Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:33:24.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Work Motivation: Advancing Theory and Impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Ruth Kanfer
Ruth Kanfer*
Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, 654 Cherry Street, MC 0170, Atlanta, GA 30332-0170
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not often that one gets the opportunity to engage other scholars in lively written dialogue on a topic close to his/her professional heart. So I felt honored to provide the target article on work motivation (Kanfer, 2009), and I looked forward to reading my colleagues’ commentaries. As I had hoped, each commentary was quite stimulating. Some commentaries were also provocative, whereas others were more instructive. Regardless of orientation and issue, however, each commentary reflected a positive, forward-looking tone. That is, from a Reichenbach (1951) perspective, the commentaries seem to emphasize discovery (e.g., building new perspectives and approaches) over justification (e.g., extending, refining, and reconciling extant theories that dominated much of the late 20th century). Although paradigmatic work remains important, its role is cast more in the service of new advances rather than the other way around. As the commentaries also demonstrate, many new ideas and research directions are emerging. Their traction and utility for work motivation scientists and organizational personnel raise exciting, empirical questions.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 118 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology.

References

Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). A humanistic viewpoint on use-inspired motivation research. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 115–117.Google Scholar
Grant, A. M. (2009). Putting self-interest out of business? Contributions and unanswered questions from use-inspired research on prosocial motivation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 94–98.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131–163.Google Scholar
James, L. R., & Rentsch, J. R. (2004). J_U_S_T_I_F_Y to explain the reasons why: A conditional reasoning approach to understanding motivated behavior. In Schneider, B. & Smith, B. (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp. 223–250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. E., & Tan, J. A. (2009). Explicit reasons for examining the implicit motive system. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 103–105.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R. (2009). Work motivation: Identifying use-inspired research directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 77–93.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development and work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 1–19.10.2307/20159053Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Forging new perspectives and directions in the new millennium. In Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (Eds.), Work Motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 601–632). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., & Stubblebine, P. (2008). Affect and work motivation. In Ashkansay, N. M. & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.), Research companion to emotions in organizations (pp. 170–182). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
Kehr, H. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives and perceived abilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of Management Review, 29, 479–499.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Barksdale, C. D, Robin, J. D., & James, L. R. (2007). Measurement issues associated with conditional reasoning tests: Deception and faking. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1–16.Google Scholar
Meyer, R. D., & Dalal, R. S. (2009). Situational strength as a means of conceptualizing context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 99–102.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1951). The rise of scientific philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140–154.Google Scholar
Stamov Roßnagel, C. (2009). All is not decline: Giving the “change” multiple directions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 112–114.Google Scholar
Truxillo, D. M. (2009). Age, work motivation, and the potential for age-based differential validity for personality measures. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 106–108.Google Scholar
Vancouver, J. B. (2009). Measuring individual differences in content via changing person-context interaction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 109–111.Google Scholar
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.Google Scholar
Woodworth, R. S. (1918). Dynamic psychology. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar