A Proposed Theory Life Cycle Model: Standing on the Shoulders of Giants

Abstract

In this article, we draw on the product life cycle framework to propose an adapted model for evaluating the evolution of a theory. The product life cycle was designed as an economic analysis tool, and its intuitive usefulness led to its adaptation for a variety of disciplines. Nevertheless, it has not been applied to theory. We propose a five-stage model of theory development: (1) emergence, (2) development, (3) maturity, and (4) decline toward (5) death or reemergence. The proposed model is then tested by applying it to work motivation theory. We conclude by offering implications and recommendations for using the theory life cycle model in research, teaching, and practice.

Keywords

theory development product life cycle work motivation evidence-based management organization development and change

It has been said that a theory dies only when its inventor dies or, phrased more elegantly by Max Planck, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (Nyborg, 2003, p. 498)

Theories are said to have a life of their own. Some theories are timeless, while others make an important contribution but are then forgotten. Notably, the development of theory relies on others who have created the conditions for us to stand on their shoulders, seeing further, enabling us to expand and innovate from a higher level (Leiman, 1993). To foster the advancement and continued renewal of such foundational theories, it is important to trace history in ways that connect research with practice, to integrate theories across disciplines and contexts in creative ways, and to reconnect with the giants of their disciplines who provide the foundational building blocks to our understanding of key phenomena (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999; Bisoux, 2018; Breaugh, Ritz, & Alfes, 2018; Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017). This, their work, we do not want to forget.

Our theory life cycle model was developed to assist scholars and practitioners in reflecting on the work of those who have come before them and, in doing so, encourage the continuous improvement of theory while providing for a more robust knowledge base. Specifically, we propose a five-stage framework of theory development: (1) emergence, (2) development, (3) maturity, and (4) decline toward (5) death or reemergence (Figure 1). We then test the theory life cycle model by analyzing the work motivation literature through the lens of the proposed framework. We conclude by offering implications and recommendations for use of the model in research, teaching, and practice.

Figure 1.

Five-stage framework of theory development.

Theory Life Cycle Model

Two articles explore the life cycle of a theory (Hirsch & Levin, 1999; Turner, Baker, & Kellner, 2018) and address the importance and potential applications of a life cycle perspective, while offering ways to think about how theories develop and evolve over time. For example, Hirsch and Levin (1999) conceptualized organizational effectiveness as an “umbrella concept,” a broad framework that encompasses a diverse set of phenomena. They also described how constructs arise to replace nearly identical concepts of organizational effectiveness and suggest that support from practitioners can ensure that the concept lives a long life, resilient to validity challenges. More recently, Turner et al. (2018) call for scholars in the field of human resource development to adopt a literature review format that maps the life cycles of individual theories, showing the distinctions between formal and informal theoretical perspectives. We draw from and connect to the contributions described above, while leveraging the conceptual strengths of the product life cycle approach (Vernon, 1966; Wasson, 1960).

The product life cycle model was designed as an economic framework to explain international trade. The model posits how a product is introduced, grows, matures, and declines within a market. The product life cycle model’s intuitive appeal led it to be applied in a variety of fields, including marketing (Levitt, 1965), strategic planning (Anderson & Zeithaml, 1984), supply chain management (Vonderembse, Uppal, Huang, & Dismukes, 2006), sustainability (Gbededo, Liyanage, & Garza-Reyes, 2018), pharmacogenomics (Tan-Koi, Leow, & Teo, 2018), and organization development (Silva & Guerrini, 2018). Nevertheless, it has not been applied to theory development, which we do here. As noted, we propose a five-stage framework of theory development: (1) emergence, (2) development, (3) maturity, and (4) decline toward (5) death or reemergence, which is discussed below.

Stage 1: Emergence

In the early state of research development, a concept begins its transformation into a theoretical construct as it begins to attract scholarly attention. The development of theory is time consuming, as, initially, the foundation is not well-established, and few seminal presentations and papers have been published. It is during the emergence stage that the theory label is established, which encourages the aggregation, through research of relevant knowledge. Presentations at conferences increase and journal publications begin to emerge. Seminal work develops and is cited and discussed as researchers attempt to understand the underlying intentions of the proponents’ thinking.

In this stage, although a systematic framework might be missing, researchers examine the fundamental nature of the construct, while standardizing its measurement in relation to other constructs of interest. In this regard, the research implications section of early publications are important to read, as they often point to the next wave of empirical work in the area. Editorial boards begin to see an increase in submissions, and, in response, a special issue or conference is typically announced, setting in motion the next stage in the theory’s life cycle.

Stage 2: Development

The development stage occurs when proximate theories to the construct being to emerge, which, in some cases, may contradict each other. There are an increasing number of articles published that provide the basis for more robust theoretical development. As the theory gains broader recognition, demand for research in the area increases. Researchers who aim to build their stream of research get in early to make a name for themselves in the developing field of study. The number of theses and dissertations on the theory begin to increase, and even further distinctions are drawn as research increasingly moves into the field. Consequently, less effort is required to persuade readers of the value of the research as compared with what occurs during the emergence stage. At the same time, growing interest in the theory increases competition, debate, and theoretical contention, which necessitates greater rigor in research designs and methodologies.

In this stage of theory development, theory and research publications become siloed within a particular discipline and are more exclusionary. Although the theory may enjoy increasing applications across disciplines, the boundaries become set. For example, presentations on the theory become more prevalent in a conference in one field and not others, while the appeal of the theory narrows in terms of the journals in which studies based on it are published. These are the early signs of the theory’s progress to maturity.

Stage 3: Maturity

The transition of a theory into the maturity stage is characterized by the drawing of theoretical “battle lines.” In this stage, papers describe what the theory is and is not and may even defend the theory. One might see theory’s being characterized as “old wine with a new label” (Kirsch, 1985, p. 824). The theory moves into the latter part of the maturity stage when different theories are integrated into it through more consolidated frameworks. As publications gain attention from high-ranking journals, meta-analyses and meta-theories, sometimes with elegant visuals, are developed and pose research design challenges. At some point, the number of publications reaches a peak with a trend toward studies with unique perspectives and complex analyses’ being published and cited. During this stage, smaller incremental improvements and changes are made to the theory and its constructs. This sets the stage for saturation, that is, for researchers’ moving to other theories with less competition for attention and faster pathways to publishing in top journals, leading to the decline of a theory’s preeminence or popularity, as discussed below.

Stages 4 and 5: Decline Toward Death or Reemergence

In the period beyond maturity, the theory faces either a downturn or revival, depending on the approach taken by scholars to address the saturation of knowledge. This final stage is characterized by a significant decrease in the number of publications. Citations that support the theory diminish, while citations critical of the theory increase. The theory is not included with newer concepts and emergent theories that are being examined. There is silence as the “theory dies a normal-science death” (Lachman, Lachman, & Butterfield, 2015, p. 262). There is, however, an alternative path by which the theory can reemerge.

The reemergence of a declining theory can be the result of a new field-configuring event, such as a conference, edited scholarly book, special issue, or new degree program (Lampel & Meyer, 2008; Meyer, Gaba, & Colwell, 2005). Unlike the role of such events during the emergence stage, these events focus on a higher level of abstraction. Researchers turn their attention to new and more collaborative interdisciplinary concepts, theories, and techniques that revive and extend mature fields of study. As a result, a dying theory can find new life when applied to a new problem and, in some cases, even be elevated into a more extensive and newer fields of thought. If this happens, citations increase, and unintended applications emerge that generate new enthusiasm among scholars and practitioners, bringing the theory back to the beginning after going through a full cycle.

Theory Life Cycle Model Applied to Work Motivation

We tested our proposed theory life cycle model by focusing on work motivation theory. We chose this theory due to its central role in the field of management and applied behavioral science. To begin, we identified the comprehensive theoretical reviews of work motivation conducted to date (Table 1). This search resulted in 13 papers’ being considered. We then drew on these papers to integrate additional works related to the various theoretical constructs discussed in our analysis.

Table 1.

Reviews of Work Motivation.

Author(s)	Title	Summary
Locke (1975)	Personnel attitudes and motivation	This article provides a selective review and critique of major theoretical approaches and major research areas relevant to employee attitudes and motivation. He focuses his review and critique on expectancy, goal-setting, Herzberg, job enrichment, and economic incentive theories.
Korman, Greenhaus, and Badin (1977)	Personnel attitudes and motivation	Primarily review the literature published between 1974 and 1975, with a critique of major theories (i.e., expectancy theory, cognitive evaluation theory, equity theory, and attribution theory) and discussions on the validity of moderator and dependent variables, gender- and ethnicity-related issues, and motivational interventions.
Katzell (1980)	Work attitudes, motivation, and performance	Focus on motivational constructs that were of interest among I/O psychologists during the 1970s (e.g., job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational climate) and review the organizational programs designed for improving work motivation.
Mitchell (1982)	Motivation: new directions for theory, research, and practice	Discuss the issues that were either underrepresented or gained interest by researchers in 1970s.
Landy and Becker (1987)	Motivation theory reconsidered	Review cognitive aspects of five theories (i.e., need theory, reinforcement theory, balance theory, expectancy theory, and goal-setting theory), critique past attempts to apply one theory to all subprocesses of motivation, and suggest selecting a theory based on the dependent variable of interest.
Katzell and Thompson (1990b)	Work motivation: Theory and practice	Point out seven principles for improving employee motivation in practice and organizational interventions that align with each principle.
Katzell and Thompson (1990a)	An integrated model of work attitudes, motivation, and performance	Critique past approaches of integrating theories, identify key constructs, and present an integrative framework that incorporates work environment, dispositions, rewards, equity, goals, norms, and resources among others.
Ambrose and Kulik (1999)	Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s	Discuss research trends and future directions for traditional theories (i.e., motives/needs, expectancy theory, equity theory, goal-setting, cognitive evaluation theory, work design, and reinforcement theory) and new constructs (i.e., creativity, group, and culture) through the articles published between 1990 and 1997.
Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro (2004)	Introduction to special topic forum: The future of work motivation theory	Provide a brief chronological review of work motivation, and advocate the need for new perspectives to introduce six articles on the topic.
Latham and Pinder (2005)	Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the 21st century	Review work motivation literature since 1977, particularly the work between 1993 and 2003, and identify goal-setting, social cognitive, and organizational justice theories as the most critical arguments between late 1970s and mid-2000s.
Latham and Ernst (2006)	Keys to motivating tomorrow’s workforce	Point out 10 principles of work motivation that have been proposed in the past, review articles in the 21st century, and predict future issues with the changing workplace, such as neuromotivation, psychotropic drugs, subconscious goals, and spirituality.
Kanfer and Chen (2016)	Motivation in organizational behavior: history, advances, and prospects	Focus on articles published solely in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, they suggest temporal discounting and embodied cognition as a future research agenda.
Kanfer et al. (2017)	Motivation related to work: A century of progress.	Organize the work motivation literature over the past century using a meta-framework that clusters theories, findings, and advances in the field according to their primary focus.

Although work motivation is often influenced by environmental factors (e.g., job characteristics, organizational culture, and interpersonal relationships) or by distal personal factors (e.g., needs, values, and personalities; Kanfer, 2012), we focused our application of the theory life cycle model on the proximal intrapersonal processes for the following reasons. First, in keeping with the rapid advancement of the field of cognitive psychology, myriad theories have been published in the realm of the cognitive processes. Second, because distal or external influences are compounded with other mainly uncontrollable factors, a focus on direct, internal factors improves the validity of those factors. Third, the key comparisons made in this article involve constructs rather than relationships. Because different theories often have used different terminology to refer to similar concepts, a construct-based approach enables integration of theories within the field of study. Finally, focusing on the proximal intrapersonal processes helped us manage the scope of this article.

An understanding of an individual’s motivational process begins with his or her analysis of the status quo, whether cognitive or affective, which leads to judgments of one’s ability to succeed and the consequences of that success. Based on such judgments, an individual sets an appropriate goal and expends the proper amount of effort to achieve it. Subsequently, performance and rewards/punishments are compared with the goal-striving effort, which leads to a decision of whether to continue the same behavior.

Many work motivation theories provide general support for the motivational process described above (e.g., Locke, 1997; Locke & Latham, 2004). During each phase of the theory life cycle, the popular area of research on motivation shifted from one part of the process to another, with new components of each process being added. For instance, goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990), which appeared in journals in the 1960s, became mainstream again in the 1990s. In this theory, personal determinants of action were centered on valence, instrumentality, and expectancy during the 1960s and 1970s; then, skepticism about their validity led to the rise of self-efficacy theory and its subsequent popularity in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the following sections, we discuss the conceptual focus of motivational theories in the emergence stage (1930s to 1960s) and present the traditional constructs proposed during the development stage (1960s to 1980s). We then add the concepts developed during the maturity period (1980s to 2000s) and explore future directions for the contemporary era of decline or reemergence (2000s and beyond). Figure 2 presents the five stages of work motivation theories.

Figure 2.

Five stages of work motivation theory.

Emergence (1930s to 1960s)

In the field of industrial–organizational psychology, work motivation has been of interest since the early 1930s (Locke & Latham, 2004), driven most notably by the boundary-breaking Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) and the rise of a more democratic or participatory spirit within organizations during the postwar era (Katzell, 1980). Nevertheless, work motivation research conducted during this period was later criticized by scholars for the oversimplification of motivational processes (Kanfer, 1992). More specifically, in the emergent period, motivation was treated as a factor that is either internally uncontrollable or subconscious (Locke & Latham, 2002). Most motivation theories focused on general human needs and motives rather than on motivation specific to the organizational and work context. For example, McClelland’s theory of the need for achievement (McClelland, Clark, Roby, & Atkinson, 1949; McClelland & Liberman, 1949), Maslow’s (1943) need hierarchy theory, and Alderfer’s (1969) existence, relatedness, and growth theory emerged from general psychological research rather than from organizational research.

Work Motivation as a Concept

To the best of our knowledge, the first scholarly use of the term work motivation was in the 1940s, when Davis (1946) explored the motivation of unskilled workers. Since then, researchers have studied numerous processes in which work motivation is considered distinct from general human motivation (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2004). Work motivation theory attempts to explain the psychological processes and conditions that influence the initiation, direction, persistence, and magnitude of behaviors in work or organizational settings (Baron, 1991; Katzell & Thompson, 1990a, 1990b; Klein, 1989; H. L. Petri, 1990; Pinder, 1984; Steers & Porter, 1987; Vroom, 1964). Researchers drew a clear distinction between external factors (e.g., job environment) and psychological needs in terms of promoting motivation and job satisfaction. For instance, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959), in their job enrichment theory, argue that external factors (e.g., pay) could reduce job dissatisfaction, while only internal needs can promote motivation (Latham & Ernst, 2006).

Applying the Lens of the Emergent Stage

From the perspective of the proposed theory life cycle model, work motivation theory initially focused on general motivation and emerged as work motivation primarily in response to concerns with the theory’s oversimplification. It was in the early publications, such as studies of internal and external distinctions, that more interesting research strategies were suggested. As a result, new life was breathed into general motivation theory as it began to be applied explicitly to organizational settings. Once the term work motivation was coined and recognized by leading scholars, the stage was set for more rigorous development of the theory.

Development (1960s to 1980s)

In the 1960s and 1970s, researchers began to study work motivation as an internally controllable factor, diverging from earlier approaches that treated it as a subconscious process (Locke & Latham, 2002). During the development period, motivation research was characterized by the proliferation of new theories, including Vroom’s (1964) first attempt to establish a constructive theoretical model (Locke & Latham, 2004; Kanfer, 1992). Accordingly, in an effort to make a major contribution to the theory, researchers (e.g., Kanfer, 1992; Mitchell, 1982) critiqued earlier theorizing and provided their unique perspectives on specific facets of work motivation, proscribing a holistic approach to the field. This developmental stage flourished with work on personal determinants of action, centering mainly on Vroom’s valence-expectancy theory as well as comparison processes, as described below.

Personal Determinants of Action

Personal determinants are dynamic factors that influence impending performance under analysis. Unlike individual differences (Bandura, 1990) or dispositional traits (Newton & Keenan, 1991), personal determinants are not stable but, rather, dynamic characteristics that vary with the type of task being completed and have been shown to be directly related to effort (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984; Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992). Since valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) was proposed as involving personal determinants, a host of studies in the 1970s and early 1980s focused on verifying the criterion validity of these constructs (e.g., Korman et al., 1977).

Instrumentality is the belief that a particular outcome will lead to a related future outcome, while valence is the expected satisfaction or dissatisfaction from an outcome (Vroom, 1964). Instrumentality deals with the question of whether high performance will lead to rewards, while valence is concerned with the desirability of the performance and/or rewards. More broadly, valence can be thought of as a function of the value placed on the current expected outcome and any future related outcomes, or a combination of multiple valences and instrumentalities. In this regard, Mitchell (1974) conceptualized valence as a “monotonically increasing function of the algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all other outcomes and the person’s conceptions of the outcome’s instrumentality for the attainment of these other outcomes” (p. 1053).

Expectancy was initially defined as the belief that a particular outcome (e.g., performance) is possible, given a certain level of effort (Vroom, 1964). Expectancy has been reformulated and expanded into Expectancy 1 (E1; effort–performance expectancy) and Expectancy 2 (E2; performance–outcome expectancy; e.g., Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Porter & Lawler, 1968). E1 is viewed as the probability of successfully performing the necessary task, while E2 is viewed as the probability that performing the task will lead to an expected outcome (Mitchell, 1974). With this expansion of expectancy, instrumentality was incorporated into the conceptualization of expectancy as E2 (performance–outcome expectancy; Reddy & Pellegrini, 2012).

Earlier theories, such as equity (Adams, 1965), cognitive evaluation (Deci, 1972), and attribution (Weiner, 1985), commonly emphasized a comparison process that followed performance outcomes. The comparison process plays a major role in determining dynamic motivational processes, as it provides cues to reevaluate situations and to modify goals and strategies. The comparison process consists of an evaluation with a feedback loop, attributions, and satisfaction.

Both performance outcomes and reward/punishment serve as cues for primary (initial emotional response) and secondary (cognitive) evaluation processes (Arnold, 1960; Lazarus, 1966). Traditionally, performance outcomes were referred to mainly as task performance. Although the domain of performance has expanded to a broader set of behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), the multifaceted nature of both OCB and CWB made it challenging to study these behaviors in relation to work motivation.

Attribution theory and control theory suggest that, in the event of an error, an attributional search is initiated to make corrections (Klein, 1989). Since Heider’s (1958) initial work, there has been considerable work on attribution theory in various disciplines (Buss, 1978; Kelley, 1973; Martinko, Harvey, & Dasborough, 2011; Weiner, 1974, 2012). The consensus is that an attribution is the perception of causality or the reasons why an event has occurred. When the discrepancy in the comparison process is large, unexpected, or essential, attributions are made as to whether the discrepancy is desirable (Taylor, Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984; Weiner, 1985). Attributions are made not only for the outcome, per se (Bandura, 1977), but also for the rate of progress (Carver & Scheier, 2008).

Equity theory (Adams, 1963, 1965) provides additional explanatory support for how the comparison process influences work-related outcomes. The general notion of equity is that people consciously or unconsciously compare their inputs and outputs to those of a referent or peer. If the comparison results in a discrepancy, inequity is perceived to exist (Cosier & Dalton, 1983; Goodman, 1974; Stepina & Perrewe, 1991). A longitudinal study of comparative referent choice and perceptions of inequity (Stepina & Perrewe, 1991) concluded that employees’ feelings of inequity tend to remain stable over time, even when different referents are used at different points in time.

Job satisfaction is defined as an emotional state that results from evaluating one’s job and/or related work experiences (Locke, 1976). Initially, research viewed job satisfaction as a precursor of job performance, assuming that “happy workers are better workers.” The propositions within the comparison processes, however, provide support for satisfaction as a consequence rather than a predictor of performance. There is, however, still no definitive conclusion about the relationship between job performance and job satisfaction, with individual differences and situational characteristics as confounding the relationship (Ahmad, Ahmad, & Shah, 2010, Ferris et al., 2013, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Seo, Bartunek, & Barrett, 2010). The proliferation of research into understanding work motivation and its associated constructs and articulation of new theories is evidence of emergence and leads to the development stage.

Applying the Lens of the Development Stage

In the development stage of the proposed theory life cycle model, there is a proliferation of theories that surround the core work motivation framework and a sharp increase in the frequency of publications and other research outputs. We observe the emergence of several important constructs during this stage that broaden the scope of work motivation, from expectancy and equity to attributions and job satisfaction. Parallel to the proliferation of publications, there is a rise in the output of some of the field’s most notable scholars. In addition, we can see the beginnings of the maturity stage, with a more siloed approach to work motivation theory, increasingly proscribing a holistic approach to the field (Kanfer, 1992; Mitchell, 1982).

Maturity (1980s to 2000s)

With a recognition of the fragmentation of the past theories, researchers during the 1980s and 1990s sought more comprehensive and integrated models of work motivation (Kanfer, 1992; Landy & Becker, 1987) in a number of ways. First, various constructs that had been proposed during earlier periods were incorporated within a broader context. These attempts contributed to enhanced ecological validity and generalizability of work motivation theory. For example, self-efficacy and organizational justice, each an extension of expectancy and equity perceptions, respectively, became embedded within social contexts. Second, research began to integrate multiple theories and constructs within work motivation theory. For instance, researchers attempted to incorporate self-efficacy in goal-setting literature (Locke, 1991) and resource allocation theory (Vancouver, More, & Yoder, 2008). Finally, research attention was extended to incorporate affective aspects of work motivation, supplementing the earlier approaches that placed an overemphasis on cognitive processes (C. Petri, 1984; H. L. Petri, 1990).

Self-Efficacy

In the early 1980s, social learning theory, with the construct of self-efficacy, was a burgeoning theory on a path to becoming one of the most widely cited behavioral theories of our time. Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is defined as a person’s estimate of his or her capacity to orchestrate performance of a specific task. The operationalized definition of self-efficacy is similar to that of E1, which has resulted in considerable confusion and debate (Cady, Boyd, & Neubert, 2001; Eastman & Marzillier, 1984; Kirsch, 1985, 1986). For example, Kirsch (1986) questioned the validity of self-efficacy, claiming that “Bandura’s presentation of self-efficacy as a new construct has obscured the considerable body of existing knowledge about the determinants and effects of these expectancies” (p. 340). Although similarities exist, considerable empirical and conceptual consensus provides support for each construct’s distinctiveness, with self-efficacy’s being operationalized as effort-to-performance expectancy (E1) and the original concept of expectancy as performance-to-outcome expectancy (E2; e.g., Bandura, 1986; Gist, 1987; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Locke et al., 1984; Maddux, Sherer, & Rogers, 1982; Palenzuela, 1987; Wheeler, 1983).

Organizational Justice

In addition to self-efficacy, a major area of research interest in this era was organizational justice (Greenberg, 1986). Organizational justice is an extension of Adams’ (1963, 1965) equity theory, which views equity in terms of distributive justice (fairness of the compensation), procedural justice (fairness of the process by which compensation is distributed; Folger & Konovsky, 1989), and interactional justice (fairness of interpersonal relationships; Bies & Moag, 1986). Employees’ perceptions of organizational justice have been shown to influence critical organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, job performance, and OCB (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Furthermore, perceived unfairness serves as a source of job stress, which encourages employees to engage in deviant behaviors against organizations (Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001).

Goal Setting and Goal Striving

Although preliminary work on goal setting was first presented in the 1960s, goal-setting theory became established in the 1990s (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goal-setting theory addresses potential gap between assigned versus accepted goals (Locke & Latham, 1990) and focuses on whether giving or taking away rewards or providing punishment is more effective, contributing to an understanding of why certain reinforcement techniques (e.g., type of scheduling) are not always appropriate (Adam & Scott, 1971; Bandura, 1969; Costello & Zalkind, 1963; Hamner, 1977; Jablonsky & De Vries, 1972; Skinner, 1953). Toward the end of the maturity phase of work motivation theory, self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) was used to better understand the effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Realizing the limitations of their earlier theorizing (e.g., Deci, 1972; Deci & Ryan, 1975), Ryan and Deci noted the conditions under which external rewards can increase intrinsic motivation.

During this period, goal-striving processes, as the subsequent processes of goal setting, began to attract attention. Scholars began to study the self-regulatory processes through which individuals determine their effort, persistence, and direction to achieve a goal. Theories of cognitive self-regulation, for example, (Locke & Latham, 1990), the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and resource allocation theory (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989), suggest that complex goals that require individuals to allocate their attentional resources can decrease performance, as individuals have limited cognitive resources.

Emotion

Emotion or affect was first proposed as an antecedent of motivation as early as the 1960s (e.g., Arnold, 1960); however, it did not attract much scholarly attention until the early 2000s (Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009; Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004; Seo et al., 2010). Seo et al. (2010) found that affect influences the judgments of expectancy, valence, and progress, such that positive affect leads to higher evaluations of expectancy and progress, which, in turn, elicits generative, rather than defensive, action tendencies and longer persistence. Another line of research suggests that emotions turn employees’ attention away from their major tasks to the affective events that elicit the emotions (Beal, Weiss, Barros, & MacDermid, 2005). As ruminating about affective events requires a series of processes that consume individuals’ regulatory resources, it can potentially lead to productivity loss. Therefore, affective states play significant roles in motivational processes, not only in evaluating personal determinants and in selecting goals but also in enacting goals.

Applying the Lens of the Maturity Stage

An examination of work motivation during the maturity stage yields concepts/constructs, proposed during the earlier period, as being incorporated within a broader context, multiple theories and constructs as being integrated in new ways, and research attention as being extended to incorporate affective aspects, supplementing the earlier approaches that placed an overemphasis on cognitive processes. “Battle lines” were drawn, and Kirsch (1985) suggested that the concept of self-efficacy is nothing more than an “old wine with a new label” (p. 824). It is during this period that 6 of the 13 (46%) theoretical reviews of the construct were published, consistent with the notion that work motivation theory was maturing. Notably, one of these comprehensive review articles (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999), and the last in the maturity stage, was titled, “Old Friends, New Faces.” Toward the end of the maturity stage, fewer constructs were introduced, while smaller, more incremental improvements were made to the theory. Established scholars continued to publish in this field, and new scholars were left with little room to contribute innovative research, setting in motion a decline in interest to examine and publish on topics of work motivation.

Decline Toward Death or Reemergence (2000 to 2020)

Although work motivation theory appears to decline into the 2000s, it is not “dead” (e.g., Latham & Pinder, 2005; Steers et al., 2004). Current motivation scholars have incorporated a broader range of topics and issues, including the dynamic, aggregated, and implicit processes of work motivation (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Furthermore, topics such as implicit motives, subconscious goals, and cognitive biases in the stage of goal implementation have recently reemerged. The importance of implicit motives was first captured as early as the 1950s by McClelland and colleagues, who argued that the motivation for achievement is purely subconscious (e.g., McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Despite the attention (e.g., McClelland, 1987; McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989), subconscious motivation has been neglected in existing theories (Locke & Latham, 2002). With the advancement of new research methodologies and neuroscience techniques, however, the empirical investigation of implicit motivational processes became more feasible, which enriched the overall cognitive framework of work motivation.

Research on implicit motives notes that past theories, such as Vroom’s valence-instrumentality-expectancy theory and Bandura’s social cognitive theory (i.e., self-efficacy), overly focused on cognitive motivation processes (Kehr, 2004). Implicit motives are “subconsciously aroused and lead to affective preferences and implicit behavioral impulses” (Kehr, 2004, p. 480). They can include the needs for achievement, communion, autonomy/growth, and status (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013), which can be aroused by personality traits or situational stimuli. These constructs have been shown to play a significant role in shaping long-term action tendencies, while explicit motives or values contribute to cognitive goal selection. Empirical research also supports the influence of implicit motives, such that both implicit and explicit motives significantly and independently influence performance (Shantz & Latham, 2009). More important, the congruence between implicit and explicit motives is shown to serve as a precursor of intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, the influence of subconsciously primed goals on performance can last as long as 4 days (Latham & Piccolo, 2012).

Death or Reemergence

From Locke’s (1975) early review to the most recent work by Kanfer and Chen (2016), scholars have attempted to reorganize various perspectives and to integrate fresh perspectives into work motivation theory. As a result, work motivation theory has made a tremendous impact on the field of management science, even as we witness the continual decline in the number of related publications (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Kanfer et al. (2017) suggested that, despite a decline in published articles, major advances have occurred in the field of study.

Modern management theories have been under criticism for moving away from reality (Lachman et al., 2015), and motivation theories may not be an exception. The field of work motivation has included active scholarly debates on the psychological processes through which employees exert effort and improve performance, and management theories have evolved from simple approaches in earlier stages to more comprehensive frameworks that take into account the dynamic and implicit nature of motivation. As we look to the future, however, work motivation theory could be in jeopardy without an alternative narrative to revitalize the well-defined, but stagnant flow of theoretical streams.

Applying the Lens of the Decline Stage

During the decline stage of the proposed theory life cycle model, published articles continue a downward trend. Nevertheless, there is a call for the reemergence of motivation theory that is critically important to the viability of organizations and societies and the well-being of individuals (Kanfer & Chen, 2016; Kanfer et al., 2017; Ryan, 2012). The need for an integration of theories across disciplines has been consistently recommended (e.g., Locke & Latham, 2004), yet only a few researchers have attempted to take such an interdisciplinary approach (e.g., Breaugh et al., 2018). Consider, for example, the work of Steel and König (2006), who combined picoeconomics, expectancy theory, prospect theory, and need theory to formulate an integrative framework. These authors suggest that future research in work motivation should incorporate computer simulation technologies to test the dynamic processes of motivation. Extending this notion, we encourage motivation researchers to collaborate with others in other disciplines, using innovative technologies. For instance, social cognitive neuroscience can provide us with useful information that can reveal subtle and implicit motivation processes.

Kanfer et al. (2017), who encourage the reemergence of work motivation theory, offer 10 directions for future research, including field experiments that focus on bridging the gap between research and practice. These recommendations are particularly important when considering the current emphasis in academia on “compelling business scholars to shift their priorities away from publishing in esoteric journals and toward generating more responsible, relevant, and widely read scholarship” (Bisoux, 2018, p. 22).

Implications for Research, Teaching, and Practice

What are the benefits of the proposed theory life cycle model? What are some creative uses and applications of the model? At the heart of the answers to these questions is the notion of advancing and applying theory through innovative research strategies, accelerated learning experiences, and robust intervention design. We will discuss each of these and provide examples for further consideration. Reciprocally, we ask that both academics and practitioners help identify novel applications, developmental improvements, and innovative uses of the proposed theory life cycle model.

Research Implications and Recommendations

There are various implications for researchers to use the theory life cycle model, including developing research strategies that apply the model to other theories. For example, we believe that it is an opportune time to use the theory life cycle model to conduct research on employee engagement theory. In the past decade, there has been a rapid popularization of this construct as a key determinant of individual and organizational performance, gaining competitive advantage, and achieving sustainable success in turbulent times. Given the perceived importance of employee engagement in contemporary organizations, employee engagement is the focal point of many companies’ human capital efforts and strategies in relation to the management of talent, performance, and reward. Not only has the employee engagement construct received widespread attention from practitioners but it also has seen increasing interest from scholars, and, as a result, there has been a proliferation of studies into this organizational phenomenon. Using the theory life cycle model, we see an opportunity to analyze the theories that underpin the employee engagement construct to understand how it is positioned in the theory life cycle and what the implications are for the next stage of development and the theory’s future. There is a view among some scholars that employee engagement is “mutton dressed as lamb,” just another example of repacking old-school theories of job involvement, organizational commitment, and even work motivation and “refreshing” their appearance. Future research could determine what aspects of employee engagement encapsulate related organizational behavior theories and identify what is new and different.

Leadership theory provides another example for possible application. Leadership theory has a long history and follows a similar theoretical development to that of work motivation. Leadership is core to all aspects of personal and organizational dynamics and success, and we believe that future research could apply the proposed theory life cycle model to this field of study.

These are just some examples of how the theory life cycle model can be applied, and we hope that others will be identified. Applying the theory life cycle model may assist us to better distinguish between what is established in mature theories and what is innovative. In this way, the model may help us plot new trajectories for further innovation in business and organizational behavior studies.

Teaching Implications and Recommendations

Academics who teach theory to students will appreciate the difficulties that students experience in understanding the complex nature and application of theories as well as the relationship between theories and practice. Moreover, students often do not appreciate the importance of historical context and the narrative that centers on the evolution of enduring theories that form the basis of what we understand about organizational behavior and dynamics. As a result, we find the common situation of students’ rote learning definitions and characteristics of theory and academics’ taking a “theory-light” or dumbing-down approach to teaching theories, with a focus on practice or application. Applying the theory life cycle model in teaching theories would help students understand the context and underlying development that led to the current perceived usefulness and relevance of theories. Such an approach, which enables students to gain insight into the historical development of theories, that is, learn about their rudimentary forms, how they became sophisticated, interconnected theories, and the journey in between, could make teaching theory more interesting and engaging for students. This approach also would encourage students to be more critical readers and consumers of competing theories and not just accept them at face value.

We further offer a few applications for the proposed theory life cycle model in doctoral education and research. Doctoral students who are beginning their dissertation process could benefit from using this model to guide them in tracing the life cycle of theories in which they are interested and to develop meaningful research questions, which would lead to new theory and innovative empirical research (Turner et al., 2018). Furthermore, the model could be used in a variety of ways for doctoral education, in which students are charged with reviewing the literature and providing a critical analysis thereof. For example, in a doctoral course, students could examine their area of research interest, possibly their dissertation topic, through the lens of the theory life cycle. The students could write up their analysis and submit it to each other, inviting feedback and critique to help them take their analysis to a deeper level. Another interesting exercise would be to have students independently review the literature in a specific domain, that is, the same theory for all students. Each student would be asked to visually and verbally describe the theory’s development through the lens of the life cycle model, to suggest in what stage they believe the theory currently resides, and to offer suggestions for the development of the theory. They could create a wall chart that integrates their perspectives into one meta-map or collective life cycle analysis. Having each student present his or her findings and comparing and contrasting their findings would lead to deeper learning and may even spark new ideas.

Academics who are considering where to direct their own research could use the model to develop a viable research agenda and strategy. For example, the model can help in crafting one’s research philosophy or narrative, often used in decisions of hiring, tenure, promotion, and merit. On a practical note, thoughtfully reflecting on where one can make the strongest theoretical contribution to the development of a field or discipline is an important consideration that has many consequences, and the model offers a reflective framework that would be beneficial in this regard.

Practice Implications and Recommendations

In the field of management and organization development, evidence-based management approaches, with their implications for the design of specific interventions and subsequent evaluations, are gaining attention. Rynes and Bartunek (2017) define evidence-based management as the discerning use of knowledge and expertise to guide the design of interventions and on which to base decision making. This particular approach began in the field of medicine during the 1990s and has since expanded into a variety of professions, including those in the field of organization development. The fundamental assumption of this approach is the need to incorporate evidence informed by research, case reports, behavioral science principles, and informed opinions when making decisions. When judiciously used, organizations and communities that are undergoing planned change can benefit from more robust interventions, that is, interventions that have the intended impact despite any violations to their underlying design assumptions (Cady, Medley, & Stiegler, 2018).

As suggested above, engaging in management practices that are deemed credible and effective requires an explicit connection between theory and the selection of a tool, system, or process. Too often, practitioners use anecdotal accounts and articles in the popular press to guide their designs and subsequent rationale. Applying the theory life cycle lens and mind-set ensures that a practitioner is adequately versed in the historical and current developments and can evaluate the literature and discern rigor (or the lack thereof). A theory-based approach ensures choices that are grounded in and supported by evidence that comes from research, cases, and best practice that were derived using a scientific method of enquiry. In addition, the theory life cycle approach can help with the evaluation of organizational interventions. It offers the practitioner a lens for understanding the expected outcomes of an intervention, indicators of success, and measures to empirically demonstrate outcomes.

Finally, mapping the life cycle of relevant change management theories, approaches, or models provides change professionals with a menu of variables to use in designing, implementing, and evaluating change initiatives. Drawing from our examination of work motivation, we find that there are attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes that can be assessed. There are also many other well-established measures that lend themselves to a variety of action-research initiatives, including performance, job satisfaction, employee engagement, intention to quit or stay, and employee turnover, and to theory that explains the process of change.

Conclusion

And yet, no bigot of a growthless creed,

He knows that, as the suns successive rise,

With each day’s dawning cometh each day’s need,

And Thought progresses though a theory dies.

–Nil desperandum Teucro duce. Horace (Loughran, 1894, p. 158)

The proposed theory life cycle model offers a structured way to reflect on and advance one’s evidence-based work. Through our analysis, we were able to connect themes and trends, reorganized around a proposed theory life cycle model that allows both scholars and practitioners opportunities, for example, to uncover patterns that inspire theoretical innovation, for students to accelerate their learning, and for practitioners to be more credible and effective. It was not our intention to provide a comprehensive integration of work motivation; instead, we intended to demonstrate how the theory life cycle model works and to show its efficacy in teaching, and research, and practice applications. As we move into a digital age with information being accumulated at exponential rates, the model offers a way to simplify and (re)organize our thinking about rapidly advancing theoretical insights.

Those who embrace a theory life cycle lens or mind-set will approach organization development and change with a respect for the foundations of the field and its historical roots, along with a curiosity for the interdisciplinary nature of the work. In addition to being more competent and credible, the proposed framework can help scholars, teachers, and practitioners be more confident in their recommendations because they can provide plausible explanations for the “Why,” “How,” and the “So what” questions. Finally, the theory life cycle provides us with a framework for recognizing how advancing knowledge is like a spiral, enabling, and encouraging thoughtful innovation. We invite scholars, practitioners, and students to use the theory life cycle model to see further and to recognize the basis of theories in those who have come before us. Let us honor them by building on their wisdom, setting the stage for future generations to see further than we can.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Jenny Joohyung Kim for her support on an early version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Steven H. Cady

References

Adam

E. E.

Scott

W. E.

(1971). The application of behavioral conditioning procedures to the problem of quality control. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 175-193.

Adams

J. S.

(1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 422-436.

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Ahmad

Shah

I. A.

(2010). Relationship between job satisfaction, job performance attitude towards work and organizational commitment. European Journal of Social Sciences, 18, 257-267.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Alderfer

C. P.

(1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-175.

Ambrose

M. L.

Kulik

C. T.

(1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 231-292.

Anderson

C. R.

Zeithaml

C. P.

(1984). Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and business performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 5-24.

Arnold

M. B.

(1960). Emotion and personality. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

10.

Bandura

(1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

11.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

12.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Bandura

(1990). Some reflections on reflections. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 101-105.

14.

Baron

R. A.

(1991). Motivation in work settings: Reflections on the core of organizational research. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 1-8.

15.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132-153.

16.

Beal

D. J.

Weiss

H. M.

Barros

MacDermid

S. M.

(2005). An episodic process model of affective influences on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1054-1068.

17.

Bies

R. J.

Moag

J. F.

(1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In Lewicki

R. J.

Sheppard

B. H.

Bazerman

M. H.

(Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

18.

Bisoux

(2018, August 30). Can b-schools rethink research? BizEd: AACSB International. Retrieved from https://bized.aacsb.edu/articles/2018/09/can-b-schools-rethink-research

19.

Breaugh

Ritz

Alfes

(2018). Work motivation and public service motivation: Disentangling varieties of motivation and job satisfaction. Public Management Review, 20, 1423-1443. doi:10.1080/14719037.2017.1400580

20.

Buss

A. R.

(1978), Causes and reasons in attribution theory: A critical perspective. New York, NY: Irvington.

21.

Cady

S. H.

Boyd

D. G.

Neubert

M. J.

(2001). Multilevel performance probability: A meta-analytic integration of expectancy and self-efficacy. Psychological Reports, 88, 1077-1090.

22.

Cady

S. H.

Medley

Stiegler

C. T.

(2018). Assessing change: Integrating Kirkpatrick’s and Phillips’ models into the five levels of evaluation. Organization Development Journal, 36, 55-66.

23.

Campbell

J. P.

Dunnette

M. D.

Lawler

E. E.

Weick

K. E.

Jr. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

24.

Campbell

J. P.

McCloy

R. A.

Oppler

S. H.

Sager

C. E.

(1993). A theory of performance. In Schmitt

Borman

(Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Campbell

J. P.

Pritchard

R. D.

(1976). Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 63-130). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

26.

Carver

C. S.

Scheier

M. F.

(2008). Feedback processes in the simultaneous regulation of action and affect. In Shah

J. Y.

Gardner

W. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 308-324). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

27.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

28.

Cosier

R. A.

Dalton

D. R.

(1983). Equity theory and time: A reformation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 311-319.

29.

Costello

T. W.

Zalkind

S. S.

(1963). Psychology and administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

30.

Davis

(1946). The motivation of the underprivileged worker. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 3, 241-253.

31.

Deci

E. L.

(1972). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 113-120.

32.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley.

33.

Eastman

Marzillier

J. S.

(1984). Theoretical and methodological difficulties in Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 213-229.

34.

Ferris

D. L.

Johnson

R. E.

Rosen

C. C.

Djurdjevic

Chang

C. H. D.

Tan

J. A.

(2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relationship between core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 342-353.

35.

Folger

Konovsky

M. A.

(1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

36.

Foo

M. D.

M. A.

Baron

R. A.

(2009). How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs’ affect and venture effort. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1086-1094.

37.

Fox

Spector

P. E.

Miles

(2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.

38.

Gbededo

M. A.

Liyanage

Garza-Reyes

J. A.

(2018). Towards a life cycle sustainability analysis: A systematic review of approaches to sustainable manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 184, 1002-1015.

39.

Gist

M. E.

(1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-805.

40.

Gist

M. E.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183-211.

41.

Goodman

P. S.

(1974). An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 170-195.

42.

Greenberg

(1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340-342.

43.

Hamner

W. C.

(1977). Reinforcement theory. In Tosi

H. L.

Hamner

W. C.

(Eds.), Organizational behavior and management: A contingency approach (pp. 93-112). New York, NY: John Wiley.

44.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.

45.

Herzberg

Mausner

Snyderman

B. B.

(1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

46.

Hirsch

P. M.

Levin

D. Z.

(1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10, 199-212. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.2.199

47.

Jablonsky

De Vries

(1972). Operant conditioning principles extrapolated to the theory of management. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 340-358.

48.

Judge

T. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Bono

J. E.

Patton

G. K.

(2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.

49.

Kanfer

(1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 1-53.

50.

Kanfer

(2012). Work motivation: Theory, practice, and future directions. In Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 455-495). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

51.

Kanfer

Ackerman

P. L.

(1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 657-690.

52.

Kanfer

Chen

(2016). Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 6-19.

53.

Kanfer

Frese

Johnson

R. E.

(2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 338-355.

54.

Katzell

R. A.

(1980). Work attitudes, motivation, and performance. Professional Psychology, 11, 409-420.

55.

Katzell

R. A.

Thompson

D. E.

(1990a). An integrative model of work attitudes, motivation, and performance. Human Performance, 3, 63-85.

56.

Katzell

R. A.

Thompson

D. E.

(1990b). Work motivation: Theory and practice. American Psychologist, 45, 144-153.

57.

Kehr

H. M.

(2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and perceived abilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of Management Review, 29, 479-499.

58.

Kelley

H. H.

(1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.

59.

Kirsch

(1985). Self-efficacy and expectancy: Old wine with new labels. Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 824-830.

60.

Kirsch

(1986). Early research on self-efficacy: What we already know without knowing we knew. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 4, 339-358.

61.

Klein

H. J.

(1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.

62.

Korman

A. K.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Badin

I. J.

(1977). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 175-196.

63.

Lachman

J. L.

Butterfield

E. C.

(2015). Cognitive psychology and information processing: An introduction. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

64.

Lampel

Meyer

A. D.

(2008). Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: How conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 1025-1035.

65.

Landy

F. J.

Becker

W. S.

(1987). Motivation theory reconsidered. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 1-38.

66.

Latham

G. P.

Ernst

C. T.

(2006). Keys to motivating tomorrow’s workforce. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 181-198.

67.

Latham

G. P.

Piccolo

R. F.

(2012). The effect of context-specific versus nonspecific subconscious goals on employee performance. Human Resource Management, 51, 511-523.

68.

Latham

G. P.

Pinder

C. C.

(2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.

69.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

70.

Leiman

S. Z.

(1993). From the pages of traditions: Dwarfs on the shoulders of giants. Traditions, 27, 90-94.

71.

Levitt

(1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43, 81-94. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.2.199

72.

Locke

E. A.

(1975). Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 26, 457-480.

73.

Locke

E. A.

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

74.

Locke

E. A.

(1991). Goal theory vs. control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 9-28.

75.

Locke

E. A.

(1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In Maehr

Pintrich

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 375-412). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

76.

Locke

E. A.

Frederick

Lee

Bobko

(1984). Effects of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241-251.

77.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

78.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.

79.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 388-403.

80.

Loughran

E. B.

(1894). Neath austral skies. London, England: Melville, Mullen & Slade.

81.

Maddux

J. E.

Sherer

Rogers

R. W.

(1982). Self-efficacy expectancy and outcome expectancy: Their relationship and their effects on behavioral intentions. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 6, 207-211.

82.

Martinko

M. J.

Harvey

Dasborough

M. T.

(2011). Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 144-149.

83.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

84.

McClelland

D. C.

(1987). Human motivation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

85.

McClelland

D. C.

Atkinson

J. W.

Clark

R. A.

Lowell

E. L.

(1953). The achievement motive. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

86.

McClelland

D. C.

Clark

R. A.

Roby

T. B.

Atkinson

J. W.

(1949). The projective expression of needs: IV: The effect of the need for achievement on thematic apperception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 242-255.

87.

McClelland

D. C.

Koestner

Weinberger

(1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690-702.

88.

McClelland

D. C.

Liberman

(1949). The effect of need for achievement on recognition of need-related words. Journal of Personality, 18, 236-251.

89.

Mento

A. J.

Locke

E. A.

Klein

H. J.

(1992). Relationship of goal level to valence and instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 395-405.

90.

Meyer

A. D.

Gaba

Colwell

(2005). Organizing far from equilibrium: Non-linear change in organizational fields. Organization Science, 16, 456-473.

91.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.

92.

Mitchell

T. R.

(1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7, 80-88.

93.

Newton

Keenan

(1991). Further analysis of the dispositional argument in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 781-787.

94.

Nyborg

(2003). The sociology of psychometric and bio-behavioral sciences: A case study of destructive social reductionism and collective fraud in 20th-century academia. In Nyborg

(Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur Jensen (pp. 411-502). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

95.

Palenzuela

D. L.

(1987). The expectancy construct within the social learning theories of Rotter and Bandura: A reply to Kirsch’s approach. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 2, 437-452.

96.

Petri

(1984). Work motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

97.

Petri

H. L.

(1990). Motivation: Theory, research, and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

98.

Pinder

(1984). Work Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Forestman.

99.

Porter

L. W.

Lawler

E. E.

(1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

100.

Reddy

S. K.

Pellegrini

(2012). Retail and marketing channels (RLE retailing and distribution). Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge.

101.

Roethlisberger

F. J.

Dickson

W. J.

(1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

102.

Rotundo

Sackett

P. R.

(2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66-80.

103.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Motivation and the organization of human behavior. In Ryan

R. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 3-12). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

104.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

105.

Rynes

S. L.

Bartunek

J. M.

(2017). Evidence-based management: Foundations, development, controversies and future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 235-261.

106.

Seo

M. G.

Barrett

L. F.

Bartunek

J. M.

(2004). The role of affective experience in work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29, 423-439.

107.

Seo

M. G.

Bartunek

J. M.

Barrett

L. F.

(2010). The role of affective experience in work motivation: Test of a conceptual model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 951-968.

108.

Shantz

Latham

G. P.

(2009). An exploratory field experiment of the effect of subconscious and conscious goals on employee performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109, 9-17.

109.

Silva

A. L.

Guerrini

F. M.

(2018). Self-organized innovation networks from the perspective of complex systems: A comprehensive conceptual review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31, 962-983.

110.

Skinner

B. F.

(1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.

111.

Steel

König

C. J.

(2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management Review, 31, 889-913.

112.

Steers

R. M.

Mowday

R. T.

Shapiro

D. L.

(2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29, 379-387.

113.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1987). Motivation and work behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

114.

Stepina

L. P.

Perrewe

P. L.

(1991). The stability of comparative referent choice and feelings of inequity: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 185-200.

115.

Tan-Koi

W. C.

Leow

P. C.

Teo

Y. Y.

(2018). Applications of pharmacogenomics in regulatory science: A product life cycle review. Pharmacogenomics Journal, 18, 359-366.

116.

Taylor

M. S.

Fisher

C. D.

Ilgen

D. R.

(1984). Individuals’ reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2, 81-124.

117.

Turner

J. R.

Baker

Kellner

(2018). Theoretical literature review: Tracing the life cycle of a theory and its verified and falsified statements. Human Resource Development Review, 17, 34-61 doi:10.1177/1534484317749680

118.

Vancouver

J. B.

K. M.

Yoder

R. J.

(2008). Self-efficacy and resource allocation: Support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 35-47.

119.

Vernon

(1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80, 190-207.

120.

Vonderembse

M. A.

Uppal

Huang

S. H.

Dismukes

J. P.

(2006). Designing supply chains: Towards theory development. International Journal of Production Economics, 100, 223-238.

121.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

122.

Wasson

(1960). What is “new” about a new product? Journal of Marketing, 24, 52-56.

123.

Weiner

(1974). An attributional interpretation of expectancy-value theory. In Weiner

(Ed.), Cognitive views of human motivation (pp. 51-69). New York, NY: Academic Press.

124.

Weiner

(1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

125.

Weiner

(2012). An attribution theory of motivation. In Van Lange

P. A.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

126.

Wheeler

K. G.

(1983). Comparisons of self-efficacy and expectancy models of occupational preferences for college males and females. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 73-78.