Chapter 13 MotivationLEARNING OUTCOMESOn completing this chap.docx

Chapter 13: Motivation
LEARNING OUTCOMES
On completing this chapter you should be able to define these
key concepts. You should also understand:
· The meaning of motivation
· Types of motivation
· The different motivation theories
· Motivation and job satisfaction
· Approaches to developing a motivation strategy
Introduction
Motivation is the force that energizes, directs and sustains
behaviour. High performance is achieved by well-motivated
people who are prepared to exercise discretionary effort, ie
independently do more than is expected of them. Even in fairly
basic roles, Hunter et al (1990) found through their research
that the difference in value-added discretionary performance
between ‘superior’ and ‘standard’ performers was 19 per cent.
For highly complex jobs it was 48 per cent. The aims of this
chapter are to explore the meaning of motivation, define the two
main types of motivation – intrinsic and extrinsic, describe and
critically evaluate the main theories of motivation, discuss two
related aspects of motivation – its relationship to job
satisfaction and money, and outline approaches to motivation
strategy.
The meaning of motivation
The term ‘motivation’ derives from the Latin word for
movement (movere). A motive is a reason for doing something.
Motivation is the strength and direction of behaviour and the
factors that influence people to behave in certain ways. People
are motivated when they expect that a course of action is likely
to lead to the attainment of a goal and a valued reward – one
that satisfies their needs and wants. The term ‘motivation’ can
refer variously to the goals that individuals have, the ways in

which individuals chose their goals and the ways in which
others try to change their behaviour. Locke and Latham (2004:
388) observed that: ‘The concept of motivation refers to internal
factors that impel action and to external factors that can act as
inducements to action.’
As described by Arnold et al (1991) the three components of
motivation are:
1. Direction – what a person is trying to do.
2. Effort – how hard a person is trying.
3. Persistence – how long a person keeps on trying.
Well-motivated people engage in positive discretionary
behaviour – they decide to make an effort. Such people may be
self-motivated, and as long as this means they are going in the
right direction to attain what they are there to achieve, then this
is the best form of motivation. But additional motivation
provided by the work itself, the quality of leadership, and
various forms of recognition and reward, builds on self-
motivation and helps people to make the best use of their
abilities and to perform well.
Types of motivation
Intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation takes place when individuals feel that their
work is important, interesting and challenging and that it
provides them with a reasonable degree of autonomy (freedom
to act), opportunities to achieve and advance, and scope to use
and develop their skills and abilities. It can be described as
motivation by the work itself. It is not created by external
incentives. Deci and Ryan (1985) suggested that intrinsic
motivation is based on the need to be competent and self-
determining (that is, to have a choice). Michael Sandel (2012:
122) remarked that: ‘When people are engaged in an activity
they consider intrinsically worthwhile, offering money may
weaken their motivation by “crowding out” their intrinsic
interest or commitment’.

Intrinsic motivation can be enhanced by job design. Katz (1964)
suggested that jobs should in themselves provide sufficient
variety, complexity, challenge and skill to engage the abilities
of the worker. Hackman and Oldham (1974) in their job
characteristics model identified the five core characteristics of
jobs that result in intrinsic motivation, namely: skill variety,
task identity, task significance, autonomy and feedback. Pink
(2009) stated that there are three steps that managers can take to
improve motivation:
1. Autonomy – encourage people to set their own schedule and
focus on getting work done not how it is done.
2. Mastery – help people to identify the steps they can take to
improve and ask them to identify how they will know they are
making progress.
3. Purpose – when giving instructions explain the why as well
as the how.
Intrinsic motivation is associated with the concept of
engagement, as explained in Chapter 15.
Extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation occurs when things are done to or for
people in order to motivate them. These include rewards such as
incentives, increased pay, praise or promotion; and punishments
such as disciplinary action, withholding pay, or criticism.
Extrinsic motivators can have an immediate and powerful
effect, but it will not necessarily last long. The intrinsic
motivators, which are concerned with the ‘quality of working
life’ (a phrase and movement that emerged from this concept),
are likely to have a deeper and longer-term effect because they
are inherent in individuals and the work – and are not imposed
from outside in such forms as incentive pay.
Motivation theory
As mentioned by Steers et al (2004: 379) the earliest approaches
to understanding human motivation date from the time of the
Greek philosophers and focus on the concept of hedonism as a

principle driving force in behaviour. Individuals were seen as
directing their efforts to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.
This principle was later refined and further developed in the
works of philosophers such as John Locke and Jeremy Bentham
in the 17th and 18th centuries. Motivation theory has moved on
from then. It started in the earlier part of the 20th century with
the contributions of the exponents of scientific management
(instrumentality theory). In the middle years of that century the
behavioural scientists entered the field and began to develop the
‘content’ or ‘needs’ theory of motivation. The main process
theories such as expectancy theory emerged in the in the 1960s
and 70s, although the first formulation of the process theory of
reinforcement took place in 1911. The three main areas of
motivation theory – instrumentality, content and process – are
examined below.
Instrumentality theory
Instrumentality theory states in effect that rewards and
punishments are the best instruments with which to shape
behaviour. It assumes that people will be motivated to work if
rewards and penalties are tied directly to their performance;
thus the awards are contingent upon effective performance.
Instrumentality theory has its roots in the scientific management
methods of Taylor (1911: 121) who wrote: ‘It is impossible,
through any long period of time, to get workmen to work much
harder than the average men around them unless they are
assured a large and a permanent increase in their pay.’
This theory provides a rationale for financial incentives such as
performance-related pay, albeit a dubious one. Motivation using
this approach has been and still is widely adopted. It may be
successful in some circumstances, eg piece work, but – for
reasons explained in Chapter 27– merit or performance pay is
flawed.
Instrumentality theory relies exclusively on a system of external
controls and does not recognize a number of other human needs.
It also fails to appreciate the fact that the formal control system

can be seriously affected by the informal relationship existing
between workers.
Content theory
The aim of the content or needs theories produced by Maslow,
Alderfer, McClelland, Herzberg, and Deci and Ryan was to
identify the factors associated with motivation. The theory
focuses on the content of motivation in the shape of needs. Its
basis is the belief that an unsatisfied need creates tension and a
state of disequilibrium. To restore the balance a goal is
identified that will satisfy the need, and a behaviour pathway is
selected that will lead to the achievement of the goal and the
satisfaction of the need. Behaviour is therefore motivated by
unsatisfied needs. A content theory model is shown in Figure
13.1. Content theory, as the term implies, indicates the
components of motivation but it does not explain how
motivation affects performance – a necessary requirement if the
concept is to provide guidance on HR policy and practice. This
was the role of expectancy theory, as will be discussed later.
Figure 13.1: The process of motivation according to content
theoryMaslow’s hierarchy of needs
The most famous classification of needs is the one formulated
by Maslow (1954). He suggested that there are five major need
categories that apply to people in general, starting from the
fundamental physiological needs and leading through a
hierarchy of safety, social and esteem needs to the need for self-
fulfilment, the highest need of all. When a lower need is
satisfied the next highest becomes dominant and the
individual’s attention is turned to satisfying this higher need.
The need for self-fulfilment, however, can never be satisfied.
‘Man is a wanting animal’; only an unsatisfied need can
motivate behaviour and the dominant need is the prime
motivator of behaviour. Psychological development takes place
as people move up the hierarchy of needs, but this is not
necessarily a straightforward progression. The lower needs still
exist, even if temporarily dormant as motivators, and

individuals constantly return to previously satisfied needs.
Maslow’s needs hierarchy has an intuitive appeal and has been
very popular. But it has not been verified by empirical research
such as that conducted by Wahba and Bridwell (1979), and it
has been criticized for its apparent rigidity – different people
may have different priorities and the underpinning assumption
that everyone has the same needs is invalid. It is difficult to
accept that needs progress steadily up the hierarchy and Maslow
himself expressed doubts about the validity of a strictly ordered
hierarchy. But he did emphasize that the higher-order needs are
more significant.ERG theory (Alderfer)
Alderfer (1972) produced a more convincing and simpler
theory, which postulated three primary categories of needs:
1. Existence needs such as hunger and thirst – pay, fringe
benefits and working conditions are other types of existence
needs.
2. Relatedness needs, which acknowledge that people are not
self-contained units but must engage in transactions with their
human environment – acceptance, understanding, confirmation
and influence are elements of the relatedness process.
3. Growth needs, which involve people in finding the
opportunities to be what they are most fully and to become what
they can. This is the most significant need.McClelland’s
achievement motivation
An alternative way of classifying needs was developed by
McClelland (1961), who based it mainly on studies of managers.
He identified three needs of which the need for achievement
was the most important:
1. The need for achievement, defined as the need for
competitive success measured against a personal standard of
excellence.
2. The need for affiliation, defined as the need for warm,
friendly, compassionate relationships with others.
3. The need for power, defined as the need to control or
influence others.Herzberg’s two-factor model
The two-factor model of motivation developed by Herzberg

(1957, 1966) was based on an investigation into the sources of
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of accountants and engineers
who were asked what made them feel exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad about their jobs. According to Herzberg, this
research established that there were two factors that affected
feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Motivating factors or
‘satisfiers’ relate to the job content and consist of the need for
achievement, the interest of the work, responsibility and
opportunities for advancement. These needs are the intrinsic
motivators. He summed this up in the phrase ‘motivation by the
work itself’.
Hygiene factors relate to the job context, including such things
as pay and working conditions. ‘Hygiene’ is used in the medical
use of the term, meaning preventative and environmental. In
themselves hygiene factors neither satisfy nor motivate and they
serve primarily to prevent job dissatisfaction, while having
little effect on positive job attitudes. Pay is not a satisfier but if
it is inadequate or inequitable it can cause dissatisfaction.
However, its provision does not provide lasting satisfaction.
Herzberg’s two-factor theory in effect identifies needs but it has
been attacked by, for example, Opsahl and Dunnette (1966). The
research method has been criticized because no attempt was
made to measure the relationship between satisfaction and
performance. It has been claimed that the two-factor nature of
the theory is an inevitable result of the questioning method used
by the interviewers. It has also been suggested that wide and
unwarranted inferences have been drawn from small and
specialized samples and that there is no evidence to suggest that
the satisfiers do improve productivity. The underpinning
assumption that everyone has the same needs is invalid. Denise
Rousseau (2006: 263) in her presidential address to the US
Academy of Management summed up these views as follows:
‘Herzberg’s long discredited two-factor theory is typically
included in the motivation section of management textbooks,
despite the fact that it was discredited as an artefact of method
bias over thirty years ago.’

In spite of these objections, the Herzberg two-factor theory
continues to thrive; partly because it is easy to understand and
seems to be based on real-life rather than academic abstractions,
and partly because it convincingly emphasizes the positive
value of the intrinsic motivating factors and highlights the need
to consider both financial and non-financial factors when
developing reward systems. It is also in accord with a
fundamental belief in the dignity of labour and the Protestant
ethic – that work is good in itself. Herzberg’s strength as a
proselytizer rather than a researcher meant that he had
considerable influence on the job enrichment movement, which
sought to design jobs in a way that would maximize the
opportunities to obtain intrinsic satisfaction from work and thus
improve the quality of working life. Herzberg famously
remarked that if you want people to do a good job then give
them a good job to do (quoted by Dowling, 1971).Self-
determination theory
As formulated by Deci and Ryan (2000) this theory states that
individuals are motivated by the need to achieve three
fundamental goals: striving for competence, autonomy and
relatedness.Comment on content theories
Shields (2007: 74) observed that content theories share some
common shortcomings. His criticisms were that they incorrectly
assume:
· the existence of a universally applicable set of human needs;
· that according to Maslow (1954), needs conform to a simple
ordered hierarchy of need importance, when in reality, needs
seem to operate in a more flexible, less ordered and predictable
way;
· that the link between needs and behaviours is direct and
automatic, rather than mediated by human consciousness, values
and choice.
In addition, he pointed out that content theories ‘underestimate
the motivational potency of extrinsic rewards, including
financial rewards’.Process theory
In process theory, the emphasis is on the psychological or

mental processes and forces that affect motivation, as well as on
basic needs. It is also known as cognitive theory because it
refers to people’s perceptions of their working environment and
the ways in which they interpret and understand it. The main
process theories are concerned with reinforcement, expectancy,
goals, equity, and cognitive evaluation.Reinforcement theory
This is the oldest and least complex of the process theories. It is
based on ‘the law of effect’ as formulated by Thorndike (1911),
which states that over time people learn about the relationships
between their actions and the consequences of them and this
understanding guides their future behaviour. In other words, if
they believe that something has worked previously then they
will do it again. It was later developed by Hull (1943, 1951).
Skinner (1953) and others later built on these principles with
the notion of ‘operant conditioning’, which was influenced by
the work of Pavlov and his salivating dogs. As Shields (2007:
76) put it: ‘Positive reinforcement of desired behaviour elicits
more of the same; punishment of undesired behaviour (negative
reinforcement) elicits less of the same.’ Reinforcement models
continue to thrive today as explanatory vehicles for
understanding work motivation and job performance, and as a
justification of performance pay.
But reinforcement theory can be criticized for taking an unduly
mechanistic view of human nature. It implies that people can be
motivated by treating them as machines – by pulling levers. In
assuming that the present choices of individuals are based on an
understanding of the outcomes of their past choices,
reinforcement theory ignores the existing context in which
choices are made. In addition, motivational theories based on
the principle of reinforcement pay insufficient attention to the
influence of expectations – no indication is given of how to
distinguish in advance which outcomes would strengthen
responses and which would weaken them. Above all, they are
limited because they imply, in Allport’s (1954) vivid phrase, a
hedonism of the past.Expectancy theory
Expectancy theory states that motivation will be high when

people know what they have to do in order to get a reward,
expect that they will be able to get the reward and expect that
the reward will be worthwhile.
The concept of expectancy was originally contained in the
valency-instrumentality-expectancy (VIE) theory that was
formulated by Vroom (1964). Valency stands for value;
instrumentality is the belief that if we do one thing it will lead
to another; and expectancy is the probability that action or
effort will lead to an outcome.
The strength of expectations may be based on past experiences
(reinforcement), but individuals are frequently presented with
new situations – a change in job, payment system, or working
conditions imposed by management – where past experience is
an inadequate guide to the implications of the change. In these
circumstances, motivation may be reduced.
Motivation is only likely when a clearly perceived and usable
relationship exists between performance and outcome, and the
outcome is seen as a means of satisfying needs. This explains
why extrinsic financial motivation – for example, an incentive
or bonus scheme – works only if the link (line of sight) between
effort and reward is clear and the value of the reward is worth
the effort. It also explains why intrinsic motivation arising from
the work itself can be more powerful than extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation outcomes are more under the control of
individuals, who can place greater reliance on their past
experiences to indicate the extent to which positive and
advantageous results are likely to be obtained by their
behaviour.
This theory was developed by Porter and Lawler (1968) into a
model shown in Figure 13.2, which follows Vroom’s ideas by
suggesting that there are two factors determining the effort that
people put into their jobs: first, the value of the rewards to
individuals in so far as they satisfy their needs for security,
social esteem, autonomy and self-actualization; second, the
probability that rewards depend on effort, as perceived by
individuals – in other words, their expectations about the

relationships between effort and reward. Thus, the greater the
value of a set of awards and the higher the probability that
receiving each of these rewards depends upon effort, the greater
the effort that will be put forth in a given situation.
Figure 13.2: Motivation model (Porter and Lawler, 1968)
But, as Porter and Lawler emphasized, mere effort is not
enough. It has to be effective effort if it is to produce the
desired performance. The two variables additional to effort that
affect task achievement are: 1) ability – individual
characteristics such as intelligence, knowledge, skills; 2) role
perceptions – what the individual wants to do or thinks they are
required to do. These are good from the viewpoint of the
organization if they correspond with what it thinks the
individual ought to be doing. They are poor if the views of the
individual and the organization do not coincide.
Alongside goal theory (see below), expectancy theory has
become the most influential motivation theory, particularly as it
affects performance and reward management. But reservations
have been expressed about it. House et al (1974) remarked that:
‘Evidence for the validity of the theory is very mixed.’ They
also established that there were a number of variables affecting
expectations that make it difficult to predict how they function.
These are:
· Leadership behaviour – the function of the leader in clarifying
expectations, guiding, supporting and rewarding subordinates.
· Individual characteristics – the subjects’ perception of their
ability to perform the required task.
· Nature of the task – whether accomplishing the task provides
the necessary reinforcements and rewards.
· The practices of the organization – its reward and control
systems and how it functions.
Research conducted by Behling and Starke (1973) established
that individuals:
· make crucial personal decisions without clearly understanding
the consequences;
· do not in practice consistently evaluate their order of

preference for alternative actions;
· have to assign two values when making a decision – its
desirability and its achievability – but they tend to be
influenced mainly by desirability – they let their tastes
influence their beliefs;
· may be able to evaluate the extrinsic rewards they expect but
may find it difficult to evaluate the possibility of achieving
intrinsic rewards;
· may find it difficult to distinguish the benefits of one possible
outcome from another.
They concluded that: ‘Expectancy theory can account for some
of the variations in work effort but far less than normally
attributed to it’ (ibid 386).
Shields (2007: 80) commented that a problem with expectancy
theory is that it assumes that ‘behaviour is rational and
premeditated when we know that much workplace behaviour is
impulsive and emotional’.
However, in spite of these objections, the simple message of
expectancy theory – that people will be motivated if they expect
that their behaviour will produce a worthwhile reward – is
compelling. And it provides a useful tool to assess the
effectiveness of motivating devices such as performance-related
pay.Goal theory
Goal theory as developed by Latham and Locke (1979)
following their research states that motivation and performance
are higher when individuals are set specific goals, when goals
are demanding but accepted, and when there is feedback on
performance. Goals must be clearly defined. Participation in
goal setting is important as a means of getting agreement to the
setting of demanding goals. Feedback is vital in maintaining
motivation, particularly towards the achievement of even higher
goals.
However, the universality of goal theory has been questioned.
For example, Pintrich (2000) noted that people have different
goals in different circumstances and that it is hard to justify the
assumption that goals are always accessible and conscious. And

Harackiewicz et al (2002) warned that goals are only effective
when they are consistent with and match the general context in
which they are pursued. But support for goal theory was
provided by Bandura and Cervone (1983) who emphasized the
importance of self-efficacy (a belief in one’s ability to
accomplish goals).Equity theory
Equity theory, as defined by Adams (1965), is concerned with
the perceptions people have about how they are being treated as
compared with others. He proposed that employees assess the
fairness or otherwise of their rewards (outcomes) in relation to
their effort or qualifications (inputs) and that they do this by
comparing their own input/output ratio against that of other
individuals. If the input/output ratio is perceived to be
unfavourable, they will feel that there is reward inequity.
Equity theory explains only one aspect of the processes of
motivation and job satisfaction, although it may be significant
in terms of morale and, possibly, of performance.Social learning
theory
Social learning theory as developed by Bandura (1977)
combines aspects of both reinforcement and expectancy theory.
It recognizes the significance of the basic behavioural concept
of reinforcement as a determinant of future behaviour but also
emphasizes the importance of internal psychological factors,
especially expectancies about the value of goals and the
individual’s ability to reach them. The term ‘reciprocal
determinism’ is used to denote the concept that while the
situation will affect individual behaviour individuals will
simultaneously influence the situation.Cognitive evaluation
theory
Cognitive evaluation theory contends that the use of extrinsic
rewards may destroy the intrinsic motivation that flows from
inherent job interest. It was formulated by Deci and Ryan
(1985). Referring to their research, they stated that: ‘Rewards,
like feedback, when used to convey to people a sense of
appreciation for work well done, will tend to be experienced
informationally and will maintain or enhance intrinsic

motivation. But when they are used to motivate people, they
will be experienced controllingly and will undermine intrinsic
motivation.’
Deci et al (1999) followed up this research by carrying out a
meta-analysis of 128 experiments on rewards and intrinsic
motivation to establish the extent to which intrinsic motivation
was undermined by rewards. The results of the study indicated
that for high-interest tasks, rewards had significant negative
effects on what the researchers called ‘free-choice measures’,
which included the time spent on the task after the reward was
removed.
But as noted by Gerhart and Rynes (2003: 52): ‘The vast
majority of research on this theory has been performed in
school rather than work settings, often with elementary school-
aged children.’ But that did not stop other commentators
assuming that the results were equally significant for working
adults. It is interesting to note that research in industry
conducted by Deci and Ryan (1985), while it found that
financial incentives did decrease intrinsic motivation in high-
control organizational cultures, also established that in
organizations with the opposite high-involvement culture,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were both increased by
monetary incentives. Context is all important. Moreover, a
meta-analysis of 145 studies conducted by Cameron et al (2001)
led to the conclusion that rewards do not inevitably have
negative effects on intrinsic motivation.Purposeful work
behaviour
A more recent integrated motivation theory formulated by
Barrick and Mount (2013) focused on the impact on motivation
of individual factors, such as personality and ability, and
situational factors, such as job characteristics. The motivation
to engage in purposeful work behaviour depends on both these
factors.Comment on process theories
Process theories are not based on suspect assumptions about the
universality of needs, as are content theories. Process theories
emphasize the importance of individual decision-making on

work behaviour. As pointed out by Shields (2007: 85) They
‘acknowledge the importance of social and job context as co-
determinants of motivational strength while those other than
reinforcement theory also highlight the importance of self-
efficacy, task or goal clarity and motivational learning’.
Summary of motivation theories
A summary of motivation theories is set out in Table 13.1.
Table 13.1: Summary of motivation theories
Category
Theory
Summary of theory
Implications
Instrumentality
Taylorism
Taylor (1911)
If we do one thing it leads to another. People will be motivated
to work if rewards and punishments are directly related to their
performance.
Basis of crude attempts to motivate people by incentives. Often
used as the implied rationale for performance-related pay
although this is seldom an effective motivator.
Content or needs
Hierarchy of needs
Maslow (1954)
A hierarchy of needs exists: physiological, safety, social,
esteem, self-fulfilment. Needs at a higher level only emerge
when a lower need is satisfied.
Focuses attention on the various needs that motivate people and
the notion that a satisfied need is no longer a motivator. The
concept of a hierarchy has no practical significance.
ERG
Alderfer (1972)
A non-hierarchical theory identifying three basic needs:
existence, relatedness and growth.

A simpler and more convincing categorization of needs.
Achievement motivation
McClelland (1961)
Identified three needs for managers: achievement, affiliation
and power. Of these, achievement is the most important.
Emphasized the importance to managers of achievement as a
motivating factor.
Two-factor model
Herzberg (1957, 1966)
Two groups of factors affect job satisfaction: 1) those intrinsic
to the work itself; 2) those extrinsic to the job such as pay and
working conditions. The factors that affect positive feelings (the
motivating factors) are quite different from those that affect
negative feelings (the hygiene factors).
The research methodology has been strongly criticized (it does
not support the existence of two factors) and the underpinning
assumption that everyone has the same needs is invalid. But it
has influenced approaches to job design (job enrichment) and it
supports the proposition that reward systems should provide for
both financial and non-financial rewards.
Self-determination
Deci and Ryan (2000)
Individuals are motivated to achieve three fundamental goals:
striving for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Provides an alternative and simpler classification of needs.
Process
Reinforcement
Thorndike (1911)
Skinner (1953)
As experience is gained in satisfying needs, people perceive
that certain actions help to achieve goals while others are
unsuccessful. The successful actions are repeated when a
similar need arises.

Provide feedback that positively reinforces effective behaviour.
Expectancy
Vroom (1964)
Porter and Lawler (1968)
Effort (motivation) depends on the likelihood that rewards will
follow effort and that the reward is worthwhile.
The key theory informing approaches to rewards, ie that they
must be a link between effort and reward (line of sight), the
reward should be achievable and it should be worthwhile.
Goal
Lathom and Locke (1979)
Motivation will improve if people have demanding but agreed
goals and receive feedback
Influences performance management and learning and
development practices.
Equity
Adams (1966)
People are better motivated if treated equitably, ie treated fairly
in comparison with another group of people (a reference group)
or a relevant other person.
Need to have equitable reward and employment practices.
Social learning
Bandura (1977)
Recognizes the significance of reinforcement as a determinant
of future behaviour but also emphasizes the importance of
expectancies about the value of goals and the individual’s
ability to reach them.
The emphasis is on expectancies, individual goals and values
and the influence of both person and situational factors as well
as reinforcement.
Cognitive evaluation

Deci and Ryan (1985)
The use of extrinsic rewards may destroy the intrinsic
motivation that flows from inherent job interest.
Emphasizes the importance of non-financial rewards. The
conclusions reached from Deci and Ryan’s research have been
questioned.
Conclusions on motivation theory
All the theories referred to above make some contribution to an
understanding of the processes that affect motivation. But
instrumentality theory provides only a simplistic explanation of
how motivation works. Needs and content theories are more
sophisticated but have their limitations. As Gerhart and Rynes
(2003: 53) commented:
Although the ideas developed by Maslow, Herzberg and Deci
have had considerable appeal to many people, the prevailing
view in the academic literature is that the specific predictions of
these theories is not supported by empirical evidence. On the
other hand it would be a mistake to underestimate the influence
that these theories have had on research and practice. Pfeffer,
Kohn and others continue to base their argument regarding the
ineffectiveness of money as a motivator on such theories.
But, bearing in mind the reservations set out earlier, needs
theory still offers an indication of the factors that motivate
people and content theory provides useful explanations of how
motivation takes place. And while instrumentality and
reinforcement theories may be simplistic they still explain some
aspects of how rewards affect motivation and performance and
they continue to exert influence on the beliefs of some people
about the power of incentives to motivate people. Herzberg’s
research may be flawed but he still contributed to the
recognition of the importance of job design.
Motivation theory can explain what makes people tick at work
but it is also necessary to consider two other aspects of the
impact of motivation – its relationship with job satisfaction and
the effect of money on motivation. Strategies for motivation

based on the lessons learnt from motivation theory are
considered at the end of this chapter.
Motivation and job satisfaction
Job satisfaction can be defined as the attitudes and feelings
people have about their work. Positive and favourable attitudes
towards the job indicate job satisfaction. Negative and
unfavourable attitudes towards the job indicate job
dissatisfaction. It can be distinguished from morale, which is a
group rather than individual variable, related to the degree to
which group members feel attracted to their group and want to
remain a member of it.
The factors that affect job satisfaction
Levels of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction are influenced by:
· The intrinsic motivating factors. These relate to job content,
especially the five dimensions of jobs identified by Hackman
and Oldham (1974): skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy and feedback (the job characteristics
model).
· The quality of supervision. The Hawthorne studies
(Roethlisberger and Dixon, 1939) resulted in the claim that
supervision is the most important determinant of worker
attitudes. Elton Mayo (1933) believed that a man’s desire to be
continuously associated in work with his fellows is a strong, if
not the strongest human characteristic.
· Success or failure. Success obviously creates satisfaction,
especially if it enables individuals to prove to themselves that
they are using their abilities to the full. And it is equally
obvious that the reverse is true of failure.
Job satisfaction and performance
It is a commonly held and not unreasonable belief that an
increase in job satisfaction results in improved performance.
The whole human relations movement led by Mayo (1933) and
supported by the Roethlisberger and Dixon (1939) research was

based on the belief that productivity could be increased by
making workers more satisfied, primarily through pleasant and
supportive supervision and by meeting their social needs. But
research by Katz et al (1950) and Katz et al (1951) found that
the levels of satisfaction with pay, job status or fellow workers
in high productivity units were no different to those in low
productivity units.
Meta-analysis by Brayfield and Crocket (1955) of a number of
studies concluded that there was little evidence of any simple or
appreciable relationship between satisfaction and performance.
A later review of research by Vroom (1964) found that the
median correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance for all these studies was only 0.14, which is not
high enough to suggest any marked relationship between them.
Spector (1997) came to the same conclusion. Indeed, it can be
argued that it is not increases in satisfaction that produce
improved performance but improved performance that increases
satisfaction. This was confirmed by data on the link between job
satisfaction and performance for 177 store managers, analysed
by Christen et al (2006). It was established that store managers’
performance increased their job satisfaction but that job
satisfaction had no impact on job performance.
Motivation and money
Money, in the form of pay or some other sort of remuneration,
is regarded by many people as the most obvious extrinsic
reward. Money seems to provide the carrot that most people
want.
Doubts were cast on the effectiveness of money by Herzberg
(1968), which although unsupported by his research have some
degree of face validity. He claimed that while the lack of money
can cause dissatisfaction, its provision does not result in lasting
satisfaction. There is something in this, especially for people on
fixed salaries or rates of pay who do not benefit directly from
an incentive scheme. They may feel good when they get an
increase; apart from the extra money, it is a highly tangible

form of recognition and an effective means of helping people to
feel that they are valued. But this feeling of euphoria can
rapidly die away. Other causes of dissatisfaction from
Herzberg’s list of hygiene factors, such as working conditions
or the quality of management, can loom larger in some people’s
minds when they fail to get the satisfaction they need from the
work itself. However, it must be re-emphasized that different
people have different needs and wants. Some will be much more
motivated by money than others. What cannot be assumed is
that money motivates everyone in the same way and to the same
extent. Thus it is naive to think that the introduction of a
performance-related pay scheme will miraculously transform
everyone overnight into well-motivated, high-performing
individuals.
Nevertheless, money is a powerful force because it is linked
directly or indirectly to the satisfaction of many needs. Money
may in itself have no intrinsic meaning, but it acquires
significant motivating power because it comes to symbolize so
many intangible goals. It acts as a symbol in different ways for
different people, and for the same person at different times.
But do financial incentives motivate people? The answer is yes,
for those people who are strongly motivated by money and
whose expectations are that they will receive a worthwhile
financial reward. But less confident employees may not respond
to incentives that they do not expect to achieve. It can also be
argued that extrinsic rewards may erode intrinsic interest –
people who work just for money could find their tasks less
pleasurable and may not, therefore, do them so well. What we
do know is that a multiplicity of factors is involved in
performance improvements and many of those factors are
interdependent.
Money can therefore provide positive motivation in the right
circumstances not only because people need and want money
but also because it serves as a highly tangible means of
recognition. But badly designed and managed pay systems can
demotivate. Another researcher in this area was Jaques (1961),

who emphasized the need for such systems to be perceived as
being fair and equitable. In other words, the reward should be
clearly related to effort or level of responsibility and people
should not receive less money than they deserve compared with
their fellow workers. Jaques called this the ‘felt-fair’ principle.
Motivation strategies
Motivation strategies aim to create a working environment and
to develop policies and practices that will provide for higher
levels of performance from employees. The factors affecting
them and the HR contribution are summarized in Table 13.2.
Table 13.2: Factors affecting motivation strategies and the HR
contribution
Factors affecting motivation strategies
The HR contribution
The complexity of the process of motivation means that
simplistic approaches based on instrumentality or needs theory
are unlikely to be successful.
Avoid the trap of developing or supporting strategies that offer
prescriptions for motivation based on a simplistic view of the
process or fail to recognize individual differences.
People are more likely to be motivated if they work in an
environment in which they are valued for what they are and
what they do. This means paying attention to the basic need for
recognition.
Encourage the development of performance management
processes that provide opportunities to agree expectations and
to recognize accomplishments.
Extrinsic motivators such as incentive pay can have an
immediate and powerful effect, but it will not necessarily last
long. The intrinsic motivators, which are concerned with the
‘quality of working life’ (a phrase and movement that emerged
from this concept), are likely to have a deeper and longer-term
effect because they are inherent in individuals and the work
they do and not imposed from outside in such forms as
performance-related pay.

Develop total reward systems that provide opportunities for
both financial and non-financial rewards to recognize
achievements. Bear in mind, however, that financial rewards
systems are not necessarily appropriate and the lessons of
expectancy, goal and equity theory need to be taken into
account in designing and operating them.
Pay particular attention to recognition as a means of motivation.
Develop intrinsic motivation by paying attention to job design,
ensuring that managers are aware of its importance and their
role in designing intrinsically motivating jobs.
Some people will be much more motivated by money than
others. It cannot be assumed that money motivates everyone in
the same way and to the same extent.
Avoid the introduction of a performance-related pay scheme in
the belief that it will miraculously transform everyone overnight
into well-motivated, high-performing individuals.
The need for work that provides people with the means to
achieve their goals, a reasonable degree of autonomy, and scope
for the use of skills and competences.
Advise on processes for the design of jobs that take account of
the factors affecting the motivation to work, providing for job
enrichment in the shape of variety, decision-making
responsibility and as much control as possible in carrying out
the work.
The need for the opportunity to grow by developing abilities
and careers.
Provide facilities and opportunities for learning through such
means as personal development planning processes as well as
more formal training.
Develop career planning processes.
The cultural environment of the organization in the shape of its
values and norms will influence the impact of any attempts to
motivate people by direct or indirect means.
Advise on the development of a culture that supports processes
of valuing and rewarding employees.
Motivation will be enhanced by leadership, which sets the

direction, encourages and stimulates achievement and provides
support to employees in their efforts to reach goals and improve
their performance generally.
Devise competency frameworks that focus on leadership
qualities and the behaviours expected of managers and team
leaders.
Ensure that leadership potential is identified through
performance management and assessment centres.
Conduct leadership development programmes.
Achievement motivation is important for managers and those
who aspire to greater responsibility.
Pay attention to job design to ensure that people are given the
scope to achieve.
Develop talent management processes to provide people with
opportunities to achieve and performance management
processes to provide them with feedback on how well they are
achieving and what they must do to achieve more.
Key learning points: Motivation
The process of motivation
Motivation is goal-directed behaviour. People are motivated
when they expect that a course of action is likely to lead to the
attainment of a goal and a valued reward – one that satisfies
their needs and wants.
Types of motivation
The two basic types are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Motivation theories
There are a number of motivation theories that, in the main, are
complementary to one another. The most significant theories are
those concerned with expectancy, goal setting, equity and
cognitive evaluation, which are classified as process or
cognitive theories.
Motivation strategies
Motivation strategies aim to create a working environment and
to develop policies and practices that will provide for higher
levels of performance from employees. They include the design

of intrinsically motivating jobs and leadership development
programmes and the development of total reward systems and
performance management processes.Chapter 14: Commitment
LEARNING OUTCOMES
On completing this chapter you should be able to define these
key concepts. You should also understand:
· The meaning of organizational commitment
· The importance of commitment
· Commitment and engagement
· Problems with the concept of commitment
· The impact of high commitment
· Factors affecting commitment
· Developing a commitment strategyIntroduction
Commitment represents the strength of an individual’s
identification with, and involvement in, an organization. It is a
concept that has played an important part in HRM philosophy.
As Guest (1987: 503) suggested, HRM policies are designed to
‘maximize organizational integration, employee commitment,
flexibility and quality of work’. Beer et al (1984: 20) identified
commitment in their concept of HRM as a key dimension
because it ‘can result not only in more loyalty and better
performance for the organization, but also in self-worth,
dignity, psychological involvement, and identity for the
individual’.
The meaning of organizational commitment
Commitment refers to attachment and loyalty. It is associated
with the feelings of individuals about their organization.
Mowday (1998) stated that it is characterized by an emotional
attachment to one’s organization that results from shared values
and interests. The three characteristics of commitment
identified by Mowday et al (1982) are:
1. A strong desire to remain a member of the organization.
2. A strong belief in and acceptance of the values and goals of
the organization.
3. A readiness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the

organization.
Appelbaum et al (2000: 183) rephrased this definition as:
‘Organizational commitment is a multidimensional construct
that reflects a worker’s: identification with the organization
(loyalty), attachment to the organization (intention to stay), and
willingness to expend effort on the organization’s behalf
(discretionary effort).’ An alternative, although closely related
definition of commitment emphasizes the importance of
behaviour in creating commitment. Three features of behaviour
are important in binding individuals to their acts: the visibility
of the acts, the extent to which the outcomes are irrevocable,
and the degree to which the person undertakes the action
voluntarily. Commitment, according to Salancik (1977) can be
increased and harnessed to obtain support for organizational
ends and interests through such ploys as participation in
decisions about actions.
The importance of commitment
The importance of commitment was highlighted by Walton
(1985a). His theme was that improved performance would result
if the organization moved away from the traditional control-
oriented approach to workforce management, which relies upon
establishing order, exercising control and achieving efficiency.
He proposed that this approach should be replaced by a
commitment strategy that would enable workers ‘to respond best
– and most creatively – not when they are tightly controlled by
management, placed in narrowly defined jobs, and treated like
an unwelcome necessity, but, instead, when they are given
broader responsibilities, encouraged to contribute and helped to
achieve satisfaction in their work’ (ibid: 77). He described the
commitment-based approach as follows.
Source review
Richard Walton on commitment – Walton (1985a: 79)
Jobs are designed to be broader than before, to combine
planning and implementation, and to include efforts to upgrade

operations, not just to maintain them. Individual responsibilities
are expected to change as conditions change, and teams, not
individuals, often are the organizational units accountable for
performance. With management hierarchies relatively flat and
differences in status minimized, control and lateral coordination
depend on shared goals. And expertise rather than formal
position determines influence.
Expressed like this, a commitment strategy sounds idealistic
(‘the American dream’ as Guest (1990) put it) but it does not
appear to be a crude attempt to manipulate people to accept
management’s values and goals, as some have suggested. In
fact, Walton did not describe it as being instrumental in this
manner. His prescription was for a broad HRM approach to the
ways in which people are treated, jobs are designed and
organizations are managed. He believed that the aim should be
to develop ‘mutuality’, a state that exists when management and
employees are interdependent and both benefit from this
interdependency. The importance of mutuality and its
relationship to commitment was spelt out by Walton (1985b: 64)
as follows:
The new HRM model is composed of policies that promote
mutuality – mutual goals, mutual influence, mutual respect,
mutual rewards, mutual responsibility. The theory is that
policies of mutuality will elicit commitment which in turn will
yield both better economic performance and greater human
development.
But a review by Guest (1991) of the mainly North American
literature, reinforced by the limited UK research available, led
him to the conclusion that: ‘High organizational commitment is
associated with lower labour turnover and absence, but there is
no clear link to performance.’ Swailes (2002: 164) confirmed
that: ‘Despite the best efforts of researchers… the evidence for
a strong positive link between commitment and performance
remains patchy.’
It is probably unwise to expect too much from commitment as a

means of making a direct and immediate impact on
performance. It is not the same as motivation. It is possible to
be dissatisfied with a particular feature of a job while retaining
a fairly high level of commitment to the organization as a
whole. But it is reasonable to believe that strong commitment to
work may result in conscientious and self-directed application
to do the job, regular attendance, the need for less supervision
and a high level of discretionary effort. Commitment to the
organization will certainly be related to the intention to stay
there.
Commitment and engagement
The notion of commitment as described above appears to be
very similar if not identical to that of organizational
engagement that, as defined in Chapter 15, focuses on
attachment to, or identification with, the organization as a
whole. Are there any differences?
Some commentators have asserted that commitment is a distinct
although closely linked entity. As cited by Buchanan (2004:
19), the US Corporate Executive Board divides engagement into
two aspects of commitment: 1) rational commitment, which
occurs when a job serves employees’ financial, developmental
or professional self-interest; and 2) emotional commitment,
which arises when workers value, enjoy and believe in what
they do and has four times the power to affect performance as
its more pragmatic counterpart. The Corporate Executive Board
(2004: 1) indicated that engagement is ‘the extent to which
employees commit to someone or something in their
organization, how hard they work, and how long they stay as a
result of that commitment’. Wellins and Concelman (2005: 1)
suggested that ‘to be engaged is to be actively committed’. And
Macey and Schneider (2008: 8–9) observed that:
Organizational commitment is an important facet of the state of
engagement when it is conceptualized as positive attachment to
the larger organizational entity and measured as a willingness to
exert energy in support of the organization, to feel pride as an

organizational member, and to have personal identification with
the organization.
Clearly organizational engagement and commitment are closely
associated, and commitment was included by the Institute for
Employment Studies in its model (see Chapter 15) as an element
of engagement. Appelbaum et al (2000: 183) noted that: ‘The
willingness to exert extra effort is the aspect of organizational
commitment that has been shown to be most closely related to
an employee’s job performance.’ Robinson et al (2004: 7)
suggested that the closest relationship of commitment to
engagement was ‘affective commitment, ie the satisfaction
people get from their jobs and their colleagues and their
willingness to go beyond the call of duty for the sake of the
organization’. Salanova et al (2005) saw commitment as part of
engagement but not equivalent to it.
The analysis of the concept of commitment as undertaken in this
chapter is based on a considerable body of work exploring its
nature and significance, and therefore helps to illuminate the
somewhat elusive notion of engagement as discussed in Chapter
15. But there are problems with commitment, as discussed
below.
Critical evaluation of the concept of commitment
A number of commentators have raised questions about the
concept of commitment. These relate to three main problem
areas: 1) the imprecise nature of the term, 2) its unitary frame
of reference, and 3) commitment as an inhibitor of flexibility.
The imprecise nature of the term
Guest (1987: 513) raised the question of what commitment
really means as follows:
The case for seeking high commitment among employees seems
plausible but the burgeoning research on the topic has identified
a number of problems. One of these concerns the definition of
the concept. The first issue is – commitment to what? Most
writers are interested in commitment to the organization, but

others have examined career commitment and job commitment.
Once the general concept of commitment is utilized, then union
commitment, workgroup commitment and family commitment
should also be considered. The possibility of multiple and
perhaps competing commitments creates a more complex set of
issues.
Unitary frame of reference
The concept of commitment, especially as put forward by
Walton (1985a), can be criticized as being simplistic, even
misguided, in adopting a unitary frame of reference that
assumes that organizations consist of people with shared
interests. It has been suggested by people such as Cyert and
March (1963), Mangham (1979) and Mintzberg (1983) that an
organization is really a coalition of interest groups where
political processes are an inevitable part of everyday life.
Legge (1989: 38) also raised this question in her discussion of
strong culture as a key requirement of HRM, which she
criticized because it implies ‘a shared set of managerially
sanctioned values… that assumes an identification of employee
and employer interests’. As Coopey and Hartley (1991: 21) put
it: ‘Commitment is not an all-or-nothing affair (though many
managers might like it to be) but a question of multiple or
competing commitments for the individual.’ A pluralist
perspective recognizes the legitimacy of different interests and
is more realistic.
It could be argued that values concerned with performance,
quality, service, equal opportunity and innovation are not
necessarily wrong because they are managerial values. But
pursuing a value such as innovation could work against the
interests of employees by, for example, resulting in
redundancies. And flexibility may sound a good idea but,
beyond the rhetoric, as Sisson (1994: 5) observed, the reality
may mean that management can do what it wants. It would be
quite reasonable for any employee encouraged to behave in
accordance with a value supported by management to ask,

‘What’s in it for me?’ It can also be argued that the imposition
from above of management’s values on employees without their
having any part to play in discussing and agreeing them is a
form of coercion.
Commitment and flexibility
It was pointed out by Coopey and Hartley (1991: 22) that: ‘The
problem for a unitarist notion of organizational commitment is
that it fosters a conformist approach which not only fails to
reflect organizational reality, but can be narrowing and limiting
for the organization.’ They argued that if employees are
expected and encouraged to commit themselves tightly to a
single set of values and goals they will not be able to cope with
the ambiguities and uncertainties that are endemic in
organizational life in times of change. Conformity to ‘imposed’
values will inhibit creative problem solving, and high
commitment to present courses of action will increase both
resistance to change and the stress that invariably occurs when
change takes place.
If commitment is related to tightly defined plans, this will
become a real problem. To avoid it, the emphasis should be on
overall strategic directions. These would be communicated to
employees with the proviso that changing circumstances will
require their amendment. In the meantime, however, everyone
can at least be informed in general terms where the organization
is heading and, more specifically, the part they are expected to
play in helping the organization to get there and, if they can be
involved in the decision-making processes on matters that affect
them (including management’s values for performance, quality
and customer service), so much the better.
Values need not necessarily be restrictive. They can be defined
in ways that allow for freedom of choice within broad
guidelines. In fact, the values themselves can refer to such
processes as flexibility, innovation and responsiveness to
change. Thus, far from inhibiting creative problem solving, they
can encourage it. But they will not do so if they are imposed

from above. Employees need to have a say in defining the
values they are expected to support.
Factors affecting commitment
Kochan and Dyer (1993) indicated that the factors affecting the
level of commitment in what they called ‘mutual commitment
firms’ were as follows:
· Strategic level: supportive business strategies, top
management value commitment and effective voice for HR in
strategy making and governance.
· Functional (human resource policy) level: staffing based on
employment stabilization, investment in training and
development and contingent compensation that reinforces
cooperation, participation and contribution.
· Workplace level: selection based on high standards, broad task
design and teamwork, employee involvement in problem solving
and a climate of cooperation and trust.
The research conducted by Purcell et al (2003) identified the
following key policy and practice factors that influence levels
of commitment:
· received training last year;
· satisfied with career opportunities;
· satisfied with the performance appraisal system;
· think managers are good in people management (leadership);
· find their work challenging;
· think their firm helps them achieve a work–life balance;
· satisfied with communication or company
performance.Developing a commitment strategy
A commitment strategy can be based on the high-commitment
model incorporating policies and practices in areas of HR such
as job design, learning and development, career planning,
performance management, reward management, participation,
communication and employee well-being. HR should play a
major part in developing a high-commitment organization. The
10 steps it can take are:
1. Advise on methods of communicating the values and aims of

management and the achievements of the organization so that
employees are more likely to identify with the organization as
one they are proud to work for.
2. Emphasize to management that commitment is a two-way
process; employees cannot be expected to be committed to the
organization unless management demonstrates that it is
committed to them and recognizes their contribution as
stakeholders.
3. Impress on management the need to develop a climate of trust
by being honest with people, treating them fairly, justly and
consistently, keeping its word, and showing willingness to
listen to the comments and suggestions made by employees
during processes of consultation and participation.
4. Develop a positive psychological contract (the set of
reciprocal but unwritten expectations that exist between
individual employees and their employers) by treating people as
stakeholders, relying on consensus and cooperation rather than
control and coercion, and focusing on the provision of
opportunities for learning, development and career progression.
5. Advise on the establishment of partnership agreements with
trade unions that emphasize unity of purpose, common
approaches to working together and the importance of giving
employees a voice in matters that concern them.
6. Recommend and take part in the achievement of single status
for all employees (often included in a partnership agreement) so
that there is no longer an ‘us and them’ culture.
7. Encourage management to declare a policy of employment
security and ensure that steps are taken to avoid involuntary
redundancies.
8. Develop performance management processes that provide for
the alignment of organizational and individual objectives.
9. Advise on means of increasing employee identification with
the company through rewards related to organizational
performance (profit sharing or gainsharing) or employee share
ownership schemes.
10. Enhance employee job engagement, ie identification of

employees with the job they are doing, through job design
processes that aim to create higher levels of job satisfaction
(job enrichment).
Key learning points: Commitment
The meaning of commitment
Commitment refers to attachment and loyalty. It is associated
with the feelings of individuals about their organization. The
three characteristics of commitment identified by Mowday et
al (1982) are:
1. A strong desire to remain a member of the organization.
2. A strong belief in and acceptance of the values and goals of
the organization.
3. A readiness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the
organization.
The impact of high commitment
In his seminal Harvard Business Review article, Richard Walton
(1985a) stated that ‘eliciting employee commitment will lead to
enhanced performance [and] the evidence shows this belief to
be well founded’. The importance of commitment was
highlighted by Walton. His theme was that improved
performance would result if the organization moved away from
the traditional control-oriented approach to workforce
management, which relies upon establishing order, exercising
control and achieving efficiency. He proposed that this
approach should be replaced by a commitment strategy.
Problems with the concept of commitment
There are four main problem areas: 1) the imprecise nature of
the term, 2) its unitary frame of reference, 3) commitment as an
inhibitor of flexibility, and 4) the extent to which high
commitment does in practice result in improved organizational
performance.
Engagement and commitment
Organizational engagement and commitment are closely
associated. Commitment was included by the IES in its model as
an element of engagement. But commitment is a somewhat

wider concept in that it is concerned with both job engagement
and organizational engagement.
The factors affecting the level of commitment (Kochan and
Dyer, 1993)
· Strategic level: supportive business strategies, top
management value commitment and effective voice for HR in
strategy making and governance.
· Functional (human resource policy) level : staffing based on
employment stabilization, investment in training and
development and contingent compensation that reinforces
cooperation, participation and contribution.
· Workplace level : selection based on high standards, broad
task design and teamwork, employee involvement in problem
solving and a climate of cooperation and trust.
HR’s role in enhancing commitment
HR should play a major part in developing a high-commitment
organization. The 10 steps it can take are:
· Advise on methods of communicating the values and aims of
management.
· Emphasize to management that commitment is a two-way
process.
· Impress on management the need to develop a climate of trust.
· Develop a positive psychological contract.
· Advise on the establishment of partnership agreements with
trade unions.
· Recommend and take part in the achievement of single status
for all employees.
· Encourage management to declare a policy of employment
security.
· Develop performance management processes.
· Advise on means of increasing employee identification with
the company.
· Enhance employee job engagement through job design
processes.

Chapter 13 MotivationLEARNING OUTCOMESOn completing this chap.docx

Chapter 13 MotivationLEARNING OUTCOMESOn completing this chap.docx

More Related Content

Similar to Chapter 13 MotivationLEARNING OUTCOMESOn completing this chap.docx (20)

More from bartholomeocoombs (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 13 MotivationLEARNING OUTCOMESOn completing this chap.docx