Balancing Organizational and Individual Goals
Rob Bredenhoff
Master Thesis
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration
Specialization: Organizational and Management Control
August 2009
Balancing Organizational and Individual Goals
Master Thesis Rob Bredenhoff
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration
Specialization: Organizational and Management Control
August 2009
Rob Bredenhoff
Address: Star Numanstraat 22a Postal Code: 9714 JP
City: Groningen Mobile: 0630756782
MSc Business Administration
Specialization: Organizational & Management Control S1656376
August 2009
Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation
Balancing Organizational and Individual Goals
Abstract
In Management Control literature, there is a strong emphasis on extrinsic controls. These controls are used to monitor behavior and make sure that employees contribute to the organizational goals, in order to improve the overall organizational performance. In Management Control, the concept of Intrinsic Motivation is somewhat underexposed compared to Extrinsic Motivation. However, there are some forms and types of control, for example from Ouchi (1979) and Hopwood (1972), which pay attention to the field of Intrinsic Motivation. This concept is studied in depth and the most important forces behind Intrinsic Motivation are discussed, for example autonomy, responsibility and recognition, and the cognitive approach to motivation, as sketched by Deci (1975) and based, among others, on Vroom (1964) and Herzberg (1959).
The field where the concepts of Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation come together, and which is used in the conclusion of this thesis, is the field of goal congruence. When a manager wants to address Intrinsic, as well as Extrinsic Motivation, he has to balance individual, as well as organizational goals. In order to contribute to an organization’s efficiency and effectiveness, the forces that influence this goal congruence are forces which a manager or organization should pay attention to when employees are involved. The concept of goal setting (Locke, 1979 and Bandura, 1988) is an example of a control system that tries to balance these forces.
Key Words
Intrinsic Motivation, Management Control, Organizational Goals, Individual Goals, Management, Goal Congruence
Supervisor
Prof. dr. H.J. ter Bogt
Co-Supervisor
1. Introduction ...4
1.1 Subject of the research ...4
1.2 Goal of the research ...6
1.3 Research Questions...7
1.4 Method and conceptual model...8
2. Management Control...11
2.1 Theoretical background of Management Control...11
2.2 Forms and types of control...14
2.3 Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation: Organizational and Individual Goals ..16
3. Intrinsic Motivation...18
3.1 Theoretical background of Motivation ...18
3.1.1 Maslow and Herzberg ...18
3.1.2 Criticism and discussion on Maslow and Herzberg ...20
3.2 Intrinsic Motivation ...22
3.3 Individual goals within cognitive theories of motivation ...24
4. Conclusion: Balancing organizational and individual goals ...27
4.1 Goal Congruence through Management Control...27
4.2 Goal Congruence through Intrinsic Motivation ...29
4.3 Combining Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation...30
4.4 The role of a manager in creating goal congruence...32
4.5 Recommendations for further research ...34
Literature...36
Figures Figure 1: Conceptual model...9
Figure 2: Deci (1975): Cognitive approach to behavior ...24
Tables Table 1: Ouchi (1979): Treatment, forms of commitment and control types...16
Table 2: Herzberg (1968): Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers...19
1. Introduction
Employees; they are often seen as the most important factor of production of an organization. Therefore, it is the most important (and probably most difficult) task of a manager to stimulate and motivate his or her subordinates in order to create an environment in which a maximum performance can be achieved by the organization and its members. According to Ouchi (1979, p. 835) and Herzberg (1968, p. 53), a problem of an organization is obtaining cooperation in a collection of individuals who share only partially congruent objectives. In relation to this, it could be important for a manager to motivate his employees in such a way that goal congruence is created between the organizational goals and the individual goals of the employees. In principle, the motivation of an individual employee, and goal congruence, could be increased through Management Control forms which focus on defining explicit external controls and incentives, as well as through management activities which seek to stimulate the Intrinsic Motivation of the employee. For the time being, Intrinsic Motivation is defined here as the drive people have from within themselves to behave in a certain way, i.e. a way from which they think it will lead to a desirable outcome. By increasing the employees’ Intrinsic Motivation for his or her work, the employee is stimulated to focus more on organizational goals and for that reason the various activities of an employee could more easily have a direct positive influence on the organizational performance. In this report Management Control (focusing on Organizational goals) and Intrinsic Motivation (focusing on Employees’ Goals) will be researched, as well as the contribution and the role which a manager can have in the process of finding a balance between the two.
1.1 Subject of the research
long-term) will be better secured than would be the case otherwise. In advance, it should be clear that the dividing line between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ is not always very sharp. For example, if a manager increases Intrinsic Motivation, it could be said that in fact extrinsic factors (i.e. the manager’s activities) are used to stimulate Intrinsic Motivation. However, what is important here is that in this case the managers’ activities are probably less directly related to explicit controls, incentives and rewards than is the case with explicit Extrinsic Motivation. Leadership theory is used here to describe the role and task a manager can have in this process of creating goal congruence (and increasing Intrinsic Motivation of employees to support organizational goals) .
Management Control
Every organization has a certain Management Control system which is used to control the organization and its employees. The theory behind these systems is sketched in many articles and books on this subject. Authors like Ouchi (1977, 1979, 1980), Hopwood (1974), Otley (1978, 1980, 1982, 1995, 1998) Kaplan and Norton (1992) and more recently Ter Bogt and Van Helden(2000), Anthony and Govindarajan (2003) and Merchant and van der Stede (1982, 2003), studied the area of Management Control. Most emphasis in Management Control literature is on Extrinsic Motivation, such as action and personnel controls and performance related pay and other extrinsic benefits to get the personal goals in line with the organizational goals.
Intrinsic Motivation
1.2 Goal of the research
The ultimate goal of this research is to get an insight into the process of balancing organizational goals with personal goals of employees in order to improve the realization of organizational goals. Herzberg (1969, p. 54) describes in his article the effects of a negative or positive stimulation (in his article called KITA1) of an individual on his or her motivation. He states that people will be motivated intrinsically to act in line with the objectives when the stimulation is positive. Merchant (1982, p. 46) shows the importance of taking into account the individual interests of the employees (via so-called ‘personnel control’) in order to get them to work on the same organizational goals. He describes this as “it emphasizes a reliance
on the personnel involved to do what is best for the organization”. He also states that these
personnel controls are the only types of control which are adaptable to a broad range of situations, where other types of controls, like result control, are only feasible in certain situations. McGregor (1960), with his Theory Y, the opposite of Theory X, has made a similar statement: a positive focus on the individual employee is important in order to motivate them to work. The authors mentioned above suggest that a manager should pay positive attention to the employees’ personal, individual needs in order to get them work on organizational objectives.
In this thesis, there will be a focus on how personal and organizational goals can affect this individual and his or her contribution to the achievement of organizational goals. Latham and Locke (1979, p. 68) stated the importance of the focus on organizational and individual goals in their goal-setting-theory. Bandura (1988, pp. 364-367) also focuses on how personal factors can contribute to organizational functioning; he takes a look into this field of research from a cognitive view on motivation. With his ‘satisfiers’, Herzberg (1969, pp. 56-57) also researched the importance of a positive attitude towards individual employees and their motivation. Key words in these articles are self-regulation, participation, competencies, commitment, responsibility and recognition. These are all words that contribute to the problem statement that will be shown in the next paragraph.
Another returning factor in the earlier mentioned articles is the important link the manager is in balancing these individual and organizational goals. His task is to communicate and
1
stimulate the organizational goals down to the lower levels of the organization and to motivate individual employees to contribute to these goals. The Management Control system is an often used and possibly useful (extrinsic) tool in this process, but, according to the several authors and theories mentioned in this paragraph, the Intrinsic Motivation of the employee could also be very important in realizing organizational goals. For that reason, in controlling their organization, managers should probably pay attention to extrinsic as well as Intrinsic Motivation of their employees.
1.3 Research Questions
Based on the brief introduction above, the question where this thesis will focus on is;
How can a manager contribute to creating goal congruence between the organizational goals and employees individual goals and how could a manager focus on Extrinsic as well as Intrinsic Motivational factors to contribute to such a goal congruence?
In order to find a clear answer to this question, the following sub-questions are used for a further literature research:
1. What role can Management Control and Extrinsic Motivation play in realizing the goals of an organization?
2. How can a Management Control system help to communicate the organizational goals and to motivate employees?
3. What is Intrinsic Motivation and how could it contribute to realizing the goals of an organization?
4. How can a manager influence Intrinsic Motivation and use it in the organization? 5. How can a manager contribute to increasing Intrinsic Motivation and creating a
1.4 Method and conceptual model
Because in recent years Intrinsic Motivation was not a very common subject in the more academic Management Control literature, it seems to make sense to conduct the research in the form of an exploratory literature research project. Exploratory research intends to more clearly define a problem that has not yet been explored well. In accounting research, empirical research emerged in the 1980s to explore the gap between theory and practice (Scapens, 2004, p. 257). Through such research, the researcher wants to gain a greater understanding of a subject where there are few or no earlier studies to refer to. Although the research in this thesis is not empirical research, the objective of the theoretical exploration presented here is to gain more insight for further investigation. This research could therefore serve as a basis for further research into embedding Intrinsic Motivation into Management Control research. This is assumed to be a first step towards empirical case-study research in a next stage and probably after that more extensive field research in various organizations (Scapens, 2004, p. 260).
Now, the two broad concepts, Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation, are explored and described in order to get a clear definition and a strong base for this research. These concepts are also considered in each others’ context. This is done in chapters 2 and 3. In chapter 4, the role is described which a manager can have in stimulating Intrinsic Motivation and in creating a balance between organizational and individual goals (goal congruence) in order to realize the organizational goals. Chapter 4 is the conclusion of this research; the concepts of Intrinsic Motivation and Management Control will come together in the way a manager can influence the employees to increase the organization’s performance.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Figure 1: Conceptual model for researching the role of the manager, Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation in realizing organizational goals
The model can be read from the bottom-up. The possible relations on which the research will focus can be described as follows:
A. The influence a manager can have on Intrinsic Motivation and through that on individual goals (indicated with A in Figure 1)
Individual
Performance
Management Control
Organizational
Performance
Intrinsic Motivation
C
Manager
Individual Goals
Organizational Goals
B
D
B. The influence of a manager on individual goals through Management Control (indicated with B in Figure 1)
C. The direct influence of a manager on organizational goals and the possible influence on organizational goals through Management Control (indicated with C)
D. The balance between the organizational goals and the individual goals and the role that the manager can play in this process through activities in the field of Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation (indicated with D).
The dotted lines in Figure 1 indicate relationships which are regarded in this research project as being more indirect for the time being. In this research, the various factors, actors and relationships are explored on the basis of literature.
2. Management Control
In this chapter, the concept of Management Control is sketched. With the help of authors such as Ouchi, Hofstede, Otley, Drucker, and several other authors and theories, a broad definition of Management Control is outlined in the first paragraph. In the second paragraph, the scope is made more specific and focused towards the role of organizational goals in Management Control. The final paragraph describes the presence of Intrinsic Motivation in Management Control.
2.1 Theoretical background of Management Control
With the example of recent scandals, such as the bookkeeping scandals at Ahold and Enron, it has become even more clear that an organization needs a good Management Control system in order to prevent such problems to occur again. But what is the function of Management Control? Why is it necessary, also when there are no serious problems, outrages or scandals within an organization? In this paragraph, the general function of Management Control is sketched.
In his research into the design of organizational control mechanisms, Ouchi (1979, p. 833) states that the problem of every organization is “obtaining cooperation between individuals who share only partially congruent objectives.” This is also the problem stated in the introduction of this research. However, Ouchi, and with him many other authors in the field of Management Control, approaches this problem from the Extrinsic Motivational view. This extrinsic view is sketched in this chapter, whereas the Intrinsic Motivational view will be sketched in more detail in chapter 3. It should be kept in mind here, as was observed already in chapter 1, that in actual practice the dividing line between extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation is not always very sharp.
modified, if necessary. When Merchant considers this more in depth, he states that “the
achievement of organizational goals, with the help of individuals, is the function of a control system” (Merchant, 1982, p. 44). What both authors have in common is that they emphasize
the importance of congruence of organizational and individual goals and the role of a Management Control System in this process. These two authors both observed this on the basis of their research; however, the focus of their research was not exactly the same. Where Ouchi focuses on some characteristics or conditions – actually contingency variables which relate to the internal situation of an organization – a company has to look at in order to make a choice for a certain form of control, Merchant does not pay any explicit attention to such (contingent) conditions. His study focuses more on the ‘best’ way an organization can be controlled with the help of several forms of control, without really defining the contingent variables which determine the appropriateness of a control form. However, because Ouchi and Merchant have somewhat different angles from which they study Management Control, their ideas might add to each other and for that reason the both of them will be discussed further in the second paragraph of this chapter. Moreover, the control focus both authors have defined are closely related.
In their book, Anthony and Govindarajan (2003) make their definition of Management Control (Processes) clear when they talk about managers, employees and the implementation of strategies. In this definition, there is also a link towards organizational goals and the actors in the process of communicating these goals from the top down to the bottom of the organization.
Management Control Process: The process by which managers at all levels ensure that the people they supervise implement their intended strategies
(Anthony and Govindarajan, 2003, p. 4)
could include more than management accounting and (other) extrinsic controls. Craft and Birnberg (1976, p. 2), in their research on Human Resource Accounting (HRA), notice a “growing recognition of employees as basic organizational resources, coupled with dissatisfaction with traditional Management Control systems which ignore human variables.” They see Human Resource Accounting as a development resulting from this growing recognition. In general, Management Control for a long time was more formal and aimed more strictly at procedures, structures and systems, (see, for example, Anthony and Govindarajan, 2003). Of course, in the end the objective of the procedures and systems was to influence human behavior, but in actual fact, hardly any explicit attention was paid to human beings. However, in the last decades, researchers more and more recognized the importance of the employees in controlling an organization.
Ouchi (1977) already sees the importance of controlling the process in stead of only the output. Behavior control and clan control are ways he suggests for controlling an organization if measurements on the basis of output are not feasible. At the same time, the HRA movement, as evaluated by Craft en Birnberg (1976), has been growing since the 1960s, when Likert (1967, p. 1) emphasized the importance of developing good human relationships within organizations in order to obtain a long-time high performance of the organization. McGregor (1960) also discusses the more ‘human-based’ styles. However, he is more focused on leadership, rather than on Management Control. At about the same time, Herzberg (1959, 1968) researched the field of positive and negative stimulation and motivation and he shows the importance of so-called satisfiers. According to Herzberg, and supported by his research, these satisfiers in the work environment can lead to increased employee-satisfaction. All these authors and theories based their work on ideas from psychologists like Maslow (1943). In this way, the Management Control literature is strongly influenced by human psychology.
Netherlands also known as the INK-model) also explicitly focused on the employees of the organization.
After this general review of Management Control and some recent developments, in the area of employee ‘recognition’ in particular, the next paragraph presents a more in-depth look into the several forms and types of control.
2.2 Forms and types of control
Within research in Management Control, the contingency approach is very common. This approach is based on “the premise that there is no universally appropriate accounting system
which applies equally to all organizations in all circumstances” (Otley, 1980, p. 413).
Throughout the years, many authors have made distinctions between several forms of control. Ouchi (1979) describes two basic ways in which an organization can have an effective people control; i.e., searching and selecting people who fit exactly in the organization, or take people who do not fit exactly and putting in place a managerial system to instruct, monitor and evaluate them. This results in ‘loose’ control (in case people are selected who fit exactly in the organization, so that not much control is needed to guide them) or ‘tight’ control (making use of many instructions, monitoring, etc.). This ‘loose’ versus ‘tight’ form of control results, according to Ouchi (1979, p. 841), in different individual levels of commitment to or alienation from the organization and its objectives.
it results in more compliance of the cost centre head to the organizational goals, as suggested in the hypotheses. Hopwood ends his discussion with the following sentence: “Rather, a
greater regard for the cost centre head’s self-motivation to be concerned with the accounting data may result in both efficient operations and an even lower level of threat” (Hopwood,
1972, p. 177). This finding is in line with the hypotheses of this study; the Management Control system is a rather important factor in motivating employees, however, the individual’s self-motivation or Intrinsic Motivation could also play an important role in the way employees are motivated to commitment to organizational goals. In chapter 3 and 4, Intrinsic Motivation and the balance with organizational goals is studied more in depth. In this part, we only focus on the different basic forms of control and the different characteristics of these forms.
Merchant’s research (1982) aims at achieving ‘good control’. His definition of good control is
“that an informed person could be reasonably confident that no major unpleasant surprises will occur” (Merchant, 1982, p. 44). In his research, Merchant (1982) names the problems of
control as main causes of the need for control and control over specific objects in particular. This should be done in order to obtain his so-called “good control”. He distinguishes three types of control; Results, Action and Personnel controls. Each type has his own unique characteristics and they are all, more or less, present in every Management Control system. In this research, the focus will be particularly on the types of control which have, according to the authors, effect on Intrinsic Motivation. In the research of Merchant, the personnel controls are examples of controls which are designed to do this.
Personnel controls are designed to make it more likely that employees will perform the desired tasks satisfactorily on their own because, for example, the employees are experienced, honest, and hard working.
(Merchant, 2007, p. 76)
2.3 Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation: Organizational and Individual Goals
In the first paragraph of this chapter, it was already stated that Management Control has everything to do with communicating organizational goals and objectives from the management down to lower levels in the organization. The second paragraph made a first distinction between some (possibly) relevant forms and types of control. In this paragraph, a deeper look into this field is made by discussing some common and specific techniques and theories on this subject.
When an organization intends to create commitment to the organizational goals, several control types exist, of which authors or theorists claim they create a certain form of commitment. According to Ouchi (1979), there are three approaches to the forms of commitment and the control type corresponding with this commitment (see table 1);
Table 1: Ouchi (1979): Treatment, forms of commitment and control types
People treatment Commitment Control Type
Unselective: Internalization: Market Training: Identification: Clans
Monitoring: Compliance: Bureaucracy (Source: Ouchi, 1979, p. 841)
relies more on selecting the right people, in stead of strictly controlling these people, can expect high commitment as a result of internalized values (Ouchi, 1979, p. 841). Later in the same study, Ouchi addressed the other side of the table; strict monitoring and bureaucracy, which, according to Ouchi, in the end leads to compliance to the organization not as a result of (intrinsic) motivation. Rather, this form of control, because of the strict monitoring and the (extrinsic) rewards that are given when employees comply to the organizational goals, will lead to an “unenthusiastic, purely compliant response” (Ouchi, 1979, p. 841). According to Ouchi, this response will lead to higher cost of control to employ such methods. Ouchi already addressed two important Intrinsic Motivational factors; autonomy and self-control, which, according to him, will increase as a result of the commitment based on internalized values. These factors will return in the discussion on Intrinsic Motivation, in chapter 3. Ouchi (1979) indicated with his research that an organization always needs some kind of clan and market control in order to motivate employees to work on the organizational goals. Eisenhardt (1989), in his review of the agency theory, also addressed the importance of some form of clan control. “Clan control implies goal congruence between people and, therefore, the reduced need to monitor behavior or outcomes. Motivation issues disappear” (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 64).
3. Intrinsic Motivation
Motivation is a broad subject in psychology. A wide range of books and articles is written on this subject. In this chapter, the concept of Intrinsic Motivation, already introduced in chapter 2, is studied more in depth and also the link with Management Control is sketched. The first step in this chapter is to develop some kind of structure within the various theories available in this field. Authors like Vinke (2004) and Deci (1975) have given a broad, summarized, but rather structured, overview on this subject. With the help of these authors and other, better known, theorists like Maslow (1943), Herzberg (1959, 1968) and McGregor (1960), the theoretical background to (Intrinsic) Motivation is given in the first two paragraphs. Further, Vroom (1964) is used because of his work on Motivation in organizations. Thereafter, the focus will be narrowed towards individual goals within motivation, which will be done with the help of the cognitive approach of motivation (Bandura, 1988, 1989, Deci, 1975). This is done in order to make this research more concrete and more applicable to the organizational context.
3.1 Theoretical background of Motivation
With the help of two authors which form the basis for recent motivational studies and theories, i.e. Herzberg and Maslow, the definition of motivation is sketched in this paragraph. After an explanation of the theories of Herzberg (1959) and Maslow (1943), their results and findings are discussed in order to get a clear view on motivation and to develop a starting point for the discussion of Intrinsic Motivation in paragraph 3.2.
3.1.1 Maslow and Herzberg
On the other hand, there are dissatisfiers, which, if not fulfilled, contribute to non-motivation; when fulfilled, there is a neutral position. So, dissatisfiers can never make a positive contribution to motivation, but if not fulfilled, they can be de-motivating. With the help of the 1,685 samples, Herzberg (1959, 1968) makes this distinction between several motivational factors. According to Herzberg (1968, p. 57) the separation of the factors also separates intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. Satisfiers can be regarded as intrinsic motivators, i.e. contributory to Intrinsic Motivation, whilst dissatisfiers are extrinsic motivating factors (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57-58). The distinction between satisfiers and dissatisfiers and some of their relevant elements is shown in table 2.
Table 2: Herzberg (1968): Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers Satisfiers Achievement Recognition Work itself Responsibility Advancement Growth Dissatisfiers
Company policy and administration Supervision
Relationship with supervisor Work conditions
Salary
Relationship with peers (source: Herzberg, 1968, p. 57)
Table 2 shows that, for example, salary is an extrinsic factor which needs to be fulfilled to obtain a neutral position in the employee’s motivation. On the other hand, recognition, which is intrinsic to the job, is a factor which improves job satisfaction when fulfilled (Herzberg, 1968, pp. 56-58). In that way it can contribute to an individual’s Intrinsic Motivation. The satisfiers and dissatisfiers are all factors of which the importance can differ per person.
contrary to the ideas of Herzberg (1959, 1968), who does not distinguish a hierarchical level between the needs. He only states that the importance of certain satisfiers and dissatisfiers can differ per individual. The ‘lower’ needs of Maslow work in the same way the dissatisfiers of Herzberg do; they both see them as important factors, which a manager should pay attention to in order to prevent dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57) or non-motivation (Maslow, 1943, p. 5).
The theories of Herzberg and Maslow are well-known and form a bases for later and more recent (intrinsic) motivational studies. They have in common that they both emphasize the importance of Intrinsic Motivation in order to increase job satisfaction (Herzberg) and individual motivation (Maslow). Their approaches both address the fact that Extrinsic Motivational factors are mainly relevant to reach a neutral position in an individual’s motivation. According to Herzberg (1968, p. 54), motivational factors like salary will not help to motivate people; these factors rather move people to behave in a way the manager wants them to. In this, Herzberg sees the manager as intrinsically motivated, but not the employee who gets the reward. This view, together with other views, on the separation of extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation is further sketched in the paragraph 3.2.
3.1.2 Criticism and discussion on Maslow and Herzberg
However, despite the critics, Maslow’s theory is still one of the most enduring theories of behavioral science, it is “well stated, understandable and has considerable face validity” (Eckermann, 1968, p. 18).
Opposite to Maslow, Herzberg has presented considerable empirical evidence to support his theory. The critique on Herzberg (1959, 1968) mainly focuses on the two factor theory he addresses and the methodology behind this theory. Vroom (1964) criticizes Herzberg because the assumption that people attribute causes of satisfaction to themselves (intrinsic) and causes of dissatisfaction to extrinsic factors, automatically leads to the two-factor theory. But it is not clear whether this distinction is objective or rather subjective because this is a natural reaction people have in certain situations; people automatically address causes for dissatisfaction to their environment or other external factors, whilst causes for satisfaction will be regarded as caused by internal factors (Vroom, 1964, pp. 128-129).
The same criticism is named by House and Widgor (1967, pp. 371-383), who analyzed the data of Herzberg (1959) and presented some criticism. In their conclusion, they consider the proposition of Herzberg that satisfiers have more motivational force than dissatisfiers (Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman, 1959, pp. 107-112) as highly suspect (House and Widgor, 1967, p. 385). They have two reasons for this conclusion: 1. Distinguishing satisfiers from dissatisfiers requires an arbitrary definition of the two concepts, and 2. Unless this arbitrary definition is employed, the proposition is un-testable (House and Widgor, 1967, p. 386). However, to make it even more complex, Whitsett and Winslow (1967, 1968) support the theory of Herzberg (1959) and criticize the evidence of House and Widgor (1967). To support Herzberg (1959), they use “four generally accepted criteria for the value of a
theory”. They state that the theory has resolving power(1), it has explanatory power (2), it
generates research (3) and, it offers a basis for useful prediction (4) (Whitsett and Winslow, 1967, pp. 412-413). It seems that Herzberg’s work is, like Maslow’s work, still a generally accepted motivational study, despite the criticisms.
to this drive can be both intrinsic and extrinsic. In chapter 2, the extrinsic stimulus in the form of Management Control was already discussed in brief. In the next paragraph, with the help of the findings in this paragraph and with the help of some additional and recent literature, the definition of Intrinsic Motivation is sketched further. In this way, the total concept of motivation is sketched out more in detail.
3.2 Intrinsic Motivation
Now that the broad background of motivation is sketched, we focus on the concept of Intrinsic Motivation. Starting point is the definition of motivation as given in paragraph 3.1.2. Deci (1975) zooms in on Intrinsic Motivation with the following (generally accepted) definition. “Intrinsically motivated activities are ones for which there is no apparent reward
except the activity itself. People seem to engage in the activities for their own sake and not because they lead to an extrinsic reward. The activities are ends in themselves rather than means to an end” (Deci, 1975, p. 23). Deci chooses this approach in his research on the
‘why?’ of behavior out of personal interest. According to Herzberg (1968), two different basic needs are behind Intrinsic Motivation; avoid pain (1) and the ability to achieve and to grow (2) (Herzberg, 1968, pp. 56-57). Maslow (1943), as discussed earlier, divided the needs into five different sets. But these needs could also be divided into the two basic needs Herzberg (1968) indicated.
In line with Maslow and Herzberg are the ideas of McGregor (1960), with his article ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’. McGregor distinguishes two theories or approaches of motivation; the X and Y theory. His X-approach almost only focuses on Extrinsic Motivation in work; people are not motivated from within themselves and need external stimulation in order to get them to work (this is like Herzberg’s so-called KITA-factors (Herzberg, 1968, pp. 53-56). However, the Y-theory has the following assumptions:
Employees like their work
Employees want to take responsibility
Employees want to develop themselves and they want to experience autonomy in the way they do their work
Motivation is stimulated with an appeal on social and appreciative needs.
This theory emphasizes Deci’s (1975) definition about the drive people have to behave in a way they think will lead to certain goals or outcomes. A difference is that McGregor (1960) already looks at the organizational context, whereas Deci (1975) focuses on a broader context of Intrinsic Motivation. In this research, we will also address the organizational context of Intrinsic Motivation, rather than the general context. Allen criticizes the work of McGregor because of the ‘black’ or ‘white’ extremes (Allen, 1974, p. 32). Of course, these two extremes are ‘only’ basic archetypes. However, the work of McGregor is widely used in management practice. In this chapter, it is used to describe Intrinsic Motivation. In relation to this, the black or white extremes are useful in order to distinguish Intrinsic Motivation from Extrinsic Motivation in an organizational context.
In several studies and articles, Vroom (1964) describes how motivation can be seen from an organizational or managerial point of view. Vroom tested his propositions on motivation with objective observation. He used laboratory experiments, correlated field studies and field experiments to test his hypotheses. In his study (Vroom, 1964) he tested his Expectancy theory of motivation; this theory consists of three concepts. This theory and it’s assumptions are in line with the definition of Intrinsic Motivation, as it was developed by Deci (1975). According to Vroom, Intrinsic Motivation is a product of three concepts: valence, instrumentality and expectancy2 (Vroom, 1964, pp. 15-19). He defines Intrinsic Motivation as
“the explanation of choices made by organisms among different voluntary responses”
(Vroom, 1964, p. 9).
Important factors that can be found in all of the theories sketched above are free choice (Vroom), self-determination (Deci) and needs (Herzberg, Maslow and McGregor). These are important values to pay attention to in order to stimulate Intrinsic Motivation within an 2
Valence: Refers to the emotional orientations which people hold with respect to outcomes [rewards]. The depth of the need of an employee for extrinsic or intrinsic rewards.
Expectancy: Employees have different expectations and levels of confidence about what they are capable of doing.
Instrumentality: The perception of employees whether they will actually receive what they desire, even if it has been promised by a manager.
organization. These concepts are also visible in the cognitive approach of motivation; this approach is sketched in the next paragraph, together with one particular part that plays a role in motivation, i.e. the individual goals of employees (Maslow, 1943, p. 16, Deci, 1975, pp. 106-121, Vroom, 1964, pp. 15-19, Bandura, 1988).
3.3 Individual goals within cognitive theories of motivation
The final step towards a clear view on Intrinsic Motivation within organizations is sketched in this paragraph. With the help of the (social) cognitive theory of motivation (Bandura, Deci, Locke, Vroom), the forces that influence Intrinsic Motivation are discussed. The reason for the choice made to use the cognitive approach of motivation is also discussed in this paragraph.
In the previous paragraphs, the background of motivation in general and that of Intrinsic Motivation in particular, was sketched. Several authors in these chapters mentioned the importance of individual goals or needs. This is an important factor in cognitive theories; in this section, this is discussed in more detail. Maslow (1943) states the importance of goals in motivation when he said that “it will be observed that the basic principle in our classification
has been neither the instigation nor the motivated behavior but rather the functions, effects, purposes, or goals of the behavior. It has been proven sufficiently by various people that this is the most suitable point for centering in any motivation theory” (Maslow, 1943, p. 16). To
place the concept of individual goals in perspective, we take a look at the cognitive approach, as described by Deci (1975); see figure 2.
Figure 2: Deci (1975): Cognitive approach to behavior
Figure 2: Cognitive approach to behavior (Deci, 1975, p. 98)
The model in figure 2 shows in a general sense how people get motivated when they become aware of potential satisfaction in reaction to a stimulus (this stimulus can be either external or internal, according to Deci (1975, pp. 98-99)). As a result, they select their individual goals
and make plans they think will lead to the potential satisfaction. Then, the individual is motivated to behave in a way he or she thinks will lead to the potential reward or satisfaction. The approach of Deci (1975) is partly based on the earlier mentioned expectancy theory of Vroom (1964). Some propositions and assumptions of Deci are directly related to the theory of Vroom. Vroom (1964) also recognized the awareness of potential satisfaction (in his research, he called this valence (Vroom, 1964, pp. 15-16)).
Another author who considered this cognitive view on motivation as useful in an organizational context is Bandura (1989). He describes the cognitive approach as a triadic, reciprocal causation. It consists of a framework with the concepts behavior, personal factors and environment (Bandura, 1989, pp. 361-362). The similarity with the model of Deci (1975) is that in Bandura’s framework, the individual is also making his choices on the basis of external (environment) and internal (personal factors) stimuli. The difference is that in Bandura (1989), the relations are reciprocal, whilst in Deci (1975), the model is a one-way stream. However, the influences of external and internal stimuli on Intrinsic Motivation are factors that all these authors (Deci, Vroom and Bandura) have addressed.
Bandura (1988) addressed the field of goals within these cognitive theories. Deci (1975) also stated the importance of individual goals in motivating employees; this is already shown in figure 2. Bandura (1988) describes the way people select their goals in the following sentence:
“In exercising self-directedness, people adopt internal standards, they keep track of their behavior and they arrange incentives for themselves to sustain their efforts until they accomplish what they set out to do. Through self-evaluative reactions, they keep their conduct in line with their standards” (Bandura, 1988, p. 290). With this, Bandura confirms Deci’s
4. Conclusion: Balancing organizational and individual goals
In this chapter, the concepts described in chapter 2 and 3; Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation, come together in a point where the manager has, potentially, influence on an individual employees performance. This is discussed in this chapter around the subject of goal congruence, i.e. the congruence between organizational and individual goals. In the second chapter, Management Control in general and the communication of organizational goals from top to bottom were discussed. Thereafter, the third chapter was used to explore the field of motivation and of Intrinsic Motivation in particular. The final paragraph of chapter 3 mentioned the influence and importance of individual goals in motivational theory in general and, more specific, within organizations. The present chapter continues were these previous chapters stopped. In the first paragraph, the concept and importance of goal congruence within Management Control is sketched. Thereafter, the same is done with goal congruence in Intrinsic Motivation. The final paragraph summarizes this research project by indicating the critical fields were a manager potentially has the greatest influence on an individual employee through Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation.
4.1 Goal Congruence through Management Control
In paragraph 2.3, a start was already made in describing the importance of individual goals in the concept of Management Control. In this paragraph we go a step further and take a look at the ‘why?’ of creating goal congruence between those individual goals and the goals of the organization. Otley (1978), in his research on budget use and managerial performance within organizations, indicates one problem that can occur when organizational and individual goals are not congruent. The problem that can rise then is that accounting information is manipulated in order to give a picture of the contribution of an individual to overall organizational performance that looks more favorable than it actually is (Otley, 1978, p. 122).
also leadership styles) Hopwood addresses indicate some options an organization and a manager have to make the gap between the goals of the organization and those of the individual smaller and, by doing this, to improve the organizational performance. Improving the overall organizational performance is, in fact, in Management Control the most important reason for creating goal congruence. Management Control literature focuses on how to design the control system in such a way that individuals will pursue goals that are in line with the organizational goals.
Ouchi (1977, 1979, 1980), with his forms of control (market, bureaucracy and clan control), has approached Management Control from another view. He describes the form of commitment of employees with their organization that can be created by different forms of control. When this commitment is only based on bureaucracy, the employee will not identify him- or herself with the organization and is thereby not motivated ‘from within himself’, i.e. intrinsically, to behave in a way the organization expects (Ouchi, 1979). However, this does not mean that goal congruence can only be achieved by market or clan control. Rather, Ouchi states that it will require less costs when people are motivated from within themselves to work on organizational goals and when they can identify themselves with the organization (Ouchi, 1979, p. 842).
Merchant (1982), with the Personnel Controls, also addressed the concept of goal congruence. He speaks about Personnel Control ‘because it emphasizes a reliance on the personnel
involved to do what is best for the organization, and it provides assistance for them as necessary’ (Merchant, 1982, p. 46). Personnel Controls are, according to Merchant, useful in
creating goal congruence. Other controls are also useful to assure that employees will work on the organizational goals. However, the Personnel Controls more explicitly focus on the individual goals of an employee.
there is no universally appropriate accounting system which applies equally to all organizations in all circumstances’ (Otley, 1980, p. 413). This implies that control systems
have to be adapted to specific characteristics and circumstances of an organiztaion. Therefore, to some extent there can always be a need for different types of control, i.e. also for ‘harder’ controls, to make sure the employees act in the organization’s interest. However, in this research, the spotlight is on somewhat ‘softer’ forms of control, which is the case because the subject of goal congruence and Intrinsic Motivation is studied. This requires that the manager also pays attention to the individual goals, whereas the ‘harder’ forms of control focus more exclusively on the organizational goals (and explicit, direct incentives and rules for individuals to contribute to those goals), rather than on the individual goals of employees within these organizations.
4.2 Goal Congruence through Intrinsic Motivation
Before making the conclusive statement of this thesis, a final look at the Intrinsic Motivational factors that can contribute to goal congruence is made. Earlier, in paragraph 3.3, a start was made in describing this relationship. In this paragraph, a summary of the findings of chapter 3 is presented. Herzberg (1959), addressed the field of goal congruence with his study on satisfiers and dissatisfiers (see table 2). The dissatisfiers are factors that are more present in the ‘traditional’ control systems. On the other hand, the satisfiers contribute to satisfaction and will thereby, according to Herzberg (1959), stimulate Intrinsic Motivation. When there is a focus on factors like recognition, responsibility and achievement, employees will get a feeling of autonomy and will get motivated (intrinsically) to work on the organizational goals (Herzberg, 1968, pp. 56-58). They do this because their individual goals (responsibility, autonomy, recognition) will be fulfilled when they try to reach the organizational goals. McGregor (1960), with his X and Y theory, also addressed the importance of factors like autonomy. He assumes a manager should pay attention to autonomy and pay attention to social and appreciative needs (McGregor, 1960, p. 11-12).
cognitive approach of motivation with his cognitive model (see figure 3). Deci explains the process of Intrinsic Motivation and thereby clarifies the influence of extrinsic stimuli on the motivation of individuals.
Looking at the different motivational theories and authors used in this thesis, the conclusion can be drawn that Intrinsic Motivation can be stimulated by external influences. This suggests that a manager could play a role in stimulating the Intrinsic Motivation of his employees. However, in the end, the choice for a certain action is made by the employee and very important factors that influence this behavior are his or hers own individual goals. According to the theories and authors used, in a general sense these individual goals have some similarities between people. Every employee will require some extent of autonomy, self-determination, recognition and responsibility. When an individual beliefs these goals can be fulfilled, he or she is intrinsically motivated to make the choice for a certain form of behavior.
4.3 Combining Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation
In table 3, an overview is given of the different relevant factors that can be derived from the previously presented research on Management Control (first column) and Intrinsic Motivation (second column).
Table 3: Goal Congruence in Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation
Management Control Intrinsic Motivation
Market / Clan Control (Ouchi, 1979, Otley, 1978) Self-Determination (Deci, 1975)
Profit Conscious Control (Hopwood, 1972) Autonomy (McGregor, 1960, Herzberg, 1959) Personnel Controls (Merchant, 1982) Free choice (Vroom, 1964)
Identification / Internalization (Ouchi, 1979) Recognition, Responsibility (Herzberg, 1959)
Table 3: Overview of goal congruence in Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation
this paper, it becomes clear that a manager always needs to focus on both Extrinsic Control as Intrinsic Motivation. Management Control can be used to communicate the organizational goals to the employees in an organization. This is useful, because employees need direction in their actions. And, according to the cognitive model of Deci (figure 2) and other cognitive theorists (i.e. Bandura, 1988), the choices an individual makes can be influenced by external stimuli.
This is where Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation come together. Management Control can influence and stimulate an individual to work on the organizational goals; this is the purpose of a Management Control system. Ouchi, Hopwood, Otley and Merchant all addressed several control types that are useful in creating more congruence between organizational and individual goals. They contribute to congruence because certain Intrinsic Motivational factors are affected by these more personal and ‘cooperative’ forms of control. Ouchi (1979) highlighted the importance of creating commitment with employees to work on organizational goals.
An example, already mentioned in paragraph 3.3, of a theory that combined Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation is the Goal Setting theory of Locke (1979), and later on Bandura (1988). This theory focused on communicating Organizational Goals in such a way that the employees are given responsibility and recognition (Herzberg, 1959) and thereby get a feeling of autonomy (McGregor, 1960 and Herzberg, 1959).
4.4 The role of a manager in creating goal congruence
In this concluding paragraph, I will try to give an answer to the main research question of this thesis. In the first three paragraphs of this chapter, a short summary of the conclusions of chapter 2 and 3 was already given. With the present paragraph, the final step towards an answer on the problem that the research question addressed is made. In particular, some practical and more concrete implications of the relevant forces and factors, as mentioned and summarized in paragraph 4.3, are discussed to give some indications of what this paper could mean in practice and to make it more relevant in an organizational context.
The main research question, stated in paragraph 1.3, was:
How can a manager contribute to creating goal congruence between the organizational goals and employees individual goals and how could a manager focus on Extrinsic as well as Intrinsic Motivational factors to contribute to such a goal congruence?
The factors a manager should take in mind in motivating, stimulating and managing the employees in an organization were already summarized in paragraph 4.3, see table 3. In this paragraph, the focus is on giving suggestions for a more concrete answer to the main problem of this paper; how can a manager contribute to goal congruence with the help of Management Control and Intrinsic Motivation?
1. Employability
2. Competence policy: Making visible the unique qualities of an employee 3. Personal development plans
4. Individual coaching
5. Variable rewards, with the note that these can only give a push towards the state of ‘flow’, but it can also block this process.
These instruments fit well in the forces that were summarized in paragraph 4.3. The different instruments can contribute to the creation of goal congruence when used in the right way by the manager. In the cognitive model of Deci (1975), see figure 2 in paragraph 3.3, these instruments can be used as stimuli. The employees have to become aware of their capabilities and the ways in which they can use them in their job. It is the task of a manager to create a challenging work environment where the balance between the employees’ capabilities and the challenge of his or her task is most efficient and effective.
Recently, the focus of managers and organizations has shifted towards more result-based instruments that are designed to measure the added-value of every individual in an organization (Vinke, 2004, p. 86). A result of this shift is, for example, the Balanced Scorecard of Kaplan and Norton (1996). This control system is designed to map the contribution of more activities and processes than only the financial processes within an organization. One could also consider the Balanced Scorecard as an example of an instrument that a manager can use to bring more balance between organizational and individual goals because – depending on the goals and indicators that are included – it can influence several of the factors mentioned in paragraph 4.3, like Responsibility, Autonomy and Recognition. However, this is only reached when it is developed and applied properly by the manager. The situation in organizations requires different approaches and different focuses. It is the job of the manager to find out which approach is most suitable in his or her organization and in every single individual relationship he or she is managing.
Bass (1985) determines two basis styles: Transformational and Transactional Leadership (Bass, 1985, pp. 26-27). Bass’s research contains an empirical study among personnel in the military sector and in industry. A Transactional leader requires his employees to meet his expectations and if they do they receive mainly monetary rewards. On the other hand, there is the Transformational leader; he or she focuses more on involvement and participation. This leader is more a kind of coach, teacher or consultant to the employee (Bass, 1985, p. 27). It seems that in a situation in which basic monetary needs are satisfied, a Transformational Leadership style, in particular, might contribute to Intrinsic Motivation. Shamir, House and Arthur (1993) assign the same basic principles as Bass (1985) to their so-called ‘charismatic’ Leadership. In their research, Shamir et al. (1993) make the link between Motivation and Leadership, and they also address the factors Vinke (2004) mentioned and the important factors already mentioned in chapters 2 and 3.
To conclude, one can say that a manager can contribute to the Motivation of the employees. He or she has the Management Control system and a set of Extrinsic rewards and stimulators to influence the Motivation extrinsically. On the other hand, the study of Intrinsic Motivation in chapter 2 and the final findings in the field of Leadership shows the influence a manager can potentially have on the Intrinsic Motivation of his or her subordinates. A manager should focus on the individuals within an organization in order to create the so-called flow (Vinke, 2004). Bass (1985) and Shamir et al. (1993) are more specific when they address certain specific Leadership styles that can contribute to Intrinsic Motivation, as it is influencing factors that were summarized in paragraph 4.3; i.e., self-determination, self-efficacy, autonomy, responsibility and recognition.
4.5 Recommendations for further research
Literature
Allen, L.A. (1974). Beyond Theory Y. Management Review. April 1974: 31-33
Anthony, R.N., Govindarajan, V. (11th edition, 2003). Management Control Systems.
McGraw-Hill. (1th edition: 1965)
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (1999), 72, 441-462
Bandura, A. (1988). Organisational Applications of Social Cognitive Theory. Australian
Journal of Management. 13, 2, Dec 1988: 275-302
Bandura, A., Wood, R. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management.
Academy of Management Review. Vol. 14, No. 3: 361-384
Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership: Good, Better, Best. Organizational Dynamics. March 1985: 26-40
Bass, B.M., Steidlmeier, P., (1999). Ethics, Character, and Authentic Transformational
Leadership Behavior. Leadership Quarterly. 10(2), 181–217.
Bass, B.M., Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J., Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting Unit Performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology.
Vol. 88, No. 2: 207-218
Beer, M., Cannon, M.D. (2004). Promise and peril in implementing pay-for-performance.
Human Resource Management. Spring 2004. Vol. 43, No. 1: 3-48
Bess, J.L., Goldman, P. (2001). Leadership ambiguity in universities and K-12 schools
and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. The leadership quarterly. 12 (2001):
419-450
Birnberg, J.G., Craft, J.A. (1976). Human Resource Accounting. Accounting, Organizations
Bogt, H.J. ter., Helden, A.G.J. van (2000). Accounting Change in Dutch government:
Exploring the gap between expectations and realizations. Management Accounting
Research. 2000, 11: 263-279
Bycio, B., Allen, J.S., Hacket, R.D. (1995). Further Assessments of Bass's (1985)
Conceptualization of Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 1995, Vol.80, No. 4. 468-478
Cameron, J., David Pierce, W. (2002). Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation. Bergin &
Garvey, London
Covey, S.R., (35th edition, 2006). De 7 eigenschappen van effectief leiderschap. Business
Contact. Amsterdam Antwerpen. (1th edition: 1989)
Crainer, S., Dearlove, D. (2008). The heart of leadership. Business Strategy Review. Autumn 2008: 40-45
Darlington, H. (2007). How To Develop Pride Of Ownership. Supply House Times. May 2007: 80-82
Danby, P. (2008). Searching for the soul of leadership. Business Strategy Review. Autumn 2008: 46-49
Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. Plenum press, New York / London
Donlan, D.S. (2007). Uncover and Deal with Unwritten Rules. DM review. November 2007: 46
Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B. (2008). The relationship between perceived training opportunities,
work motivation and employee outcomes. International Journal of Training and
Development. 2008. 12:3: 138-157
Eckerman, A.C. (1968). A New Look at Need Theory. Training and development journal. Nov 1968: 18-22
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. The Academy of
Management Review. Jan 1989. Vol. 14, No. 1: pp. 57-74
Emmanuel, C., Otley, D. Merchant, K. (2nd edition: 1990) Accounting for Management
Frey, B.S., Osterloh, M. (2002). Successful management by motivation. Springer, Berlin
Glen, P. (2008). Facts and meaning. Computerworld. May 5 2008: 36
Green, C., Heywood, J.S. (2008) Does performance pay increase job satisfaction?
Economica. Vol 75, 2008: 710-728
Grumbkow, J. von, (1989). Arbeidsmotivatie. Van Gorcum, Assen / Maastricht
Herzberg, F. Mausner, B. Snyderman, B.B. (1959) The Motivation to Work. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, New York
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate your employees? Harvard
Business Review. Jan – Feb 1968: 53-62
Hernandez, M. (2007). Promoting Stewardship Behavior in Organizations: A Leadership
Model. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008: 80: 121-128
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, Leadership and Organization: do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics. Summer. 1980: 42-63
Hopwood, A.G. (1972). An Empirical Study of the Role of Accounting Data in
Performance Evaluation. Journal of Accounting Research. 1972: 156-182
Hopwood, A.G. (1974). Leadership Climate and the Use of Accounting Data in
Performance Evaluation. The Accounting Review. July 1974: 485-495
House, R.J., Widgor, L.A. (1967). Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and
Motivation: A Review of the Evidence and a Criticism. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 20.
Issue 4: 369-389
Imberman, W. (2007). Work Harder, Work Smarter to Motivate Workers Effectively.
LaRossa, R. (2008). The Secret to Success... Build on Your Basics. American Gas. February 2008: 6-8
Jones, W.D., Mawhinney, T.C. (1977). The interaction of extrinsic rewards and Intrinsic
Motivation: a review and suggestions for future research. Academy of Management
Proceedings. 1977: 62-65
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P. (8th edition: 2004). Op kop met de Balanced Scorecard.
(original: The Balanced Scorecard) Uitgeverij Business Contact, Amsterdam
Lange, H. de, (1991). Motivatie in organisaties. Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen, Deventer
Latham, G.P., Locke, E.A. (1979). Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique that Works.
Organizational Dynamics. Autumn 1979: 68-80
Latham, G.P. (2007) Work Motivation: History, Theory, Research and Practice. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks
Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its management and value. McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York
Maust, T. (2008). Motivating and Praising for High Performance. Community Banker. August 2008: 44-45
Mayes, B.T. (1978). Incorporating Time-lag effects into the expectancy model of
motivation: a reformulation of the model. Academy of management review. April 1978:
374-380
Merchant, K.M., Stede, W.A. van der. (2nd edition: 2007) Management Control Systems.
Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives. Pearson Education, London. (1st
edition: 2003)
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 50, 370-396
Matsumara, R., Kobayashi, N. (2008). Are increased costs worth paying to raise
non-monetary utility?: Analysis of Intrinsic Motivation and fringe benefits. International
Merchant, K.A. (1982). The Control Function of Management. Sloan Management Review. 23:4, summer 1982: 43-55
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. The Management Review. 46, No. 11, 1957: 22-28
Moore, P. (2007). Where’s my cheese? www.marketingmag.co.nz. December 2007: 46-51
Moor, W. de. (1992). Arbeidsmotivatie als management-intrument. Bohn Stafleu van
Loghum, Houten / Zaventem
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., Lee, L.-E. (2008). Employee Motivation: A Powerful New
Model. Harvard Business Review. July-August 2008: 87-84
Nelson, K.M. (2008). On inspiration and leadership. Faces of public health. S12-S14
Otley, D.T. (1978). Budget Use and Managerial Performance. Journal of Accounting
Research. Vol. 16, No. 1. Spring 1978: 122-149
Otley, D.T. (1980). The Contingency Theory of Management Accounting: Achievement
and Prognosis. Accounting, Organizations and Society. Vol. 5, No. 4, 1980: 413-428
Otley, D.T., Dias, F.J.B. (1982). Accounting Aggregation and Decision-Making
Performance: An Experimental Investigation. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol. 20,
No. 1, Spring 1982: 171-188
Otley, D.T., Broadbent, J., Berry, A. (1995). Research in Management Control: An
Overview of its Development. British Journal of Management. Vol. 6, Special Issue, Dec.
1995: S31-S44
Otley, D.T., Berry, A. (1998). Case Study Research in Management Accounting and
Control. Accounting Education. No. 7, 1998: S105-S127
Otley, D.T., Hansen, S.C., Stede, W.A. van der, (2003). Practice Developments in
Budgeting: An Overview and Research Perspective. Journal of Management Accounting
Ouchi, W.G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly. March 1977. Vol. 22: 95-113
Ouchi, W.G. (1979). A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control
Mechanisms. Management Science. Vol 25, No. 9, September 1979: 833-848
Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Markets, Bureaucracies and Clans. Administrative Science Quarterly. March 1980. Vo. 25: 129-141
Pearson, E.M., Podeschi, R.L., (1999). Humanism and Individualism: Maslow and his
critics. Adult Education Quarterly. Vol. 50, No. 1: 41-55
Rodgers, M. (2004). Challenging Maslow. Brand Strategy. December / January 2004: 29
Rowald, J., Heinitz, K. (2007). Transformational and charismatic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly. 18 (2007) 121–133
Saxby, D. (2007). Factors to Motivate Employee Performance. Rural Telecommunications. May-June 2007: 44-46
Scapens, R.W. (2004). Doing Case Study Research. In: Humphrey, C., Lee, B. (2004) The
Real Life Guide to Accounting Research. Elsevier, 2004: Ch 15
Schmidd, H. (2006). Leadership Styles and Leadership Change in Human and
Community Service Organizations. Non-profit management and leadership. Winter 2006.
Vol. 17, No. 2: 179-194
Scofidio, B. (2006). No. 1 Priority: People. Corporate Meetings & Incentives. 2006: 6
Shamir, B., House, M.J., Arthur, M.B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organization Science. Vol. 4, No. 4, November
Shepherd, C. (2008). Essential Elements. E-learning age. October 2008, 12-14
Sosik, J.J., Megerian, L.E. (1999). Understanding Leader Emotional Intelligence and
Performance. Group Organization Management. 1999; 24; 367
Stanley, T.L. (Unknown year). A motivated workplace is a marvelous sight. Supervision. 5-8
Tang, T. L-P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G.M-T.W., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A.H.S., Wagner, S.L. (2008). To help or not to help? The good Samaritan effect and the love of money on
helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. 2008. 82: 865-887
Vinke, R. (2004). Zoeken naar intrinsieke motivatie. Reed Business Information bv, Den Haag
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and Motivation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York
Vroom, V.H. (1965). Motivation in management. American foundation for management
research (AFMR)
Wademan Dowling, D. (2008). The best advice I ever got. Harvard Business Review. May 2008: 21
Whitsett, D.A., Winslow, E.K., (1967). An Analysis of Studies Critical of the
Motivator-Hygiene Theory. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 20. Issue 4: 391-415
Whitsett, D.A., Winslow, E.K., (1968). Dual-Factor Theory: A Reply to House and
Widgor. Personnel Psychology. Vol. 21. Issue 1: 55-62
