Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Control theory and understanding motivated behavior: A different conclusion

  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the preceding article it was argued that control theory is not a useful paradigm for understanding work motivation. In doing so, three primary criticisms were presented: (a) that control theory, as originally formulated, does not adequately describe human behavior, (b) that modifications of control theory to describe human behavior have not been successful, and (c) that the use of logical deductions to develop a control theory model of work motivation is less efficacious than a grounded theory approach. In this reply, it will be shown that (a) the first criticism is not incorrect but is an inappropriate basis for criticism, (b) statements regarding modified control theory models are either inaccurate or premature, and (c) both inductive and deductive reasoning play an important role in theory development. In addressing these issues and in discussing the distinct advantages of current control theory models it will be shown that control theory does provide a viable paradigm for understanding work motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Campion, M. A., & Lord, R. G. (1982). A control systems conceptualization of the goal setting and changing process.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30 265–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981).Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology.Psychological Bulletin, 92 111–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, D. M. (1968). The impact on managers of frequency of feedback.Academy of Management Journal, 11 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. (1969).Theory building. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, R. (1976). Theory building in applied areas. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago Rand-McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earley, P. C., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1989).Task strategy and judgments in goal settings: Effects of learning goals and training sequencing on performance. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989a). Control theory and the perception of work environments: The effects of focus of attention on affective and behavioral reactions to work.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43 406–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989b).Control theory and understanding motivated behavior. Debate at the 4th Annual Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Convention, Boston.

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., & Brief, A. P. (1988). Self-regulation in the workplace: Towards a unified approach to understanding worker attitudes and behaviors. In R. Schuler (Ed.),Readings in personnel and human resource management. St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., & Williams, C. R. (1987). Goal importance, self-focus, and the goal setting process.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 204–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. F., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 349–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Lyon, H. L. (1970). A study of the impact of management by objectives on perceived need satisfaction.Personnel Psychology, 23 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Effects of participative vs. assigned goals and feedback in a multitrial task.Motivation and Emotion, 12 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1990). Effects of valence, expectancies, and goal-performance discrepancies in single and multiple goal environments.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 194–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation.Academy of Management Review, 14 150–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J. (1990).Goal hierarchies and the goal setting process. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University.

  • Klein, H. J., Whitener, E. M., & Ilgen, D. R. (1990). The role of goal specificity in the goal setting process.Motivation and Emotion, 14 179–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1958). Psychology of success and failure. In C. L. Stacey & M. F. Demartino (Eds.),Understanding human motivation. Cleveland: Howard Allen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, E. H., & Brewer, W. F. (1980). Memory for goal-directed events.Cognitive Psychology, 12 412–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3 157–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N. D., & Knerr, C. S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal setting and performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5 135–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., Chah, D., Harrison, S., & Lustgarten, N. (1989). Separating the effects of goal specificity from goal difficulty.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43 270–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1989–1980.Psychological Bulletin, 90 125–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G. (1989).Control theory and understanding motivated behavior. Debate at the 4th Annual Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Convention, Boston.

  • Lord, R. G., & Hanges, P. J. (1987). A control systems model of organizational motivation: Theoretical development and applied implications.Behavioral Science, 32 161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G., & Kernan, M. C. (1989). Applications of control theory to work settings. In W. A. Hershberger (Ed.),Volitional action. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, C. A. (1935).Incentives: Some experimental studies (Report No. 72). Great Britain: Industrial Health Research Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, K. D., & House, R. (1978). Paradigm development in the social sciences: A proposed research strategy.Academy of Management Review, 3 7–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsui, T., Okada, A., & Inoshita, O. (1983). Mechanisms of feedback affecting task performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31 114–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference,Science, 146 347–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance: A preliminary test of some control theory propositions.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1961).The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Science Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, W. T. (1973).Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, W. T. (1978). Quantitative analysis of purposive systems: Some spadework at the foundation of scientific psychology.Psychological Review, 85 417–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990).Choice of task goal under conditions of general and specific affective inducement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.

  • Stablein, R. E. (1989).Structure of debate in organizational studies. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Management. Washington, DC.

  • Taylor, F. W. (1911).The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. S. (1983).A control theory integration of performance goal and performance feedback research. Symposium at the 43rd National Academy of Management Convention, Dallas.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vance, R. J., & Colella, A. (1990). Effects of two types of feedback on goal acceptance and personal goals.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 68–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. (1948).Cybernetics: Control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management and Human Resources, The Ohio State University, 1775 College Road, 43210, Columbus, Ohio

    Howard J. Klein

Authors
  1. Howard J. Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Thanks to John R. Hollenbeck for his helpful comments on this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klein, H.J. Control theory and understanding motivated behavior: A different conclusion. Motiv Emot 15, 29–44 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991474

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991474

Keywords

Search

Navigation