVATING STRATEGIES FOR ENHANCING
PERFORMANCE
Abstract:
Recognizing achievement motive disposition is important for leaders in understanding
what motivates their followers. Incorporating motivating strategies into this process with the
goal of enhancing performance, however, has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature.
This study provided an analysis of low and high self-attributed need for achievement and their
effects on the motivation needs of followers. The findings provide recommendations on how
leaders can increase followers’ interest and effort to enhance performance.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
2
Acknowledgement: We thank Dr. Roy Bohlin and Dr. John Keller for permitting the use and
modification of their Course Interest and Course Effort Survey instruments.
Stimulated by the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), work motivation
has been a focus of researchers since the 1930s. Researchers have taken various approaches from
looking at congruence between individual’s needs and organizational demands (Argyris, 1957);
sources of work satisfaction (work design and psychological processes); Herzberg, Mausner &
Snyderman (1959); Vroom (1964) and his valence-instrumentality-expectancy model;
McClelland & Winter’s (1969) personality-based approach to motivation; Maslow (1970) and
his hierarchy of needs (motives)—which is the easiest to remember; and others. Yet with all this
research, Levinson (2006) suggests there is still a “crisis in motivation.” He asked executives
what the dominant philosophy of motivation is for American management. Their response was
the typical carrot-and-stick philosophy, reward and punishment—and, they added, it is not
working anymore.
Motivational systems are at the center of behavioral organization (Emmons
1999; Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004; Schein, 1980; and Knopf, 1967). Emmons states,
“Behavior is a discrepancy-reduction process, whereby individuals act to minimize the
discrepancy between their present condition and a desired standard or goal” (1999, p. 28). If we
look at this from the standpoint of how leaders can motivate their followers to enhance their
performance, participation in any organization involves exercising choice; a person chooses
among alternatives, responding to the motivation to perform or ignore what is offered. This
suggests that a follower’s consideration of personal interests and the desire to expand knowledge
and skill has significant motivational impact, requiring the leader to consider motivating
strategies to enhance performance.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
3
As noted above, there are many “competing” theories of motivation which are offered as
explaining the behavior of people in organizations (Schein, 1980). The diversity of these theories
brought Locke and Latham (2004) to recommend that the theory of motivation must be studied
from new perspectives. Because the topic of employee motivation plays a central role in the
field of management (Steers et al., 2004), attention must be paid to the prospect of motivation as
it moves into the 21st century. The question must be asked, according to Steers et al, “how can
we extend or modify current models of work motivation so they continue to be relevant in the
future?” (p. 379).
In response to this question, this writing will discuss achievement motive disposition as
important for leaders in gaining an understanding of what motivates their followers. First, we
will review how motivation has been defined and used in organizational settings. Next, we
discuss the differences between low and high self-attributed needs for achievement and
measurements. Third, we focus on both self-attributed and implicit motives to help leaders
understand how they can best motivate their employees and bring it into action to align with
organizational values, vision, mission, goals and objectives. Fourth, we present motivating
strategies from the literature and a new application of the ARCS model as it pertains to an
individual’s low or high self-attributed need for achievement. Fifth, we present
recommendations for leaders aimed at increasing followers’ interest and effort, to enhance their
performance.
WHAT IS MOTIVATION?
Steers et al. noted various definitions by writers who have attempted to define the term
motivation, a term that is derived from the Latin word for movement (movere). They note that
Atkinson offers the definition as “the contemporary (immediate) influence on direction, vigor,
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
4
and persistence of action” (1964, p. 2) and Vroom offers “a process governing choice made by
persons...among alternative forms of voluntary activity: (1964, p.6). According to Maddock and
Fulton, “Motivation, surprisingly enough, has not been defined in a scientifically acceptable,
reasonable and legitimate manner. It has not even been defined in a practical, commonsense or
useful manner.” According to these authors, “leadership is defined in one word: motivation.”
They suggest that motivation has not been adequately defined because it is too near to emotion
“and no one wants to flirt with emotion” (1998, p. xii). Their suggestion that motivation is the
“silent side of leadership” is pertinent to the tendency of researchers to describe motivation, but
not to explain it. To prepare future leaders to motivate people they must understand how one is
motivated.
In the 1920s psychologists Thorndike, Woodworth, and Huss moved theorists toward the
concept of learning in motivated behavior suggesting that past actions that lead to positive
outcomes would tend to be repeated. Taylor, an industrial engineer, and his associates focused on
the inefficiencies of factory production proposing a paternalistic approach to management. Social
influences on behavior began to emerge in the 1930s. Group dynamics then emerged (e.g.,
Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939; Bendix, 1956) as significant to the motivation of
the individual in the group. Etzioni (1961) offer three types of involvement of organization
members which impact motivation: (1) alienative (not being psychologically involved and forced
to be a member of the group); (2) calculative (involvement to the extent of going a “fair days
work for a fair day’s pay;”) and (3) moral (the person intrinsically values the organization’s
mission and his or her job and is personally involved (committed) and identified with the
organization) (Schein, 1980).
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
5
Moving back to the individual, Rokeach calls attention to determinants that enable or
block motivation stating, “There is… the basic emotional and motivational attitude of the thinker
to be reckoned with,” (1960, p. 177) suggesting the need for leaders to be aware of level of
openness of the person to motivational activities. Leavitt (1972) firmly states that relevance to
one’s needs is the most important determinant of one’s personal view of the world. It appears
that factors regarding achievement motive are significant to motivational responses and
tendencies.
ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVE: LOW OR HIGH?
In 1949, David McClelland & others reported that achievement motive could be induced.
This finding is critical since it suggests that leaders have the ability to influence their followers
behaviors by providing effective motivating techniques. McClelland found that two distinct
motivational systems influence learning behaviors in different ways and that individuals require
different incentives to exert effort and to perform based on their motive type. These motivational
systems are referred to as low or high self-attributed need for achievement.
Self-attributed needs for achievement are defined by Koestner et al. (1991) as selfreported attitudinal motives. The very first study of self-attributed need achievement
(then called valuing achievement) was conducted by de Charms, Morrison, Reitman, and
McClelland in 1955. In this study, subjects were asked to report their views on various
paintings—with and without expert opinion. The findings indicated that subjects high in selfattributed need for achievement were more likely to change their views of the quality of
paintings to be more in line with expert opinion than subjects low in self-attributed need for
achievement. This study was significant in that it demonstrated a relationship between external
salient social demands and high self-attributed needs for achievement.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
6
Since this time, numerous studies have been conducted under various achievementrelated testing situations with similar results. Under normal testing conditions, individuals with
high self-attributed need for achievement did not perform better on a laboratory task than low
need achievers. However, when an external demand for achievement was added, high need
achievers did perform better than low need achievers (see Atkinson & Litwin, 1960; Koestner,
Weinberger & McClelland, 1991; Patten & White, 1977; McClelland 1985a; Meyer, 1973;
Rayor & Entin, 1982).
Low self-attributed need for achievement is a motive disposition in which the individual
does not attribute achievement to self and incentives are generally task-intrinsic. Becker (1960)
states that task-intrinsic individuals define success by their own internal standard of excellence
and that, furthermore, satisfaction is derived from doing the job well rather than from the
enjoyment of the end product. Their motives are said to be implicit and primarily aroused by
factors intrinsic to the process of performing an activity. Thomas (2002) states that rewards
come from task purposes, namely meaningfulness and progress. The implication: leaders in
organizations would motivate individuals by assigning challenging tasks that stretch their
knowledge and skills.
By contrast, according to McClelland, social-extrinsic individuals seem to have the goal
of attaining approval from others rather than satisfying internal standards. Their motives tend to
be highly self-attributed and are aroused by social factors that are extrinsic to the process of
performing an activity. The inference here in the workplace is for leaders to provide external
stimuli by way of social incentives related to success. Encouragement, ongoing feedback, and
praise often motivate these types of individuals. These incentives and motive types are often not
considered by leaders for improving followers’ performance.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
7
Currently, there is little research available which addresses the relationship between
achievement orientation and specific motivating strategies to enhance performance. Even so,
there is a logical implication that effort and performance can be enhanced when these aspects are
taken into account. By understanding the differences in motivational systems, leaders may be
able to provide incentives and apply various motivating strategies while satisfying both
achievement orientations. This would seem a sensible approach when examining performance in
real world settings.
ACHIEVEMENT NEEDS AND MEASUREMENT
Since the 50’s, numerous studies examined the relationship between implicit and selfreport measures of achievement motive. Researchers concluded that not only were self-report
and implicit measures of achievement motive uncorrelated, but they possessed very different
behavioral relationships (deCharms, Morrison, Reitman, & McClelland, 1955; Heckhausen,
1980; Kreitler & Kreitler, 1976; Korman, 1974; Lowell, 1952). They found that implicit needs
are primarily aroused by factors intrinsic to the process of performing an activity. Self-attributed
needs are aroused by social factors that are extrinsic to the process of performing an activity.
These two different, independent systems of motivation differ in the way they energize, select,
and direct behavior. Table 1 contrasts the two forms of motive based on research from the
literature.
--Insert Table 1 here—
Koestner, Weinberger & McClelland (1991) designed a research study to examine
possible relationships between motives and incentives. They sought to determine the manner in
which the two types of motives (implicit and self-attributed) combine with two kinds of
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
8
situational factors (task-intrinsic and social-extrinsic) to affect performance. The results support
the hypothesis that extrinsic social factors in a performance situation are likely to combine with a
person’s self-attributed achievement motive to influence performance, whereas task-intrinsic
factors, such as level of challenge, influence performance in conjunction with a person’s implicit
need to achieve. Thus, when a memory task was introduced with an explicit emphasis on
achievement, subjects high in self-attributed need for achievement performed better than those
who were low. On the other hand, in a neutral condition the reverse pattern was obtained.
Importantly, it was shown that the implicit need for achievement did not interact with the social
incentives regarding achievement to facilitate performance. These findings support earlier
claims in research literature (Patten and White, 1977; Biernat, 1989).
Koestner et al. (1991) conclude that these results suggest people scoring high in the selfattributed motives are more likely to selectively remember information relevant to their view of
themselves. This implies that individuals who attribute high achievement motivation to
themselves are vulnerable to performing quite poorly unless some other motivational factor,
either in the form of external incentives or strong implicit motive, is also present. This research
suggests that the challenge for leaders is to devise a systematic approach to coaching that
considers both high and low achievement characteristic needs. In order to do this, leaders must
understand the nature of self-attributed and implicit motives.
SELF-ATTRIBUTED AND IMPLICIT MOTIVES
In the past thirty years, researchers have focused more on information processing and the
way in which motivational thoughts are converted into action (e.g., Anderson & Glassman, 1996;
Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985; Weiner, 1972, 1986). This cognitive reorientation of motive theory
has called into question the use of the term "value" to describe self-reported motives. Value is a
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
9
term that has come to be used to describe normative beliefs about desirable goals and modes of
conduct (Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; Rokeach, 1973, 1979). To avoid misunderstanding,
McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger (1989) abandoned the term "value" and replaced it with
"self-attributed motives" to describe attitudinal or self-reported motives.
According to McClelland et al. (1989), the cognitive, information-processing model of
human motivation in terms of needs, plans, and goals describes the way self-attributed motives
function much better than the way implicit motives function. Self-attributed motives are
characterized by organized thought; they start with an explicit goal that a person wishes for, then
wants, and then becomes committed to pursuing in various ways (Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985;
Klinger, 1975, 1987). Klinger, Barta, & Maxeiner (1981) have studied empirically the varieties
of current concerns that people report in interviews and questionnaires. Klinger developed the
notion of a “current concern” defining it as the commitment to a goal and either the
consummation of the goal or disengagement from it (Klinger, 1977, 1998, noted in Emmons,
1999). Most of the concerns have to do with unattained goals or unfinished business. The more
committed people are to a goal or the more salient it becomes, the greater the likelihood that they
will feel frustrated and unhappy for their slowness or failure in reaching it (McClelland et al.). In
Fineman’s review, he states, “HRM interventions by positive scholars include empowerment
programs to vitalize and positively energize organization, shifting employees toward greater
positive commitment to organizational goals (2006, p. 277).
The situation is different with implicit motives because they are aroused by affective
experiences intrinsic to an activity and not by explicit references to unmet goals (McClelland
et al., 1989). It is especially important to realize that failure to meet a goal is not as apparent to
those with a strong implicit motive. Observers may presume that a person who scores high in
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
10
implicit tests has a goal of doing better, but that person is not necessarily aware that he or she has
such a goal. This premise is reinforced by Custers & Aarts (2005). They found that positive affect
plays a key role in nonconscious goal pursuit. Their research revealed that nonconscious
activation of desired behavioral states or behavioral goals promotes motivational activity to
accomplish these states. Since there is no correlation between implicit and explicit desires to
achieve, it is not as obvious to a low need achiever when a goal is not being met. In describing
how an implicit motive functions, it is not appropriate to speak of wishing, wanting, and
committing oneself to the goal that is recognized as the natural incentive for that motive
(McClelland et al., 1989). Instead, the motive is better conceived of as leading to an activity that
is the incentive for that motive. Thus, low need achievers have learned through experience to
seek out certain activities that provide the pleasure of moderate challenge. However, they do not
necessarily know that they have a goal of doing better. It seems sensible then, that low need
achievers know less about what is guiding their behavior than do individuals with an explicit or
high self-attributed achievement needs. The literature suggests that low need achievers are
less able to plan appropriate corrective action when things go awry (McClelland, et al., 1989).
According to Seiling & Roux (2006), motivation is seen as something that can be
expanded through applying chosen and spontaneous instances of recognition, affirmation and
reward. They caution, however, that these methods are temporary and less than effective in the
long term. Their work on constructive accountability suggests that motivation processes are
dependent upon ongoing interaction activities with respected others that can include peers,
leaders and/or other influential people. These interactions are what stimulates connection to and
interest in work. They argue that when others disappear or act disinterested in our work, we also
lose interest. This view supports prior research from Koestner, Weinburger & McClelland
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
11
(1991) regarding subjects who possess high self-attributed needs for achievement. Interaction
with others, including the leader is important for high need achievers. This suggests that
motivating strategies include opportunities for frequent interaction with the leader as well as
team members. For both high and low need achievers, the leader’s use of an interesting variety
of coaching techniques and feedback is critical for producing interest and effort.
MOTIVATING STRATEGIES
Locke & Latham (2002) state, “Motivation theory in the realm of work needs to draw on
findings from other fields” (p. 393) suggesting that social psychology (Bandura, 1986),
educational psychology (Dweck, 1986), and positive organizational psychology (Carmeon et al,
2003) have benefited the study of organization behavior. Keller’s work in instructional
motivation is significant to this “crossover effect.” According to Keller (1983), instructional
motivation attracts learners toward the instruction and increases their efforts in relation to the
subject matter. Keller’s (1979) research on motivation, performance, and instructional influence
illustrates how motivation can be integrated with the aspects of instructional science. Keller’s
work helps explain what influences a person to approach or avoid a task, and how to make a task
more interesting. Keller clearly distinguishes effort and performance as categories of behavior:
“performance” means actual accomplishment, whereas “effort” refers to whether the individual
is engaged in actions aimed at accomplishing the task. Therefore, effort is a direct indicator of
motivation. Deci and Ryan offer self-determination theory proposing that “motivated behaviors
vary in the degree to which they are self-determined (autonomous) versus controlled” (in
Emmons, 1999). Consequently, according to Keller (1979), people can be viewed as more or less
motivated by the vigor or persistence of their behavior.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Strategies
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
12
According to Deci and Moller (1992),
When people are experiencing satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, they tend
to do what interests them. In other words, they tend to be intrinsically motivated. Thus,
intrinsic motivation requires experiencing an activity as interesting, while also feeling
some support for one’s basic needs. The fact that interest is so central to intrinsic
motivation implies, of course, that if an individual did not find an activity interesting, he
or she would not be intrinsically motivated for it. Under such circumstances, for the
person to do all the activity at all would require some type of extrinsic motivation—
“extrinsic motivation” being defined as doing an activity for some operationally
separable consequence (p.588, emphasis added).
Expectancy-valence theories (e.g., Porter & Lawler, 1968) had proposed that intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation are additive, yielding total motivation. This led to the suggestion that
activities (learning, work, etc.) should be designed to be as interesting as possible to stimulate
intrinsic motivation and that social contexts should be organized to provide extrinsic rewards that
are contingent upon effective performance at the activities. That way, there would be maximal
motivation, consisting of the sum or the intrinsic motivation from the interesting activities and
the extrinsic motivation form the contingent rewards (p.584). Attribution theory however, made
a different prediction. deCharms (1968) suggested that when people perceive the locus of
causality for their behavior to be within themselves, they tend to be intrinsically motivated, but
when they perceive the locus of causality to be external, they tend to be extrinsically motivated.
Harackewicz and Manderlink (1984) argue that performance-contingent rewards do not
undermine intrinsic motivation but instead enhance it. Performance-contingent rewards are those
given for doing well at an activity—that is, for meeting or surpassing some standard (p.585).
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
13
Daft (2002) defines motivation as the forces either internal or external to a person that
arouse enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain course of action. His simple model of
motivation has four elements: First, a need creates desire to fulfill needs (food, friendship,
recognition, achievement), next behavior results in actions to fulfill needs, third, rewards satisfy
needs either intrinsically or extrinsically, and fourth, feedback informs a person whether the
behavior was appropriate and should be used again. Daft states that intrinsic rewards appeal to
the ‘higher’ needs of individuals, such as accomplishment, competence, fulfillment, and selfdetermination. Extrinsic rewards appeal to the ‘lower’needs of individuals, such as materials
comfort and basic safety and security. The problem is that conventional management approaches
often appeal to an individual’s lower, basic needs and rely on extrinsic rewards and
punishments—carrot-and-stick methods—to motivate subordinates to behave in desired ways.
According to Daft,
Although extrinsic rewards are important, leaders work especially hard to enable
followers to achieve intrinsic rewards—both individually and systemwide. Employees
who get intrinsic satisfaction from their jobs often put forth increased effort…leaders also
strive to create an environment where people feel valued and feel that they are
contributing to something worthwhile, helping followers achieve systemwide intrinsic
rewards (2002, p. 277).
Hughes et al. (2006) describe performance as those behaviors directed toward the
organization’s mission or goals, or the products and services resulting from those behaviors.
They state that performance differs from effectiveness, which generally involves making
judgments about the adequacy of behavior with respect to certain criteria such as work-group or
organizational goals. In order for leaders to understand and influence follower motivation,
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
14
leaders must be knowledgeable about different motivational theories (need, individual difference,
cognitive, and situational). Hughes et al. state, “Leaders who are knowledgeable about different
motivational theories are more likely to choose the right theory for a particular follower and
situation, and often have higher-performing and more satisfied employees as a result” (p. 247).
Thus, leaders would need to spend more time with their followers to determine what interests
them intrinsically and whenever possible, provide opportunities to perform particular tasks they
find rewarding. Hughes et al. understands that this is not always possible. However, they state
that leaders may be able to get higher-quality work and have more satisfied employees by
reassigning work according to values and intrinsic interests.
Motivational Learning Strategy: The ARCS Model
Keller (1987), Keller and Suzuki (1988), and Keller and Kopp (1987) identified four
categories of motivation in learning situations: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction
(ARCS). According to Keller, the ARCS model contains specific methods or strategies that are
aimed at producing motivational outcomes when learners are lacking sufficient conditions such
as interest or motives.
Attention refers to whether the learner’s curiosity is aroused and if stimulation can be
sustained over time. Relevance refers to the learner’s perception of the personal need
satisfaction in relation to the instruction, or whether a highly desired goal is seen as being related
to the learning experience. Confidence refers to the perceived likelihood of success, and the
extent to which success is up to the learner. Satisfaction refers to the combination of external
rewards and internal motivation, and whether these motivators are compatible with the learner’s
anticipations. Keller’s ARCS categories originate from a macro-theory of the relationships of
individual and environmental characteristics on effort, performance, and outcomes.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
15
Using Keller’s ARCS model, Bohlin, Milheim & Viechnicki (1993) collected data
regarding the instructional motivation perceptions of adults in a variety of learning
environments. College students and community education students were used in this study. Two
instruments were used by Bohlin, Milheim & Viechnicki (1990): the Course Interest Survey
Revised (CISR) and the Course Effort Survey Revised (CESR). By utilizing these instruments,
instructional motivation needs of the two groups of adult learners were identified and analyzed.
The results of the first factor analysis (using the effort responses of learners in college
classes) gave some support to the categories of the ARCS model with each of the first four
factors entirely or predominately composed of items from one category of each (attention,
relevance, confidence, and satisfaction). According to Bohlin et al. (1993), this suggests that the
theoretical nature of the categories in the ARCS Model are consistent with the nature of the selfreported motivational needs of adults in college courses and workshops. Bohlin believes this
also supports the long standing position that motivation often refers to time-on-task or similar
measures of effort.
Connecting ARCS to Achievement Motive
Prior research from Koestner, Weinburger & McClelland (1991) regarding achievement
motive and instructional motivation needs as assessed by Bohlin, Milheim & Viechnicki (1993)
suggest a correlation between intrinsic/extrinsic needs on effort, performance, and outcomes. It
is helpful to know that although many individuals may possess a mixture of both achievement
orientations, one is usually predominant. Castelli (1994) used the ARCS model in conjunction
with achievement motive to determine appropriate motivating strategies based on the need
orientation of the learner. The major findings of this study centered on the interest variables as
being most critical for predicting self-attributed needs of achievement. In fact, the interest
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
16
variables were most common to both groups of low and high need achievers. Results that
interest can be used to improve motivation in instruction indicate that learners will exhibit
significant gains in continuing motivation when relevant selections of their interests are utilized.
This is reinforced by Houtz (1994) who notes how interest is necessary for a transfer of learning
from one situation or task to another. The findings also indicated that motivational strategies
vary in their effectiveness dependent upon the need orientation of the learner. The results of this
study suggested guidelines for selecting motivation strategies that may enhance effort and
performance in classroom instruction.
APPLYING THE ARCS MODEL IN ORGANIZATIONAL SETTINGS
Castelli’s (1994) study was recently modified for application to organization settings
since it provides useful information for leaders and managers concerning achievement need
preference of their followers in task assignments, levels of challenge, feedback, and reward
systems. Understanding achievement needs, motivational strategies, and profile characteristics
for a given audience may greatly assist management in determining appropriate strategies to
enhance performance output. The needs assessment instruments could also be used to measure
the desires of a particular group (or groups) within an organization with the goal of obtaining
general requirements for various populations. Given these implications, this study was
conducted for use in organizational applications.
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model for this research is illustrated in Figure 1. The model shows
behavioral characteristics that all individuals possess — incentives and motives for achievement.
Interest and effort may be correlated to achievement motive. Relationships may also exist
between gender, age and degree status.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
17
Figure 1. Conceptual Model for This Study
Self-Attributed Achievement Motive = F (Interest + Effort + Gender, Age and Degree Status)
Method
A random sample of working professionals were determined and appropriate subject
sample sizes were established that consisted of undergraduate, graduate and doctorate students in
a college of management at a private university. The participants were located at various levels
in organizations.
Three survey instruments were used to conduct this research. For the first survey,
subjects were asked to complete a self-report inventory of the achievement scale using Jackson’s
Personality Research Form (1989). This information provided a basis for determining subjects’
low and high self-attributed needs for achievement. For the second and third surveys permission
was granted to modify Bohlin et al. (1993) Course Interest Survey Revised and the Course Effort
Survey Revised. The instruments were modified from instructor and student relationships to
leader and follower relationships in order to determine how leaders can better motivate their
followers to enhance performance within their organizations. For the Interest Survey Revised
and the Effort Survey Revised (Castelli, 2006), subjects were asked to rate the importance of
their leader’s various motivating strategies with regard to their own interest and effort,
respectively. This information was used to determine strategies leaders can use to effectively
motivate their followers in the workplace. In addition, critical demographic information (gender,
age, degree status) was collected.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
18
The validity of Jackson’s Personality Research Form is discussed extensively by Jackson
(1989) in the Personality Research Form Manual. Keller and Subhiyah (1987) and Bohlin and
others (1993) also provide validity for the Course Interest and Course Effort Surveys.
Analysis was also performed to determine the overall reliability for all survey instruments used
in this study. The pooled results for Jackson’s achievement scale was .65. Individual item
reliability ranged from .61 to .66. Spearman-Brown’s correction was .71. Bohlin and others
Course Interest and Course Effort Survey’s Revised show consistent high reliability, with Effort
(.89) slightly higher than Interest (.85).
These survey instruments provide a strong basis for determining the motivation needs of
followers and specific motivating strategies they value most from their leaders.
Summary of Results
The data indicates that age is significant in all categories of interest (except satisfaction)
and all categories of effort (except relevance). Gender is not significant in the categories of effort
and interest.
Means and standard deviations were also analyzed for each of the items in the Interest
and Effort Surveys. In comparing the results between groups with low or high self-attributed
needs for achievement, the data indicates that nearly identical strategies (leader uses an
interesting variety of coaching techniques, leader is a positive role model, leader builds selfesteem, appropriate challenge level) were found most important to both groups. The data also
indicates that the high self-attributed need for achievement group rated all of the items as more
important than subjects with low self-attributed need for achievement. Correlations of all
variables were analyzed. The data indicates that age and degree status are common in self-
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
19
attributed need for achievement. In the motivational characteristic categories of interest and
effort, no significance was seen.
Discriminant analysis was employed to determine if profile and motivational
characteristics could be used to predict low and high self-attributed needs for achievement. The
results of the canonical discriminant functions indicate that the variables used as predictors in
this study (profile and motivation characteristics) is significant and, therefore, can be generalized
to the population to which the study sample was drawn.
Furthermore, the results indicate that in the category of interest, attention was most
powerful in predicting self-attributed needs for achievement. Other powerful predictors were
also in the area of interest (satisfaction and relevance). Satisfaction, confidence, and relevance
(interest) and attention (effort) showed a negative correlation indicating an inverse effect on
motivating strategies. Thus, not employing specific motivating strategies or not employing
motivating strategies effectively can actually de-motivate followers.
Finally, classification results were analyzed to determine how often low and high selfattributed need for achievement groups could be predicted. The data indicate that with the
predictors used in this study, learners with low self-attributed needs for achievement could be
correctly classified 52.8 percent of the time, and learners with high self-attributed needs for
achievement could be correctly classified 65.4 percent of the time. The classification results
indicate that the profile and motivational characteristics used in this research are fair predictors
in determining self-attributed needs for achievement.
The initial premise for this study suggested that self-attributed needs for achievement
may not always be considered by leaders in organizational settings. Furthermore, failing to
incorporate various motivational strategies to accommodate different need achievement
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
20
orientations may inhibit follower performance. In addition, the specific motivational needs of
followers may vary based on gender, age, and degree status. The relationships between these
variables were analyzed and reported.
The findings indicate that motivational strategies vary in their effectiveness dependent
upon the need orientation of the follower. Therefore, the approach a leader takes in motivating
his/her followers could accelerate or impede their performance outcomes. The results of this
study suggest guidelines leaders can use for selecting motivation strategies that may enhance
interest and effort to enhance performance. The implications are highlighted below.
DISCUSSION
1. Attention is an important factor for gaining and sustaining the both need achievers’ effort.
Motivating strategies should be incorporated that capture the followers’ interest. Using a
variety of coaching techniques employed by the leader that include feedback on performance
is also important. Making the follower feel enthusiastic about the challenge may enhance
effort. Executive coaching has been found as most effective when it genuinely applies to
one’s inner desires and capacities (Kauffman & Scoular, 2004).
2. Relevance is a very important component for both need achiever groups. This is evident in
the area of interest where “leader viewed as a positive role model” is a critical attribute to all
respondents. In the area of effort, appropriate challenge level is important to the low need
achievers whereas working with others is most important to the high need achievers.
3. Confidence is a significant factor to both need achiever groups in both the interest and effort
categories. A leader’s ability to build followers’ self-esteem is viewed as vital. Consistency
should also be maintained to produce ongoing effort and for sustaining interest. However,
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
21
interest and effort may decline for both groups if the leader fails to establish trust, or
undermines the capabilities of followers’ worth.
4. Satisfaction is important to facilitate continuing motivation for both interest and effort.
Finding levels of challenge that are appropriate is important to both need achiever groups.
Results suggest that for the high need achievers, interest and effort may be contingent upon
the personal satisfaction obtained from the learning experience. Therefore, projects and tasks
should be designed to meet the personal needs of the individual.
5. High need achievers cited all categories of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction
for both interest and effort as more important than low need achievers. This implies the
increased need for the leader’s involvement in their daily activities.
6. The age of the individual may be correlated to self-attributed needs for achievement. The
results suggest that the older the individual, the more they tend to be high need achievers.
Similarly, the more education individuals possess, the higher the tendency for self-attributed
needs for achievement.
7. Gender does not appear to be a factor in determining low or high self-attributed needs for
achievement.
8. Overall, the leader’s ability to increase followers’ effort is most important in continuing
motivation.
The major findings of this study centered on the leaders’ ability to build self-esteem of
their followers and importance of leaders to be viewed as positive role models. Results that
interest and effort can be used to improve motivation indicate that followers will exhibit
significant gains in continuing motivation when relevant selections of these strategies/attributes
are practiced by the leader.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
22
Since effort categories were cited as most important for both low and high need
achievers, improving their desire to return to task (effort) remains an important objective. The
increased desire to persist in a task has long-range implications for advancements in learning and
performance. This implies that a more intensified use of effort variables in motivating followers
may prove beneficial. For convenience of the reader, Table 2 provides a brief overview of need
achievement preferences.
--Insert Table 2 here-Conclusion
While a leader may be quite pleased with the output of his or her staff, it is more than
likely that there is room for improvement. Understanding what motivates followers to
perform their best work is key in order to achieve the highest level of satisfaction for both the
leader and your team. Also, it is crucial that the leader puts this understanding to use by
consistently providing the incentives and tools which he or she finds to be effective.
The findings indicate that the motivational needs of the low and high need achievers
do not differ as much as was first believed. Both achiever types indicated that effort was more
critical than interest. The effort put forth by the follower is enhanced by the leader’s ability and
willingness to use an interesting variety of coaching techniques, appropriate challenge levels, and
self-esteem building methods for both achiever groups. The same is true in the area of interest,
although both groups found that their interest in a given area was secondary to the effort they
made when attempting to accomplish their goals. It was concluded that both the low and high
need achievers require essentially the same qualities of their leaders in order to enhance their
performance.
It is the effective leader’s job to build self-esteem, to set appropriate challenge levels, to
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
23
utilize motivating coaching techniques, and so on, regardless of the follower’s particular achiever
traits. The leader’s role in promoting interest and effort is critical to the follower’s success. Also,
the leader must serve as a positive role model, despite the indication that the low need achiever is
intrinsically motivated. Proper application of specific motivating strategies will help both low
and high need achievers, may increase interest and effort, and will ultimately fulfill the objective
of enhanced performance.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
24
Table 1. A Summary of the Characteristics and Behaviors of Achievement Motive
Describing Trait
and Reference
Low Self-Attributed
Need for Achievement
High Self-Attributed
Need for Achievement
Drive
Koestner &
McClelland, 1990
Energized by natural
incentives for variety
and challenge
More extrinsic and
outcomes focused in nature
Discovery Approach
Koestner &
McClelland, 1990
Associated with feelings
of interest and surprise
Feelings of pressure and tension
Performance Behavior
Koestner &
McClelland, 1990
Individuals cherish the
process of performing
an activity
Individuals behave in a competent
manner as defined by the
particular situation
Incentive
Koestner &
McClelland, 1990
Guided by self-reactions;
satisfaction in anticipating
task success
Governed by an acquired desire
to perform like an achiever;
guided by social reactions
Success
Becker, 1960
Internal standard of
excellence
External standards that are
recognized by others
Risk
Atkinson & Litwin,
1960
Preference for
intermediate risk
Greater avoidance of
intermediate risk
Persistence
Atkinson & Litwin,
1960
Greater persistence
Unrelated to persistence
Conditioning
McClelland, 1980
Operants – spontaneous
behavior trends
Respondents – predictive
of immediate choice behaviors
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
25
Table 2. A Summary of Need Achievement Preferences for Leader Motivation
Characteristics
Low Need Achievers
High Need Achievers*
Interest:
Overall less critical
than effort
Overall less critical
than effort
Attention
Leader uses an interesting
variety of coaching techniques
Leader uses an interesting
variety of coaching techniques
Relevance
Leader is a positive role
model
Leader is a positive role
model
Confidence
Leader builds self-esteem
Leader builds self-esteem
Satisfaction
Appropriate challenge level
Appropriate challenge level,
Leader helps me accomplish
my personal goals
Overall more critical
than interest
Overall more critical than
interest
Attention
Leader uses an interesting
variety of coaching techniques
Leader uses an interesting
variety of coaching techniques
Relevance
Appropriate challenge level
Working with other people
Confidence
Leader builds self-esteem
Leader builds self-esteem
Satisfaction
Appropriate challenge
level
Leader helps me accomplish
my personal goals
ARCS strategies cited
as less critical
ARCS strategies cited
as more critical
Gender
Least critical
Least critical
Age
Younger learners more apt
to be low need achievers
Older learners more apt
to be high need achievers
Degree
Status
Less education apt to
be low need achievers
More education apt to
be high need achievers
Effort:
Demographics:
* Note: In all cases, the high need achievers cited each motivating strategy (ARCS) within the
interest and effort variables as more important than the low need achievers.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
26
References
Anderson, S.M., & Glassman, N.S. (1996). Responding to significant others when they
are not there. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and social
cognition: foundations of social behavior. (Vol. 3, pp. 262-321). New York: Guilford Press.
Argyris, C. (1957. Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Row.
Atkinson, J.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived
as motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 60, 52-63.
Bandura, A. (1997). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory.
Englewood, Cliffs, NU: Prentice-Hall.
Becker, J. (1960). Achievement-related characteristics of manic-depressives. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 334-339.
Biernat, M. (1989). Motive and value to achieve: different constructs with different
effects. Journal of Personality, 57, 69-95.
Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim, W.D. (1990). Course effort survey revised.
From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Florida State University.
Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim, W.D. (1990). Course interest survey revised.
From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Florida State University.
Bohlin, R.M., Milheim, W.D., Viechnicki, K.J. (1993, January). Factor analyses of the
instructional motivation needs of adult learners. Paper prepared for presentation at the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Conference, New
Orleans, LA.
Cameron, K., Dutton. J.E. & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship:
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
27
Foundations of a new discipline, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Castelli, P.A. (1994). An analysis of self-attributed achievement motives and their effects
on instructional motivation needs of adult learners. Published dissertation, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI.
Castelli, P.A. (2006). Effort survey. From Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim,
W.D. (1990). Course effort survey revised. From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Florida
State University.
Castelli, P.A. (2006). Interest survey. From Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim,
W.D. (1990). Course interest survey revised. From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987).
Florida State University.
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 38, 575-630.
Custers, R. & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: on the nonconscious
operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, (1), 129-142.
Daft, R.L. (2002). The Leadership Experience, Second Edition. South-Western
Publishers.
deCharms, R., Morrison, H.W., Reitman, W.R., & McClelland, D.C. (1955). Behavioral
correlates of directly and indirectly measured achievement motivation. In D.C.McClelland (Ed.),
Studies in motivation (pp. 414-423). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: the internal affective determinants of
behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E.L. & Moller, A.C. (1992). The concept of competence: a starting place for
understanding intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. In R. Schwarzer
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
28
(Ed), Self-efficacy: thought control of action, pp. 579-597. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Emmons, R.A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: motivation and spirituality
in personality. New York: Guilford Press.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free
Press.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: concerns and counterpoints. Academy of
Management Review, 31, (2), 270-291.
Heckhausen, H. (1980). Motivation and handeln [motivation and performance]. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Heckhausen, H. & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: the deadends and short cuts on
the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.). Goal-directed behavior: psychological
theory and research on action (pp. 134-160). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.
Houtz, J.C. (1994). Creative problem solving in the classroom: contributions of four
psychological approaches. M.A. Runco (Ed), Problem finding, problem solving and creativity,
pp. 271-290. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C. & Curphy, G.J. (2006). Leadership: enhancing the lesions of
experience, 5th edition. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Publishing.
Jackson, D.N. (1987). Personality research form-form E. Port Huron, MI: Sigma
Assessment Systems, Inc.
Jackson, D.N. (1989). Manual for the personality research form (3rd ed.). Port Huron,
MI: Sigma Assessment Systems, Inc.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
29
Kauffman, C., & Scoular, A. (2004). Towards a positive psychology of executive
coaching. In P.A. Linley and P.A. Josepha (Eds.). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 287-302.
Keller, J.M. (1979). Motivation and instructional design: a theoretical perspective.
Journal of Instructional Development, 2 (4), 26-34.
Keller, J.M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),
Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J.M. (1987). Motivational design, In Encyclopedia of Educational Media,
Communications, and Technology, 2nd ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Keller, J.M., & Kopp, T. (1987). Application of the ARCS model of motivational design.
In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Publisher.
Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Course effort survey. Florida State University.
Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Course interest survey. Florida State University.
Keller, J.M., Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS model in courseware design. In D.H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for computer courseware. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives.
Psychological Review, 82, 1-25.
Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: inner experience and the incentives in people’s
lives. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Klinger, E., Barta, S.G., & Maxeiner, M. (1981). Current concerns: assessing
therapeutically relevant information. In P.C. Kendall & S.D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment
strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions (pp. 161-196). New York: Academic Press.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
30
Klinger, E. (1987). Current concerns and disengagement from incentives. In F. Halisch &
J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 337-347).
Klinger, E. (1998). The search for meaning in evolutionary perspective and its clinical
implications. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S. Fry (Eds), The human quest for meaning (pp. 27-50).
Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.
Koestner, R., & McClelland, D.C. (1990). Perspectives on competence motivation. In L.
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 527-548). New York: Guilford.
Koestner, R., Weinberger, J., & McClelland, D.C. (1991). Task-intrinsic and
social-extrinsic sources of arousal for motives assessed in fantasy and self-report. Journal
of Personality, 59:1, 57-81.
Korman, A. (1974). The psychology of motivation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kreitler, H. & Kreitler, S. (1976). Cognitive orientation and behavior. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Leavitt, H.J. (1972). Managerial psychology, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Levinson, H. (2006). The psychology of leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Publishing.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2004). What Should We Do About Motivation Theory?
Sic Recommendations for the Twenty-First Century. Academy of Management Review, 388-403.
Lowell, E.L. (1952). The effect of need for achievement on learning and speed of
performance. Journal of Psychology, 33, 1159-1177.
Maddock, R.C. & Fulton, R.E. (1998). Motivation, emotions and leadership: The silent
side of management. Westport, CN: Quorum (Greenwood).
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
31
McClelland, D., & Winter, D. (1969). Motivating economic achievement. New York:
Free Press.
McClelland, D.C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits of operant and respondent
measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 10-41).
Beverely Hills: Sage.
McClelland, D.C. (1985a). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.
American Psychologist, 40, 812-823.
McClelland, D.C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and
implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-702.
Meyer, W.U. (1973). Leistunssmotis und ursachenerklarung von erfolg und misserfolg
[the achievement motive and causal attributions for success and failure]. Stuttgart: Klett.
Patten, R.L., & White, L.A. (1977). Independent effects on achievement motivation and
overt attribution on achievement behavior. Motivation and emotion, 1, 39-59.
Porter, L.W. & Lawler, E.E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood,
IL: Irwin-Dorsey.
Raynor, J.O., & Entin, E.E. (1982). Motivation, career striving, and aging. New York:
Hemisphere.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: individual and societal. New York:
Free Press.
Rothlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
32
Schein, E. (1980). Organizational psychology, 3rd edition. Englewood Cliff, NY: NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Seiling, J.G. & Roux. J. (2006). Constructive accountability: reconciling traditional
accountability with collaborative practices of work. Publisher pending.
Simpson, C & Rosenholtz, S. (1986). Classroom structure and the social construction of
ability. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education
(pp. 113-138). Greenwood Press, Inc.
Thomas, K. (2002). Intrinsic motivation at work: building energy and commitment.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Castelli et al. – Motivating Followers
33