【外文翻译】工作激励理论的未来.doc

工作激励理论的未来在管理领域，无论是从实际上，还是从理论上来说，员工激励都是最重要的组成部分。经理人把激励当作绩效结果的组成部分，而研究组织的人员则把激励当作有效的管理理论实践的重要组成部分。事实上，激励主题贯穿在许多的分支组成的管理研究，包括领导能力，团队，绩效管理，管理伦理，决策和组织的变化。这并不奇怪，因此，这个话题已经受到几十年来很多的关注。鉴于最近几篇文章的研究，我们研究工作的热情来了，这论坛的重点在哪里，也就是说，我们问的问题：什么是工作动机理论的未来？什么是必须解决的？什么是在这个领域取得进展的关键性问题？什么是未来的研究议程？我们如何延续现有的成绩，使他们在未来得到相关的发展？在哪里需要当代组织中完全理解的崭新的激励模式？要明白我们研究的是哪个领域，我们必须首先明白这点。此次，我们对工作动机领域从理论的角度概述，奠定后面文章的基础。动机这个词源于拉丁词运动，阿特金森定义为“当代的影响方向，活力和持久性的行动”动机（1964年：2），而弗鲁姆将其定义为“一个过程中，人在管理上的选择，其中代替志愿活动”（1964年：6）。坎贝尔和普里查德认为，动机，是因为有一个独立的关系，解释变量的方向，幅度和个人行为的持久性，保持恒定的资质，掌握技能，理解任务，在约束的环境下运作（1976）。这些和其他的定义有三个共同点，他们主要关注的因素有活力，渠道，长时间地维持人类的行为。以各种方式了解努力工作的动力，从理论上阐明在当代这三个因素如何得到越来越精确的相互联系，以确定组织的行为。激励理论的“黄金时代”在20世纪60年代中期开始，出现了一个新的方法来研究工作动机，把过程中的相关工作动机作为重点。过程理论与早期的内容理论形成了鲜明的对比，确定与激励相关的一个相对静态的环境因素为重点，从动态的角度观察工作动机，寻求在工作场所中工作动机与人类行为的因果关系。 过程理论，是一系列认知理论的统称，试图了解人们在工作场合的行为的思维过程。在我们看来，20世纪60年代末至70年代初这一时期是激励理论的“黄金时代”。有些人会认为是前所未有的，从来没有过那么大的进展。迄今为止，最广为接受的解释应当是弗鲁姆的期望理论了。期望理论来源于早期工作中，源于对卢因（1938年）和托尔曼（1959年），人们的行为是由于目的，目标的导向，并在很大程度上是基于意识的目的。弗鲁姆（1964年）提出了激励理论，认为与人们的工作场合相关。他主张,员工往往合理地评价各种岗位,然后选择那些他们认为，将为其带来最重要的与工作相关的奖励和结果。弗鲁姆认为，当人们预期某种行为能带给个体某种特定的结果，而且这种结果对个体具有吸引力，个体就倾向于采取这种行为。波特和劳勒（1968）延伸了弗鲁姆的前期工作，确认角色的个体差异（例如，员工的能力和技能），清楚工作努力和实际工作绩效的联系。波特和劳勒也明确指出了工作表现和满意度的关系，认为这种关系能在很大程度上调节因良好的工作表现而奖励员工的质量。最后，波特和劳勒把过去的关系通过反馈再进行学习。也就是说，如果过去有较好的工作表现但没有得到上级领导相应的奖励，会使员工的努力程度下降，未来可能失去或降低激励和奖励制度在员工心目中的可信度。自首次公布以来，一些学者一直在努力扩大或进一步完善基本的预期的认知框架，以反映新的研究结果和新的理论的发展（例如，卡菲尔，1990年；米切尔，1997）。举例来说，期望理论已被用于研究除了工作表现外的工作行为，包括员工缺勤率，离职，与组织行为（莫布利，1977年；莫迪，波特，斯蒂尔斯，1982年，奥根恩，1988年；波特，斯蒂尔斯， 1973年；斯蒂尔斯，罗兹，1978）。研究人员还把集团的期望与个人的工作动机的决定对社会的影响联系起来（波特，劳勒，哈克曼，1975年）。最后，基本的原理已被纳入一些新兴的影响工作动机和工作绩效的跨文化的模式中（巴加特，麦奎德，1982年；阿利，1997年；斯蒂尔斯，桑切斯-伦德，2001年；特里安迪斯，1995年）。 自20世纪60年代以来，除了期望理论，其他重要的工作动机的认知理论已经发展了很多，每个国家都有它自己的侧重点。亚当斯（1963年），例如，引入公平理论来解释如何应对员工的认知与在工作场所感觉不公平的行为（另见莫迪，科尔韦尔，2003年；韦克，布贡，丸山，1976年）。亚当斯认为，条件的不足和充足可以影响行为。最近，在这一领域中工作程序和公平分配的进一步发展使用了公平性基本概念和影响效果（Cropanzano鲁普，2003;福尔杰，1986年;格林伯格，1993年;斯威尼，麦克法林，1993年）。目标设置理论也出现在20世纪60年代末，研究人员开始发现指定目标能提高工作表现的行为（洛克，1968年，1996年；斯蒂尔斯，波特，1974年）。在这一领域的研究表明目标的明确，目标的难度，目标的承诺有助于提高工作绩效。在大量实证研究的基础上，洛克和莱瑟姆（1990年）后来提出了正式的目标设定理论。阿利和埃雷兹（1991年）后来增加了时间维度来审视这个认知角色上的动机问题，而郭劳恩和罗斯（1995年）研究了群体目标的作用，此外还有个人目标，工作表现。目标设定理论应用在团队管理，按目标计划管理团队，现在在整个行业得到广泛使用（刘汉铨，库利克，1999年）。最后，这一时期集中于对社会认知的作用，自我效能的行为和表现的方面，在班杜拉等研究人员的努力下得到重大发展（1977年，1997年）。班杜拉的社会认知理论提出，自信的核心在于个人的激励，积极采取行动。事实上，经过对社会认知和个人成就感的研究文献的审查，发现个人成就感决定工作相关绩效的观点得到相当大的支持。在此研究的基础上，卢森斯（2001年）通过一个具有积极性的组织行为模式提出了延伸工作场所的观点。20世纪60年代和70年代出现的许多观点，后来得到扩大和进一步的发展，以反映研究成果和更先进的研究方法的扩大化。事实上，80年代目睹了一系列改进和扩展的理论。例如，研究人员在概念发展和实证研究上取得重大突破，他们运用目标设置理论，集中研究了工作设计，奖励制度，处罚制度，程序公正，创新和跨文化对工作行为的影响。然而，到20世纪90年代，人们在工作激励理论方面研究的兴趣，至少由期刊出版量来衡量，似乎急剧下降。作为这方面的证据，考虑过去的十年在科学杂志上发表的文章数量（而不是经验）（例如，见刘汉铨，库利克，1999年，米切尔和丹尼尔斯，2002年），你会发现，在这一领域中理论发展的几篇重点的文章。虽然是有帮助的，但这导致我们的工作难以有突破性进展。在同一时间，一本教科书对管理和组织行为领域的审查表明，多数理论是20世纪60年代和70年代的讨论 ，对近期的工作只是做简短的运用。总之，在管理学等领域的研究得到继续发展（例如，领导，决策，谈判，群体和团队，组织设计），但注重实质性的工作激励理论的发展没有跟上步伐。旁观者可能会认为在这种情况下，要么我们已经失去了工作的动力或兴趣（也许是因为它不再是一个在组织中的紧迫问题），或者说我们的工作早已解决了激励问题，从而消除了对额外工作的需要。这些结论似乎是非常合理的。相反，在新经济时代，充满电子商务，日益全球化（以及较传统的制造业和服务业的公司），一个积极进取的队伍常常被视为一种竞争优势的重要标志。事实上，麻省理工学院经济学家莱斯特瑟罗（1992年）观察十年前，成功企业（国家）在未来的竞争主要是他们的技术和人力资源方面。在这种竞争中，一个积极进取的团队成为一个关键的资产战略，为什么集中在这一重要议题上只有这么少的智力活动？也许我们还没有开发的这一突破性想法，使我们有更高层次的理解。近年来，世界发生了巨大变化，工作激励理论的发展可能有所下降。事实上，我们可以说，过去十年目睹了工作场所发生了比任何的其他的十年更大的变化。公司都裁员和扩大（通常在同一时间，在不同部门或阶层）。劳动力队伍的特点是不断增加多样性以满足不同需要和要求。信息技术已经改变了平常的工作方式和活动地点。新的组织形式（如那些在电子商务中被发现的）的出现已是司空见惯。团队重新定义了概念层次，以及传统的权力分配。工人队伍正在迅速崛起。在不同的行业，管理知识工作者继续困扰经验丰富的管理者。现今的挑战是全球化和跨边界管理。这些变化对企业如何吸引、留住和激励他们的员工产生深远的影响。然而，我们缺乏在新时代管理行为能力的新模式这方面的工作指导。正如卡普利指出，“世界上大多数的企业家观察认为，雇主与雇员之间的传统关系已经一去不复返了，但不了解它为什么结束，甚至不了解什么取代了这种关系”（1999年）。我们认为，现在发现新模型的时机已经到了，通过新模型研究跟上时代步伐的工作动机和工作绩效。出处：理查德M.斯蒂尔斯，理查德T.莫迪，黛布拉L.夏皮罗.管理学会评论,第一卷，2004(3):379387外 文 翻 译原文：THE FUTURE OF WORK MOTIVATION THEORYThe topic of employee motivation plays a central role in the field of manage- mentboth practically and theoretically. Managers see motivation as an integral part of the performance equation at all levels, while organizational researchers see it as a fundamental building block in the development of useful theories of effective mana- gement practice. Indeed, the topic of motivation permeates many of the subfields that compose the study of management, including leadership, teams, performance man- agement, managerial ethics, decision making, and organizational change. It is not sur- prising, therefore, that this topic has received so much attention over the past several decades in both research journals and management periodicals.Whereas several recent articles have examined how far we have come in resea- rching work motivation, this special forum focuses on where we are going.1 That is, we ask the questions: What is the future of work motivation theories? What are the critical questions that must be addressed if progress in the field is to be made? What is the future research agenda? How can we extend or modify current models of work motivation so they continue to be relevant in the future? And where are entirely new models of motivation needed to further our understanding of employee behavior and job performance in contemporary organizations?To understand where the field is going, however, we must first understand where it has been. This introduction represents an overview of the field of work motivation from a theoretical standpoint and lays the foundation for the articles that follow. The term motivation derives from the Latin word for movement (movere.) Building on this concept, Atkinson defines motivation as “the contemporary (imm- ediate) influence on direction, vigor, and persistence of action” (1964: 2), while Vroom defines it as “a process governing choice made by persons . . . among alte- rnative forms of voluntary activity” (1964: 6). Campbell and Pritchard suggest that motivation has to do with a set of independent dependent variable relationships that explain the direction, amplitude, and persistence of an individuals behavior, holding constant the effects of aptitude, skill, and understanding of the task, and the constraints operating in the environmentThese and other definitions have three common denominators. They are all pri- ncipally concerned with factors or events that energize, channel, and sustain human behavior over time. In various ways, contemporary theories of work motivation derive from efforts to explicate with increasing precision how these three factors interrelate to determine behavior in organizations.THE “GOLDEN AGE” OF WORK MOTIVATION THEORIESBeginning in the mid 1960s, a new approach to the study of work motivation emerged, which focused on delineating the processes underlying work motivation. Process theories contrast sharply with the earlier content theories, which focused on identifying factors associated with motivation in a relatively static environment.Process theorists view work motivation from a dynamic perspective and look for causal relationships across time and events as they relate to human behavior in the workplace.Central to the process theory genre is a series of cognitive theories of motivation that collectively attempt to understand the thought processes that people go through in determining how to behave in the workplace. In our view, the theories generated during the late 1960s and early 1970s make this period something of a “golden age” of work motivation theories. Never before and, some would argue, never since hasso much progress been made in explicating the etiology of work motivation. Perhaps best known of the cognitive theories is expectancy (or expectancy- valence) theory. Expectancy theory derives from the early work of Lewin (1938) and Tolman (1959), who saw behavior as purposeful, goal directed, and largely based on conscious intentions. Vroom (1964) presented the first systematic formulation of expectancy theory as it related to the workplace. He argued that employees tend to rationally evaluate various on-the-job work behaviors (e.g., working harder) and then choose those behaviors they believe will lead to their most valued work-related rewards and outcomes (e.g., apromotion). Thus, the attractiveness of a particular task and the energy invested in it will depend a great deal on the extent to which the employee believes its accomplishment will lead to valued outcomes.Porter and Lawler (1968) expanded Vrooms initial work to recognize the role of individual differences (e.g., employee abilities and skills) and role clarity in linking job effort to actual job performance. Porter and Lawler also clarified the relationship between performance and subsequent satisfaction, arguing that this relationship is mediated by the extent and quality of the rewards employees receive in exchange for good job performance. Finally, Porter and Lawler incorporated a feedback loop to recognize learning by employees about past relationships. That is, if superior perfor- mance in the past failed to lead to superior rewards, future employee effort may suffer as incentives and the reward system lose credibility in the employees eyes.Since its initial publication, a number of scholars have worked to extend or furt- her refine the basic cognitive expectancy framework to reflect emerging research -findings and new theoretical developments (e.g., Kanfer, 1990; Mitchell, 1997). Forexample, expectancy theory has been used to study forms of work behavior other than job performance, including employee absenteeism, turnover, and organizational citizenship behavior (Mobley, 1977; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Organ, 1988; Porter & Steers, 1973; Steers & Rhodes, 1978). Researchers have also linked group expectations and social influences to individual work motivation decisions (Porter,Lawler, & Hackman , 1975). Finally, basic expectancy principles have been incorpo- rated into several emerging models of cross-cultural influences on work - motivation and job performance (Bhagat & McQuaid, 1982; Earley, 1997; Steers &Sanchez- Runde, 2001; Triandis, 1995) In addition to expectancy theory, a number of other important cognitive theories of work motivation have been developed since the 1960s, each with its own focus. Adams (1963), for example, introduced equity theory to explain how employeesrespond both cognitively and behaviorally to perceived unfairness in the workplace (see also Mowday & Colwell, 2003, and Weick, Bougon, & Maruyama, 1976). Adams argued that both conditions of underpayment and overpayment can influence subsequent behavior. Recent work on procedural and distributive justice further develops this area using the fundamental concept of equity and its consequences (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003; Folger, 1986; Greenberg, 1993; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Goal-setting theory also emerged in the late 1960s, as researchers began to discover that the simple act of specifying targets for behavior enhanced task perfo- rmance (Locke, 1968, 1996; Steers & Porter, 1974). Research in this arena showed that goal specificity, goal difficulty, and goal commitment each served to enhance task performance. Based on numerous empirical studies, Locke and Latham (1990) subsequently proposed a formal theory of goal setting. Earley and Erez (1991) later added a time dimension to this topic by examining the role of cognitive processing on motivation, while Crown and Rosse (1995) examined the role of group goals, in add- ition to individual goals, on performance. Applications of goal-setting theory in the form of individual and team management-by-objectives programs are now used widely throughout industry (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999).Finally, this period saw significant developments focusing on the role of social cognition and self-efficacy on behavior and performance by such leading researchers as Bandura (1977a,b, 1997). Bandura proposed a social cognitive theory, suggesting that self-confidence lies at the heart of an individuals incentive to act or to be pro- active. Indeed, after a major review of the research literature on social cognition and self-efficacy, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998, 2003) found considerable support for the role of self-efficacy in determining work related performance, particularly as moder- ated by task complexity and locus of control. Based on this research, Luthans (2001) has proposed extending this concept into the workplace through a model labeled positive organizational behavior.RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN WORK MOTIVATIONMany of the ideas emerging from the 1960s and 1970s have subsequently been extende and further developed to reflect an expanded pool of research findings and more sophisticated research methods. Indeed, the 1980s witnessed a series of refi- nements and extensions of existing theories. For example, researchers made great strides in conceptual developments and empirical work focusing on social learningtheory, as they did in new work focusing on goal-setting theory, job design, reward systems, punishment, procedural justice, innovation and creativity, and cross-cultural influences on work behavior.However, by the 1990s, intellectual interest in work motivation theoryat least as measured by journal publicationsseemed to decline precipitously. As evidence of this, consider the number of theoretical (as opposed to empirical) articles published in leading behavioral science journals over the past decade (e.g., see Ambrose & Kulik, 1999, or Mitchell & Daniels, 2002). You will find few articles that focus on genuine theoretical developments in this area. Instead, you will see minor extensions, empirical tests, or applications of existing theories. While clearly helpful, this hardly leads to breakthrough developments in our understanding of the principles underlyingwork motivation. At the same time, a review of the most recent editions of textbooks in the field of management and organizational behavior reveals that most of the theories discussed date from the 1960s and 1970s, with only fleeting references to more recent work. (It is also curious that some early motivation theories that have subsequently been widely discredited continue to permeate such texts.) In short, while other fields of management research (e.g., leadership, decision making, negotiations, groups and teams, and organization design) continue to develop conceptually,substantive theoretical developments focusing on work motivation have not kept pace.An outside observer might conclude from this situation that either we have lost interest in the subject of work motivation (perhaps because it is no longer a pressing issue in organizations) or that we solved the work motivation problem long ago, thereby eliminating the need for additional work. Neither of these conclusionsseems very plausible. On the contrary, in the new economy, replete with its s, e-commerce, and increased globalization (as well as the more traditional manufact- uring and service firms), a motivated workforce is frequently cited as a hallmark of competitive advantage. Indeed, MIT economist Lester Thurow (1992) observed over a decade ago that successful companies (and countries) will compete in the future based principally on the quality of both their technology and their human resources. A motivated workforce becomes a critical strategic asset in such competition.3 Why, then, has there been so little intellectual activity focusing on this important topic? Perhaps we have yet to develop the breakthrough ideas that can push us to the next level of understanding.While theoretical developments on work motivation may ha