Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TYPE OF
PAPER: Journal Article
LEAD
CONTACT: Patricia Castelli, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Outcomes Assessment Coordinator
College of Management
Lawrence Technological University
21000 West Ten Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48075-1058
248.204.3066
castelli@ltu.edu
Abstract:
what motivates their followers. Incorporating motivating strategies into this process with the
goal of enhancing performance, however, has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature.
This study provided an analysis of low and high self-attributed need for achievement and their
effects on the motivation needs of followers. The findings provide recommendations on how
Stimulated by the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), work motivation
has been a focus of researchers since the 1930s. Researchers have taken various approaches
(Argyris, 1957); sources of work satisfaction (work design and psychological processes);
Herzberg, Mausner & Snyderman (1959); Vroom (1964) and his valence-instrumentality-
motivation; Maslow (1970) and his hierarchy of needs (motives)which is the easiest to
remember; and others. Yet with all this research, Levinson (2006) suggests there is still a
for American management. Their response was the typical carrot-and-stick philosophy,
1999; Steers, Mowday & Shapiro, 2004; Schein, 1980; and Knopf, 1967). Emmons states,
discrepancy between their present condition and a desired standard or goal (1999, p. 28). If we
look at this from the standpoint of how leaders can motivate their followers to enhance their
among alternatives, responding to the motivation to perform or ignore what is offered. This
suggests that a followers consideration of personal interests and the desire to expand knowledge
and skill has significant motivational impact, requiring the leader to consider motivating
explaining the behavior of people in organizations (Schein, 1980). The diversity of these theories
brought Locke and Latham (2004) to recommend that the theory of motivation must be studied
from new perspectives. Because the topic of employee motivation plays a central role in the
field of management (Steers et al., 2004), attention must be paid to the prospect of motivation as
it moves into the 21st century. The question must be asked, according to Steers et al, how can we
extend or modify current models of work motivation so they continue to be relevant in the
In response to this question, this writing will discuss achievement motive disposition as
important for leaders in gaining an understanding of what motivates their followers. First, we
will review how motivation has been defined and used in organizational settings. Next, we
discuss the differences between low and high self-attributed needs for achievement and
measurements. Third, we focus on both self-attributed and implicit motives to help leaders
understand how they can best motivate their employees and bring it into action to align with
organizational values, vision, mission, goals and objectives. Fourth, we present motivating
strategies from the literature and a new application of the ARCS model as it pertains to an
recommendations for leaders aimed at increasing followers interest and effort, to enhance their
performance.
WHAT IS MOTIVATION?
Steers et al. noted various definitions by writers who have attempted to define the term
motivation, a term that is derived from the Latin word for movement (movere). They note that
Atkinson offers the definition as the contemporary (immediate) influence on direction, vigor,
persons...among alternative forms of voluntary activity: (1964, p.6). According to Maddock and
Fulton, Motivation, surprisingly enough, has not been defined in a scientifically acceptable,
reasonable and legitimate manner. It has not even been defined in a practical, commonsense or
useful manner. According to these authors, leadership is defined in one word: motivation.
They suggest that motivation has not been adequately defined because it is too near to emotion
and no one wants to flirt with emotion (1998, p. xii). Their suggestion that motivation is the
silent side of leadership is pertinent to the tendency of researchers to describe motivation, but
not to explain it. To prepare future leaders to motivate people they must understand how one is
motivated.
In the 1920s psychologists Thorndike, Woodworth, and Huss moved theorists toward the
concept of learning in motivated behavior suggesting that past actions that lead to positive
outcomes would tend to be repeated. Taylor, an industrial engineer, and his associates focused on
influences on behavior began to emerge in the 1930s. Group dynamics then emerged (e.g., Mayo,
1933; Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939; Bendix, 1956) as significant to the motivation of the
individual in the group. Etzioni (1961) offer three types of involvement of organization members
which impact motivation: (1) alienative (not being psychologically involved and forced to be a
member of the group); (2) calculative (involvement to the extent of going a fair days work for a
fair days pay;) and (3) moral (the person intrinsically values the organizations mission and his
or her job and is personally involved (committed) and identified with the organization) (Schein,
1980).
block motivation stating, There is the basic emotional and motivational attitude of the thinker
to be reckoned with, (1960, p. 177) suggesting the need for leaders to be aware of level of
openness of the person to motivational activities. Leavitt (1972) firmly states that relevance to
ones needs is the most important determinant of ones personal view of the world. It appears
that factors regarding achievement motive are significant to motivational responses and
tendencies.
In 1949, David McClelland & others reported that achievement motive could be induced.
This finding is critical since it suggests that leaders have the ability to influence their followers
behaviors by providing effective motivating techniques. McClelland found that two distinct
motivational systems influence learning behaviors in different ways and that individuals require
different incentives to exert effort and to perform based on their motive type. These motivational
Self-attributed needs for achievement are defined by Koestner et al. (1991) as self-
reported attitudinal motives. The very first study of self-attributed need achievement
(then called valuing achievement) was conducted by de Charms, Morrison, Reitman, and
McClelland in 1955. In this study, subjects were asked to report their views on various
paintingswith and without expert opinion. The findings indicated that subjects high in self-
attributed need for achievement were more likely to change their views of the quality of
paintings to be more in line with expert opinion than subjects low in self-attributed need for
achievement. This study was significant in that it demonstrated a relationship between external
related testing situations with similar results. Under normal testing conditions, individuals with
high self-attributed need for achievement did not perform better on a laboratory task than low
need achievers. However, when an external demand for achievement was added, high need
achievers did perform better than low need achievers (see Atkinson & Litwin, 1960; Koestner,
Weinberger & McClelland, 1991; Patten & White, 1977; McClelland 1985a; Meyer, 1973;
Low self-attributed need for achievement is a motive disposition in which the individual
does not attribute achievement to self and incentives are generally task-intrinsic. Becker (1960)
states that task-intrinsic individuals define success by their own internal standard of excellence
and that, furthermore, satisfaction is derived from doing the job well rather than from the
enjoyment of the end product. Their motives are said to be implicit and primarily aroused by
factors intrinsic to the process of performing an activity. Thomas (2002) states that rewards
come from task purposes, namely meaningfulness and progress. The implication: leaders in
organizations would motivate individuals by assigning challenging tasks that stretch their
of attaining approval from others rather than satisfying internal standards. Their motives tend to
be highly self-attributed and are aroused by social factors that are extrinsic to the process of
performing an activity. The inference here in the workplace is for leaders to provide external
stimuli by way of social incentives related to success. Encouragement, ongoing feedback, and
praise often motivate these types of individuals. These incentives and motive types are often not
achievement orientation and specific motivating strategies to enhance performance. Even so,
there is a logical implication that effort and performance can be enhanced when these aspects are
taken into account. By understanding the differences in motivational systems, leaders may be
able to provide incentives and apply various motivating strategies while satisfying both
achievement orientations. This would seem a sensible approach when examining performance in
Since the 50s, numerous studies examined the relationship between implicit and self-
report measures of achievement motive. Researchers concluded that not only were self-report
and implicit measures of achievement motive uncorrelated, but they possessed very different
1980; Kreitler & Kreitler, 1976; Korman, 1974; Lowell, 1952). They found that implicit needs
are primarily aroused by factors intrinsic to the process of performing an activity. Self-attributed
needs are aroused by social factors that are extrinsic to the process of performing an activity.
These two different, independent systems of motivation differ in the way they energize, select,
and direct behavior. Table 1 contrasts the two forms of motive based on research from the
literature.
possible relationships between motives and incentives. They sought to determine the manner in
which the two types of motives (implicit and self-attributed) combine with two kinds of
the hypothesis that extrinsic social factors in a performance situation are likely to combine with a
factors, such as level of challenge, influence performance in conjunction with a persons implicit
need to achieve. Thus, when a memory task was introduced with an explicit emphasis on
achievement, subjects high in self-attributed need for achievement performed better than those
who were low. On the other hand, in a neutral condition the reverse pattern was obtained.
Importantly, it was shown that the implicit need for achievement did not interact with the social
Koestner et al. (1991) conclude that these results suggest people scoring high in the self-
attributed motives are more likely to selectively remember information relevant to their view of
themselves. This implies that individuals who attribute high achievement motivation to
themselves are vulnerable to performing quite poorly unless some other motivational factor,
either in the form of external incentives or strong implicit motive, is also present. This research
suggests that the challenge for leaders is to devise a systematic approach to coaching that
considers both high and low achievement characteristic needs. In order to do this, leaders must
In the past thirty years, researchers have focused more on information processing and the
way in which motivational thoughts are converted into action (e.g., Anderson & Glassman, 1996;
Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985; Weiner, 1972, 1986). This cognitive reorientation of motive theory
has called into question the use of the term "value" to describe self-reported motives. Value is a
conduct (Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; Rokeach, 1973, 1979). To avoid misunderstanding,
McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger (1989) abandoned the term "value" and replaced it with
human motivation in terms of needs, plans, and goals describes the way self-attributed motives
function much better than the way implicit motives function. Self-attributed motives are
characterized by organized thought; they start with an explicit goal that a person wishes for, then
wants, and then becomes committed to pursuing in various ways (Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985;
Klinger, 1975, 1987). Klinger, Barta, & Maxeiner (1981) have studied empirically the varieties
of current concerns that people report in interviews and questionnaires. Klinger developed the
notion of a current concern defining it as the commitment to a goal and either the
consummation of the goal or disengagement from it (Klinger, 1977, 1998, noted in Emmons,
1999). Most of the concerns have to do with unattained goals or unfinished business. The more
committed people are to a goal or the more salient it becomes, the greater the likelihood that they
will feel frustrated and unhappy for their slowness or failure in reaching it (McClelland et al.). In
programs to vitalize and positively energize organization, shifting employees toward greater
The situation is different with implicit motives because they are aroused by affective
experiences intrinsic to an activity and not by explicit references to unmet goals (McClelland
et al., 1989). It is especially important to realize that failure to meet a goal is not as apparent to
those with a strong implicit motive. Observers may presume that a person who scores high in
such a goal. This premise is reinforced by Custers & Aarts (2005). They found that positive affect
plays a key role in nonconscious goal pursuit. Their research revealed that nonconscious
accomplish these states. Since there is no correlation between implicit and explicit desires to
achieve, it is not as obvious to a low need achiever when a goal is not being met. In describing
how an implicit motive functions, it is not appropriate to speak of wishing, wanting, and
committing oneself to the goal that is recognized as the natural incentive for that motive
(McClelland et al., 1989). Instead, the motive is better conceived of as leading to an activity that
is the incentive for that motive. Thus, low need achievers have learned through experience to
seek out certain activities that provide the pleasure of moderate challenge. However, they do not
necessarily know that they have a goal of doing better. It seems sensible then, that low need
achievers know less about what is guiding their behavior than do individuals with an explicit or
high self-attributed achievement needs. The literature suggests that low need achievers are
less able to plan appropriate corrective action when things go awry (McClelland, et al., 1989).
According to Seiling & Roux (2006), motivation is seen as something that can be
expanded through applying chosen and spontaneous instances of recognition, affirmation and
reward. They caution, however, that these methods are temporary and less than effective in the
long term. Their work on constructive accountability suggests that motivation processes are
dependent upon ongoing interaction activities with respected others that can include peers,
leaders and/or other influential people. These interactions are what stimulates connection to and
interest in work. They argue that when others disappear or act disinterested in our work, we also
lose interest. This view supports prior research from Koestner, Weinburger & McClelland
with others, including the leader is important for high need achievers. This suggests that
motivating strategies include opportunities for frequent interaction with the leader as well as
team members. For both high and low need achievers, the leaders use of an interesting variety
of coaching techniques and feedback is critical for producing interest and effort.
MOTIVATING STRATEGIES
Locke & Latham (2002) state, Motivation theory in the realm of work needs to draw on
findings from other fields (p. 393) suggesting that social psychology (Bandura, 1986),
educational psychology (Dweck, 1986), and positive organizational psychology (Carmeon et al,
2003) have benefited the study of organization behavior. Kellers work in instructional
motivation attracts learners toward the instruction and increases their efforts in relation to the
subject matter. Kellers (1979) research on motivation, performance, and instructional influence
illustrates how motivation can be integrated with the aspects of instructional science. Kellers
work helps explain what influences a person to approach or avoid a task, and how to make a task
more interesting. Keller clearly distinguishes effort and performance as categories of behavior:
performance means actual accomplishment, whereas effort refers to whether the individual
is engaged in actions aimed at accomplishing the task. Therefore, effort is a direct indicator of
motivation. Deci and Ryan offer self-determination theory proposing that motivated behaviors
vary in the degree to which they are self-determined (autonomous) versus controlled (in
Emmons, 1999). Consequently, according to Keller (1979), people can be viewed as more or less
When people are experiencing satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, they tend
to do what interests them. In other words, they tend to be intrinsically motivated. Thus,
some support for ones basic needs. The fact that interest is so central to intrinsic
motivation implies, of course, that if an individual did not find an activity interesting, he
or she would not be intrinsically motivated for it. Under such circumstances, for the
person to do all the activity at all would require some type of extrinsic motivation
Expectancy-valence theories (e.g., Porter & Lawler, 1968) had proposed that intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation are additive, yielding total motivation. This led to the suggestion that
intrinsic motivation and that social contexts should be organized to provide extrinsic rewards that
are contingent upon effective performance at the activities. That way, there would be maximal
motivation, consisting of the sum or the intrinsic motivation from the interesting activities and
the extrinsic motivation form the contingent rewards (p.584). Attribution theory however, made
a different prediction. deCharms (1968) suggested that when people perceive the locus of
causality for their behavior to be within themselves, they tend to be intrinsically motivated, but
when they perceive the locus of causality to be external, they tend to be extrinsically motivated.
undermine intrinsic motivation but instead enhance it. Performance-contingent rewards are those
given for doing well at an activitythat is, for meeting or surpassing some standard (p.585).
arouse enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain course of action. His simple model of
motivation has four elements: First, a need creates desire to fulfill needs (food, friendship,
recognition, achievement), next behavior results in actions to fulfill needs, third, rewards satisfy
needs either intrinsically or extrinsically, and fourth, feedback informs a person whether the
behavior was appropriate and should be used again. Daft states that intrinsic rewards appeal to
the higher needs of individuals, such as accomplishment, competence, fulfillment, and self-
comfort and basic safety and security. The problem is that conventional management approaches
often appeal to an individuals lower, basic needs and rely on extrinsic rewards and punishments
Daft,
Although extrinsic rewards are important, leaders work especially hard to enable
who get intrinsic satisfaction from their jobs often put forth increased effortleaders also
strive to create an environment where people feel valued and feel that they are
Hughes et al. (2006) describe performance as those behaviors directed toward the
organizations mission or goals, or the products and services resulting from those behaviors.
They state that performance differs from effectiveness, which generally involves making
judgments about the adequacy of behavior with respect to certain criteria such as work-group or
organizational goals. In order for leaders to understand and influence follower motivation,
cognitive, and situational). Hughes et al. state, Leaders who are knowledgeable about different
motivational theories are more likely to choose the right theory for a particular follower and
situation, and often have higher-performing and more satisfied employees as a result (p. 247).
Thus, leaders would need to spend more time with their followers to determine what interests
them intrinsically and whenever possible, provide opportunities to perform particular tasks they
find rewarding. Hughes et al. understands that this is not always possible. However, they state
that leaders may be able to get higher-quality work and have more satisfied employees by
Keller (1987), Keller and Suzuki (1988), and Keller and Kopp (1987) identified four
(ARCS). According to Keller, the ARCS model contains specific methods or strategies that are
aimed at producing motivational outcomes when learners are lacking sufficient conditions such
as interest or motives.
Attention refers to whether the learners curiosity is aroused and if stimulation can be
sustained over time. Relevance refers to the learners perception of the personal need satisfaction
in relation to the instruction, or whether a highly desired goal is seen as being related to the
learning experience. Confidence refers to the perceived likelihood of success, and the extent to
which success is up to the learner. Satisfaction refers to the combination of external rewards and
internal motivation, and whether these motivators are compatible with the learners anticipations.
Kellers ARCS categories originate from a macro-theory of the relationships of individual and
environments. College students and community education students were used in this study. Two
instruments were used by Bohlin, Milheim & Viechnicki (1990): the Course Interest Survey
Revised (CISR) and the Course Effort Survey Revised (CESR). By utilizing these instruments,
instructional motivation needs of the two groups of adult learners were identified and analyzed.
The results of the first factor analysis (using the effort responses of learners in college
classes) gave some support to the categories of the ARCS model with each of the first four
factors entirely or predominately composed of items from one category of each (attention,
relevance, confidence, and satisfaction). According to Bohlin et al. (1993), this suggests that the
theoretical nature of the categories in the ARCS Model are consistent with the nature of the self-
reported motivational needs of adults in college courses and workshops. Bohlin believes this
also supports the long standing position that motivation often refers to time-on-task or similar
measures of effort.
Prior research from Koestner, Weinburger & McClelland (1991) regarding achievement
motive and instructional motivation needs as assessed by Bohlin, Milheim & Viechnicki (1993)
is helpful to know that although many individuals may possess a mixture of both achievement
orientations, one is usually predominant. Castelli (1994) used the ARCS model in conjunction
with achievement motive to determine appropriate motivating strategies based on the need
orientation of the learner. The major findings of this study centered on the interest variables as
being most critical for predicting self-attributed needs of achievement. In fact, the interest
interest can be used to improve motivation in instruction indicate that learners will exhibit
significant gains in continuing motivation when relevant selections of their interests are utilized.
This is reinforced by Houtz (1994) who notes how interest is necessary for a transfer of learning
from one situation or task to another. The findings also indicated that motivational strategies
vary in their effectiveness dependent upon the need orientation of the learner. The results of this
study suggested guidelines for selecting motivation strategies that may enhance effort and
Castellis (1994) study was recently modified for application to organization settings
since it provides useful information for leaders and managers concerning achievement need
preference of their followers in task assignments, levels of challenge, feedback, and reward
for a given audience may greatly assist management in determining appropriate strategies to
enhance performance output. The needs assessment instruments could also be used to measure
the desires of a particular group (or groups) within an organization with the goal of obtaining
general requirements for various populations. Given these implications, this study was
Conceptual Model
The conceptual model for this research is illustrated in Figure 1. The model shows
behavioral characteristics that all individuals possess incentives and motives for achievement.
Interest and effort may be correlated to achievement motive. Relationships may also exist
Self-Attributed Achievement Motive = F (Interest + Effort + Gender, Age and Degree Status)
Method
sample sizes were established that consisted of undergraduate, graduate and doctorate students in
a college of management at a private university. The participants were located at various levels in
organizations.
Three survey instruments were used to conduct this research. For the first survey,
subjects were asked to complete a self-report inventory of the achievement scale using Jacksons
Personality Research Form (1989). This information provided a basis for determining subjects
low and high self-attributed needs for achievement. For the second and third surveys permission
was granted to modify Bohlin et al. (1993) Course Interest Survey Revised and the Course Effort
Survey Revised. The instruments were modified from instructor and student relationships to
leader and follower relationships in order to determine how leaders can better motivate their
followers to enhance performance within their organizations. For the Interest Survey Revised
and the Effort Survey Revised (Castelli, 2006), subjects were asked to rate the importance of
their leaders various motivating strategies with regard to their own interest and effort,
respectively. This information was used to determine strategies leaders can use to effectively
motivate their followers in the workplace. In addition, critical demographic information (gender,
(1989) in the Personality Research Form Manual. Keller and Subhiyah (1987) and Bohlin and
others (1993) also provide validity for the Course Interest and Course Effort Surveys.
Analysis was also performed to determine the overall reliability for all survey instruments used
in this study. The pooled results for Jacksons achievement scale was .65. Individual item
reliability ranged from .61 to .66. Spearman-Browns correction was .71. Bohlin and others
Course Interest and Course Effort Surveys Revised show consistent high reliability, with Effort
These survey instruments provide a strong basis for determining the motivation needs of
followers and specific motivating strategies they value most from their leaders.
Summary of Results
The data indicates that age is significant in all categories of interest (except satisfaction)
and all categories of effort (except relevance). Gender is not significant in the categories of effort
and interest.
Means and standard deviations were also analyzed for each of the items in the Interest
and Effort Surveys. In comparing the results between groups with low or high self-attributed
needs for achievement, the data indicates that nearly identical strategies (leader uses an
interesting variety of coaching techniques, leader is a positive role model, leader builds self-
esteem, appropriate challenge level) were found most important to both groups. The data also
indicates that the high self-attributed need for achievement group rated all of the items as more
important than subjects with low self-attributed need for achievement. Correlations of all
variables were analyzed. The data indicates that age and degree status are common in self-
characteristics could be used to predict low and high self-attributed needs for achievement. The
results of the canonical discriminant functions indicate that the variables used as predictors in
this study (profile and motivation characteristics) is significant and, therefore, can be generalized
Furthermore, the results indicate that in the category of interest, attention was most
powerful in predicting self-attributed needs for achievement. Other powerful predictors were
also in the area of interest (satisfaction and relevance). Satisfaction, confidence, and relevance
(interest) and attention (effort) showed a negative correlation indicating an inverse effect on
motivating strategies. Thus, not employing specific motivating strategies or not employing
Finally, classification results were analyzed to determine how often low and high self-
attributed need for achievement groups could be predicted. The data indicate that with the
predictors used in this study, learners with low self-attributed needs for achievement could be
correctly classified 52.8 percent of the time, and learners with high self-attributed needs for
achievement could be correctly classified 65.4 percent of the time. The classification results
indicate that the profile and motivational characteristics used in this research are fair predictors
The initial premise for this study suggested that self-attributed needs for achievement
followers may vary based on gender, age, and degree status. The relationships between these
The findings indicate that motivational strategies vary in their effectiveness dependent
upon the need orientation of the follower. Therefore, the approach a leader takes in motivating
his/her followers could accelerate or impede their performance outcomes. The results of this
study suggest guidelines leaders can use for selecting motivation strategies that may enhance
interest and effort to enhance performance. The implications are highlighted below.
DISCUSSION
1. Attention is an important factor for gaining and sustaining the both need achievers effort.
Motivating strategies should be incorporated that capture the followers interest. Using a
variety of coaching techniques employed by the leader that include feedback on performance
is also important. Making the follower feel enthusiastic about the challenge may enhance
effort. Executive coaching has been found as most effective when it genuinely applies to
2. Relevance is a very important component for both need achiever groups. This is evident in
the area of interest where leader viewed as a positive role model is a critical attribute to all
respondents. In the area of effort, appropriate challenge level is important to the low need
achievers whereas working with others is most important to the high need achievers.
3. Confidence is a significant factor to both need achiever groups in both the interest and effort
should also be maintained to produce ongoing effort and for sustaining interest. However,
4. Satisfaction is important to facilitate continuing motivation for both interest and effort.
Finding levels of challenge that are appropriate is important to both need achiever groups.
Results suggest that for the high need achievers, interest and effort may be contingent upon
the personal satisfaction obtained from the learning experience. Therefore, projects and tasks
5. High need achievers cited all categories of attention, relevance, confidence and satisfaction
for both interest and effort as more important than low need achievers. This implies the
6. The age of the individual may be correlated to self-attributed needs for achievement. The
results suggest that the older the individual, the more they tend to be high need achievers.
Similarly, the more education individuals possess, the higher the tendency for self-attributed
7. Gender does not appear to be a factor in determining low or high self-attributed needs for
achievement.
8. Overall, the leaders ability to increase followers effort is most important in continuing
motivation.
The major findings of this study centered on the leaders ability to build self-esteem of
their followers and importance of leaders to be viewed as positive role models. Results that
interest and effort can be used to improve motivation indicate that followers will exhibit
achievers, improving their desire to return to task (effort) remains an important objective. The
increased desire to persist in a task has long-range implications for advancements in learning and
performance. This implies that a more intensified use of effort variables in motivating followers
may prove beneficial. For convenience of the reader, Table 2 provides a brief overview of need
achievement preferences.
Conclusion
While a leader may be quite pleased with the output of his or her staff, it is more than
likely that there is room for improvement. Understanding what motivates followers to
perform their best work is key in order to achieve the highest level of satisfaction for both the
leader and your team. Also, it is crucial that the leader puts this understanding to use by
consistently providing the incentives and tools which he or she finds to be effective.
The findings indicate that the motivational needs of the low and high need achievers
do not differ as much as was first believed. Both achiever types indicated that effort was more
critical than interest. The effort put forth by the follower is enhanced by the leaders ability and
willingness to use an interesting variety of coaching techniques, appropriate challenge levels, and
self-esteem building methods for both achiever groups. The same is true in the area of interest,
although both groups found that their interest in a given area was secondary to the effort they
made when attempting to accomplish their goals. It was concluded that both the low and high
need achievers require essentially the same qualities of their leaders in order to enhance their
performance.
It is the effective leaders job to build self-esteem, to set appropriate challenge levels, to
traits. The leaders role in promoting interest and effort is critical to the followers success. Also,
the leader must serve as a positive role model, despite the indication that the low need achiever is
intrinsically motivated. Proper application of specific motivating strategies will help both low
and high need achievers, may increase interest and effort, and will ultimately fulfill the objective
of enhanced performance.
* Note: In all cases, the high need achievers cited each motivating strategy (ARCS) within the
interest and effort variables as more important than the low need achievers.
Anderson, S.M., & Glassman, N.S. (1996). Responding to significant others when they
are not there. In E.T. Higgins & R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and social
cognition: foundations of social behavior. (Vol. 3, pp. 262-321). New York: Guilford Press.
Argyris, C. (1957. Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Row.
Atkinson, J.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived
as motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Biernat, M. (1989). Motive and value to achieve: different constructs with different
Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim, W.D. (1990). Course effort survey revised.
From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Florida State University.
Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim, W.D. (1990). Course interest survey revised.
From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Florida State University.
Bohlin, R.M., Milheim, W.D., Viechnicki, K.J. (1993, January). Factor analyses of the
instructional motivation needs of adult learners. Paper prepared for presentation at the
Orleans, LA.
Cameron, K., Dutton. J.E. & Quinn, R.E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship:
Castelli, P.A. (1994). An analysis of self-attributed achievement motives and their effects
Castelli, P.A. (2006). Effort survey. From Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim,
W.D. (1990). Course effort survey revised. From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Florida
State University.
Castelli, P.A. (2006). Interest survey. From Bohlin, R.M., Viechnicki, K.J., & Milheim,
W.D. (1990). Course interest survey revised. From Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987).
Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Custers, R. & Aarts, H. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: on the nonconscious
operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, (1), 129-142.
Publishers.
deCharms, R., Morrison, H.W., Reitman, W.R., & McClelland, D.C. (1955). Behavioral
Deci, E.L. & Moller, A.C. (1992). The concept of competence: a starting place for
Emmons, R.A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: motivation and spirituality
Press.
Springer-Verlag.
Heckhausen, H. & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: the deadends and short cuts on
the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.). Goal- directed behavior: psychological
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York:
Wiley.
Houtz, J.C. (1994). Creative problem solving in the classroom: contributions of four
psychological approaches. M.A. Runco (Ed), Problem finding, problem solving and creativity,
Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C. & Curphy, G.J. (2006). Leadership: enhancing the lesions of
Jackson, D.N. (1987). Personality research form-form E. Port Huron, MI: Sigma
Jackson, D.N. (1989). Manual for the personality research form (3rd ed.). Port Huron,
coaching. In P.A. Linley and P.A. Josepha (Eds.). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley, 287-302.
Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ:
Keller, J.M., & Kopp, T. (1987). Application of the ARCS model of motivational design.
In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Publisher.
Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Course effort survey. Florida State University.
Keller, J.M., & Subhiyah, R.G. (1987). Course interest survey. Florida State University.
Keller, J.M., Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS model in courseware design. In D.H.
Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for computer courseware. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning and void: inner experience and the incentives in peoples
Klinger, E., Barta, S.G., & Maxeiner, M. (1981). Current concerns: assessing
therapeutically relevant information. In P.C. Kendall & S.D. Hollon (Eds.), Assessment
strategies for cognitive-behavioral interventions (pp. 161-196). New York: Academic Press.
Klinger, E. (1998). The search for meaning in evolutionary perspective and its clinical
implications. In P.T.P. Wong & P.S. Fry (Eds), The human quest for meaning (pp. 27-50).
Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 527-548). New York: Guilford.
Koestner, R., Weinberger, J., & McClelland, D.C. (1991). Task-intrinsic and
social-extrinsic sources of arousal for motives assessed in fantasy and self-report. Journal
Kreitler, H. & Kreitler, S. (1976). Cognitive orientation and behavior. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Leavitt, H.J. (1972). Managerial psychology, 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
School Publishing.
Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2004). What Should We Do About Motivation Theory? Sic
Lowell, E.L. (1952). The effect of need for achievement on learning and speed of
Maddock, R.C. & Fulton, R.E. (1998). Motivation, emotions and leadership: The silent
Free Press.
McClelland, D.C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits of operant and respondent
measures. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 10-41).
McClelland, D.C. (1985a). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.
McClelland, D.C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and
Meyer, W.U. (1973). Leistunssmotis und ursachenerklarung von erfolg und misserfolg
[the achievement motive and causal attributions for success and failure]. Stuttgart: Klett.
Patten, R.L., & White, L.A. (1977). Independent effects on achievement motivation and
overt attribution on achievement behavior. Motivation and emotion, 1, 39-59.
Porter, L.W. & Lawler, E.E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood,
IL: Irwin-Dorsey.
Raynor, J.O., & Entin, E.E. (1982). Motivation, career striving, and aging. New York:
Hemisphere.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding human values: individual and societal. New York:
Free Press.
Rothlisberger, F., & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA:
Prentice-Hall.
Simpson, C & Rosenholtz, S. (1986). Classroom structure and the social construction of
ability. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education
Springer-Verlag.