MOTIVATION

MOTIVATION

CONTENTS

Introduction 1
Exploring theories of motivation 2
Economic Theories 2
Needs Theories 3
Goal–setting and expectancy theories 10
The Psychological Contract 14
Further Reading and References 14

INTRODUCTION

The subject of motivation has been centre stage in organisational and managerial thought
throughout the second half of this century. If we understand what motivates people, and in
particular if we understand what motivates people to work hard and to work well, we can
arrange for those who turn up on time and who do perform well to receive more of what they
value, and for the latecomers and poor performers to receive less. Unfortunately,
understanding the links between desirable behaviour and rewards is not easy.

For a given ability level, performance can vary widely, depending on the effort the employee
chooses to exert. You can probably think of a job situation in which you have chosen to work
extremely hard, and another set of circumstances when you felt inclined to put rather less into
the job.

There are a number of theories concerning the motivation of man, all of which are based upon
assumptions — largely unproved — about the nature of man. These theories have tended to
reflect the dominant mood, opinion or philosophy in society at the time. For example,
rationalism has been the dominant philosophy in the west for the last two centuries or so. This
philosophy is based on the notion that all problems will yield to logical examination eventually.
This has encouraged the astonishing growth of science in the last two centuries. It has also
led to ‘scientific’ management, manifested in the work of Taylor and Henry Ford, and given us
work study, the assembly line, division of labour, and so on.

Currently, the philosophy is changing rapidly. Modern management thinking is based on a

belief that organisations resemble living organisms more closely than they do machines; i.e.
they are best examined as systems. The systems approach can be regarded as stemming
from an attempt by biologists to ‘fight back’ against the prestigious physical sciences shortly
after the Second World War. They argued that the highly reductionist approach that had been
so successful in physics, namely studying variables in isolation and looking for simple cause–
effect relationships, was being applied in areas such as the behavioural sciences where it
was singularly unhelpful. In understanding the behaviour of individual organisms, the

1
 MOTIVATION

organism as a whole needs to be considered, and the extent to which it could maintain a
desired state in the face of environmental difficulties.

The biologists argued that the relationship between the parts of the whole organism needed
to be studied, rather than the parts in isolation, and the feedback loops allowing the
maintenance of a steady state had to be understood. These same ideas were as important for
understanding organisations as they were for understanding individual organisms. The
organisms were a useful analogy, when conceptualising a problem situation.

There are three main theoretical approaches that are of interest to us:

 Economic theories;

 Needs theories;

 Goal–setting and Expectancy theories.

Economic and needs theories are also known as content theories, whereas goal–setting and
expectancy theories are also referred to as process theories.

Motivation can be extrinsic — concerning rewards provided by others, such as praise and
money — or intrinsic — concerning the rewards we give ourselves, such as feelings of
achievement and self–confidence.

EXPLORING THEORIES OF MOTIVATION

There have been a number of theories put forward as to why people choose to exert their
efforts in particular directions at particular times, and to varying degrees, and a number of
less formally constructed 'theories' of motivation adopted, often unconsciously, by managers.
By 'theory' in this second sense we mean a set of assumptions about 'what makes people tick'
which managers may not even have articulated to themselves, but which nevertheless
determine how they handle their subordinates.

Economic Theories

These are based upon the notions of Taylorism and scientific management. Man operates in
his/her own economic self interest. Payment should be directly linked to measured increments
of work, as in payment by results. There are strong links here with Taylor, work study, Henry
Ford, the assembly line, and bureaucracy as a form of organisation.

There are a number of beliefs that Taylor and his followers espoused:

1 Fundamentally people disliked work and had to be pressured into doing it.

2 Employees were untrustworthy and unreliable, and hence had to be constantly

supervised and directed.

2
MOTIVATION

3 For maximum productivity, it was necessary to standardize jobs by dividing them into
tasks and sub–tasks. Each of these was allocated to a different person.

4 Since discipline was necessary to ensure that work was done, a system of
hierarchical authority was required to implement management’s policy.

5 The task to be carried out had to be carefully studied, and the ‘one–best–way’
discovered and taught to employees. Each task had to be carefully selected.

6 The tools with which to do the tasks had to be carefully chosen.

7 The careful selection of the best person for the job had to be based on ‘fitness for the
job’.

8 Ensure that employees use the ‘one–best–way’ by using a payment by results system
— the more you produce, the more you earn.

Needs Theories

The Hawthorne experiments

When an individual works as a member of a group, it has a great effect on his/her behaviour.
One of the earliest studies of people working in groups was made at the Hawthorne works of
the Western Electric Company in Chicago over sixty years ago. Included in this pioneering
investigation was the observation of a group of workers wiring banks of resistors.

‘It was found that they restricted their output; the group had a standard of output and
this was not exceeded by any individual. The attitude of the members of the group
towards the company’s financial incentive scheme was one of indifference. The group
was highly integrated with its own social structure and code of behaviour which
clashed with that of the management. Essentially their code was composed of
solidarity on the part of the group against the management. Not too much work
should be done, that would be ratebusting; not too little should be done, that would be
chiselling. There was little recognition of the organisation’s formal allocation of roles.’

(From Pugh, 1983)

Elton Mayo is long associated with these experiments. His approach was scientific; starting
from the assumption that the working environment determined work performance, he
organised a long–running experiment in which various elements were varied — such as
lighting and heating. Astonishingly, every time that he made a change — even a detrimental
one — output increased. Clearly something else was happening. Eventually he came to the
conclusion that it was something to do with the group itself. The human relations school of
management was born which came to dominate management thought in America in the
1960s.

3
MOTIVATION

Although the findings of the research conducted at the Hawthorne works of the Western
Electric Company were ambiguous, a supporter of human relations theory would stress the
importance of the following:

1 Individual employee productivity and morale are boosted if staff are given an
opportunity to interact freely with each other.

2 Productivity is enhanced if bosses take an interest in their subordinates and their

work.

3 Informal groups and leaders have as much (if not more) influence on the behaviour of
staff as formal ones.

4 Groups develop their own norms about work output and quality.

5 Groups exert both negative and positive sanctions to control the behaviour of their
members.

6 Individuals obtain satisfaction from membership of work groups.

The influence of Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg and others

Douglas McGregor, in the 1950s, usefully drew attention to those implicit 'theories' held by
managers, by contrasting what he saw as two very different sets of assumptions which he
labelled Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X, he said, assumes that the average working man is
naturally lazy, lacking in ambition, indifferent to organizational needs and gullible. In contrast,
Theory Y assumes that if people behave in this way it is not innate, but the result of their
experience. They are ready to assume responsibility and work towards organizational goals,
provided management arranges things so that employees can achieve their own goals best
by directing their effort towards organizational objectives.

Theory X implies, therefore, a management by coercion and control, Theory Y suggests that
collaboration and supportive relationships are more important.

McGregor’s work was extremely useful, first in that it highlighted the existence of differing sets
of assumptions. We can begin to question our assumptions only when we are aware that they
exist at all; when we are aware that we are assuming people are, say, ready to serve
organizational goals, and that this is not necessarily the way the world actually is! Having
questioned the assumptions underlying our behaviour, we may be better able to modify the
behaviour itself.

McGregor was trying to formalize implicit theories, which had been perhaps unconsciously
adopted rather than carefully worked out. On another tack, researchers were deliberately
trying to formalize their understanding of human motivation into testable academic theories.
Some of these have been widely quoted in the management literature and will be briefly
covered here.

4
 MOTIVATION

One of the earliest, and still widely quoted, motivation theories was that of Maslow. He
suggested that people had five sets of needs:

 needs for self-actualization

 esteem needs

 love needs

 safety needs

 physiological needs

By self–actualization Maslow means the need to fulfill one's potential — 'a poet must write'.
Motivation, according to Maslow, arises when a need is unmet: if you are thirsty, you will walk
to a well. Furthermore, these needs are ordered. Those listed first have priority over those
which follow. If you are hungry or thirsty you will direct your behaviour towards meeting those
needs before later, 'higher–order' needs influence you: the poem can wait until you have
secured food or water. You will not be influenced by whether people will like you and approve
of your actions if you are fighting to save your job.

There have been many other categorizations of needs or motives over the years, with
numbers of categories ranging from more than 70 down to more manageable sets such as
Maslow's. There is nothing magical or definitive about his five categories. Indeed, a more
useful (in our view) formulation was proposed by Clayton Alderfer in 1969. He suggests only
three categories:

 growth needs, e.g. for learning new skills and for self–respect

 relatedness needs, e.g. for social interaction and respect

 existence needs, related to survival and reproduction

There is another variation in Alderfer's formulation which seems to fit better with our
experience. He suggests that all needs can be active at the same time (you can have a
starving poet, scribbling away in his icy attic room). However, if the satisfaction of a higher
need is blocked, the importance of lower needs may increase. This has important implications
for managers. Many jobs are designed so that growth needs cannot be satisfied at work.
Alderfer would suggest that, if this were the case, social needs would become more important
and, if these were blocked too, existence needs would increase in strength, perhaps leading
to increased pay demands and a stronger determination to fight for them.

Both Maslow and Alderfer are suggesting that behaviour is need–driven, although Alderfer is
suggesting that circumstances can modify needs other than by satisfying them. In contrast to
this, several theories focus less on the needs of the person and explain behaviour in terms of
its external goals.

5
MOTIVATION

Richard McClelland also developed a theory of needs, based on the need for achievement,
need for power, and need for affiliation. McClelland and subsequent researchers focused
their attention on need for achievement. Whilst heavily researched, it is the least practical of
all the needs theories and is little used.

You have probably already heard of Herzberg's two–factor theory of job satisfaction, but for
completeness a brief summary is included here. Herzberg interviewed 200 engineers and
accountants in Pittsburgh, USA, asking them to recall events at work resulting in a marked
improvement or reduction in job satisfaction. He then categorized the responses. He found
that five categories, or factors, were associated much more frequently with times of feelings of
satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Five different factors showed the reverse effect.

Herzberg summarized his findings as follows.

‘Five factors stand out as strong determiners of job satisfaction — achievement,

recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement... These five factors
appeared very infrequently when the respondents described events that paralleled
job satisfaction feelings... When the factors involved in the job dissatisfaction events
were coded an entirely different set of factors evolved... (which) served only to bring
about job dissatisfaction and were rarely involved in events that led to positive job
attitudes. The major dissatisfiers were company policy and administration,
supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions... Since the
dissatisfier factors essentially describe the environment and serve primarily to
prevent job dissatisfaction ... they have been named the hygiene factors... (in analogy
to the medical use of the term) The 'satisfier' factors were named the motivators,
since the other findings of the study suggest that they are effective in motivating the
individual to superior performance and effort... the hygiene or maintenance events led
to job dissatisfaction because of a need to avoid unpleasantness; the motivator
events led to job satisfaction because of a need for growth or self actualization.’

From Herzberg, F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Company.

Figure 1 represents Herzberg's original findings.

6
MOTIVATION

s a tis fa c tio n d is s a tis fa c tio n

a c h ie v e m e n t

r e c o g n itio n

w o r k its e lf

r e s p o n s ib ility

advancem ent

c o m p a n y p o lic y a n d a d m in is tr a tio n

s u p e r v is io n - te c h n ic a l

s a la r y

in te r p e r s o n a l r e la tio n s

w o r k in g c o n d itio n s

0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40

fr e q u e n c y o f m e n tio n ( % ) fr e q u e n c y o f m e n tio n ( % )
Figure 1 — Graphical representation of Herzberg's findings. Adapted from figure in Herzberg,
F. (1966) Work and the Nature of Man, ch. 6, World Publishing Company, reprinted in Vroom,
V. H. and Doci, E. L. (eds) (1970) Management and Motivation, p. 88, Penguin.)

Herzberg derived a set of principles for job design from his work, which were widely applied in
the 1970s in an attempt at improving motivation, and hence performance, at work.

‘Principle

(a) Remove some controls while retaining accountability

(b) Increase the accountability of individuals for own work

(c) Give a person a complete natural unit of work (module, division, area and so
on)

(d) Grant additional authority to on employee in his activity (job freedom)

(e) Make periodic reports directly available to the worker himself rather than to
the supervisor

(f) Introduce new and more difficult tasks not previously handled

(g) Assign individuals specific or specialized tasks, enabling them to become

experts’

7
MOTIVATION

Based on Herzberg, F. (1968) 'One more time: how do you motivate employees?’ Harvard
Business Review, vol. 46, pp. 53–62.1

Herzberg gave a very clear specification as to how managers should approach job
enrichment. The following is a simplified version of his list.

'Steps to job enrichment

Now that the motivator idea has been described in practice, here are the steps that
managers should take in instituting the principle with their employees:

1 Select jobs in which (a) the investment in industrial engineering does not
make changes too costly, (b) attitudes are poor, (c) hygiene is becoming very
costly, and (d) motivation will make a difference in performance.

2 Approach those jobs with the conviction that they can be changed. Years of
tradition have led managers to believe that the content of the jobs is
sacrosanct and the only scope of action that they have is in ways of
stimulating people.

3 Brainstorm a list of changes that may enrich the jobs, without concern for
their practicality.

4 Screen the list to eliminate suggestions that involve hygiene, rather than
actual motivation.

5 Screen the list for generalities, such as give them more responsibility', that
are rarely followed in practice. Words like 'responsibility', growth',
'achievement', and 'challenge', for example, have been elevated to the level
of a patriotic anthem for all organizations.

6 Avoid direct participation by the employees whose jobs are to be enriched.

Ideas they have expressed previously certainly constitute a valuable source
for recommended changes, but their direct involvement contaminates the
process with human relations hygiene and, more specifically, gives them only
a sense of making a contribution. The job is to be changed, and it is the
content that will produce the motivation, not attitudes about being involved or
the challenge inherent in setting up a job. The process will be over shortly,
and it is what the employees will be doing from then on that will determine
their motivation. A sense of participation will result only in short–term
involvement.

7 In the initial attempts at job enrichment, set up a controlled experiment At

least two equivalent groups should be chosen, one an experimental unit in
which the motivators are systematically introduced over a period of time, and

1
At the time of preparing this handout (July 2003), this was the second most requested reprint of a
Harvard Business Review article

8
MOTIVATION

the other one a control group in which no changes are made. For both
groups, hygiene should be allowed to follow its natural course for the duration
of the experiment. Pre- and post installation tests of performance and job
attitudes are necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the job enrichment
program. The attitude test must be limited to motivator items in order to
divorce the employee's view of the job he is given from all the surrounding
hygiene feelings that he might have.

8 Be prepared for a drop in performance in the experimental group in the first

few weeks. The change–over to a new job may lead to a temporary reduction
in efficiency.

9 Expect your first-line supervisors to experience some anxiety and hostility

over the changes you are making. The anxiety comes from their fear that the
changes will result in poorer performance for their unit. Hostility will arise
when the employees start assuming what the supervisors regard as their own
responsibility for performance. The supervisor without checking duties to
perform may then be left with little to do. '

Slightly adapted from Herzberg, F It 968) 'One more time: how do you motivate employees?'
Harvard Business Review, vol. 46, pp 53–62.

The term job enrichment was widely used to describe orthodox Herzberg inspired
interventions. By extension it came to be used for any attempt to improve motivation by
increasing individual responsibility. Some of these initiatives were highly successful, at least
in the short term. Others were spectacularly unsuccessful. A systems perspective suggests
some of the possible reasons for this.

Two key features of a systems approach that we see as crucial in this context are the
emphasis on inter–relationships and the emphasis on environment or context. This leads you
to pay careful attention to a diagnostic phase before intervention, looking at all the related
aspects of a situation. Job enrichment exercises have tended to be focussed very narrowly,
applying the solution of 'more responsibility' to an ill–defined problem. Indeed, we know of at
least one case where the problem was 'too much responsibility and not enough training' and
job enrichment made the situation a great deal worse.

Two of the key factors ignored in orthodox job enrichment are the perceptions and objectives
of the employees involved, because of the emphasis on an experimental approach. Another
area which it downplays is the area of social relations. At about the same time as job
enrichment reached its peak popularity in the USA and UK, a more explicitly systems–based
approach was being developed and widely applied, mainly in Europe.

This was the socio–technical approach which grew out of work in British coal mines carried
out by the London Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Trist and Bamforth were studying
the effects of the introduction of a mechanized method for longwall mining, organized very

9
MOTIVATION

much along traditional assembly line principles, with extreme job specialization. Different
shifts were responsible for different tasks, with those on a shift having only the skills needed
for that specific task. The researchers observed that where this method was 'successfully'
introduced, major problems of absenteeism and low productivity arose. However, in some
places geological considerations meant only partial implementation was possible, and
something closer to the old team–method of working continued, multi–skilled teams being
responsible for the whole coal–extracting cycle rather than just a part of it. In these cases
such problems did not arise. This led Trist and Bamforth to suggest that thinking purely of the
technical system was unhelpful. You could design a maximally productive technical system
on paper but, if you ignored the social system with which it interacted, the output of the
combined socio-technical system would be less than optimal.

Out of this work grew the concept of the autonomous working group. As with job enrichment
the emphasis is on increasing responsibility, but this is done on a group, rather than individual
basis. This allows for necessary inter–relatlons to be worked out, and for the social system to
be developed.

Groups are given wide discretion for the planning and organization of their own work. The
supervisor's role changes to that of advisor. Instead of controlling the group, the supervisor
becomes a resource to it. Sometimes the supervisor role is abolished entirely, although there
are risks attached to this strategy.

The group is given clear objectives and left to decide how to achieve them. Groups have
access to resources such as training specialists, and will often wish to increase the range of
skills of individual group members. This gives more flexibility in how the work is carried out.

Where autonomous working groups function well, closely–knit teams can evolve, with firm
commitment to meeting the group's objectives. Skills are increased and output is high.
Rewards for the group can be realistically linked to attainment of targets and work is socially
rewarding, too.

On the cost side of the equation is the need for considerable training, especially for
supervisors faced with a drastically altered role. Additional capital may be required, e.g. In
tooling, to enable a group to do a 'whole' job. Social misfits can be hard to incorporate into the
autonomous working group system.

The best known examples of this approach are probably Saab and Volvo, both of whom
moved away from assembly line production and towards group working, with groups, for
example, responsible for assembling a complete engine.

Goal–setting and expectancy theories

The human relations school, with its emphasis on human relations, declined rapidly in
influence in the 1970s as American companies turned their attention to issues of

10
 MOTIVATION

organisational culture and structure and other ‘hard’ issues, as a response to the threat posed
by Japan. Goal–setting and expectancy theories now receive most attention.

A model more commonly used in discussing job design and job performance is particularly
useful here. This is the Expectancy model, and it offers an explanation of why a person
chooses to exert effort at work, and how that effort is transformed into effective performance.
Figure 3 gives an outline of the model.

R o le c la r ity
S k ills a n d
a b ilit ie s
R e s o u rc e s :
t o o ls
m a t e r ia ls
t im e
in f o r m a t io n

E ffo r t P e r fo r m a n c e O u tc o m e s :

s o c ia l
f in a n c ia l
s ta tu s
C o m p a r is o n w ith a c h ie v e m e n t
d e s ir e d o u tc o m e s
Figure 2 expectancy model of job performance

The essence of this model is that:

 A person decides to make a particular effort

 That effort has a certain chance of achieving the required performance

 This chance will depend on

 the amount of effort exerted

 role clarity, i.e. the extent to which it is clear to the person just what
constitutes good performance
 their skills and abilities
 the availability of the necessary tools, materials, information, time, etc.
 The performance has a certain chance of being followed by 'outcomes' i.e.
rewards or punishments. These may be of a financial or social nature or have to do with
status or a sense of achievement.

 These outcomes are evaluated by the person against their desired outcomes and
efforts modified according to this comparison.

If you are a manager, the feedback that you provide, or that the job has been designed to
provide, has four functions within this model. Firstly, it increases role clarity. Through detailed

11
MOTIVATION

feedback your subordinates may develop a clearer idea of what it is that you require of them.
Secondly, it may allow a person to develop skills. Both of these have the effect of increasing
the likelihood that the person will perform successfully, given that the appropriate effort is
exerted. The third purpose of feedback if given by you or another person, is to function as a
social reward in its own right (or punishment if negative) and thus to affect the person's
decision to exert effort, that is, their motivation. Fourthly, feedback, whether given by a person
or not, enables employees to know how they have performed and thus to feel a sense of
achievement if it was well. This is another powerful reward and likely to have a marked effect
on a person's decision to exert effort in the future.

As a manager, though, you also have some control over the resources needed to turn effort
into desired performance. In reviewing performance with one of your subordinates you will be
getting feedback yourself on how well you (or the organization) is succeeding in providing
these resources. You should be getting feedback, too, on how successful any training you
have arranged has been in giving the person the necessary skills to perform effectively. In the
process you will also become aware of any further training need. Thus, the situation you set
up to give feedback allows you to receive feedback that will enable you to improve aspects of
your own performance.

Another, simpler, way of looking at expectancy theory is as follows:

N eeds

‘E ’ fa c t o r s T h e M o t iv a tio n C a lc u lu s

R e s u lt s

Figure 3 — The motivation calculus

In this simple model of motivation, needs emerge from the theories of Maslow, Herzberg and
McGregor. ‘E’ is what the individual puts into the venture; it can be Effort, Energy, Excitement,
Enthusiasm, Emotion, Expenditure of time, money, and passion.

12
 MOTIVATION

The model works as follows:

 The calculus is different for each individual.

 There are three separate elements, as follows:

 The strength or salience of the need

 The expectancy that ‘E’ will lead to a particular result.
 The instrumentality of the result in reducing the need.
 If any element is zero, the whole sum is zero.

To understand how this would work, imagine a senior executive who had been given an
important assignment to perform. His boss has told him that, should he do well in this
assignment, he will be promoted to the very senior and powerful position of Regional
Manager, Operations for Northern Europe, based in Berlin. Will he be motivated by this
challenge? Well, if he has a high need for power, he will expend energy on the task to the
degree that he believes:

 that good performance will lead to promotion (expectancy)

 that the promotion will satisfy his power needs (instrumentality)

If either of these conditions does not apply, he will not expend energy over and above that
needed to keep him employed (assuming that his need for security is operating).

The expectancy model can be expressed slightly differently as the ‘3C’ model. That is, the
three conditions for success are Competence, Commitment and Confidence. This useful
model (which will crop up in slightly different form in Situational Leadership), suggests a
method for holding discussions with an individual to check out their likelihood for success. For
example, simple (perhaps too simple) questions such as “Have you ever heard of JIT?”
checks out competence in that field; “how are you feeling right now?” checks out confidence,
and “how important is this to you?” checks out commitment.

Goal–setting theories

Payment should be related to attaining goals or to modified ways of working that have been
identified as desirable by the employee — such as pay for performance. There is a great deal
of empirical evidence to suggest that high achievers set themselves many — but not
particularly demanding — targets. Goal–setting is particularly evident in public corporations,
where local authorities, utilities, and a host of others come within the scope of the Citizens’
Charter. This is nothing more than a set of targets for the organisation designed to motivate
them to improve their service to the public.

13
 MOTIVATION

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTRACT

There is usually an implied, usually unstated psychological contract between the individual
and the organisation, be it work, the family, or the group. This contract is essentially a set of
expectations — what the individual expects from the organisation and what the organisation
expects from the individual. For example, until the 1980s, a bank worker could expect a job
for life with the reasonable expectation of periodic promotion. The bank expected the
individual to obey orders unquestioningly, to accept promotion when offered, and to move
from branch to branch as directed. The banks broke this contract in the 1980s when they
introduced compulsory redundancies on a massive scale. The result was widespread
uncertainty amongst bank employees, occurring as it did at a time of great public unpopularity
for the banks. Perhaps the two events were connected in some way. Systems theory would
tell us that they were.

According to Etzioni, organisations can be categorised in accordance with the psychological

contract:

 Coercive e.g. prisons

 Calculative e.g. industrial organisations

 Co–operative e.g. organisations trying to move in this direction.

FURTHER READING AND REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P. (1969) 'An empirical test of a new theory of human needs'. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 4, pp. 142–175.

Ardrey, R. (1967), The Territorial Imperative, Collins.

Argyris, C. (1960), Understanding Organizational Behaviour, Dorsey.

Argyris, C. (1964), Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley.

Brehm, J. W., and Cohen, A. R. (1962), Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance, Wiley.

Davis, L. E. and Taylor, J. C. (eds) (1972) Design of Jobs, Penguin. This is an excellent
collection of reprinted articles, and includes the Per Engelstad paper referred to as well as
extracts from the Herzberg article quoted here.

Dunbar, R. L. M. (1971),'Budgeting for control', Admin. Science Quarterly, March.

Etzioni, A. (1971), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free Press.

Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G R. (1976) 'Motivation through the design of work: test of a
theory'. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 16, pp. 250–279.

14
MOTIVATION

Hall, D. T. (1971), 'A theoretical model of career subidentity. Development in organizational

settings', Organizational Behav. Hum. Performance, January.

Hall, G. S., and Lindzey, G. (1973), Theories of Personality, Wiley.

Handy, C. B. (1985) Understanding Organizations (3rd edn), Penguin. Especially chapter 2.

Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, World Publishing Co.

Horney, K. (1951), Neurosis and Human Growth, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

House, R. J.. and Wigdor, L. A. (1967).'Herzberg's dual factor theory', Personn. Psychol.,
Winter.

Hunt, J. (1981), Managing People at Work, Pan.

Kelly, J. E. (1982) Scientific Management, Job Redesign and Work Performance, Academic
Press. This is an interesting book, written after the main flush of enthusiasm for job design.
While critical of much of the earlier work, questioning its underlying assumptions, it argues
that job design is still an important topic.

Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., and McIntyre, J. M. (1971), Organizational Psychology, Prentice–
Hall.

Leavitt, H. J., and Mueller, R. A. H. (1951).'Some effects of feedback on communication',

Hum. Rel.

Levinson, H. (1972),'An effort towards understanding man at work'. European Bus., Spring.

Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw–Hill.

Litwin, G. H., and Stringer, R. A. (1968), Motivation and Organizational Climate, Harvard
University Press.

McClelland, D. C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand.

McElroy, J. C. (1982), 'A typology of attribution leadership research', Academy of

Management Review.

McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw–Hill.

Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row.

Mead, G. H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press.

Myers, M. Scott (1966),'Condition for manager motivation', Harvard Business Review,

January–February.

Niles, F. S. (unpublished), The Influence of Parents and Friends on Adolescent Girls, M. Ed.
thesis, University of Manchester.

15
MOTIVATION

Opsahl, R. S., and Dunnette, M. D. (1969), 'The role of financial compensation', in L. L.

Cummings and W. E. Scott (eds.), Readings in Organizational Performance and Human
Behaviour, Irwin.

Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row.

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. (1968), Managerial Attitudes and Performance, Dorsey.

Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E. (1968),'What job attitudes tell about motivation', Harvard
Business Review, January-February.

Schein, E. H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, Prentice–Hall.

Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1987) Personnel Management: a new approach, Prentice Hall
International (UK) Ltd.

Vroom, V. H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley.

Vroom, V. H. and Deci, E. L. (eds) (1970) Management and Motivation, Penguin This is
another useful collection of reprinted 'classics' on this topic.

Walton, R. (1985) 'Control to commitment in the workplace,' Harvard Business Review,

March–April, pp. 77–84.

White, R. (1959), 'Motivation re–considered: the concept of competence', Psychol. Rev., vol.
66.

White, W. F. (1969), Organizational Behaviour, Irwin.

16