OB Theories

Early theories of motivation either have not held up under close examination or have fallen
out of favor. In contrast, contemporary theories have one thing in common: each has a reasonable
degree of valid supporting documentation. This doesn’t mean they are unquestionably right. We call
them “contemporary theories” because they represent the current state of thinking in explaining
employee motivation. In this paper I have selected three contemporary theories of motivation.

Self-Determination Theory
“It’s strange,” said Marcia. “I started work at the Humane Society as a volunteer. I put in 15 hours a
week helping people adopt pets. And I loved coming to work. Then, 3 months ago, they hired me full-
time at $11 an hour. I’m doing the same work I did before. But I’m not finding it nearly as much fun.”

Does Marcia’s reaction seem counterintuitive? There’s an explanation for it. It’s called self-
determination theory, which proposes that people prefer to feel they have control over their actions, so
anything that makes a previously enjoyed task feel more like an obligation than a freely chosen
activity will undermine motivation. 19 Much research on self-determination theory in OB has focused
on cognitive evaluation theory, which hypothesizes that extrinsic rewards will reduce intrinsic interest
in a task. When people are paid for work, it feels less like something they want to do and more like
something they have to do. Self-determination theory also proposes that in addition to being driven by
a need for autonomy, people seek ways to achieve competence and positive connections to others. A
large number of studies support self-determination theory. As we’ll show, its major implications
relate to work rewards.

When organizations use extrinsic rewards as payoffs for superior performance, employees feel they
are doing a good job less because of their own intrinsic desire to excel than because that’s what the
organization wants. Eliminating extrinsic rewards can also shift an individual’s perception of why she
works on a task from an external to an internal explanation. If you’re reading a novel a week because
your English literature instructor requires you to, you can attribute your reading behavior to an
external source. However, if you
find yourself continuing to read a novel a week after the course is over, your natural inclination is to
say, “I must enjoy reading novels because I’m still reading one a week.”

Goal-Setting Theory
Gene Broadwater, coach of the Hamilton High School cross-country team, gave his squad these last words
before they approached the starting line for the league championship race: “Each one of you is physically
ready. Now, get out there and do your best. No one can ever ask more of you than that.” You’ve heard the
sentiment a number of times yourself: “Just do your best. That’s all anyone can ask.” But what does “do
your best” mean? Do we ever know whether we’ve achieved that vague goal? Would the cross-country
runners have recorded faster times if Coach Broadwater had given each a specific goal?

Research on goal-setting theory in fact reveals impressive effects of goal specificity, challenge, and
feedback on performance. In the late 1960s, Edwin Locke proposed that intentions to work toward a goal
are a major source of work motivation. That is, goals tell an employee what needs to be done and how
much effort is needed. Evidence strongly suggests that specific goals increase performance; that difficult
goals, when accepted, result in higher performance than do easy goals; and that feedback leads to higher
performance than does nonfeedback.

Specific goals produce a higher level of output than the generalized goal “do your best.” Why? Specificity
itself seems to act as an internal stimulus. When a trucker commits to making 12 round-trip hauls between
Toronto and Buffalo, New York, each week, this intention gives him a specific objective to attain. All
things being equal, he will outperform a counterpart with no goals or the
generalized goal “do your best.”

If factors such as acceptance of the goals are held constant, the more difficult the goal, the higher the level
of performance. Of course, it’s logical to assume easier goals are more likely to be accepted. But once a
hard task is accepted, we can expect the employee to exert a high level of effort to try to achieve it. But
why are people motivated by difficult goals? First, challenging goals get our attention and thus tend to help
us focus. Second, difficult goals energize us because we have to work harder to attain them. Do you study
as hard for an easy exam as you do for a difficult one? Probably not. Third, when goals are difficult, people
persist in trying to attain them. Finally, difficult goals lead us to discover strategies that help us perform
the job or task more effectively. If we go about it. People do better when they get feedback on how well
they are progressing toward their goals, because it helps identify discrepancies between what they have
done and what they want to do—that is, feedback guides behavior. But all feedback is not equally potent.
Self-generated feedback—with which employees are able to monitor their own progress—is more
powerful than externally generated feedback.

If employees can participate in the setting of their own goals, will they try harder? The evidence is mixed.
In some cases, participatively set goals yielded superior performance; in others, individuals performed best
when assigned goals by their boss. But a major advantage of participation may be that it increases
acceptance of the goal as a desirable one toward which to work. Commitment is important. Without
participation, the individual assigning the goal needs to clearly explain its purpose and importance.

Self-Efficacy Theory
Self-efficacy (also known as social cognitive theory or social learning theory ) refers
to an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of performing a task. 56 The
higher your self-efficacy, the more confidence you have in your ability to succeed.
So, in difficult situations, people with low self-efficacy are more likely to
lessen their effort or give up altogether, while those with high self-efficacy will try harder to master the
challenge. 57 Self-efficacy can create a positive spiral in
which those with high efficacy become more engaged in their tasks and then,
in turn, increase performance, which increases efficacy further. 58 Changes in
self-efficacy over time are related to changes in creative performance as well. 59
Individuals high in self-efficacy also seem to respond to negative feedback with
increased effort and motivation, while those low in self-efficacy are likely to
lessen their effort after negative feedback. 60 How can managers help their employees
achieve high levels of self- efficacy? By bringing goal-setting theory and
self-efficacy theory together.
Goal-setting theory and self-efficacy theory don’t compete; they complement
each other. As Exhibit 7-5 shows, employees whose manager sets difficult
goals for them will have a higher level of self-efficacy and set higher goals for
their own performance. Why? Setting difficult goals for people communicates
your confidence in them. Imagine you learn your boss sets a higher goal for you
than for your co-workers. How would you interpret this? As long as you didn’t
feel you were being picked on, you would probably think, “Well, I guess my
boss thinks I’m capable of performing better than others.” This sets in motion
a psychological process in which you’re more confident in yourself (higher selfefficacy)
and you set higher personal goals, performing better both inside and
outside the workplace.
The researcher who developed self-efficacy theory, Albert Bandura, proposes
four ways self-efficacy can be increased: 61
1. Enactive mastery.
2. Vicarious modeling.
3. Verbal persuasion.
4. Arousal.
According to Bandura, the most important source of increasing self-efficacy
is enactive mastery —that is, gaining relevant experience with the task or job. If
you’ve been able to do the job successfully in the past, you’re more confident
you’ll be able to do it in the future.

The second source is vicarious modeling —becoming more confident because

you see someone else doing the task. If your friend slims down, it increases your
confidence that you can lose weight, too. Vicarious modeling is most effective
when you see yourself as similar to the person you are observing. Watching
Tiger Woods play a difficult golf shot might not increase your confidence in
being able to play the shot yourself, but if you watch a golfer with a handicap
similar to yours, it’s persuasive.
The third source is verbal persuasion: becoming more confident because
someone convinces you that you have the skills necessary to be successful.
Motivational speakers use this tactic.
Finally, Bandura argues that arousal increases self-efficacy. Arousal leads to
an energized state, so the person gets “psyched up” and performs better. But if
the task requires a steady, lower-key perspective (say, carefully editing a manuscript),
arousal may in fact hurt performance.
What are the OB implications of self-efficacy theory? Well, it’s a matter
of applying Bandura’s sources of self-efficacy to the work setting. Training
programs often make use of enactive mastery by having people practice
and build their skills. In fact, one reason training works is that it increases
self-efficacy. 62 Individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy also appear to
reap more benefits from training programs and are more likely to use their
training on the job. 63
The best way for a manager to use verbal persuasion is through the Pygmalion
effect or the Galatea effect. As discussed in Chapter 5 , the Pygmalion effect is a
form of self-fulfilling prophecy in which believing something can make it true.
In some studies, teachers were told their students had very high IQ scores when,
in fact, they spanned a range from high to low. Consistent with the Pygmalion
effect, the teachers spent more time with the students they thought were smart,
gave them more challenging assignments, and expected more of them—all of
which led to higher student self-efficacy and better grades. 64 This strategy also
has been used in the workplace. 65 Sailors who were told convincingly that they
would not get seasick were in fact much less likely to do so. 66
Intelligence and personality are absent from Bandura’s list, but they can
increase self-efficacy. 67 People who are intelligent, conscientiousness, and emotionally stable are so much
more likely to have high self-efficacy that some
researchers argue self-efficacy is less important than prior research would suggest.
68 They believe it is partially a by-product in a smart person with a confident
personality. Although Bandura strongly disagrees with this conclusion, more
research is needed.