Content uploaded by Sait Revda Dinibutun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sait Revda Dinibutun on Jan 12, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract- Motivation is an internal force that accounts for
the level, direction, and persistence of effort expended at work.
There are many competing theories, which attempt to explain
the nature of motivation. These theories help to explain the
behavior of certain people at certain times. Content theories,
including the work of Maslow, Alderfer, McClelland, and
Herzberg, focus on locating individual needs that influence
behavior in the workplace. Process theories, such as equity and
expectancy theory, examine the thought processes that affect
decisions about alternative action by people at work. This
paper explores the many different theories of motivation, and
presents motivation as a basic psychological process. [*]
Keywords- Motivation, content theories, process theories,
hierarchy of needs, expectancy, equity.
I. OVERVIEW OF MAIN THEORIES OF WORK
MOTIVATION
Different theories are important to the manager. This is
because of the complexity of motivation, and the fact that
there is no ready-made solution or single answer to what
motivates people to work well. Theories show there are
many motives, which influence people’s behavior and
performance. Different theories provide a framework of how
best to motivate staff to work willingly and effectively, and
they also provide a basis for review of the most effective
motivational style (Fig.1) [1].
Scientific management and
the work of F. W. Taylor
The Hawthorne experiments
and Human Relations approach
Development of many competing theories
on the nature of work motivation
Emphasis on what motivates individuals
Major theorists are:
Maslow Alderfer
Herzberg McClelland
Emphasis on the actual process of motivation
Major theories are:
Expectancy theories Equity theory
Goal theory Attribution theory
Fig. 1. Overview of Main Theories of Work Motivation
II. THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
The usual approach to the study of motivation is through
an understanding of internal cognitive processes, which is,
what people feel and how they think. This understanding
should help the manager to predict likely behavior of staff in
given situations. These different cognitive theories of
motivation are mainly divided into two approaches: content
theories and process theories.
A. Content Theories
Content theories attempt to explain those specific things,
which actually motivate the individual at work. These
theories are concerned with identifying people’s needs and
their relative strengths, and the goals they pursue in order to
satisfy these needs. Content theories place emphasis on the
nature of needs and what motivates. Major content theories
of motivation include:
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory,
Alderfer’s modified need hierarchy model,
Herzberg’s two-factor theory,
McClelland’s achievement motivation theory.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
Maslow’s theory of individual development and
motivation was published in 1943. Maslow’s basic
proposition is that people are wanting beings, they always
want more, and what they want depends on what they
already have. He suggests that human needs are arranged in
a series of levels, a hierarchy of importance.
The hierarchy is usually shown as ranging through five
main levels, form, at the lowest level, physiological needs,
through safety needs, love (social) needs, and esteem needs,
to the need for self-actualization at the highest level. The
hierarchy of needs may be shown as a series of steps, but is
usually displayed in the form of a pyramid (Fig.2) [1]. This
is an appropriate form of illustration as it implies a thinning
out of needs as people progress up the hierarchy.
Fig. 2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Model
Work Motivation: Theoretical Framework
S. Revda Dinibutun, Department of Business Administration, Dogus University
EARLY IDEAS ON WORK
MOTIVATION
CONTENT THEORIES
PROCESS THEORIES
Physiological needs. The most basic level in the hierarchy,
the physiological needs, generally corresponds to the
unlearned primary needs. The need of hunger, thirst, sleep,
and sex are some examples. According to the theory, once
these basic needs are satisfied, they no longer motivate.
For example, a thirsty person will strive to obtain a glass
of water that is within reach. However, after drinking his
or her fill of water, the person will not strive to obtain
another one and will be motivated only by the next higher
level of needs.
Safety needs. These include safety and security, freedom
from pain or threat of physical attack, protection from
danger, the need for predictability and orderliness.
Love (social) needs. These include affection, sense of
belonging, social activities, friendships, and both the
giving and receiving of love.
Esteem needs. The esteem level represents the higher
needs of humans. These include both self-esteem and the
esteem of others. Self-esteem involves the desire for
confidence, strength, independence and freedom, and
achievement. Esteem of others involves reputation or
prestige, status, recognition, attention and appreciation.
Self-actualization needs. This is the development and
realization of one’s full potential. People who have
become self-actualized are self-fulfilled and have realized
all their potential. Maslow sees this as; what humans can
be, they must be. Self-actualization needs are not
necessarily a creative urge, and may take many forms,
which vary widely from one individual to another.
Once a lower need has been satisfied, it no longer acts as
a strong motivator. The needs of the next higher level in the
hierarchy demand satisfaction and become the motivating
influence. Only unsatisfied needs motivate a person.
Individuals advance up the hierarchy as each lower-level
need becomes satisfied. Therefore, to provide motivation for
a change in behavior, the manager must direct attention to
the next higher level of needs that seek satisfaction.
TABLE I
Applying Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
Needs levels
General rewards
Organizational factors
1 Physiological
Food, water,
a Pay
sex, sleep
b Pleasant working conditions
c Cafeteria
2 Safety
Safety, security,
a Safe working conditions
stability,
protection
b Company benefits
c Job security
3 Social
Love, affection,
a Cohesive work group
belongingness
b Friendly supervision
c Professional associations
4 Esteem
Self-esteem,
self-respect,
a Social recognition
prestige, status
b Job title
c High status job
d Feedback from the job itself
5 Self-
actualization
Growth,
a Challenging job
advancement,
b Opportunities for creativity
creativity
c Achievement in work
d Advancement in the
organization
The work of Maslow has drawn attention to a number of
different motivators and stimulated study and research. The
need hierarchy model provides a useful base for the
evaluation of motivation at work. A list of general rewards
and organizational factors used to satisfy different needs is
given in Table 1 [2].
Alderfer’s Modified Need Hierarchy Model
Alderfer has presented a modified need hierarchy model.
This model condenses Maslow’s five levels of need into
only three levels based on the core needs of existence,
relatedness and growth (ERG theory).
Existence needs are concerned with sustaining human
existence and survival, and cover physiological and safety
needs of a material nature.
Relatedness needs are concerned with relationships to the
social environment, and cover love or belonging, affiliation,
and meaningful interpersonal relationships of a safety or
esteem nature.
Growth needs are concerned with the development of
potential, and cover self-esteem and self-actualization.
Like Maslow, Alderfer suggests that people progress
through the hierarchy from existence needs, to relatedness
needs, to growth needs, as the lower-level needs become
satisfied. However, Alderfer suggests these needs are more a
continuum than hierarchical levels. More than one need may
be activated at the same time. People may also progress
down the hierarchy [3].
Unlike Maslow’s theory, the results of Alderfer’s work
suggest that lower-level needs do not have to be satisfied
before a higher-level need emerges as a motivating
influence.
ERG theory states that an individual is motivated to
satisfy one or more basic sets of needs. Therefore, if a
person’s needs at a particular level are blocked, then
attention should be focused on the satisfaction of needs at
the other levels.
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Herzberg extended the work of Maslow and developed a
specific content theory of work motivation. He conducted a
widely reported motivational study on about 200
accountants and engineers employed by firms in and around
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania [4]. He used the critical incident
method of obtaining data for analysis. Subjects were asked
to relate times when they felt exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad about their present job or any previous
job. They were asked to give reasons and a description of
the sequence of events giving rise to that feeling.
Responses obtained from this critical incident method
were interesting and fairly consistent. Reported good
feelings were generally associated with job experiences and
job content. Reported bad feelings, on the other hand, were
generally associated with the surrounding of the job and job
context. Tabulating these reported good and bad feelings,
Herzberg concluded that job satisfiers are related to job
content and that job dissatisfiers are related to job context.
Herzberg labeled the satisfiers as motivators, and the
dissatisfiers as hygiene factors. The term hygiene refers to
factors that are preventive. In Herzberg’s theory the hygiene
factors are those that prevent dissatisfaction. Taken together,
the motivators and the hygiene factors have become known
as Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation (Table 2) [5].
TABLE II
Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Hygiene Factors Motivators
Company policy and administration Achievement
Supervision, technical Recognition
Salary Work itself
Interpersonal relations, supervisor Responsibility
Working conditions Advancement
The hygiene factors can be related roughly to Maslow’s
lower-level needs and the motivators to Maslow’s higher-
level needs (Table 3) [1]. Proper attention to the hygiene
factors will tend to prevent dissatisfaction, but does not by
itself create a positive attitude or motivation to work. The
opposite of dissatisfaction is not satisfaction, but, simply, no
dissatisfaction. To motivate workers to give of their best, the
manager must give proper attention to the motivators or
growth factors [6].
TABLE III
Linking Maslow’s, Alderfer’s and Herzberg’s Theories of
Motivation
Maslow’s hierarchy Alderfer’s Herzberg’s
of needs ERG theory two-factor theory
PHYSIOLOGICAL EXISTENCE
SAFETY HYGIENE
FACTORS
LOVE RELATEDNESS
ESTEEM
GROWTH MOTIVATORS
SELF-ACTUALIZATION
Herzberg emphasizes that hygiene factors are not a
second-class citizen system. They are as important as the
motivators, but for different reasons. Hygiene factors are
necessary to avoid unpleasantness at work and to deny
unfair treatment. The motivators relate to what people are
allowed to do and the quality of human experience at work.
They are the variables, which actually motivate people.
McClelland’s Achievement Motivation Theory
David McClelland agrees with Herzberg that higher-level
needs are most important at work. He identified three main
socially developed motives:
The achievement motive,
The power motive,
The affiliative motives [7].
These three motives correspond to Maslow’s self-
actualization, esteem, and love needs. The relative intensity
of these motives varies between individuals. They also tend
to vary between different occupations. Managers appear to
be higher in achievement motivation than in affiliation
motivation.
McClelland used a series of projective tests in his
research studies to measure an individual’s motivation. For
example, individuals are shown a number of pictures in
which some activity is depicted. Respondents are asked to
look briefly at the pictures, and then to describe what they
think is happening, what the people in the picture are
thinking, and what events have led to the situation depicted
[7]. The descriptions are used as a basis for analyzing the
strength of the individual’s motives.
The achievement motive. People, who are high in the need
to achieve, have a predisposition to strive for success.
They are highly motivated to obtain the satisfaction that
comes from accomplishing a challenging task or goal.
They prefer tasks for which there is a reasonable chance
for success and avoid those that are either too easy or too
difficult. Such people prefer timely criticism and feedback
about their performance.
The power motive. People with a strong need for power
want to influence others directly by making suggestions,
giving their opinions and evaluations. They enjoy roles
requiring persuasion, such as teaching and public
speaking. A person with a high need for power but a low
need for warm, supportive relationships might become
dictatorial, while one with high needs for friendship might
become a social worker. McClelland believed that a good
manager is motivated by a strictly controlled and regulated
concern for influencing others, in other words, good
managers do have a need for power, but one that is under
control [8].
The affiliative motives. People, with a strong need for
affiliation, are highly motivated to maintain strong, warm
relationships with friends and relatives. At group meetings
they try to establish friendly relationships, often by being
agreeable or giving emotional support [9].
B. Process Theories
Process theories attempt to identify the relationships
among the dynamic variables, which make up motivation,
and the actions required to influence behavior and actions.
These theories are concerned more with how behavior is
initiated, directed and sustained. Process theories place
emphasis on the actual process of motivation, and they
provide a further contribution to the understanding of the
complex nature of work motivation. Major process theories
of motivation include:
Expectancy-based models: Vroom, and Porter and
Lawler,
Equity theory: Adams,
Goal theory: Locke,
Attribution theory: Heider, and Kelley.
Expectancy-based Models
The underlying basis of expectancy theory is that people
are influenced by the expected results of their actions.
Motivation is a function of the relationship between:
Effort expended and perceived level of performance,
The expectation that rewards will be related to
performance,
The expectation that rewards are available.
These relationships determine the strength of the
motivational link (Fig.3) [1].
Expectancy theory is a generic theory of motivation and
cannot be linked to a single individual writer. There are a
number of different versions and some of the models are
rather complex. More recent approaches to expectancy
theory have been associated with the work of Vroom and of
Porter and Lawler.
MOTIVATION – a function of the perceived relationship between
(1) and (2)
Effort expended Effective level Rewards related
of performance to performance
Availability of
reward
Fig. 3. Expectancy Theory: The Motivational Link
i. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory
Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory of work motivation
seeks to answer this basic question: What determines the
willingness of an individual to exert personal effort to work
at tasks that contribute to the performance of the work unit
and the organization [10]. The answer, according to the
expectancy theory, is found in the individual beliefs
regarding effort-performance relationships and the
desirability of various work outcomes that are associated
with different performance levels. Simply, the theory is
based on this logic: People will do what they can do when
they want to. This means, if a person wants a promotion
and sees that high performance can lead to that promotion
and believes that if he/she works hard he/she can achieve
high performance, then he/she will be motivated to work
hard.
Fig.4 presents the managerial foundations of expectancy
theory [6]. The three key components of the theory are:
1) Expectancy. The probability assigned by an individual
that work effort would be followed by a given level of
achieved task performance. Expectancy would equal 0 if
the person felt it was impossible to achieve the given
performance level; it would equal 1 if a person was 100
percent certain that the performance could be achieved.
2) Instrumentality. The probability assigned by the
individual that a given level of achieved task
performance would lead to various work outcomes.
Instrumentality also varies from 0 to 1.
3) Valence. The value attached by the individual to various
work outcomes. Valences form a scale from –1, which is
very undesirable outcome, to +1, which is very desirable
outcome.
Fig. 4. Key Terms and Managerial Implications of Vroom’s
Expectancy Theory
Vroom hypothesizes that motivation (M), expectancy (E),
instrumentality (I), and valence (V) are related to one
another by the equation: M E I V. This multiplier
effect means that the motivational appeal of a given work
path is sharply reduced whenever any one or more of these
factors approaches the value of zero. Conversely, for a given
reward to have a high and positive motivational impact as a
work outcome, the expectancy, instrumentality, and valence
associated with the reward all must be high and positive.
ii. The Porter and Lawler Expectancy Model
Porter and Lawler have developed Vroom’s expectancy
theory. Their model goes beyond motivational force and
considers performance as a whole. They point out that effort
expended does not lead directly to performance. It is
mediated by individual abilities and traits, and by the
person’s role perceptions [11]. They also introduce rewards
as an intervening variable. Porter and Lawler see
motivation, satisfaction and performance as separate
variables, and attempt to explain the complex relationships
among them. Their model recognizes that job satisfaction is
more dependent upon performance, than performance is
upon satisfaction. These relationships are expressed
diagrammatically in Fig.5 [11].
Value of reward (Box 1) is similar to valence in Vroom’s
model. People desire various rewards, which they hope to
achieve from work. The value placed on a reward depends
on the strength of its desirability.
Perceived effort-reward probability (Box 2) is similar to
expectancy. It refers to a person’s expectation that certain
rewards are dependent upon a given amount of effort.
Effort (Box 3) is how hard the person tries, the amount of
energy a person exerts on a given activity. It does not
relate to how successful a person is in carrying out an
activity. The amount of energy exerted is dependent upon
the interaction of the input variables of value of reward,
and perception of the effort-reward relationship.
Abilities and traits (Box 4). Porter and Lawler suggest that
effort does not lead directly to performance, but is
influenced by individual characteristics. Factors such as
intelligence, skills, knowledge, training and personality
affect the ability to perform a given activity.
Role perceptions (Box 5) refer to the way in which
individuals view their work and the role they should adopt.
This influences the type of effort exerted. Role perceptions
will influence the direction and level of action, which is
believed to be necessary for effective performance.
Performance (Box 6) depends not only on the amount of
effort exerted but also on the intervening influences of the
person’s abilities and traits, and their role perceptions. If
the person lacks the right ability or personality, or has an
inaccurate role perception of what is required, then the
exertion of a large amount of energy may still result in a
low level of performance, or task accomplishment.
Rewards (Boxes 7A and 7B) are desirable outcomes.
Intrinsic rewards derive from the individuals themselves
and include a sense of achievement, a feeling of
responsibility and recognition. Extrinsic rewards derive
from the organization and the actions of others, and
include salary, working conditions and supervision.
Perceived equitable rewards (Box 8). This is the level of
rewards people feel they should fairly receive for a given
standard of performance. Self-rating of performance links
directly with the perceived equitable reward variable.
Higher levels of self-rated performance are associated with
higher levels of expected equitable rewards.
Satisfaction (Box 9). This is not the same as motivation. It
is an attitude, an individual’s internal state. Satisfaction is
determined by both actual rewards received, and perceived
level of rewards from the organization for a given standard
of performance. If perceived equitable rewards are greater
than actual rewards received, the person experiences
dissatisfaction. The experience of satisfaction derives from
actual rewards, which meet or exceed the perceived
equitable rewards [11].
Fig. 5. The Porter and Lawler Motivation Model
iii. Lawler’s Revised Expectancy Model
Following the original Porter and Lawler model, further
work was undertaken by Lawler (Fig.6) [1]. He suggests that
in deciding on the attractiveness of alternative behaviors,
there are two types of expectancies to be considered: effort-
performance expectancies (EP); and performance-
outcome expectancies (PO) [12].
Level of performance Need related
outcomes
E P P O
Expectancies Expectancies
Outcome
Performance
Outcome
Effort
Outcome
Performance
Outcome
Fig. 6. An Illustration of the Lawler Expectancy Model
The first expectancy (EP) is the person’s perception of
the probability that a given amount of effort will result in
achieving an intended level of performance. It is measured
on a scale between 0 and 1. The closer the perceived
relationship between effort and performance, the higher the
EP expectancy scores.
The second expectancy (PO) is the person’s perception
of the probability that a given level of performance will
actually lead to particular need-related outcomes. This is
measured also on a scale between 0 and 1. The closer the
perceived relationship between performance and outcome,
the higher the PO expectancy scores.
The multiplicative combination of the two types of
expectancies, EP and the sum of the products PO,
determines expectancy. The motivational force to perform is
determined by multiplying EP and PO by the strength
of outcome valence (V).
E (Effort) (EP) [(PO) V]
The distinction between the two types of expectancies
arises because they are determined by different conditions.
EP expectancy is determined in part by the person’s
ability and self-confidence, past experience, and the
difficulty of the tasnk. PO expectancy is determined by
the attractiveness of the outcomes and the belief about who
controls the outcomes, the person him/herself or other
people [12].
Equity Theory
One of the major variables of satisfaction in the Porter
and Lawler expectancy model is perceived equitable
rewards [13]. This leads to consideration of another process
theory of motivation, which is Stacy Adams’s equity theory.
Equity theory focuses on people’s feelings of how fairly
they have been treated in comparison with the treatment
received by others. People are strongly motivated to
maintain a balance between what they perceive as their
inputs or contributions, and their rewards. Equity theory
states that if a person perceives an inequity, a tension or
drive will develop in the person’s mind, and the person will
be motivated to reduce or eliminate the tension and
perceived inequity [14].
People place a weighting on various inputs and outcomes
according to how they perceive their importance. When the
ratio of a person’s total outcomes to total inputs equals the
perceived ratio of other people’s total outcomes to total
inputs, there is equity. When there is an unequal comparison
of ratios, the person experiences a sense of inequity. The
feeling of inequity might arise when an individual’s ratio of
outcomes to inputs is either less than, or greater than, that of
other people (Fig.7) [5].
Equity
Person’s outcomes
Person’s inputs =Other’s outcomes
Other’s inputs
Inequity
Person’s outcomes
Person’s inputs <Other’s outcomes
Other’s inputs
Person’s outcomes
Person’s inputs >Other’s outcomes
Other’s inputs
Fig. 7. The Equity Comparison in a Work Situation
Both the inputs and the outputs of person and other are
based upon the person’s perceptions. Age, sex, education,
social status, organizational position, qualifications, and
how hard the person works are examples of perceived input
variables. Outcomes consist primarily of rewards such as
pay, status, promotion, and intrinsic interest in the job. The
ratio is based upon the person’s perception of what the
person is giving and receiving versus the ratio of what the
relevant other is giving and receiving. This cognition may or
may not be the same as someone else’s observation of the
ratios or the same as the actual situation [15].
Goal Theory
The goal theory of motivation assumes that once someone
decides to pursue a goal, the person regulates his or her
behavior to try to reach the goal [16]. Locke and his
colleagues contend that goals provide the mechanism
through which unsatisfied needs are translated into action. In
other words, unsatisfied needs prompt the person to seek
ways to satisfy those needs, and the person then formulates
goals that prompt action [16].
The combination of goal difficulty and the extent of the
person’s commitment to achieving the goal regulate the
level of effort expended. People with specific quantitative
goals, such as a defined level of performance, or a given
deadline for completion of a task, will perform better than
people with no set goal or only an unclear goal. People who
have difficult goals will perform better than people with
easier goals.
Locke pointed out that goal setting is more appropriately
viewed as a motivational technique rather than as a formal
theory of motivation. The theory of goal setting provides a
useful approach to work motivation and performance [17].
Attribution Theory
Unlike the other motivation theories, attribution theory is
more a theory of the relationship between personal
perception and interpersonal behavior than a theory of
individual motivation. There are an increasing variety of
attribution theories.
Well-known theorist Harold Kelley stresses that
attribution theory is concerned mainly with the cognitive
processes by which an individual interprets behavior as
being caused by certain parts of the relevant environment. It
is concerned with the why questions of motivation and
behavior. Since most causes, attributes, and whys are not
directly observable, the theory says that people must depend
upon cognitions, particularly perception. The attribution
theorist assumes that humans are rational and are motivated
to identify and understand the causal structure of their
relevant environment [18].
Theory’s initiator is generally recognized to be Fritz
Heider. Heider believed that both internal forces, which are
personal attributes such as ability, effort, and fatigue, and
external forces, which are environmental attributes such as
rules and the weather, combine additively to determine
behavior. He stressed that it is the perceived, not the actual,
determinants that are important to behavior. People will
behave differently if they perceive internal attributes than
they will if they perceive external attributes [19].
Behavior at work may be explained by the locus of
control, that is whether the individual perceives outcomes as
controlled by themselves, or by external factors. Judgments
made about other people will also be influenced strongly by
whether the cause is seen as internal or external.
In making attributions and determining whether an
internal or external attribution is chosen, Kelley suggests
three basic criteria [18]. These are:
Distinctiveness. Does the person act differently in
other situations?
Consensus. Do others act this way in a situation?
Consistency. Does the person act this way in this
situation at other times?
Fig. 8. Representation of Attribution Theory
Kelley hypothesized that people attribute behavior to
internal forces or personal factors when they perceive low
distinctiveness, low consensus and high consistency.
Behavior is attributed to external forces or environmental
factors when people perceived high distinctiveness, high
consensus, and low consistency (Fig.8) [5].
An additional consideration in the evaluation of task
performance within an organizational setting is whether the
cause of behavior was due to stable or unstable factors.
Stable factors are ability, or the ease or difficulty of the task.
Unstable factors are the exertion of effort, or luck.
The combination of internal and external attributions, and
stable and unstable characteristics, results in four possible
interpretations of a person’s task performance (Table 4)
[20]. TABLE IV
Classification of Possible Attributions for Performance
Internal attributions External attributions
Stable factors ABILITY TASK DIFFICULTY
Unstable factors EFFORT LUCK
Employees with an internal control orientation are more
likely to believe that they can influence their level of
performance through their own abilities, skills or efforts.
Employees with an external control orientation are more
likely to believe that their level of performance is
determined by external factors beyond their influence.
III. SUMMARY
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory views human needs
as activated in a five-step hierarchy, ranging from the
lowest, physiological, to safety, social, esteem, and self-
actualization, the highest. Alderfer’s ERG theory collapses
the five needs into three: existence, relatedness, and growth,
where more than one need can be activated at a time.
McClelland’s achievement motivation theory focuses on the
needs for achievement, affiliation, and power, and views
needs as developed over time through experience and
training. Herzberg’s two-factor theory links job satisfaction
to motivator factors, such as responsibility and challenge,
associated with job content, and links job dissatisfaction to
hygiene factors, such as pay and working conditions,
associated with job context.
Expectancy theory states that people are influenced by the
expected results of their actions. According to expectancy
theory, MotivationExpectancyInstrumentalityValence,
and managers should make each factor positive in order to
ensure high levels of motivation. Equity theory focuses on
people’s feelings of how fairly they have been treated in
comparison with the treatment received by others. The
presence of inequity motivates the person to remove or to
reduce the level of tension and the perceived inequity. Goal
theory assumes that once someone decides to pursue a goal,
the person regulates his or her behavior to try to reach the
goal. The theory also suggests that people who have difficult
goals will perform better than people with easier goals.
Attribution theory states that both internal forces and
external forces combine additively to determine behavior.
Internal forces are personal attributes such as ability, and
effort. External forces are environmental attributes such as
rules, and the weather.
REFERENCES
[1] L. J., Mullins, (2002), “Management and Organizational Behavior”,
Prentice-Hall.
[2] R. M., Steers, and L. W., Porter, (1991), “Motivation and Work
Behavior”, McGraw-Hill.
[3] C. P., Alderfer, (1972), “Existence, Relatedness and Growth”, Collier
Macmillan.
[4] F., Herzberg, (1959), “The Motivation to Work”, Chapman and Hall.
[5] F., Luthans, (1995), “Organizational Behavior”, McGraw-Hill.
[6] J. G., Hunt, (1996), “Organizational Behavior”.
[7] D. C., McClelland, (1988), “Human Motivation”, Cambridge
University Press.
[8] D. C., McClelland, and D., Burnham, (1995), “Power is the Great
Motivator”, Harvard Business Review, January-February.
[9] G., Litwin, and R., Stringer, (1968), “Motivation and Organizational
Climate”.
[10] V. H., Vroom, (1964), “Work and Motivation”, Wiley.
[11] L. W., Porter, and E. E., Lawler, (1968), “Managerial Attitudes and
Performance”, Irwin.
[12] E. E., Lawler, (1973), “Motivation in Work Organizations”,
Brooks/Cole.
[13] L. W., Porter, and E. E., Lawler, (1975), “Behavior in
Organizations”, McGraw-Hill.
[14] J. S., Adams, (1965), “Injustice in Social Exchange”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press.
[15] R., Kreitner, (1999), “Organizational Behavior”, McGraw-Hill.
[16] E. A., Locke, (1968), “Towards a Theory of Task Motivation and
Incentives”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3,
157-89.
[17] J. B., Miner, (1980), “Theories of Organizational Behavior”, Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
[18] H. H., Kelley, (1973), “The Process of Causal Attribution”,
American Psychologist, February.
[19] F., Heider, (1958), “The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations”,
Wiley and Sons.
[20] J. M., Bartunek, (1981), “Why Did You Do That? Attribution Theory
in Organizations”, Business Horizons, September-October.
[*] This paper is comprised of a summary of : S. R., Dinibutun, (2002),
“Motivation at Work”, Unpublished Bachelor Degree Project, Dogus
University.
S. Revda Dinibutun was born in Istanbul, September 1976. He has
graduated from Department of Business Administration at Doguş
University, in 2002, and got his MBA degree in 2005 at the same
university. He works as a research assistant at Dogus University and he is at
the final stages of his dissertation at Marmara University’s PhD program in
the field of Management and Organization.
