Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects

Ruth Kanfer a,⇑, Gilad Chen b
a
School of Psychology, J.S. Coon Building, MC 0170, 654 Cherry St., Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
b
Robert H. Smith School of Business, 4538 Van Munching Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-1815, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this article we selectively review major advances in research on motivation in work and organizational
Received 21 October 2015 behavior since the founding of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (now Organizational
Revised 2 June 2016 Behavior and Human Decision Processes) 50 years ago. Using a goal-based organizing rubric, we highlight
Accepted 12 June 2016
the most impactful articles and summarize research progress over time related to understanding the
why, where, how, what, and when of motivation during goal choice and goal enactment. We also note
macro-level trends in motivation research published in this journal, including the shift away from pub-
Keywords:
lishing new, core theories of work motivation in favor of using new approaches published elsewhere to
Motivation
Self-regulation
examine key micro-regulatory processes involved in goal decisions and goal pursuit. We conclude with
Goals discussion of promising future research directions.
Motives Ó 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Goal choice
Goal pursuit

1. Introduction
In 1966, Jim Naylor and George Briggs introduced the purpose
of Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (OBHP, now
titled Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
[OBHDP]) as a journal aimed at publishing significant research that
‘‘contribute(s) to our basic knowledge of human performance”
(Naylor & Briggs, 1966, p. 1). Over the past five decades, the journal
has published seminal papers on the determinants, mechanisms,
and outcomes of motivation related to decision-making and per-
formance in work and achievement settings. New and influential
theories of motivation have been introduced in the journal, includ-
ing Alderfer’s ERG theory (1969), Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behav-
ior (1991), Deci’s Cognitive Evaluation Theory (1972), Hackman
and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (1976), and Locke’s Goal
Model (1968). Other articles provide incisive reviews and critiques
of these approaches that had considerable influence on the field
(e.g., Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Pritchard, 1969; Wahba &
Bridwell, 1976). In 1982, Campion and Lord introduced and tested
a control systems model of motivation to explain how goals and
performance feedback operate in tandem to affect motivation
and behavior over time, and in 1986 Bandura and Cervone pub-
lished empirical support for the role of self-efficacy in maintaining
motivation during goal pursuit. A special issue on theories of cog-
nitive self-regulation in 1991 produced additional influential arti-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rk64@prism.gatech.edu (R. Kanfer), giladchen@rhsmith.umd.
edu (G. Chen).
cles on goal setting (Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, 1991) and the
role of self-efficacy and self-regulation (Bandura, 1991).
As the 20th century drew to a close, the motivational research
landscape coalesced around the goal construct, prompting a broad
reorganization of findings in terms of understanding the effects of
person, context, and temporal variables in two goal-related subsys-
tems – goal choice and goal pursuit (see Kanfer, 2012). In this
expansive paradigm, motivation serves as an umbrella term that
encompasses both the purpose and reasons underlying decision
processes and goal selection (that set the course of action), and
the regulatory dynamics through which goals and other variables
affect the allocation of an individual’s cognitive resources across
activities and over time for the purpose of goal attainment (i.e.,
goal pursuit; Vancouver, 2008). This meta-framework has also
spawned new theories and research directed at more precise mea-
surement and understanding of person, social, and contextual
influences on goal choice, goal construal, and behavioral intentions
(Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Chen &
Mathieu, 2008; da Motta Veiga & Turban, 2014; Grant et al., 2007),
the relationship between goal choice and goal pursuit (Gollwitzer,
Heckhausen, & Ratajczak, 1990; Sun, Vancouver, & Weinhardt,
2014), motivational dynamics during goal pursuit (Fishbach &
Choi, 2012; Seo & Ilies, 2009), and the motivational processes in
and of teams (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, & Kozlowski, 2009;
Nahrgang et al., 2013).
In this article we provide a selective review of major advances
in motivation related to work and organizational behavior since
the founding of the journal 50 years ago. In keeping with the cele-
bration of the journal’s jubilee, we have organized our review in a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.06.002
0749-5978/Ó 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
way that highlights those articles in OBHP/OBHDP that have been
most widely-cited and have had a major influence on the study of
motivation in work and organizational psychology. The article is
organized into three sections. The first section sets the stage for
the review by summarizing foundational principles in motivational
science. Next, we highlight influential articles published in OBHP/
OBHDP and review progress by organizing theory and research
around four principal questions that have long-driven scientific
efforts in motivational psychology: (1) Why do individuals allocate
resources to specific behaviors and courses of action, (2) What is
the influence of an individual’s environment on motivation – the
‘‘where” and ‘‘when” questions, (3) How do goals and goal-linked
processes affect motivation and action, and (4) What resources
do individuals employ for the purpose of goal accomplishment?
In the third and final section, we discuss the representation of
motivation theory and research in the journal, progress in each
of the four topic areas, and promising future research directions.
2. A brief overview
Motivation in work and organizational psychology is concerned
with the energetic forces that originate both within as well as
beyond an individual’s being that influence the initiation, direction,
intensity, and duration of action (cf. Pinder, 1998). Modern views
typically portray motivation as a time-linked set of recursive and
reciprocal affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes and
actions that are organized around an individual’s goals. An individ-
ual’s goal, defined as the mental representation of a desired out-
come, does not exist in isolation but rather within hierarchically
organized networks that are developed and modified over time
as a result of the continuous interplay between person, situation,
and epigenetic forces (Powers, 1973). The resultant network struc-
ture of goals contributes to both the stability and heterogeneity
observed in motivated action.
Over the past half-century there have been numerous accounts
of work motivation. Although the development of a comprehensive
integrative model lies beyond the scope of this article, our review
of the literature suggests that various conceptualizations may be
broadly differentiated and loosely organized in terms of the pri-
mary issues they address and their position along a continuum of
proximity to goal choice. As shown in Fig. 1, the most prominent
theories of work motivation address the proximal, intra-
individual psychological forces, mechanisms, and processes that
determine goal choice and action (i.e., the why, how, and what of
motivation). Within-person formulations in this segment of Fig. 1
derive from three distinct but related streams of research. ‘‘Why”
accounts of motivation may be traced back to early 20th century
work on the identification of universal human motives and tenden-
cies. Although motive-based theories also posit a process by which
motives influenced goal choice, the introduction of cognitive,
information-processing approaches and expectancy-value theories
to organizational psychology beginning in the 1950s riveted
research attention on the ‘‘how” question, including for example
the cognitive processes by which expectancies and outcomes are
integrated, and how best to conceptualize and assess affect. By
the mid-1960s, however, motivational theorists began to question
basic tenets of expectancy-value models and their applicability for
predicting performance on new, difficult, prolonged, or ill-defined
career and task goals, such as becoming a neurosurgeon, or pursu-
ing a management promotion.
During the 1970s, social-cognitive theories (Bandura, 1977a,
1977b; Carver & Scheier, 1981) and theories of action regulation
(Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987; Sun & Frese, 2013) emerged that
addressed the gap between an individual’s goals and performance
(the ‘‘what” question). These approaches reconceptualized an
individual’s decision as a goal that instigated (when necessary)
7
Socio-environmental Influences
“Where and When”
Culture Technology
Work Relaons
Leadership Job Design/Demands
Teams
Dyadic Intra-Individual Influences
“Why” “How”
Cognions
Implicit/Explicit
Needs, Moves, Traits
Affect/Emoons
Goal Choice
“What”
Goal Pursuit
Fig. 1. A heuristic meta-model of work motivation and the focus of major
theoretical accounts.
volitional (self-regulatory) processes required for goal accomplish-
ment (performance). The introduction of theories of goal pursuit in
motivation psychology shifted attention away from determinants
of goal selection and toward the operation of self-regulatory mech-
anisms and dynamic processes by which goals are enacted, modi-
fied, or abandoned.
As ‘‘what” approaches gained traction during the late 20th cen-
tury, motivation and decision-making researchers focused on
increasingly different topics and questions. Motivational scientists
within the broader organizational behavior domain focused on the
processes by which goal attributes and the individual’s construal of
the goal influenced planning and self-regulatory processes during
goal pursuit and performance accomplishments. Over the past
few decades, advances in measurement of implicit motives and
evidence for the influence of automatic processes during goal pur-
suit have further extended the study of motivation to incorporate
the impact of non-conscious influences on goal construal and goal
pursuit.
At the same time, there have been significant advances over the
past half-century in the ‘‘where and when” portion of the motiva-
tional network. Theory and research in this segment of the field
highlights the contextual variables and processes by which exter-
nalities in the work setting influence an individual’s goals, engage-
ment, and behavior. Many, though not all of these approaches build
upon sense-making processes by which individuals interpret social
events and work processes, and studies on the effects of these pro-
cesses on trait activation, job attitudes, and affect. In addition to
research investigating the impact of job design and demands on
goals, new, integrative streams of research have emerged for
understanding the impact of work relations associated with differ-
ent patterns of leadership, team structures, and work-related inter-
personal processes (e.g., with co-workers, customers) on
motivation processes. Research findings in this area have been
linked to a variety of work phenomena such as escalation of com-
mitment, ethical decision making, negotiation outcomes, and pro-
gress decisions during task goal striving (see Klein, Austin, &
Cooper, 2008). Although there has been less work directly linking
broader constructs such as culture and technology to goal choice
and action, we include these constructs in the figure to signify an
important direction for future research.
3. A biography of journal contributions and progress in the field
3.1. Person-oriented formulations: the ‘‘why” of motivation
The ‘‘why” question of motivation is typically studied from a
person-centric perspective, that focuses on the needs, motives,
8 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
wants, and likes of individuals. These intra-psychic features pro-
vide personal reasons for individual action. Needs and motives give
rise to explicit goals and action tendencies. Theorizing and
research in this area that has been highlighted in OBHP/OBHDP
range from developmental approaches that focus on shifts in
motive salience over time (e.g., Alderfer, 1969) to formulations that
emphasize the role of universal motives (e.g., Deci, 1972), and
motives that affect the construal of task goals (e.g., Dweck, 1986).
3.1.1. Early need approaches
Motivation research during the mid-20th century focused on
two issues: (1) how best to organize the numerous motives that
characterize human striving, and (2) what brings different needs/-
motives to the surface as the driving force for behavior. Maslow’s
Need Hierarchy Theory (1943, 1954) addressed both these issues
(cf. Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Maslow initially proposed five basic
human need categories (physiological, safety, love/belonging,
esteem, and self-actualization) that were arranged hierarchically,
starting with the most basic physiological needs (e.g., food, water,
sleep) and progressing to highest-level needs for self-actualization
(e.g., creativity, achieving individual potential). He further pro-
posed that individuals seek to satisfy unmet needs in a hierarchical
fashion, seeking to satisfy lower-order ‘‘deficiency” needs before
satisfying unmet higher-level ‘‘growth” needs.
In 1969, Alderfer proposed and tested a modified theory in
OBHP that addressed some of early criticisms of the Maslow model.
Alderfer organized Maslow’s five need categories into three
broader need groupings: existence, relatedness, and growth needs.
Rather than imposing a strict hierarchical gratification of needs,
Alderfer proposed two major mechanisms for movement across
need categories and tested a system in which satisfaction of
higher-order needs would increase the desire of growth needs.
Although Alderfer’s Existence-Relatedness-Growth (ERG) theory
attracted attention among organizational psychologists as a viable
alternative to Maslow’s model for understanding employee moti-
vation, a later critical review of the theory and evidence supporting
Maslow’s theory by Wahba and Bridwell (1976) greatly reduced
scholarly interest in broad need approaches, as well as attempts
to organize diverse human motives.
Theorizing and research on motives since the late 1970s dif-
fered from earlier work driven by the Maslow and Alderfer models
in several ways. First, more recent investigations have not focused
on needs per se, but rather on the motives that develop and gain
salience as a function of culture, cognitive biology, and experience.
One major stream of research has focused on the conditions that
arouse fundamental motives to action, particularly ‘‘higher-
order” motives, such as the desire for achievement, autonomy,
and power (e.g. McClelland, 1986). Second, current motive classifi-
cation schemes tend to be goal-related and distinguish broadly
between approach (growth) and avoidance (loss) motivational ori-
entations (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997), rather than motive tax-
onomies organized around specific content. Third, motives are
increasingly represented as both relatively enduring action prefer-
ences and emergent psychological states, suggesting a greater mal-
leability over the lifespan as a function of culture and experience.
Finally, the Maslow and Alderfer theories address the role of expli-
cit, or self-reported motives, whereas recent work has extended
the study of motives to examine the role of implicit, or non-
conscious motives on motivation and performance (e.g.,
Tabernero & Wood, 1999).
3.1.2. Intrinsic motivation
About the same time that Wahba and Bridwell (1976) published
their critique of Maslow’s theory and associated research, Deci
(1972) published a pioneering article in OBHP that focused on
the relationship between extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay) and intrinsic
motivation associated with the satisfaction of higher-order
motives related to sense of competence, autonomy, and control.
In his article, Deci presented Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)
and reviewed prior empirical findings to support his new theory.
The essence of CET for employee motivation is that the application
of performance-contingent extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay) undermi-
nes intrinsic motivation and performance when the extrinsic
reward is perceived as controlling (autonomy-reducing) rather
than informational (autonomy-supportive). Deci’s CET spurred
more than two dozen published studies in OBHP/OBHDP that pro-
vided positive (e.g., Erez, Gopher, & Arzi, 1990; Greenberger,
Strasser, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989; Shapira, 1989), mixed
(Farr, Vance, & McIntyre, 1977; Porac & Meindl, 1982; Shalley &
Perry-Smith, 2001), and negative (Boal & Cummings, 1981) results
for various portions of the theory.
In the 40 years since Deci’s first publication of CET in OBHP,
controversy regarding the detrimental effects of extrinsic rewards
on intrinsic motivation has waxed and waned. Debates arose about
the applicability of the findings to work settings (Kanfer, 1990),
and how to interpret discrepant meta-analytic findings (Cerasoli,
Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). In 2000, Deci and his colleagues proposed
a revised theory called Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Gagné &
Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The revised theory subsumed the
original formulation within a broader theory of self-
determination that could account for why extrinsic rewards did
not always exert a negative effect on intrinsic employee motivation
and performance. The SDT formulation posits six distinct types of
motivation that vary in degree of self-determination, from Amoti-
vation (in which there is no self-regulation), through fully self-
determined motivation (Intrinsic Motivation). Most interesting
are the four types of extrinsic motivation (external, introjected,
identified, and integrated). In these categories, the corrosive effect
of the extrinsic reward depends on how the incentive is inter-
preted with respect to the self and the regulatory processes that
are instigated as a consequence of that judgement. Thus, SDT
allows for a range of outcomes associated with the application of
extrinsic rewards. To date only one study on SDT has been pub-
lished in OBHDP (Grant, Nurmohamed, Ashford, & Dekas, 2011).
However, in partial support of the new SDT formulation, results
of a recent meta-analysis by Cerasoli et al. (2014) showed that
the detrimental effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation
depends on both the nature of the performance objective (qualita-
tive vs quantitative) and the nature of the reward structure (con-
tingent vs non-contingent).
Although the original CET formulation has often been cited as
arguing against the use of extrinsic rewards to enhance employee
motivation, Deci’s own statements in the 1972 OBHP article are
particularly noteworthy: ‘‘It is possible to pay workers and still
have them intrinsically motivated . . .. It is not the money per se
which motivates performance, but rather it is the way that it is
administered” (Deci, 1972, p. 227). Given that contingent pay
may be perceived as controlling and so diminish the positive
impact of intrinsic motivation, Deci (1972) further suggests that
‘‘we [should] concentrate on structuring situations and jobs to
arouse intrinsic motivation” (Deci, 1972, p. 227). This is precisely
the approach taken in Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Charac-
teristics Model, which we discuss later.
3.1.3. Motivational orientation and goal construal theories
Findings across a range of subdisciplines in psychology provide
convergent evidence for the operation of two distinct motive sys-
tems; an appetitive (approach-oriented) system and an avoidance
system. The appetitive system is concerned with the modulation of
action for the purpose of attaining pleasurable or desired out-
comes; in contrast the avoidance system is concerned with modu-
lation of action for the purpose of avoiding unpleasurable
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
outcomes. Over the past few decades, there has been renewed
interest in understanding the antecedents of these motivational
orientations, their impact on how individuals construe work goals,
and their effects on self-regulation and performance (Crowe &
Higgins, 1997; Dweck, 1986; Elliot & Harackiewicz; 1996; Kanfer
& Heggestad, 1997).
The most well-known formulations in the work and organiza-
tional literature are Dweck’s goal orientation theory and Higgins’
regulatory focus theory. Dweck’s formulation emphasizes the
implicit theories that individuals hold about their abilities and
the influence of these theories on how individuals construe task
goals. According to this model, individuals who hold an incremen-
tal (or malleable) conception of their ability are posited to apply a
mastery or learning-oriented cognitive frame during goal pursuit.
In contrast, individuals who hold a fixed conception of ability are
posited to construe task goals using an avoidance perspective that
highlights the demonstration of competency and avoidance of
showing incompetence. The development and validation of indi-
vidual differences measures of adult goal orientation by Button
et al. (1996) and VandeWalle (1997) clarified the multidimensional
structure of the goal orientation construct and stimulated research
over the past two decades in OBHDP and elsewhere examining the
effects of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance (e.g.,
Chen & Mathieu, 2008; da Motta Veiga & Turban, 2014; Kozlowski
et al., 2001). Although findings over this period provide general
support for the positive influence of learning goal orientation on
self-regulation and performance, results are mixed with respect
to the negative effects of performance-prove and performance-
avoid goal orientations (Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).
In Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT), Crowe and Higgins (1997)
provide an alternative approach to understanding how the self
affects goal construal and striving processes. According to RFT,
individuals who are promotion-focused are oriented toward
growth and development, and attainment of ideal self. In contrast,
individuals who are prevention-focused are oriented toward ought
aspirations, associated with duties and responsibilities. Individuals
who engage in goals characterized by regulatory fit between the
self and the situation (e.g., promotion focus during pursuit of
achievement goals) are proposed to experience fewer negative
emotions and more effective self-regulation than individuals who
experience a misfit between their regulatory focus and the nature
of the goal (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Similar to Dweck, RFT: (1)
builds upon the approach-avoidance dichotomy to understand
how differences in goal valence (promotion or prevention) affects
motivational processing and (2) proposes that individual differ-
ences in regulatory focus may be understood in terms of distal
individual differences in trait tendencies as well as in terms of
proximal motivational states.
3.1.4. Evaluative summary of ‘‘why” approaches
Over the past half-century researchers have moved away from
taxonomic issues and developmental models of motivation (e.g.,
Maslow) in favor of understanding how cognitive, affective, and
social information-processing mechanisms affect motive salience
and motivational processes. For example, the growing consensus
around the notion of co-existing approach and avoidance motiva-
tional systems, rather than emphasis on stable motive hierarchies,
has spurred a new generation of research on motivational orienta-
tion. Research in these areas highlight the role of perceptual pro-
cesses and identity in goal construal, and help to explain the
often observed variability in goal enactment, affect, and perfor-
mance among individuals with seeming similar outcome goals.
Perhaps most importantly, new lines of inquiry are extending
understanding of the reasons for action beyond consciously-
mediated traits and motives. One area of particular promise per-
tains to the role of automatic perceptual and cognitive processes
9
instantiated outside the individual’s awareness that, in turn, set
the stage for consciously-mediated goal choice (e.g., Andersen &
Chen, 2002; Chartrand & Bargh, 1996; Shah, 2003; Stajkovic,
Locke, & Blair, 2006). Further research is needed to delineate how
significant others in the work environment and the social architec-
ture of the workplace (e.g., team and multiteam structures) prime
or otherwise automatically influence goal construal and pursuit. A
second area of promise pertains to research directed toward the
assessment and role that implicit motives play in motivation. Con-
sistent with McClelland, Koestner, and Weinberger (1989) and
Kehr (2004), recent work indicates that such conflicts may affect
intrinsic motivation (Rawolle, Wallis, Badham, & Kehr, 2016), and
goal pursuit (Gröpel & Kehr, 2014).
At the same time, there has been progress in understanding the
processes by which universal motives, such as autonomy, become
salient motives that direct action. SDT, for example, links arousal of
intrinsic motives to the self and provides a more precise under-
standing of the conditions in which individuals may react nega-
tively to the imposition of reward systems. Although many
questions about this framework remain, the theory attests to the
role that perceived discrepancies between the self and the environ-
ment have for motivation and action.
3.2. Socio-environmental approaches: the ‘‘where” and ‘‘when” of
motivation
Research on topics in this area consider how diverse attributes
of an individual’s environment, such as the physical and mental
demands of one’s job, social interactions with colleagues and
supervisors, and the social structure of work influence motivation.
Prominent work in this area over the past half-century includes
theories of job design, organizational justice, and social influences
of leaders and work teams on motivation.
3.2.1. Job design
In 1976, Hackman and Oldham published one of their first
descriptions and comprehensive tests of Job Characteristics Theory
in OBHP. Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics theory
(JCT) specifies how job characteristics interact with individual dif-
ferences in growth need strength to affect job satisfaction and
work motivation. Hackman and Oldham identified five key features
of the immediate job context that were proposed to determine the
intrinsic motivating potential of the job; skill variety, task identity,
task significance, autonomy, and feedback. According to JCT, these
characteristics interact with individual differences in growth need
strength to affect three critical psychological states that serve as
the proximal determinants of affect and motivation; meaningful-
ness, responsibility, and knowledge of results. Between 1976 and
1983, OBHP published nine studies testing various aspects of the
theory (e.g., Evans, Kiggundu, & House, 1979; Hackman,
Brousseau, & Weiss, 1976; Hackman, Pearce, & Wolfe, 1978;
Kiggundu, 1983; Rousseau, 1977) as applied to individual and
group motivation and performance.
Although the JCT model proved practically useful for organiza-
tions seeking to increase employee motivation through job rede-
sign, conceptual and methodological criticisms of the theory
mounted through the early 1980s (e.g., Pierce & Dunham, 1978;
Roberts & Glick, 1981). Principal among these concerns was the
validity of self-report measures used to assess objective task char-
acteristics. More recently, motivation researchers have pointed to
the narrowness of the model for work in the 21st century. Grant
and Parker (2009) argued that JCT neglects the social characteris-
tics and context of work that derive from interdependent work
roles. Morgeson and Humphrey (2006) identified five features of
the social context: social support, interactions outside the organi-
zation, initiated interdependence, received interdependence, and
10 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
feedback from others. They also showed a significant relationship
between these work features and subjective ratings of job perfor-
mance. Grant (2008) proposed and tested the notion that the rela-
tional architecture of jobs may be designed to enhance intrinsic
and prosocial motivations by providing work opportunities to sat-
isfy motives related to affiliation and helping others (e.g., clients).
Grant and Parker (2009) further summarize early evidence for how
features of the social context affect performance through allocation
of effort and proactivity during goal pursuit. The extension of work
design models that take fuller account of how social context and
interpersonal relationships affect the character of goals and goal
striving is an important advance in approaches to motivation in
modern organizational settings.
3.2.2. Equity/social exchange approaches
Adams’ (1965) equity theory focuses on the universal motive for
fairness in the distribution of outcomes. According to this theory,
individuals value and seek fairness in employee-employer relation-
ships. Adams proposed that an individual’s perception of inequity
in the ratio of inputs to outcomes between herself and other
employees arouses an aversive psychological tension state and
motivation to reduce the tension. Early studies of equity theory
examined the influence of perceived inequity in payment on per-
formance. Findings from these studies suggest an asymmetry in
inequity perceptions such that individuals are less motivated by
perceptions of overpayment than underpayment inequity. Reviews
by Pritchard (1969) and others note the difficulties in applying the
theory to practice given the multiplicity of ways by which individ-
uals may reduce perceived inequity. Accordingly, more recent
studies on social comparison processes have tended to focus on
the person and contextual factors that influence perceptions of
outcome fairness (Sherf & Venkataramani, 2015), rather than the
effects of perceived inequity on motivational variables and
processes.
During the 1980s, however, burgeoning interest in organiza-
tional justice shifted research attention away from perceptions of
inequity in payment outcomes to the determinants and conse-
quences of perceptions of inequity in other work-related outcomes
(e.g., promotions), organizational procedures and employee-
employer relationships (see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan,
2005). Meta-analytic findings of this work show that individuals
who perceive outcomes, procedures, and relationships as unfair
were more likely to engage in lower levels of job performance
and organizational citizenship behaviors, and/or higher levels of
counter-productive behavior (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, &
Ng, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2013).
Although interest in the effects of justice perceptions on behav-
ior continues, the theoretical explanation for the effects of injustice
on work behaviors has morphed from a motivational account
based on psychological tension reduction to explanations based
on principles of social exchange and moral accountability (e.g.,
Lyons & Scott, 2012; Rupp, Shao, Jones, & Liao, 2014; Takeuchi,
Yun, & Wong, 2011) that make relatively little contact with
individual-level process theories of motivation. Several studies
point to the importance of motivational variables (such as regula-
tory focus) in justice perceptions (Brebels, De Cremer, & Sedikides,
2008; Cropanzano, Paddock, Rupp, Bagger, & Baldwin, 2008; Li
et al., 2011), and the conditions that increase justice motive sal-
ience in goal choice (Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006). Studies by
Judge, Scott, and Ilies (2006), Yang and Diefendorff (2009), and
Ferris, Spence, Brown, and Heller (2012) also provide evidence
for the indirect effect of justice perceptions on behavior through
trait, affective, and self variables. Recently, Johnson, Lanaj, and
Barnes (2014) examined the self-regulatory costs associated with
engaging in different forms of justice behavior, and found a posi-
tive relationship between enactment of procedural justice behav-
iors and regulatory resources, but a negative relationship
between enactment of interpersonal justice behaviors and regula-
tory resources.
3.2.3. Social influences of teams and leaders on motivation
Research has also examined social influences on motivation.
Early work in psychology has focused on whether individuals exert
different levels of effort when working in the presence of others
(Triplett, 1898; Zajonc, 1965). Later work – including research pub-
lished in OBHDP – has advanced theories and provided empirical
evidence regarding social loafing and the extent to which individ-
uals allocate more (or less) effort as they perform in collective
group settings (Loundt & Phillips, 2007; Miles & Greenberg,
1993; Mueller, 2012; Price, 1987; Weldon & Mustari, 1988). This
research has suggested that working in group and team settings
can sometime lead to motivational losses – especially when indi-
viduals lack accountability and responsibility for important out-
comes. However, this research also suggests that, under certain
conditions (e.g., when group members share common goals or
have a common threat), group settings can also increase competi-
tiveness among individuals and provide individuals with greater
resources to accomplish their tasks.
Since the 1980s, organizational researchers have also become
increasingly interested in studying teams as important organiza-
tional units. Research has shown that team members’ motivation
to perform collective tasks can be increased when members are
assigned or share difficult and specific group goals (e.g., Crown &
Rosse, 1995; Durham, Knight, & Locke, 1997; Mulvey & Klein,
1998). Moreover, research has suggested that individual motiva-
tional attributes, such as members’ regulatory focus (Beersma,
Homan, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2013) and epistemic motivation
(or need for closure; Livi, Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti, & Kenny,
2015) can influence team processes such as norm formation and
team coordination. Finally, Chen and Kanfer (2006) formulated a
multilevel theory of motivation in teams, according to which team
and individual motivational processes are not only functionally
similar (i.e., capture similar motivational constructs and influences
on performance), but also reinforce each other across levels. In
support of Chen and Kanfer, Chen et al. (2009) found that team-
level allocation of collective effort promoted individual members’
allocation of effort toward accomplishing individual roles in the
team, as well as individual members’ performance. Thus, there is
ample evidence (from research published in OBHDP and else-
where) that individual-level motivation is influenced by group
and team processes.
In addition, theories of leadership have proposed that leaders
can motivate employees by engaging in transformational behav-
iors (such as inspiring employees to adopt more challenging goals;
Bass, 1985), by empowering employees on their jobs (e.g., Chen,
Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007), and by developing mutu-
ally trusting relationships with their employees (Graen & Uhl-
Bien, 1995). Empirical research has provided evidence for such
arguments. For example, Benjamin and Flynn (2006) found that
transformational leadership interacted with follower regulatory
focus (locomotion or approach-oriented regulatory focus) to pre-
dict follower willingness to exert extra effort. Zhang and Zhou
(2014) further found that followers of more empowering leaders
felt more efficacious in behaving creatively, especially when fol-
lowers also trusted their leader, which in turn related positively
to employees’ creative performance
3.2.4. Evaluative summary of ‘‘where” and ‘‘when” approaches
Early progress in this branch of work motivation psychology
was substantial and yielded important information about the link
between particular job characteristics, motives, and work motiva-
tion. As research in this stream matured and grew less productive
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
during the late 20th century, the changing nature of work and
advances in affective neuroscience have encouraged new lines of
inquiry investigating social justice motives and work relations as
drivers of motivated action. To date, findings from social justice
have also focused largely on the antecedents of adherence to jus-
tice roles (Scott, Garza, Conlon, & Kim, 2014) or the effects of
unfairness perceptions on (counter-productive or deviant) behav-
ior, rather than motivational processes per se.
From a work motivation perspective, studies examining motiva-
tion in the context of teams, leadership, and co-worker relations
have yielded substantial insights into our understanding of socio-
environmental influences on motivation. However, it is also note-
worthy that relatively little systematic research has been done
investigating the mechanisms by which ambient factors, such as
culture and technology, affect the instantiation of motives, goal
orientation, and affective reactions to goal progress. Given the
increasing diversity of the workforce and growing use of technol-
ogy in the workplace, further research is needed to better under-
stand how the broader work environment impacts employee
motivation.
3.3. Goal selection processes: the ‘‘how” of motivation
Research on the ‘‘how” question delineates the decision-making
process in which individuals choose and pursue course of action.
Although expectancy-value theories (e.g., Vroom, 1964) dominated
this area during through the mid-to-late 20th century, formula-
tions that focused on goals, such as goal setting (e.g., Locke,
1968) and action theory (Gollwitzer, 1990) gained in popularity
toward the end of the 20th century.
3.3.1. Expectancy-value theory
Vroom’s (1964) VIE theory is arguably one of the most influen-
tial work motivation theories of the 20th century. The theory pre-
dicts an individual’s choice between tasks, jobs, and effort levels as
a function of the integration of three sets of psychological vari-
ables: (1) expectancies, or the individual’s beliefs about the rela-
tionship between levels of behavioral effort and performance, (2)
instrumentalities, or the individual’s perception of the relationship
between levels of performance and second-level outcomes, such as
pay or promotion, and (3) valence, or the anticipated attractiveness
of each secondary outcome. In 1966, Vroom published an influen-
tial article in OBHP that provided early support for his model with
respect to job choice among management trainees. His findings
showed a positive relationship between ratings of an organiza-
tion’s perceived instrumentality for goal attainment and organiza-
tional choice. Interestingly, Vroom’s (1966) also provided early
evidence for differences in cognitive evaluation before and after
the job choice decision that served as early evidence for subse-
quent work by Gollwitzer (1990, 2003) on the differential process-
ing of information during goal choice (a decisional process) and
goal pursuit (an action process). Over the years, numerous studies
investigating the components and predictive validity of expectancy
theories were published in OBHP/OBHDP (e.g., Hackman & Porter,
1968; Lawler & Suttle, 1972, 1973; Pritchard, deLeo, & Von
Bergen, 1976), with findings that provided general support for
the original and revised models (e.g., Lawler & Suttle, 1973; see
Mitchell, 1974, 1982), as well as stronger support for the model’s
efficacy in predicting job choice (i.e., decision-making) versus
motivation force or job performance (i.e., action).
3.3.2. Theory of planned behavior
In social psychology, Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) Theory of Rea-
soned Action (TRA) set the stage for extensive examination of the
relationships between attitudes, social influences and behavioral
intentions. Similar to Vroom’s model, TRA incorporates basic ele-
11
ments of expectancy-value theory as predictors of behavioral
intentions. In contrast to Vroom’s VIE model, however, TRA also
takes into account the role of attitudes and social influences in
the form of subjective norms in forming an intention. Like Vroom’s
model, however, the episodic nature of the model does not for-
mally account for the gap between intention and behavior. In
1991, Ajzen introduced an important extension of TRA, namely
the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in OBHDP. In contrast to
TRA, TPB includes measures of control beliefs and perceived behav-
ioral control as an additional determinant of the relationship
between intentions and behavior. TPA has received considerable
attention in the social psychology literature. Meta-analytic find-
ings provide general support for the model in predicting intentions
and behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001),
although Armitage and Conner (2001) found a strong relationship
between measures of perceived behavioral control and self-
efficacy.
Articles published in OBHP (Schmidt, 1973; Zedeck, 1977) and
elsewhere identified a number of conceptual, methodological and
theoretical concerns with expectancy-based models of motivation
(e.g., Heneman & Schwab, 1972; Mitchell, 1974). Principal con-
cerns pertain to the inability of these models to account for inte-
gration of model elements (expectancy, instrumentality, and
valence), assumptions of rationality in decision-making, and the
mismatch between theory and the methodology used to test the
theory. Although variations of basic expectancy-value models
remain a staple component of many motivation theories, motiva-
tion research in the 21st century has increasingly focused on the
automatic and social processes that contribute to performance
variability in organizational settings.
3.3.3. Goal setting
In his 1968 OBHDP article, ‘‘Toward a Theory of Task Motivation
and Incentives,” Locke launched the outline of a new theory of
motivation and provided results from diverse studies to support
his central thesis that an individual’s conscious goals or intentions
function as the most proximal determinant of motivation and per-
formance. In contrast to expectancy-value based formulations,
Locke did not address how individuals form or select goals, but
rather focused on the causal effects of goals on performance. In this
seminal work, Locke defined a goal as what the individual is trying
to achieve, and provided evidence for a significant positive rela-
tionship between the difficulty of an individual’s behavioral inten-
tions or goal and level of task performance. He also reviewed
studies showing that goals mediated the impact of other motiva-
tional variables, including external incentives, knowledge of
results, competition, and verbal reinforcers. Locke also suggested
that goal commitment was likely related to task persistence.
Locke’s 1968 article stimulated intense research interest in goal
setting as a potentially powerful motivational technique. Early
research published in OBHDP further established the goal-
performance relationship (e.g., Frost & Mahoney, 1976; Hamner
& Harnett, 1974; Mento et al., 1987; Pritchard & Curtis, 1973),
the effects of goal setting at the group level (Forward & Zander,
1971), and explored the relationship between expectancy and
goals (Klein, 1991; Mento, Cartledge, & Locke, 1980). In 1981,
Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham extended the goal setting formula-
tion by proposing that goals affected action through four mecha-
nisms: directing attention, mobilizing on-task effort, encouraging
task persistence, and facilitating the development of effective per-
formance strategies.
Goal setting research during the 1980s and 1990s increasingly
focused on a series of issues related to the impact of goal attributes
on goal striving. One line of research represented in the journal
focused on the influence of goal origin (assigned vs self-set) and
participation in goal setting on individual performance (Austin,
12 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
1989; Campbell & Gingrich, 1986; Earley & Kanfer, 1985;
Hollenbeck & Brief, 1987; Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002) and at the team
level (Durham et al., 1997). Another line of inquiry examined the
influence of feedback characteristics (e.g., Podsakoff & Farh,
1989) and judgmental anchors on goal setting (Hinsz, Kalnbach,
& Lorentz, 1997). However, the lion’s share of research in goal set-
ting focused on the impact of goal setting on elements of goal striv-
ing, such as planning (Earley & Perry, 1987; Smith, Locke, & Barry,
1990) and resource allocations during learning (DeShon &
Alexander, 1996; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). By the time of Mento
et al.’s 1987 OBHDP meta-analytic study of goal setting-
performance relations, over 70 studies had been reported on the
goal difficulty-performance relation. Mento et al.’s meta-analytic
review of the goal setting literature showed robust support for
the notion that individuals who commit to difficult and specific
goals outperform individuals who adopt ‘‘do your best” task goals,
leading the authors to conclude that ‘‘it is time for a change in
research emphasis toward underlying mechanisms which con-
tribute to these relationships” (Mento et al., 1987, p. 74), and sug-
gesting that future research investigate the roles of self-efficacy
and strategy development.
During and following the 1990s, the goal setting theoretical tent
broadened as researchers examined the impact of goal construal on
the goal-performance relation in individuals (Drach-Zahavy & Erez,
2002) and teams (Nahrgang et al., 2013) and the effects of perfor-
mance goals on resource depletion and unethical behavior (Welsh
& Ordonez, 2014). Although the rate of published studies in OBHDP
on the influence of goal setting on performance has slowed over
the past 15 years, two recently published studies in the journal
extended goal setting theory to understanding the effects of goal
priming and subconscious goals on performance (Chen & Latham,
2014; Shantz & Latham, 2009).
3.3.4. Theory of action phases
Whereas Locke’s initial theory focused on the causal influence
of conscious goal attributes on performance, Gollwitzer et al.
(1990; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987) proposed a formulation
that highlighted differences in cognitive processing before and
after goal adoption, and the influence of post-goal planning inten-
tions on performance. According to the Theory of Action Phases
(and similar to assumptions underlying goal choice in
Expectancy-Value theory), individuals are proposed to be delibera-
tive and calculative during the pre-decisional, or goal selection
phase. Key features of this deliberative mindset include greater
openness and recall of information provided by the environment
across all options and a balanced assessment of the desirability
of different goals. After making their decision and committing to
a particular goal, however, individuals are proposed to shift to an
implemental mindset. In contrast to the deliberative mindset, cog-
nitive processing during this phase narrows to include goal-related
information and individuals demonstrate an array of cognitive
judgment biases designed to support planning, and persistence,
including stronger positive beliefs in goal value, underestimation
of risk to goal attainment, overestimation of the probability of goal
success, and underestimation of the time needed for goal accom-
plishment. Evidence over the past decade provides support for
the notion of differences in cognitive processing before and after
a goal is adopted and the role of implementation planning in per-
formance (see Gollwitzer & Oettingen, 2012). Findings to support
the Action Phases model are relatively recent, although the impli-
cations for practice appear promising. For example, recent meta-
analytic findings by Webb, Gallo, Miles, Gollwitzer, and Sheeran
(2012) show a significant positive effect for the development of
emotion control implementation intentions, relative to no emotion
control conditions.
3.3.5. Evaluative summary of ‘‘how” approaches
For much of the mid- to late-20th century, expectancy-value
and goal setting models dominated the work motivation literature.
These formulations were intended as within-subject explanations
of goal choice and behavior over relatively short periods of time,
though many studies tested these models using between-subject
research strategies and examined behavior over longer periods of
time (during which the value of various determinants changed).
Although tests of revised models show support for their use in pre-
dicting job choice and work effort in structured settings, there has
been a broad shift in basic work motivation research away from
these models toward research investigating the role of implicit
motives, cognitions, and affect on goal formation. Theorizing and
findings by Gollwitzer and his colleagues on the role of post-goal
implementation planning, the impact of affective experiences on
non-consciously mediated behaviors (Wegge, van Dick, Fisher,
West, & Dawson, 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), and recent
studies on non-conscious goal priming in goal setting (Stajkovic
et al., 2006) suggest more research is needed to understand the
role of emotional processing in goal choice.
3.4. Action/self regulation processes: the ‘‘what” of motivation
Theorizing and research on ‘‘what” questions address the
strategies that individuals use to allocate and manage cognitive
and temporal resources during goal striving. Research on goal pur-
suit burgeoned during the latter part of the 20th century following
the introduction of theories in psychology aimed at understanding
the processes through which individuals sought to accomplish a
goal. Social cognitive formulations by Bandura (1977a, 1977b;
Bandura & Cervone, 1986) and Kanfer and Hagerman (1981) con-
ceptualized goal pursuit in terms of the self-regulatory processes
by which individuals monitor, evaluate, and react to changes in
performance and goal progress. Carver and Scheier (1981) pre-
sented a cybernetic control model that highlighted the role of
action to reduce perceived goal-performance discrepancies. Goll-
witzer’s model highlighted the role of planning implementation
during goal pursuit as a key determinant of the goal enactment
process. The introduction of these approaches in OBHDP by
Campion and Lord (1982) and Bandura (Bandura, 1991; Bandura
& Cervone, 1986) was soon followed by an integration of goal set-
ting and self-regulation models under the rubric of Goal Setting
Theory (Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, 1991), prompting a new
generation of motivation research that continues today. OBHDP
published a number of studies documenting the determinants of
self-efficacy judgments in task goal choice and group decision-
making (Henry & Sniezek, 1993; Phillips, 2001; Sanna & Mark,
1995; Silver, Mitchell, & Gist, 1995; Tabernero & Wood, 1999;
Whyte, 1998) and the effects of self-efficacy as a key determinant
of goal choice and decision-making (Goncalo, Polman, & Maslach,
2010; Klein & Kunda, 1994; Stone, 1994; Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002;
Tasa & Whyte, 2005; Wood, Bandura, & Bailey, 1990), and during
goal pursuit (Beck & Schmidt, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Seo &
Ilies, 2009).
3.4.1. Self-efficacy
One important research direction in this integrative area of
study pertains to the critical role of self-efficacy in motivation.
Self-efficacy judgments (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b) refer to the indi-
vidual’s perceived capabilities for attaining specific goals or task
outcomes. According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy judgments
develop from the integration of information from four sources;
performance feedback, vicarious experiences, previous perfor-
mance history, and social influence. Findings by Bandura and
Cervone (1986) and others (see Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) provide
support for notion of a generally positive relationship between
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
self-efficacy and indices of task motivation. Using a control theory
perspective, however, Vancouver (2005, 2008, Vancouver &
Kendall, 2006; Vancouver, Thompson, & Williams, 2001) have
argued that these findings are typically obtained using between-
subject rather than within-subject designs. Using a within-
subject design, Vancouver and his colleagues showed a negative,
rather than positive relationship between self-efficacy and
performance.
The inconsistent findings have yielded a lively debate on theory
and research design. Theoretical arguments for the inconsistency
in findings focus on control theory vs. social cognitive explanations
regarding the role of self-efficacy following goal-performance dis-
crepancy reduction. Operational arguments point to differences in
findings as a function of using between-subject versus within-
subject designs. Attempts to reconcile this inconsistency by Sch-
midt and his colleagues (Beck & Schmidt, 2012; Schmidt &
DeShon, 2009, 2010; Tolli & Schmidt, 2008) found that features
of the environment, such as prior task performance and perfor-
mance ambiguity and change from average level of self-efficacy
moderate the within-person relationship between self-efficacy
and performance.
Another important issue in goal pursuit pertains to what is reg-
ulated. During the 1980s, Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen (1980) and
Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) proposed models that recast motiva-
tion in terms a resource allocation process of time and effort across
activities. Integrating both goal choice and self-regulatory models,
Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) provided support for the viability of
the resource perspective for understanding the differential effects
of goal setting in the context of skill acquisition as a function of
individual differences in cognitive abilities, task demands, and
resource allocations to off-task and self-regulatory processing. As
Beck and Schmidt (2012) note, the resource allocation model views
motivation as a ‘‘series of decisions about where to allocate
resources and how many resources to allocate.” (p. 206), and pro-
vides a unifying framework for integrating theories of goal choice
and goal pursuit.
3.4.2. Resource/ego depletion
The conceptualization of motivation during goal pursuit as a
resource allocation process raises an important question about
the resource cost of engaging different forms of self-regulation.
For example, during learning an individual may need to engage
in self-regulatory activities directed toward keeping disruptive,
negative emotions at bay. At other times, however, successful goal
pursuit may involve engaging in self-regulatory strategies to
increase effort further, despite already high levels of performance
or increasing fatigue. In these instances individuals must often
employ self-control, a special form of self-regulation in which the
individual must allocate resources to task performance that
directly conflict with prevailing action tendencies. Baumeister
and his colleagues (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice,
1998) have proposed that individuals possess a limited resource
capacity, and that self-control exerts a resource cost. During
repeated task performance, failures in self-control arise from tem-
porary resource depletion. A few studies in OBHDP provide support
for this model with respect to unethical behavior (Gino,
Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, 2011) and daily work engagement
(Lanaj, Johnson, & Barnes, 2014). However, evidence for the notion
of self-control as a resource of limited capacity remains mixed,
with meta-analytic findings by Hagger, Wood, Stiff, and
Chatzisarantis (2010) showing strong support, but findings by
Carter, Kofler, Forster, and McCullough (2015) provide little sup-
port. Inzlicht, Schmeichel, and Macrae (2014) suggested further
that ego depletion findings may be more parsimoniously explained
based by changes in task motivation. Findings by Gino et al. (2011),
Lanaj et al. (2014) and others likewise suggest research is needed
13
to identify key moderators of the resource depletion effect (e.g.,
the effect of longevity on this phenomenon, particularly in the con-
text of goal pursuit over long periods of time).
3.4.3. Evaluative summary of ‘‘what” approaches
Research on the determinants and consequences of goal pursuit
has burgeoned over the past few decades. An extensive body of
research grounded in social cognitive theories of motivation has
accumulated for the cognitive processes involved in goal pursuit
and the role of self-efficacy in effective self-regulation. More recent
work has employed an information-processing framework to
investigate the processes by which individuals modulate affect
and attention in the service of goal attainment (Johnson, Chang,
& Lord, 2006). Baumeister et al.’s (1998) theory of ego depletion,
while controversial and in need of further evaluation, has also
stimulated a number of important basic questions about how to
conceptualize self-regulation and the costs of self-control over
time.
4. Summary and future research directions
Our review of the motivation literature related to work and
organizational psychology over the past half century leads us to
form two broad conclusions. First, theory and research findings
in motivation have focused largely on consciously-mediated pro-
cesses (e.g., goal choice, self-regulation), predicated on cognitive
formulations of mind and motives established mid-century. As this
review attests, there is no question that this work has substantially
advanced our understanding of the key constructs (e.g., goals) and
mechanisms (e.g., self-efficacy) involved in motivation. At the
same time, however, there has been increasing evidence to suggest
that further progress in the field will require new or modified
frameworks that take greater account of the individual’s experi-
ences related to work. For example, as motivational scholars have
long noted, deliberative, consciously-mediated motivational pro-
cessing is the exception rather than the rule in daily life, with
explicit modulation of one’s behavior most often required for situ-
ations in which emotions and affect do not support the goal inten-
tion. In other words, how do situations and events encourage
individuals to actively manage their work experiences and for
what purposes? Our review suggests a number of nascent and
rapidly merging streams of research in different domains of psy-
chology that have substantial potential for addressing this funda-
mental question, including for example research investigating the
role of non-conscious motives, and the role of emotions and affect
as they influence perception of context, instigate identity-based
processes, influence decision-making, and contribute to conflict
during goal pursuit. In our opinion, while there is still much to
be learned about the consciously-mediated motivational system
(discussed below), future research efforts in this area will need
to take greater account of the role of non-conscious processes
and to more precisely delineate how these processes affect goal
choice and sustained goal pursuit.
Further evidence for the shifting focus in motivation research
appearing in OBHP/OBHDP is provided by the steady decline in
the number of articles on the topic appearing in the journal over
the past 50 years. Across more than 2500 articles published in
the journal between 1966 and September 2015, we found only
194 (or about 7.8%) contained the term motivation in the subject
term.1 More than half of these articles (N = 111) appeared in the
1
These values were obtained using the EBSCO host/Academic Search Complete
search database facility. First we searched for all OBHP/OBHDP publication entries
between 1966 and September, 2015. We then searched for all journal entries that
used the word ‘‘motivation” in the subject term, and repeated the process again for
the time periods 1966–1985 and 1986–September 2015.
14 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
20 years before the journal name change in 1985, with proportion-
ately fewer studies (N = 83) appearing during the 30 years after the
journal name change. This trend is particularly interesting, as it cor-
responds to the rise of OBHDP as a leading journal in judgment and
decision making since 1985 (see Edwards, 2002; Weber, 1998). As
noted by Edwards in his 2002 editorial, ‘‘Several board members
expressed the belief that, while OBHDP had solidified its stature as
primary outlet for research in judgment and decision making, it
had drifted away from organizational behavior and psychology”
(pp. 1–2).
In line with this sentiment, our review suggests that articles
published in OBHP until the mid-1980s focused on core issues of
person and contextual influences on motivation studied in the
fields of organizational behavior and organizational psychology.
Seminal works on needs and explicit motives, goals and goal set-
ting, and job characteristics appeared during this period and stim-
ulated hundreds of additional studies. From the mid-1980s
through present, however, motivation research published in
OBHDP has focused largely on the cognitive and affective processes
that underlie decision making and goal choice (e.g., goal processes,
goal orientation, regulatory focus, epistemic motivation, and moti-
vational dynamics), rather than the broader context within which
individuals work in organizations. In line with this trend, there
are fewer citations to articles published in OBHP/OBHDP, relative
to those published in Academy of Management Journal or Journal
of Applied Psychology, in large-scale and influential meta-
analyses of work design (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson,
2007), leader-member exchange (Gerstner & Day, 1997), transfor-
mational leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), and team processes
(LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008).
As such, on the one hand, OBHDP has become an important
translator of basic advances in psychology, particularly personality
and social psychology, as they may apply to organizations and
work. On the other hand, we believe that the near exclusive focus
on intra-individual psychological processes may miss a greater
opportunity to link these processes to important contextual factors
in the person’s history, as well as to the organizational context
within which work experiences and behaviors occur. As noted by
Kanfer, Chen, and Pritchard (2008), over 50 years of research on
work motivation (from middle of the 20th Century until today)
has uncovered a great deal of knowledge about the content of work
motivation (i.e., the ‘‘what” and ‘‘how” questions noted above);
however, there is more to be learned about motivation from the
perspectives of the context in which individuals work (i.e., the
‘‘where” and ‘‘when” questions), as well as from the perspective
of an individual’s experience of change over time (i.e., the ‘‘where”
and ‘‘why” questions).
Consistent with these observations, our review of the OBHP/
OBHDP literature suggests that there has been substantial, but
uneven progress in understanding the building blocks of motiva-
tion in work and organizational settings. By far the largest gain
has been in the development and application of expectancy-value
theories, goal setting formulations, and dynamic formulations of
goal pursuit to better understand ‘‘how” individuals choose and
sustain a course of action. Research on expectancy theory peaked
in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Locke’s (1968) landmark article
on the influence of goals on task motivation set in motion a torrent
of research activity that continues until today (albeit at a less
intense level), including over two dozen studies in OBHP/OBHDP
on the topic to date. The rise of the goal paradigm also sparked
strong research interest in self-efficacy and self-regulatory pro-
cesses. Research on these topics in OBHDP and other journals has
highlighted the need for further research attention in four areas:
(1) the role of implicit motives and goal conflicts on regulatory pro-
cessing (Gröpel & Kehr, 2014; Sripada, Swain, Ho, & Swain, 2014),
(2) identifying key determinants of regulatory dynamics (e.g., per-
ceptions of goal progress, Koo & Fishbach, 2014), (3) the role of
affective events on cognitive processes during goal pursuit (e.g.,
Seo & Ilies, 2009), and (4) how information processing influences
the affect – motivation relationship (e.g., Forgas & George, 2001).
The goal paradigm has also stimulated renewed scholarly inter-
est in the ‘‘what” of motivation, and there is broad agreement that
purposive motivation involves the allocation of one’s cognitive
resources across activities over time. Although few OBHDP articles
directly address resource allocation processes, three topics cur-
rently dominate the broader motivation literature. The first per-
tains to delineating the independent and joint influence of
person and contextual factors on resource allocation strategies in
multiple goal environments (Kanfer & Kerry, 2012; Tolli &
Schmidt, 2008). The second relates to Baumeister et al.’s (1998)
theory of ego depletion and concerns the development of better
assessment tools for evaluating resource costs associated with
self-control and other self-regulatory processes. The third pertains
to understanding when and how implicit motives (that presum-
ably do not require attentional resources) conflict with purposive
goals, and the potentially different patterns of goal pursuit associ-
ated with different conflict patterns.
In contrast to OBHDP articles that continue to advance our
understanding of ‘‘how” and (to a lesser extent) ‘‘what” occurs dur-
ing motivation, we found less attention given to the ‘‘why,”
‘‘where,” and ‘‘when” aspects of motivation. Research in the journal
continues to focus on the impact of a single trait or state variable
(e.g., goal orientation), though there is accumulating evidence to
warrant closer attention to the role of motive complexes (Kanfer,
2012). With the exception of work on intrinsic motivation, rela-
tively few studies in the journal (e.g., Amit & Sagiv, 2013; Kim,
Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013) have examined the antece-
dents or consequences of other motive complexes (e.g., epistemic
motivation, prosocial motivation) on work goals, motivational tra-
jectories and performance patterns over time. Another promising
area pertains to understanding how particular elements of a work
context (e.g., team configuration, leadership style) affect goal con-
strual and self-regulation processes during goal pursuit. Finally, a
nascent body of research in need of further research attention indi-
cates the importance of individual differences in future time orien-
tation and its interaction with features of the environment to affect
individual and organizational outcomes, such as team performance
(Mohammed & Harrison, 2013); preferences (Kivetz & Tyler, 2007),
work behavior (Kooij, Betts, & Kanfer, 2015), and retirement
decision-making (Feldman, 2013).
4.1. Future research directions
Our review of the decision science literature in OHBDP articles
has also revealed research on topics that have yet to receive sub-
stantial attention in the work motivation literature. A sampling
of these topic areas are described briefly below.
4.1.1. Temporal discounting
Steel and Konig (2006) recently proposed a theory of motivation
that integrates prospect theory and hyperbolic discounting with
expectancy-value and need theories, suggesting that people ‘‘tend
to overestimate low-probability events and underestimate high-
probability events” (p. 898). Their theory also suggests that adding
the role of time (e.g., timing and/or duration of events) to motiva-
tion theories can enrich understanding of goal choice and goal
striving processes. However, few studies have been done to test
the theory or to examine temporal discounting effects in job per-
formance. For example, recent findings by Shen, Fishbach, and
Hsee (2015) indicate that reward uncertainty may increase moti-
vation, particularly when individuals focus on the process of goal
pursuit, which is more proximal to effort allocation. Another inter-
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
esting application of discounting of delayed rewards pertains to
motivation and behavior in groups (Charlton et al., 2013). Future
research is needed to better understand how multi-team system
and local team goals and priorities may differentially mitigate dis-
counting effects at the individual level.
4.1.2. Embodied cognition and motivation
The past few decades have witnessed increased interest in
embodied cognition, or the way in which bodily, automatic emo-
tional responses to various features of social environments con-
tribute to decision making and action (Damasio, 1999). Although
the bulk of research in this area to date has focused on the effects
of emotions and actions on brain processes and their link to cogni-
tive processes involved in action, the findings emerging from this
interdisciplinary paradigm have spurred new research related to
motivation in three promising areas. First, Oettingen and
Gollwitzer (2009) suggest that the embodied system may affect
goal pursuit through its effects on implementation planning.
Wieber, Thurmer, and Gollwitzer (2015) integrated cognitive and
physiological findings on implementation planning effects to sug-
gest that action control through implementation intentions (that
incorporate embodied emotion regulation processes) may demand
less effort than action control through goal intentions. Further
research examining the impact of different implementation plans
on goal accomplishment is needed to evaluate this and related
hypotheses.
A second area of interest pertains to the impact of incentives.
Many organizations employ multiple and diverse types of incen-
tive plans to promote work motivation, including for example
monetary incentives (e.g., bonus pay) and non-monetary incen-
tives (e.g., employee recognition, free food, or travel). Understand-
ing how individuals integrate these incentives and their role in
decision-making and motivational processing has theoretical and
practical implications, particularly for human resource manage-
ment practices that seek to promote engagement and build new
behavior patterns. Research by Braver and his colleagues (e.g.,
Chiew & Braver, 2014; Krug & Braver, 2014) provides initial exper-
imental and neuroscience evidence for how these incentives are
integrated and their emotional influence on cognitive control in
task performance. Studies to examine the scale-up of these find-
ings to the workplace represent an exciting and important new
direction in work motivation.
A third area of interest in theory and research pertains to the
self and social identity as it affects motivation. Identity-based
motivation (e.g., Oyserman, 2007, 2015) highlights the role of
broad social factors, such as gender, social class, and ethnicity, on
identity activation and the role of identity-congruence in behav-
ioral choice and action. Although the theory has been focused to
date largely on the effects of situationally-cued identity and
identity-congruence effects in educational, social and health con-
texts, findings by Lewis and Oyserman (2015) on the role of iden-
tity congruence in retirement saving suggests new directions for
future research investigating identity congruence in other work-
related behaviors, such as innovation in teams.
5. A final observation
Overall, our review of the OBHP/OBHDP literature shows a
remarkable progress in motivation over the past half century, par-
ticularly with respect to understanding the basic psychological
mechanisms involved in deliberate goal choice, self-regulation,
and decision-making and the influence of explicit motives and abil-
ities on these processes. These advances have been made possible
largely by drawing on advances in the neighboring subdisciplines
of cognitive and social-personality psychology. As we contemplate
15
changes in the nature of work and working over the next half-
century, we think it will be important to cast a wider net going for-
ward, and more closely evaluate how advances in more distant
subdisciplines, such as lifespan psychology, affective neuroscience,
and the broader organization sciences may inform research on
motivation in organized work settings. Research in lifespan psy-
chology, for example, provides evidence for important age-
related differences in cognitive abilities and work motives that
have been shown to have important consequences for motivation
in the context of skill training and work engagement. However,
to integrate these and other developments in psychology and
related fields, motivation researchers may well need to expand
beyond the standard, time-limited experimental paradigm, which
has become commonplace in this journal. We strongly encourage
the use of multi-level, longitudinal field experiments, experience-
sampling studies, and intervention studies to allow for the evalua-
tion of motivational and behavioral variability as a function of
time, work events, the individual’s history, and the social context
of action – determinants of motivation particularly important for
managing many modern organizational behavior problem spaces,
such as expatriation, work transitions, employee diversity, multi-
team systems, and high-stakes work. We believe such a broaden-
ing is essential for maintaining the journal’s eminent role in the
field going forward.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Linn Van Dyne and the three review-
ers for their insightful suggestions on earlier versions of this
manuscript.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Alderfer, C. P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 143–175.
Amit, A., & Sagiv, L. (2013). The role of epistemic motivation in individuals’ response
to decision complexity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
121, 104–117.
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social–
cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Austin, J. T. (1989). Effects of shifts in goal origin on goal acceptance and attainment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 415–435.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive
influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 38, 92–113.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is
the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
1252–1265.
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2012). Taken out of context? Cross-level effects of
between-person self-efficacy and difficulty on the within-person relationship of
self-efficacy with resource allocation and performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 119, 195–208.
Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcome
interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121,
194–203.
Benjamin, L., & Flynn, F. J. (2006). Leadership style and regulatory mode: Value from
fit? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 100, 216–230.
16 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
Boal, K. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1981). Cognitive evaluation theory: An experimental
test of processes and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 28, 289–310.
Brebels, L., De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Retaliation as a response to
procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 95, 1511–1525.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the
study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 86, 35–66.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational
research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 67, 26–48.
Campbell, D. J., & Gingrich, K. F. (1986). The interactive effects of task complexity
and participation on task performance: A field experiment. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 162–180.
Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the
goal-setting and changing process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 30, 265–287.
Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series of meta-
analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self-control does not seem to rely on a
limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 796–815.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
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, 980–1008.
Charlton, S. R., Yi, R., Poerter, C., Carter, A. E., Bickel, W., & Rachlin, H. (2013). Now
for me, later for us? Effects of group context on temporal discounting. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 118–127.
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation
and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of
explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
464–478.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in
work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.
Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The
motivating potential of teams: A test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006)
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45–55.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of
leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 331–346.
Chen, X., & Latham, G. P. (2014). The effect of priming learning vs. performance
goals on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
125, 88–97.
Chen, G., & Mathieu, J. E. (2008). Goal orientation dispositions and performance
trajectories: The roles of supplementary and complementary situational
inducements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 21–38.
Chiew, K. S., & Braver, T. S. (2014). Dissociable influences of reward motivation and
positive emotion on cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience, 14, 509–529.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice
at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational
justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., &
Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic
test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98, 199–236.
Cropanzano, R., Paddock, L., Rupp, D. E., Bagger, J., & Baldwin, A. (2008). How
regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived
fairness and emotions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
105, 36–51.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations:
Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 69, 117–132.
Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, mine, and ours: Facilitating group
productivity through the integration of individual and group goals.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 138–150.
da Motta Veiga, S. P., & Turban, D. B. (2014). Are affect and perceived stress
detrimental or beneficial to job seekers? The role of learning goal orientation in
job search and self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 125, 193–204.
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of
consciousness. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.
Deci, E. L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls
on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8,
217–229.
DeShon, R. P., & Alexander, R. A. (1996). Goal setting effects on implicit and explicit
learning of complex tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 65, 18–36.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-
performance relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 88, 667–682.
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal
difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 72, 203–231.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Earley, P. C., & Kanfer, R. (1985). The influence of component participation and role
models on goal acceptance, goal satisfaction, and performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 378–390.
Earley, P. C., & Perry, B. C. (1987). Work plan availability and performance: An
assessment of task strategy priming on subsequent task completion.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 279–302.
Edwards, J. R. (2002). The past, present, and future of Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
87, 1–4.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 461–475.
Erez, M., Gopher, D., & Arzi, N. (1990). Effects of goal difficulty, self-set goals, and
monetary rewards on dual task performance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 47, 247–269.
Evans, M. G., Kiggundu, M. N., & House, R. J. (1979). A partial test and extension of
the job characteristics model of motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 24, 354–381.
Farr, J. L., Vance, R. J., & McIntyre, R. M. (1977). Further examinations of the
relationship between reward contingency and intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 31–53.
Feldman, Daniel C. (2013). Feeling lit it’s time to retire: A fit perspective on early
retirement decisions. In M. Wang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of retirement
(pp. 280–292). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. (2012). Interpersonal injustice and
workplace deviance: The role of esteem threat. Journal of Management, 38,
1788–1811.
Fishbach, A., & Choi, J. (2012). When thinking about goals undermines goal pursuit.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 99–107.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior
in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34.
Forward, J., & Zander, A. (1971). Choice of unattainable group goals and
effects on performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6,
184–199.
Frost, P. J., & Mahoney, T. A. (1976). Goal setting and the task process: I. An
interactive influence on individual performance. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 17, 328–350.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member
exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827–844.
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist
temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 191–203.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social
behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53–92). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (2003). Why we thought that action mindsets affect illusions of
control. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 259–267.
Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Ratajczak, H. (1990). From weighing to willing:
Approaching a change decision through pre- or postdecisional mentation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 41–65.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2012). Goal pursuit. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of human motivation (pp. 208–231). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Goncalo, J. A., Polman, E., & Maslach, C. (2010). Can confidence come too soon?
Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 13–24.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6,
219–247.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 48–58.
Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007).
Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with
beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 103, 53–67.
Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Dekas, K. (2011). The performance
implications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous and
controlled motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
116, 241–251.
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of
relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3,
317–375.
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact
of personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 43, 29–51.
Gröpel, P., & Kehr, H. M. (2014). Motivation and self-control: Implicit motives
moderate the exertion of self-control in motive-related tasks. Journal of
Personality, 82, 317–328.
Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interaction of task design
and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 350–365.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., Pearce, J. L., & Wolfe, J. C. (1978). Effects of changes in job
characteristics on work attitudes and behaviors: A naturally occurring quasi-
experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 289–304.
Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. (1968). Expectancy theory predictions of work
effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 417–426.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2010). Ego depletion and
the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
495–525.
Hamner, W. C., & Harnett, D. L. (1974). Goal setting, performance and satisfaction in
an interdependent task. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12,
217–230.
Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive
functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and
Emotion, 11, 101–120.
Heneman, H. G., & Schwab, D. P. (1972). Evaluation of research on expectancy
theory predictions of employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 78, 1–9.
Henry, R. A., & Sniezek, J. A. (1993). Situational factors affecting judgments of future
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54,
104–132.
Hinsz, V. B., Kalnbach, L. R., & Lorentz, N. R. (1997). Using judgmental anchors to
establish challenging self-set goals without jeopardizing commitment.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 287–308.
Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. P. (1987). The effects of individual differences and goal
origin on goal setting and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 40, 392–414.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational,
social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and
theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 1332–1356.
Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J., & Macrae, C. N. (2014). Why self-control seems (but
may not be) limited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tics.2013.12.009.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Lord, R. G. (2006). Moving from cognition to behavior:
What the research says. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 381–415.
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). The good and bad of being fair:
Effects of procedural and interactional justice behaviors on actors’ regulatory
resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 635–650.
Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the
self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 175–201.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
755–768.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
deviance: Test of a multilevel model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657–690.
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. (2008). Work motivation: Forging new
perspectives and directions in the post-millennium. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R.
D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 601–632).
New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/organizational psychology. In M.
D. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology. Theory in industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 75–170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kanfer, F. H., & Hagerman, S. M. (1981). The role of self-regulation. In L. P. Rehm
(Ed.), Behavior therapy for depression: Present status and future directions
(pp. 143–179). New York: Academic Press.
Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-
centered approach to work motivation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19,
1–56.
Kanfer, R., & Kerry, M. (2012). Motivation in multiteam systems. In S. J. Zaccaro, M.
A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organization form for
dynamic and complex environments. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Kanfer, R. (2012). Work motivation: Theory, practice, and future directions. In S. W.
J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 455–495). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and perceived
abilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 470–499.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145–172.
Kim, Y.-J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Why and when do
motives matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social
17
support as predictors of OCB. Organizational behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 121, 231–245.
Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective
on the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 102, 193–211.
Klein, H. J. (1991). Further evidence on the relationship between goal setting and
expectancy theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49,
230–257.
Klein, H. J., Austin, J. T., & Cooper, J. T. (2008). Goal choice and decision processes. In
R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and
future (pp. 101–150). New York: Routledge/Taylor Francis Group.
Klein, W. M., & Kunda, Z. (1994). Exaggerated self-assessments and the preference
for controllable risks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59,
410–427.
Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished
goal actions affect motivation. Motivation Science, 1, 73–90.
Kooij, D. T., Betts, M., & Kanfer, R. (2015). Future time perspective: A systematic review
and meta-analysis Unpublished manuscript : . Tilberg University.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R.
(2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional
training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 85, 1–31.
Krug, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2014). Motivation and cognitive control: Going beyond
monetary incentives. In E. Bijleveld & H. Aarts (Eds.), The psychological science of
money (pp. 137–162). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.
Lanaj, K., Johnson, R. E., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Beginning the workday yet already
depleted? Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 11–23.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247.
Lawler, E. E., III, & Suttle, J. L. (1972). A causal correlational test of the need hierarchy
concept. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 265–287.
Lawler, E. E., III, & Suttle, J. L. (1973). Expectancy theory and job behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 482–503.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-
analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and
relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61,
273–307.
Lewis, N. A., Jr., & Oyserman, D. (2015). When does the future begin? Time and
metrics matter, connecting present to future selves. Psychological Science, 26,
816–825.
Li, A., Evans, J., Christian, M. S., Gilliland, S. W., Kausel, E. E., & Stein, J. H. (2011). The
effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 268–282.
Livi, S., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Kenny, D. A. (2015). Epistemic
motivation and perpetuation of group culture: Effects of need for cognitive
closure on trans-generational norm transmission. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 129, 105–112.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the
motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,
288–299.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task
performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
Loundt, R. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: The
impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 103, 214–224.
Lyons, B. J., & Scott, B. A. (2012). Integrating social exchange and affective
explanations for the receipt of help and harm: A social network approach.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 66–79.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,
370–396.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harpers.
McClelland, D. C. (1986). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and
implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.
Mento, A. J., Cartledge, N. D., & Locke, E. A. (1980). Maryland vs Michigan vs
Minnesota: Another look at the relationship of expectancy and goal difficulty to
task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 419–
440.
Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of
goal-setting on task-performance: 1966 to 1984. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 39, 52–83.
Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social
loafing effects among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 56, 246–265.
Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational
preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal.
Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053–1077.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation – new directions for theory, research, and practice.
Academy of Management Review, 7, 80–88.
Mohammed, S., & Harrison, D. A. (2013). The clocks that time us are not the same: A
theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 244–256.
18 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design
and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.
Mueller, J. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 111–124.
Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective
efficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87.
Nahrgang, J. D., DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Spitzmuller, M., Jundt, D. K., & Ilgen, D.
R. (2013). Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals
on process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 122, 12–21.
Naylor, J. C., & Briggs, G. E. (1966). Statement of editorial policy. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 1–2.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in
organizations. New York: Academic Press.
Oettingen, G., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009). Embodied goal pursuit. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 39, 1210–1213.
Oyserman, D. (2015). Pathways to success through identity-based motivation. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 432–453).
New York: Guilford Press.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). Meta-analytic examination
of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
128–150.
Phillips, J. M. (2001). The role of decision influence and team performance in
member self-efficacy, withdrawal, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness
to return. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 122–147.
Pierce, J. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1978). The measurement of perceived job
characteristics: The job diagnostic survey versus the job characteristics
inventory. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 123–128.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J.-L. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal
setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 44, 45–67.
Porac, J. F., & Meindl, J. (1982). Undermining overjustification: Inducing intrinsic
and extrinsic task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 29, 208–226.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Feedback: Beyond behaviorism. Science, 179, 351–356.
Price, K. H. (1987). Decision responsibility, task responsibility, identifiability, and
social loafing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 40,
330–345.
Pritchard, R. D. (1969). Equity theory: A review and critique. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 4, 176–211.
Pritchard, R. D., & Curtis, M. I. (1973). The influence of goal setting and financial
incentives on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 10, 175–183.
Pritchard, R. D., deLeo, P. J., & Von Bergen, C. W. (1976). A field experimental test of
expectancy-valence incentive motivation techniques. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 15, 355–406.
Rawolle, M., Wallis, M. S. v., Badham, R., & Kehr, H. M. (2016). No fit, no fun: The
effect of motive incongruence on job burnout and the mediating role of intrinsic
motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 65–68.
Roberts, K. H., & Glick, W. (1981). The job characteristics approach to task design: A
critical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 193–217.
Rousseau, D. M. (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee
satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis of job design research and
sociotechnical systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 19, 18–42.
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifoci approach
to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the
consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and
social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123,
159–185.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). When rewards compete with nature: The
undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation. In C. Sansone & J. M.
Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal
motivation and performance (pp. 13–54). New York: Academic Press.
Sanna, L. J., & Mark, M. M. (1995). Self-handicapping, expected evaluation, and
performance: Accentuating the positive and attenuating the negative.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 84–102.
Schmidt, F. L. (1973). Implications of a measurement problem for expectancy theory
research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 10, 243–251.
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2009). Prior performance and goal progress as
moderators of the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Human
Performance, 22, 191–203.
Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance
ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 572–581.
Scott, B. A., Garza, A. S., Conlon, D. E., & Kim, Y. J. (2014). Why do managers act fairly
in the first place? A daily investigation of ‘‘hot” and ‘‘cold” motives and
discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1571–1591.
Seo, M., & Ilies, R. (2009). The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic
motivational self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 109, 120–133.
Shah, J. (2003). The motivational looking glass: How significant others implicitly
affect goal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 424–439.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on
creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected
evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 84, 1–22.
Shantz, A., & Latham, G. P. (2009). An exploratory field experiment of the effect of
subconscious and conscious goals on employee performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 9–17.
Shapira, Z. (1989). Task choice and assigned goals as determinants of task
motivation and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 44, 141–165.
Shen, L., Fishbach, A., & Hsee, C. K. (2015). The motivating-uncertainty effect:
Uncertainty increases resource investment in the process of reward pursuit.
Journal of Consumer Research, 41, 1301–1315.
Sherf, E. N., & Venkataramani, V. (2015). Friend or foe? The impact of relational ties
with comparison others on outcome fairness and satisfaction judgments.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 1–14.
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and
unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the
relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 62, 286–299.
Smith, K. G., Locke, E. A., & Barry, D. (1990). Goal setting, planning, and
organizational performance: An experimental simulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 118–134.
Sripada, C., Swain, J. D., Ho, S. S., & Swain, J. E. (2014). Automatic goals and conscious
regulation in social cognitive affective neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 156–157.
Stajkovic, A. D., Locke, E. A., & Blair, E. S. (2006). A first examination of the
relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals,
and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1172–1180.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.
Steel, P., & Konig, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 889–913.
Stone, D. N. (1994). Overconfidence in initial self-efficacy judgments: Effects on
decision processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 59, 452–474.
Sue-Chan, C., & Ong, M. (2002). Goal assignment and performance: Assessing the
mediating roles of goal commitment and self-efficacy and the moderating role
of power distance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89,
1140–1161.
Sun, S. H., & Frese, M. (2013). Multiple goal pursuit. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham
(Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 177–194).
New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Sun, S., Vancouver, J. B., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2014). Goal choices and planning:
Distinct expectancy and value effects in two goal processes. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 220–233.
Tabernero, C., & Wood, R. E. (1999). Implicit theories versus the social construal of
ability in self-regulation and performance on a complex task. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 104–127.
Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Wong, K. F. E. (2011). Social influence of a coworker: A test of
the effect of employee and coworker exchange ideologies on employees’
exchange qualities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115,
226–237.
Tasa, K., & Whyte, G. (2005). Collective efficacy and vigilant problem solving in
group decision making: A non-linear model. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 96, 119–129.
Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, and
self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 692–701.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The
American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507–533.
Vancouver, J. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for
psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 38–52.
Vancouver, J. B. (2008). Integrating self-regulation theories of work motivation into
a dynamic process theory. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 1–18.
Vancouver, J. B., & Kendall, L. N. (2006). When self-efficacy negatively relates to
motivation and performance in a learning context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 1146–1153.
Vancouver, J. B., Thompson, C. M., & Williams, A. A. (2001). The changing signs in the
relationships among self-efficacy, personal goals, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 605–620.
VandeWalle, D. M. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal
orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57,
995–1015.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and postdecision
processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 212–225.
Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research
on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
15, 212–240.
 R. Kanfer, G. Chen / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 136 (2016) 6–19
Webb, T. L., Gallo, I. S., Miles, E., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2012). Effective
regulation of affect: An action control perspective on emotion regulation.
European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 143–186.
Weber, E. U. (1998). From performance to decision processes in 33 years: A history
of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes under James C. Naylor.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 209–222.
Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of
basic assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) in call centre work. British
Journal of Management, 17, 237–254.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at
work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummigs (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 18, pp. 1–74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weldon, E., & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The
effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 330–351.
Welsh, D. T., & Ordonez, L. D. (2014). The dark side of consecutive high performance
goals: Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 79–89.
19
Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis’s groupthink model: The key role of collective
efficacy in decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 73, 185–209.
Wieber, F., Thurmer, J. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015). Promoting the translation of
intentions into action by implementation intentions: Behavioral effects and
physiological correlates. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3389/fnhum.2015.00395.
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990). Mechanisms governing organizational
performance in complex decision-making environments. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181–201.
Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). The relations of daily counterproductive
workplace behavior with emotions, situational antecedents, and personality
moderators: A diary study in Hong Kong. Personnel Psychology, 62, 259–295.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
Zedeck, S. (1977). An information processing model and approach to the study of
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 47–77.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust,
and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 124, 150–164.