Meaningful Motivation for Work Motivation Theory

Author(s): Christopher Michaelson

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 235-238
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159115
Accessed: 24-06-2017 09:59 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159115?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy o? Management Review
2005, Vol. 30, No. 2, 235-238.
DIALOGUE
Meaningful Motivation for Work Motivation
Theory
The July 2004 AMR Special Topic Forum on the
Future of Work Motivation Theory opens up new
research directions to help us understand what
motivates workers to work, but it says compar
atively little about why we should motivate
workers to work. That is, what is the motivation
for work motivation theory? Perhaps the lack of
emphasis on this question results from a percep
tion that the answer is quite obvious: we need to
motivate workers in order to boost productivity.
Indeed, the special issue editors?Steers, Mow
day, and Shapiro (2004)?briefly address the
question as a descriptive matter. They suggest
that the motivation for managers to answer it is
to enhance individual and group performance,
while the motivation for researchers is to sup
port theories of effective management. The lack
of attention to the question as a normative mat
ter, however, is remarkable, especially since the
guest editors make a direct connection between
early developments in motivation theory and
the history of philosophical and psychological
ethics.
The ethics of work motivation theory are im
portant because motivational efforts can exert
control over individual moral autonomy. Among
other things, motivation usually involves the
manipulation of values that motivate individu
als to work for organizational ends. In other
words, factors that individual workers regard as
valuable need to be channeled or redirected to
augment organizational productivity.
Manipulation of values does not necessarily
mean subverting or disregarding moral auton
omy; to the contrary, one common theme in work
motivation theory is that effective motivational
strategies often seek to satiate workers in order
to support their productivity. For example, Fried
and Slowik (2004) discuss the role of time in
goal-setting theory, supporting the conception
that workers' individual goals are relevant mo
tivational values but also showing that subjec
tive time considerations may influence the
power and prioritization of goals. Similarly,
Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) argue that the ef
fectiveness of motivational strategies would
235
This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
benefit from accounting for workers' age-related
changes.
Among other things, these examples imply
that effective work motivation includes ascer
taining what is valued by the individual worker
so that motivational strategies can leverage it,
where possible. This approach to work motiva
tion may be characterized as "pulling," in that
proponents recognize values that motivate par
ticular individuals and seek to align them with
organizational performance. As the guest edi
tors imply, it would be highly unusual nowa
days to encounter a work motivation theory that
advocated "pushing" as an effective long-term
strategy. Pushing?compelling productivity by
force with little or no regard for employee au
tonomy?will, at best, have a temporary positive
influence on the direction of action while drain
ing it of vigor and persistence. Still, the guest
editors' reminder that "motivation derives from
the Latin word for movement (mover?)" (2004:
379) brings to mind actual managers whose con
ception of their role seems limited to the task of
getting employees off of their "lazy duffs" to be
productive.
One can easily form the impression from the
forum's discussion of work motivation that the
preference for pulling over pushing is more
practical than moral. Locke and Latham's (2004)
discussion of historical interest in work motiva
tion suggests that individual values (e.g., work
satisfaction, cognitive growth) have been posi
tioned as means to productive ends (e.g., eco
nomic growth, job performance). If pushing were
likely to result in greater productivity gains than
pulling, one might conclude that researchers
would be debating how hard to push and when
to crack the whip, rather than which strings to
pull?mechanistic metaphors evoked by the au
thors' statement that "the concept of motivation
refers to internal factors that impel action and to
external factors that can act as inducements to
action" (Locke & Latham, 2004: 388; .emphasis
added).
The ethical issue regarding the motivation for
work motivation theory concerns the moral sta
tus of the worker. Is he or she an instrument for
organizational ends and/or an end in himself or
 236 Academy of Management Review April
herself? On the former view, the worker's values
are important to management only insofar as
they can be channeled in productive ways. For
example, an individual who is driven by mate
rial wealth can be motivated to produce more of
what the organization wants him or her to pro
duce with pay-for-performance incentives,
whereas another individual to whom recogni
tion is important may be enticed when he or she
is offered an impressive title and opportunities
for greater managerial responsibility. On this
view, the worker's values are not important be
cause they are individually valuable; they are
important because they are organizationally
valuable.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this perspec
tive suggests that individual values are orga
nizationally valuable only to the extent that
their benefits outweight their costs, and that
their costs should be minimized. So, for exam
ple, if work satisfaction were an important indi
vidual value of a substantial percentage of the
employee population in an organization experi
encing high turnover, it would behoove manage
ment to consider strategies for increasing work
satisfaction, which could potentially mean any
thing from complex work and family balance
programs to job redesign.
More than likely, as suggested by the forum
articles, the solution would involve a compli
cated variety of strategies aimed at workers mo
tivated by diverse factors, depending on their
various ages, goals, affective experiences, and
so on. However, it might be simpler, and less
costly, to appeal to another widely shared indi
vidual value?material well-being?by throw
ing money at the problem with an across-the
board salary increase. In this case, this action
might effectively address the turnover problem
without fundamentally addressing the work sat
isfaction deficit. The example suggests that
even though work satisfaction has individual
value to many employees, it has a price.
It also suggests that workers can be bought
for that price. Without an ethical dimension,
contemporary work motivation theory implies
that, by pulling the right strings, management
can play puppeteer to workers' marionettes.
This perspective does not seem to progress well
beyond historical problems that the guest edi
tors indicate work motivation theory has been
advanced to address?among them, a view of
workers as hedonistic, an overly paternalistic
This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
conception of management, and, generally, pro
ductivity declines that arise from a "failure to
treat workers as human beings" (Steers et al.,
2004: 381; quoting Bendix, 1956: 294).
Remarkably, the guest editors' review of early
developments in motivation theory suggests
that philosophical and psychological ethics
played a central role in the foundations of this
topic. The early attention in motivation theory to
hedonism has close ties to the utilitarian moral
ideal of maximizing pleasure. The editors blame
companies' postindustrial pursuit of productiv
ity maximization without corresponding in
creases in employee rewards for the rise of
unionization. By the middle of the twentieth cen
tury, need theories had focused researchers on
the importance of workers' values to their moti
vation and corresponding regard for workers as
human beings. This regard, however, seems to
take on a distinctly instrumental character in
the editors' historical account of work motiva
tion theory. The emergence of process theories
and dominance of social scientific approaches
to the topic in recent decades suggest the admit
tedly familiar and rather simplistic complaint
that such approaches depict human beings as
behavioral devices prone to instrumental ma
nipulation.
A fairer assessment of the current state of
work motivation theory as depicted in the spe
cial topic forum articles, and more particularly
of the presence of human values therein, is that
individual values are increasingly given prom
inence as valid management considerations.
The list of individual values addressed in the
forum is considerable, including, for example,
distributive and procedural justice, work and
non-work-related goals, learning and develop
ment, incentives and recognition, and social
identity, among other themes already refer
enced above. Even affective experience is exam
ined for its role in producing behavioral out
comes.
The bad news, from an ethical perspective
that these values tend to be characterize
warranting contingent recognition?that is, t
are valuable to management if they ca
shown to have significance for the implied
justifying value of productivity. This am
(though not necessarily immoral) perspec
culminates in Kehr's (2004) model of work m
vation and volition in the concluding forum
ticle, which Kehr develops to address questi
 2005 Dialogue 237

about individual behavior and intrapersonal special issue on the future of work motivation
motive conflict. These "questions are of theoret theory is striking. The critical difference is the
ical and practical relevance" (Kehr, 2004: 479) depiction of those values within work motiva
insofar as they pertain to "work-related issues" tion theory as means to productive ends and
that revolve around the object of organizational within meaningful work theory as institutional
performance. This is not to claim that Kehr and moral obligations to individual workers, or ends
the other forum authors do not regard the moral in themselves.
status of the subject as important. However, it is Surely, meaningful work is an important work
to say that the tendency of work motivation the motivator. It is also obvious that productivity is
orists to refrain from explicitly acknowledging an important motivation for work motivation
the normative issues that arise when motiva theory. Although the special topic forum articles
tional efforts exert control over individual moral provide a map for future progress to be made in
autonomy seems to dehumanize the worker. understanding the human values that influence
That tendency runs counter to the spirit of work motivation, they do not explicitly acknowl
another recent discussion, in AMR, of the moti edge individual human value other than as an
vation to work?a book review essay entitled instrument to productive ends. Given the edi
"Revisiting the Meaning of Meaningful Work" tors' historical account of how a "failure to treat
(Diddams & Whittington, 2003). The historical workers as human beings" has led in the past to
themes in that essay, drawn from the books' productivity declines, we have both moral and
lengthier discussions, are consistent with the instrumental reasons to revisit normative ques
guest editors' historical accents on work motiva tions as we progress toward the future of work
tion theory?for example, the question of how to motivation theory. Meaningful work theory con
motivate workers as factory-based industrial stitutes a normative basis for institutions to pro
ization emerged, the fundamental value of a vide many of the same work conditions for
work ethic and the relative value of money in which work motivation theory constitutes an
social notions of individual success, and the empirical basis; in addition, meaningful work
relationship between moral autonomy and theory raises "subjective" questions about what
meaningful work. On the topic of the intersec else is desirable to the individual worker.
tion between usefulness and meaningfulness, Hopefully, making the link between meaning
which is a possible analogue for the relation ful work and work motivation theory will stimu
ship between productivity and morality, the au late further inquiry and research into meaning
thors state: ful work, which, unlike work motivation theory,
suffers from a paucity of research attention. In
Ciulla (2000) argues that modern work could still
provide meaning through usefulness. Neverthe addition, this link might convince some work
less ... she argues that work-related activities motivation researchers, and even managers,
are not the sole determinants of inherently mean that there is more to the motivation of work
ingful work; both the objective and subjective motivation theory than workers' productivity?
contexts of work also provide meaningfulness. namely, most workers' human desire for mean
The objective element of meaningful work is
made up of the moral conditions of the job itself
ingful lives.
(2003: 510).

In the meaningful work literature, the so REFERENCES

called objective conditions that institutions
have a moral obligation to provide include free
choice to enter, honest communication, fair and
respectful treatment, intellectual challenge,
considerable independence to determine work
methods, democratic participation in decision
making, moral development, due process and
justice, nonpaternalism, and fair compensation
(e.g., see Arneson, 1987; Bowie, 1998; Ciulla, 2000;
Schwartz, 1982). The similarity of this list to the
partial list of individual values addressed in the
Arneson, R. J. 1987. Meaningful work and market socialism.
Ethics, 97: 517-545.
Bendix, R. 1956. Work and authority in industry. New York:
Wiley.
Bowie, N. 1998. A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal
of Business Ethics, 17: 1083-1092.
Ciulla, J. B. 2000. The working life: The promise and betrayal
of modern work. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Diddams, M., & Whittington, J. L. 2003. Book review essay:
Revisiting the meaning of meaningful work. Academy of
Management Review, 28: 508-512.

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 238 Academy of Management Review April

Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. 2004. Enriching goal-setting theory pers submitted t
with time: An integrated approach. Academy of Man
agement Review, 29: 404-422.
examined this t
Professor Micha
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. 2004. Aging, adult development,
linkage.
and work motivation. Academy of Management Review,
29: 440-458. To do so, however, the concept of "meaningful
work" will need to be clarified, and this line of
Kehr, H. M. 2004. Integrating implicit motives, explicit mo
tives, and perceived abilities: The compensatory model theory development will need to be differenti
of work motivation and volition. Academy of Manage ated from existing constructs in the work moti
ment Review, 29: 479-499. vation literature (e.g., task significance) that cur
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2004. What should we do about rently focus on intrinsic sources of motivation.
motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty This differentiation is needed in order to deter
first century. Academy of Management Review, 29: 388 mine the value-added contribution of a theory
403.
about meaningful work. Moreover, we will need
Schwartz, A. 1982. Meaningful work. Ethics, 92: 634-646. to learn more about the extent to which people
Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. 2004. The future seek meaning in their work compared to other
of work motivation theory. Academy of Management aspects of their lives, and how people's defini
Review, 29: 379-387.
tion of meaningful work may vary among and
within employees over the course of their ca
Christopher Michaelson reers.
The Wharton School of
In the meantime, we believe it is inaccurate t
The University of Pennsylvania suggest, as Michaelson does, that work motiv
V V V
tion theory is concerned exclusively with worke
productivity or that the role of individuals' need
for meaningful work lives is absent from th
Response to "Meaningful
research literature, even if itMotiva
was not well rep
Motivation Theory"
resented in the special issue.
We agree with Christopher M
the articles in the July Richard
2004 M. Steers
AM
Forum on The Future of Richard T. Mowday M
Work
did not directly address University
his of Oregon
desir
linkages developed between w
theories and people's legitim
Debra L. Shapiro
meaningful lives. Importantly,
University of Maryland t

This content downloaded from 193.226.62.221 on Sat, 24 Jun 2017 09:59:25 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms