an integrative model of effort propensity

Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 274–289www.elsevier.com/locate/humres

An integrative model of effort propensity

Mel Schnake ⁎

Department of Managementl, Langdale College of Business Administration, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698, USA

Abstract

Over twenty years ago, Mitchell [Mitchell, T.R. (1982) Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy ofManagement Review, 7:80–88.] called for research which integrates and competitively tests the multitude of motivation theoriescompetitively. Yet, with few exceptions, theories of motivation tend to be narrow in focus. However, many motivation theoriesincorporate similar predictor variables such as job satisfaction, perceived equity, and organizational commitment, suggesting thattheory integration is warranted. In this paper, several literatures are reviewed which deal with employee effort at different levels (e.g.,withholding effort, offering extra effort). “Effort propensity” is offered as an appropriate integrating variable, and an integrative modelof effort propensity which pulls these various literatures together and stimulates the type of research described by Mitchell [Mitchell,T.R. (1982) Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7:80–88.] is proposed.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Effort; Motivation; Job performance; Effort propensity

1. An integrative model of effort propensity

Employee effort, both the offering and the withholding of it, has long been of interest to managers and researchers.Many theories have been proposed over the last forty-plus years which attempt to predict when employees will (orwon't) expend effort on behalf of the organization, while other theories have been offered which attempt to predict howmuch effort will be offered (Adams, 1975; Herzberg, 1968; Hackman and Lawler, 1971; Locke, 1975; Luthans andKreitner, 1975; Maslow, 1970; Skinner, 1969; Vroom, 1964). While they have clearly added to our understanding ofemployee work behavior, these theories have tended to be rather specific and narrow. Over twenty-five years ago,Mitchell (1982) called for studies which integrate theories and test various theories competitively. Miner (2005,p. 130), referring to two prominent motivational theories, has also suggested advantages to integrating theories, “Onemight think that telescoping the two theories would produce a much more powerful composite, giving expectancytheory a set of applications to practice and OBMod a set of processes to go in the black box that has been the organismor person.” Few such integrating studies have been undertaken, and theories of employee effort tend to remain narrowin scope. At the same time, many of these theories incorporate many of the same predictor variables, such as jobsatisfaction, perceived equity, and organizational commitment, thus suggesting that theory integration is warranted.

Steers, Mowday, and Shapiro (2004) noted that theoretical work on motivation declined sharply in the 1990s, withmost published articles focusing on minor extensions to existing theories. As they point out, this type of research is

⁎ Tel.: +1 229 245 3822.E-mail address: [email protected].

1053-4822/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.07.003

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.07.003

275M. Schnake / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 274–289

helpful, but theoretical work is also needed to advance our understanding of motivation. Locke and Latham (2004) alsorecently called for research which examines motivation from new perspectives. They state “in order to progress further,work motivation needs to be studied from new perspectives” (Locke and Latham, 2004, p. 400). They advocatedeveloping “metatheory,” that is, theories which are more complete and practical.

Exceptions to the above criticism of motivation theories include Evans (1986), who developed an “integrative”model of general motivation based largely on social learning theory (Bandura, 1977); Klein (1989) who developed a“metatheory” of motivation based on control theory, and Locke (1997) who proposed an “integrative model of workmotivation). Evan's model “suggests that goal setting has its main effects on motivation through the performer's prideor shame in performance and his or her sense of efficacy or feeling that he or she can function at the desired level ofperformance” (Evans, 1986, p. 205). However, while drawing together several theories of motivation to perform “in-role” tasks, this model does not include the full range of effort propensities (i.e., the tendency to offer a particular levelof effort). In Klein's (1989) Integrated Control Theory Model, a feedback loop is the basis for providing information toensure the attainment of goals. Motivation is determined by a hierarchy of feedback loops in which individuals perceivediscrepancies between current states and desired states and initiate behavior designed to eliminate these discrepancies.While this model does attempt to integrate a number of motivational theories, it does not account for alternativeexplanations of the same level of effort (e.g., high intrinsic motivation versus OCB versus calculative compliance).Locke's (1997) Integrative Model of Work Motivation begins with employee needs, moves through acquired needs andmotives, then on to goal choice, and finally to goals and self-efficacy. The model incorporates established empiricalrelationships from personality theory, expectancy (VIE — Valence–Instrumentality–Expectancy) theory, jobcharacteristics theory, attribution theory, goal theory, and equity theory. However, the model focuses on in-roleperformance and thus does not include factors which lead employees to withhold effort, nor does it explicitly deal withextra-role performance or extra-effort. None of the models deal with the full range of effort propensity.

Another factor which suggests an integrative theory of motivation may be appropriate, and that effort propensity maybe an appropriate integrating variable, is the issue of discriminant validity. Studies of behavior (i.e., performance) oftenuse observer ratings to measure the criterion variable. However, observers may have difficulty distinguishing betweendifferent forms of “extra effort” such as organizational citizenship behavior, social facilitation, high intrinsic motivation;just as they may have difficulty distinguishing between different forms of “withholding effort” such as social loafing,lack of extrinsic motivation, learned helplessness. Even observers of “in-role performance”may be unable to distinguishbetween incidents of moderate motivation, calculative compliance, ingratiation, etc. Using effort propensity mayeliminate these difficulties and provide a clearer understanding of the influences on employee decisions to offer orwithhold effort. The decision to offer, or withhold, effort is the common denominator; the basic decision common to allthese phenomena which typically are investigated independently. “Effort propensity”may be an appropriate dependentvariable to integrate various motivation theories and related literatures. In this paper, literature relevant to effortpropensity at several levels; that is, from offering effort resulting in extra-role performance to the complete withholdingof effort or turnover, is reviewed. Based on this literature, an exploratory model to integrate these literatures is proposed.

The focus of this paper is on developing an integrative model of work effort which, hopefully, will stimulate the typeof research Mitchell (1982) called for over 25 years ago. A new construct, effort propensity, is offered as a variablewhich may help integrate several streams of related research. Effort propensity is the tendency or predisposition to offera particular level of effort. Effort propensity can range from completely withholding effort, to offering just enougheffort to comply with in-role job demands, to offering levels of effort beyond one’s formally prescribed job duties.

1.1. Effort propensity

Drawing on Kidwell and Bennett (1993), “effort propensity” is used in this integrative model rather than actualeffort. In drawing together three different literatures on withholding effort, Kidwell and Bennett (1993) argue that thelikelihood that an employee will give less than full effort on a job related task is the common denominator across thethree phenomena (i.e., shirking, social loafing, and free riding). Further, “propensity to withhold effort (PWE)” may bemore informative because it can be applied across different tasks, settings, and individual differences, while “shirking,social loafing, and free riding describe specific reasons and contexts in which effort is withheld” (Kidwell & Bennett,1993, p. 430). Similar behavioral tendencies have been incorporated in a number of literatures. For example,“propensity to turnover” is included in many models of voluntary turnover (Hom & Griffeth, 1995). Such behavioraltendencies are seen as being capable of directly activating behavior (Lee & Mitchell, 1994).

276 M. Schnake / Human Resource Management Review 17 (2007) 274–289

However, while it was not one of their goals to cover the entire effort propensity continuum, the Kidwell and Bennett(1993) model is limited in that it covers effort propensity only to withhold effort. The other end of the effort propensitycontinuum, that is, the propensity to offer various levels of effort, is also of great interest to researchers and managers.Including the propensity to offer effort at levels required (i.e., in-role performance) and beyond (i.e., extra-roleperformance) may be more informative not only because it can be applied across different tasks, settings, and individualdifferences; but perhaps more importantly because of measurement difficulties with actual effort. For example, mostmeasures of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) employ supervisory ratings of employee OCB. However,observers such as supervisors may be incorrect in their assessment of the behavior they observe. That is, it may beimpossible for an observer to differentiate between an act of extra effort such as OCB and acts of calculative compliance,ingratiation, high intrinsic motivation, social facilitation, and the like. Measures of employee propensity to offer aparticular level of effort may offer additional insight into the mechanisms of employeemotivation.While several distinctlevels of effort propensity are identified in the model, it may be helpful to view effort propensity on a continuum rangingfrom offering substantial extra effort on one end, to complete withdrawal (turnover) on the other (see Fig. 1). Support forthis view comes from the “progression-of-withdrawal” literature (Hulin, 1991; Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985;Rosse' &Miller, 1984; Rushbult, Farrell, Rogers, &Mainous, 1988). Progression-of-withdrawal suggests that turnover,or ultimate withdrawal, is one of many responses available to dissatisfied, alienated employees. In other words,dissatisfied employees may reduce their contributions (i.e., effort) to the job before or instead of actually withdrawingcompletely. Thus, “turnover is commonly viewed as belonging to a family of withdrawal behaviors that physicallydistance employees from unpleasant work settings” (Hom & Griffeth, 1995, p. 121). An alternative model, with similarpredictions is Rosse's (Rosse' & Hulin, 1985; Rosse' &Miller, 1984) employee adaptation approach. This model viewsjob withdrawal as a general process of adaptation to work. Adaptation to work is a process by which dissatisfaction isreduced through behavioral methods (such as taking long breaks) or cognitive methods (such as daydreaming); all formsof withholding effort. Further support for a continuum of effort can be found in Katz and Kahn (1978) who divided job

Fig. 1. A continuum effort propensities.


performance into three categories: (1) joining and staying in the organization, (2) meeting prescribed performance roles,and (3) innovatively and spontaneously going beyond prescribed performance roles. There is an implicit difference inlevel of effort required across these three categories.

Fig. 1 shows effort propensity as a continuum ranging from ultimate withholding of effort, turnover, to offering extraeffort such as organizational citizenship. While a continuum, the figure shows, for illustrative purposes, four levels ofeffort propensity; propensity to turnover, propensity to withhold effort, propensity to offer expected or minimallyacceptable levels of effort (in-role job performance), and propensity to offer extra effort (extra-role performance). Thesevarious levels of effort propensity are not intended to be viewed as equidistant points on the continuum. Also depictedare the work outcome phenomena associated with each level of effort propensity. Examples of offering extra effortinclude organizational citizenship behavior, contextual performance, prosocial organizational behavior, calculativecompliance/ingratiation, and social facilitation. Offering expected or minimally expected effort is, of course, in-role jobperformance. Examples of withholding effort include learned helplessness, social loafing/shirking/free-riding, andtardiness/absenteeism. Finally, propensity to turnover, of course, may ultimately result in turnover.

2. An integrative model of effort propensities

Many of previous theories of employee motivation have incorporated several common predictor variables, (such asjob satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceived equity). Although, independently, authors have typicallynot considered themselves as examining the same phenomenon, in a sense they are all attempting to predict employeeeffort, albeit at different ends of the effort continuum. Rather than focusing on those situations where employees maydecide to withhold effort, or those in which employees exert just enough effort to marginally perform their jobs, orthose in which employees offer extra-role effort, an integrative model which views effort propensity on a continuumranging from complete withdrawal or turnover to voluntarily offering extra effort may provide some focus to futureresearch efforts and increase our understanding of these phenomena.

The proposed Integrative Model of Effort Propensity, which appears in Fig. 2, draws upon Hom and Griffeth's(1995) Integrative Model of Turnover Determinants. It combines their basic integrative model with other relatedliteratures. However, since the Hom and Griffeth (1995) model applies primarily to the lower end of the effort

Fig. 2. An integrative model of effort propensity.


propensity continuum, (i.e., propensity to turnover), other literatures are used as the basis for including other predictorsinto the integrative model. The Hom and Griffeth (1995) model identifies a number of specific antecedents of both jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment. For a full discussion of these antecedents and their relationship to jobsatisfaction and organizational commitment, the reader is referred to Hom and Griffeth (1995). This literature will bebriefly reviewed here.

2.1. Antecedents of job satisfaction

Hom and Griffeth (1995) identify seven determinants of job satisfaction, including job complexity (or job scope),role stress, group cohesion, compensation, leader-member exchange, met expectations, and negative affectivity. Leadersupportiveness and distributive justice have been added to this list given their inclusion in other literatures. Given itsimportance in the motivation literature, job scope is depicted both as an antecedent to job satisfaction and as havingdirect effects on effort propensity.

Substantial empirical research substantiates the relationship between job scope or job complexity and jobsatisfaction (Fried, 1991; Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The well-known Job Characteristics Model (Hackman &Oldham, 1976) offers methods for providing opportunities for intrinsic motivation of employees by increasing levels ofcore task characteristics (i.e., autonomy, skill variety, task significance, task identity, and task feedback). Role stress,stemming primarily from role conflict and role ambiguity, is related to job dissatisfaction (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983;Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Lyons, 1971). Group cohesion is an important source of job satisfaction. Compensation alsoaffects job satisfaction in that inadequate compensation may result in perceived inequity which, in turn, creates jobdissatisfaction. Leader-member exchange theory posits that leaders classify employees into “in-groups” and “out-groups.” Leaders develop more favorable working relationships with employees in the in-group, resulting in greatersatisfaction for these employees. In return, in-group employees reciprocate with greater contributions (Graen, Novak,& Sommerkamp, 1982). Met expectations refers to whether employees' initial expectations about their jobs are met asa result of their experience. There is evidence that met expectations do affect job satisfaction (Wanous, 1992). Negativeaffectivity is a personality trait which involves a tendency to evaluate oneself, situations, and others negatively.Negative affectivity is related to job dissatisfaction (Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986). Distributive justice involvesemployees' perceptions of the fairness of rewards and/or resources administered by the organization. According toequity theory, perceived unfairness creates tension (i.e., anger, resentment) in an individual, who is then motivated topursue a goal which eliminates this tension (Adams, 1963).

2.2. Antecedents of organizational commitment

Hom and Griffeth (1995) identify eight determinants of organizational commitment, including procedural justice,expected utility of internal roles, employment security, job investments, extra-organizational loyalties, time andbehavioral conflicts with work, conditions of job choice, and commitment propensity.

Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of policies and procedures for allocating organizational rewards.Employees who perceive such procedures to be unfair would be less likely to commit themselves to the organization(Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Expected utility of internal roles refers to the likelihood of attaining desirable work roleswithin an organization. The greater the likelihood of desirable work roles, the more likely it is that employees willcommit to the organization. Several researchers have found that employees who expect to assume a desirable positionwithin the organization are less likely to quit, even thought dissatisfied (Griffeth & Hom, 1990; Mobley, 1982). Anumber of studies have provided evidence of a relationship between employment security and organizationalcommitment (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989; Davy, Kinicki, & Scheck, 1991). Employees who perceive theiremployment as insecure may lose trust and commitment to the organization. Job investments refers to such things aspension benefits, seniority, and so on which would be lost if the employee quit his or her job. “Continuancecommitment” refers to an employee's tendency to remain in an organization because the employee cannot afford toleave (Becker, 1960; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990). Other researchers have referred to this type of commitment ascalculative or compliance commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Extraorganizationalloyalties refers to an individual's commitments to organizations and groups outside the employing organization. Suchcompeting commitments may strain commitment to the employer (Mobley, 1982; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino,1979). Time and behavior conflicts refers to interrole conflict; the conflicts in demands on an employee from work and


nonwork sources (Hom and Griffeth, 1991). Such demands may result in time conflicts and/or demands forincompatible behavior. Initial job choices refers to rationalizing earlier job choices. That is, employees who makeirrevocable, voluntary, and public choices about a job tend to become psychologically attached to the organization(Kline and Peters, 1990; Lee, Ashford, Walsh, & Mowday, 1992; O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1981). Propensity tocommitment suggests that some individuals have a predisposition to development commitment to their employingorganization (Lee, et al., 1992; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982).

2.3. Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction appears as a predictor in many of the literatures discussed earlier. In a meta-analytic review, Organand Ryan (1995) found support for job satisfaction as a predictor of both altruism and generalized compliance(conscientiousness) dimensions of OCB. Puffer (1987 found satisfaction with material rewards to be significantlyrelated to prosocial behavior. Bateman and Organ (1983) found some evidence that all five facets of the Job DescriptiveIndex (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) were positive associated with citizenship behaviors. Satisfaction withsupervision and satisfaction with promotional opportunity displayed the strongest correlations with citizenship. Smith,Organ, and Near (1983) report significant correlations between job satisfaction and the OCB dimension altruism;however, job satisfaction was not found to be related to another OCB dimension, generalized compliance. Contradictoryevidence is provided by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) who found that organizational citizenshipbehavior was not influenced by job satisfaction, andWilliams andAnderson (1991) who found that affect did not explainadditional variance beyond cognitions. Similar results are provided by Organ and Konovsky (1989).

The debate over the relationship between job satisfaction and in-role job performance has raged for over thirty years.Two recent meta-analyses suggest that there is a weak, but positive relationship between satisfaction and performance(Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). Organ (1988b) suggests that stronger correlationsbetween satisfaction and extra-role performance such as OCB, than between satisfaction and in-role performance shouldbe expected since extra-role performance is typically more controllable by the employee than is in-role performance.

Hom and Griffeth (1995) cite literature which suggests that job dissatisfaction prompts withdrawal cognitions whichmay lead to a progression of withdrawal ranging from extending breaks to absenteeism and tardiness to turnover. Theirmodel specifies a reciprocal influence between job satisfaction and organizational commitment on withdrawalcognitions, which we have incorporated in the integrative model of effort propensity. However, based on the Organ andRyan (1995) meta-analytic review of job satisfaction and OCB, we also specify direct effects of job satisfaction oneffort propensity.

Hom and Griffeth (1995) also show a path from job satisfaction to “expected utility of withdrawal” to “job search”which eventually leads to turnover. We have included a path from job satisfaction to expected utility of withdrawal toeffort propensity in our model. The expected utility of withdrawal variable suggests that individuals who are thinkingabout quitting (or withholding effort) evaluate the costs and benefits before doing so. Thus, a dissatisfied individualwho begins thinking of quitting or withholding effort, perceiving the costs of such behaviors to be high, might increasehis or her level of effort to minimally acceptable levels or beyond in order to maintain employment. The integrativemodel of effort propensity shows both direct, and indirect effects through organizational commitment, of jobsatisfaction on effort propensity.

Proposition 1. Job satisfaction will have a direct, positive effect on effort propensity (i.e., intent to offer more effort)and indirect, positive effects on effort propensity through distributive justice, organizational commitment, and expectedutility of withdrawal.

Proposition 2. Job scope will have a direct, positive effect in effort propensity and indirect, positive effect on effortpropensity through job satisfaction.

2.4. Organizational commitment

O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) provide evidence that the internalization and identification dimensions oforganizational commitment are related to extra-role behaviors. They found no evidence that the compliance dimensionwas related to extra-role behavior, however, all three dimensions of commitment were related to intention to leave theorganization (propensity to turnover). Shore and Wayne's (1993) results suggest that affective commitment is a better


predictor of organizational citizenship than is continuance commitment. Similarly, Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin,and Jackson (1989) found affective commitment significantly related to supervisory ratings of overall performance andpromotability, while continuance commitment was inversely related to these two performance measures as well as acomposite performance measure consisting of manager ratings of six dimensions of effectiveness (i.e., administrationand accounting practices; preparation of written reports and verbal communication; following of operational policiesand procedures, conducting of routine job tasks; customer, client, and public relations; and training and management ofunit personnel). As a result of a meta-analytic review of 55 studies, Organ and Ryan (1995) conclude that affective (butnot continuance) organizational commitment is a significant predictor of both altruism OCB and generalizedcompliance OCB. In contrast, Williams and Anderson (1991) found that organizational commitment (O'Reilly &Chatman's, 1986 identification and internalization subscales were combined to form a global measure of commitment),after controlling for in-role performance, did not produce significant incremental explained variance beyond affect andcognitions.

Hom and Griffeth (1995) note that commitment research shows evidence that commitment predicts turnover moreaccurately than does satisfaction, however, causality remains somewhat at issue. Based on the idea that a dissatisfyingwork environment leads to thoughts of withdrawal, and also to psychological detachment from the organization, areciprocal influence between satisfaction and commitment is proposed. Thus, while the results concerning identificationand internalization dimensions of organizational commitment appear to be equivocal, there is moderate support foraffective commitment as a predictor of different levels of behavior (e.g., in-role performance, extra-role performance, andturnover.

Proposition 3. Organizational commitment will have a positive, direct effect on effort propensity.

2.5. Personality

Organ (1994) andOrgan andRyan (1995) provide empirical evidence that the personality trait conscientiousness appearsto be one of two personality traits that are significantly associated with OCB. Moorman and Blakely (1995) providesevidence that the personality trait collectivism is also an important predictor ofOCB.Organ andRyan (1995) andMotowidloand Van Scotter (1994) provide empirical support for the position that personality (work orientation, dominance,dependability, adjustment, cooperativeness, and internal control) is more closely associated with extra-role or contextualperformance than with in-role performance. However, both work orientation and dependability were also significantlycorrelated with in-role task performance. Thus, personality traits are likely to exert more of an effect at the extra effort end ofthe effort propensity continuum than at the withholding and in-role performance sections of the continuum.

Proposition 4. Personality traits (conscientiousness, collectivism, work orientation, dependability, adjustment,cooperativeness, and internal control) will have a direct, positive effect on effort propensity.

2.6. Ability

Organ and Ryan (1995) argue that in-role performance is most likely determined by task-related knowledge, skillsand abilities; while OCB is most likely determined by dispositional factors. Similarly, Motowidlo and Van Scotter(1994) found experience to be most closely associated with in-role task performance, while personality explained morevariance in contextual performance. Further, perceived ability or expectancy in expectancy theory terminology, affectsthe level of effort a person is willing to offer (Vroom, 1970).

Proposition 5. Ability to perform work related tasks will have a direct, positive effect on effort propensity.

2.7. Group performance norms

Karambayya (1990) reported that an analysis of variance of organizational citizenship behaviors across work unitsresulted in differences across units exceeding differences between individuals within the same units. Similarly, Smithet al. (1983) report significant main effects due to department on both altruism and compliance dimensions of OCB.Schnake, Cochran, and Dumler (1995) report main effects due to department after controlling for job satisfaction,


perceived equity, and leadership style. In addition, they found that the department rated highest in OCB (based onindividual employee ratings by their immediate supervisor) was rated as having the strongest culture or shared normsby the plant manager. These results, taken together, offer some support for group norms as a predictor of propensity tooffer extra effort.

Group performance normsmoderate the relationship between group cohesion and group performance (Bettenhausen,1991). Productivity tends to be more uniform in highly cohesive groups, however, group cohesion leads to increasedperformance only when group performance norms support high levels of performance (Seashore, 1954).

Proposition 6. Group performance norms which emphasize task performance will have a direct, positive effect oneffort propensity.

2.8. Group size

In general, people working in smaller groups are more productive than people working in larger groups (Gooding &Wagner, 1985). Smaller groups have fewer coordination problems, and minimize diffusion of responsibility andbehavioral masking which lead to social loafing (Jones, 1984). Evaluation apprehension (which implies that individualcontributions are identifiable) is included as a moderator of the relationship between group size and effort propensity.

Proposition 7. Group size, moderated by evaluation apprehension, will have a direct, negative effect on effort propensity.

3. Selected theories which may be integrated

Several theories, in seemingly unrelated research streams, share two things in common. First, they deal withemployee effort to perform a task. Some focus on in-role job performance, some on extra-role job performance, othersfocus on offering less than requested or expected levels of effort, and still others on escaping the workplace entirely. Inall of these lines of research, employees are making decisions about whether to offer any effort in performing tasks,and/or how much effort to exert. Second, these theories include many of the same predictor variables, including jobsatisfaction, organizational commitment, perceived justice, and personality. Both of these shared characteristics arestrong arguments for theory integration. Several of these research streams will be briefly reviewed.

3.1. Theories of withholding effort

FrederickW. Taylor noticed the phenomenon of employees withholding effort (which he called “soldiering”) in the late1800s (Taylor, 1911). At about this same time,Max Ringelmann observed that individuals tend to withhold effort as groupsize increases (Kravitz&Martin, 1986); a phenomenonwhich has come to be known as “social loafing” (Latane,Williams,& Harkins, 1979). A number of researchers have examined “employee passivity” and alienation which often leads toreduced effort (Argyris, 1957; Blauner, 1964; Stedry and Kay, 1966). Martinko and Gardner (1982) suggest “learnedhelplessness” as another explanation for employee passivity and reduced effort. The common theme running through thesewritings is that organizational characteristics or practices condition passive behavior on the part of employees.

3.1.1. Social loafingLocke and Latham (2004, p. 392) note that “social loafing is another potent group motivation phenomenon that is

not part of extant work motivation theories.” Social loafing refers to the tendency for individuals to withhold effortwhen working in a group as opposed to working alone (Latane et al., 1979). Evidence suggests that social loafing ismoderate in magnitude, and occurs in a variety of settings, on a variety of tasks, and across gender, nationality, and age(Latane & Williams, 1995). Several explanations for social loafing have been offered including perceiveddispensability of effort, inability to identify individual contributions (Harkins, Latane, & Williams, 1980), the beliefthat other capable coworkers may withhold effort (Schnake, 1991), and a rational pursuit of self-interest (Albanese &Van Fleet, 1985). Social loafing has been found to increase with increases in group size. Research has shown thatindividuals expend less effort when working collectively than coactively (working independently but in the presence ofothers) (Williams and Karau, 1991) probably due to the unidentifiability of individual contributions. However, even incoactive groups, social loafing may be present due to the belief that other group members may withhold effort yet


benefit from group membership. This has been termed the “sucker effect” and involves the violation of an equity norm(Schnake, 1991). George (1995) found that supervisor contingent reward was negatively associated, and supervisornon-contingent punishment was positively associated with social loafing.

The existence and magnitude of social loafing has been well documented. Social loafing is a form of withholdingeffort. Those conditions which make it more likely for employees to engage in social loafing also decrease theseemployees’ propensity to offer effort.

3.1.2. Learned helplessnessLearned helplessness occurs because employees perceive a weak or nonexistent link between performance and

rewards. Employees may develop this perception as a result of direct or indirect experience (vicarious learning).However, when employees learn that their effort (performance) is unrelated to outcomes, they tend to reduce effort. Inorganizational work settings, learned helplessness may result from noncontingent reward systems (Martinko andGardner, 1982). Seligman (1998) suggests that learned helplessness may result in procrastination and depression. Thus,an employee experiencing learned helplessness may be likely to reduce or withhold effort.

3.1.3. Propensity to turnover/withdrawal cognitionsThese phenomena involve a partial reduction or withholding of effort. The ultimate withholding of effort, of course,

is complete withdrawal. Turnover research has produced a number of models (Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Mobley et al.,1979; Mobley, 1977; Price & Mueller, 1986 ; Steers & Mowday, 1981). Hom and Griffeth (1995) proposed anintegrative model of employee turnover based on a meta-analysis of previous research. Their model suggests areciprocal influence between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (affective) which, in turn, directlyinfluence withdrawal cognitions. Turnover is viewed by some researchers as a progression of withdrawal includingother, less severe withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and tardiness (Hulin, 1991; Rosse' &Miller, 1984; Rosse',1988). Thus, employees experiencing withdrawal cognitions may become psychologically detached from theiremployer, and later reduce effort in preparation for their ultimate withdrawal in the form of turnover.

Several antecedents of turnover with empirical support include job satisfaction (Hom&Knicki, 2001), organizationalcommitment (Bentein, Vandenberghe, Vandenberg, & Stinglhamber, 2005; Freund, 2005; Van Breukelen, van der Vlist,& Steensma, 2004), and perceived equity (Aquino, Griffeth, Allen, & Hom, 1997; Jones & Skarlicki, 2003). Moststudies examine these relationships at the individual level; however, Simons and Roberson (2003) provide evidence thatjustice perceptions impact organizational commitment which, in turn, is related to turnover intentions.

3.2. Theories of offering effort

Theories focusing on how and when employees offer effort have proliferated in the organizational behaviorliterature. Organizational behavior scholars are well familiar with need-satisfaction theories (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg,Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1943; McClelland, 1965), cognitive theories (Adams, 1963; Deci & Ryan,1985; Locke, 1968; Vroom, 1964/70; Stedry & Kay, 1967), and reinforcement theory (Bandura, 1977; Skinner, 1969).These theories focus on what motivates employees to perform in-role task assignments, as well as on the process bywhich employees become motivated. Recently, a number of organizational behavior scholars have focused theirattention on “extra-role performance,” or “organizational citizenship behaviors” (OCB) (Organ, 1988a,b). OCBconstitutes “extra effort,” that is, effort beyond that which is required to successfully perform one's assigned job.

In addition to these well known theories of work motivation, other theories are appropriate to include in this analysisof employees' propensity to offer effort. For example, “social facilitation” suggests that the mere presence of othersmay arouse individuals or create an “evaluation apprehension” and cause them to exert effort on a task beyond whatthey would have exerted if they performed the task alone, in an effort to present themselves in the best possible light(Guerin and James, 1982; Bond & Titus, 1983; Guerin & Innes, 1984).

3.2.1. Organizational citizenship behaviorOrganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined as voluntary, discretionary helping behavior which, in the

aggregate, contributes to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988a; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2005). OCB isextra-role performance, or performance beyond what is specified in a job description. Several dimensions of OCB havebeen identified (e.g., Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue), however, these may be


classified as OCB-I (OCB directed at other individuals, e.g., helping a coworker who has fallen behind in his or herwork) and OCB-O (OCB directed at the organization, e.g., speaking well of the organization to outsiders andpreserving organizational resources) (Williams & Anderson, 1991). OCB is similar to the concepts of “contextualperformance” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994), “prosocial organizational behavior”(POB) suggested by Brief and Motowidlo (1986) and “organizational spontaneity” (George & Brief, 1992).

A meta-analysis of the antecedents of OCB (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) revealed that jobattitudes (job satisfaction, perceived equity, and organizational commitment), along with task variables (e.g., roleambiguity, role conflict) and leader behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership, high performance expectations,contingent reward and punishment behavior) were more strongly related to OCB than other antecedents examinedto date.

3.2.2. Social facilitationOver thirty years ago, Zajonc (1965) proposed that the mere presence of others leads to increased drive (effort)

which enhances the tendency to emit dominant responses. When tasks are simple or well-learned, the dominantresponse is correct task performance; when tasks are complex and/or unfamiliar, the dominant response is incorrect ordecreased task performance (Guerin & Innes, 1982, 1984). Thus, social facilitation is another instance whereemployees may decide to offer extra effort. Evaluation potential appears to be critical in determining whether facilitatedor decreased performance results. That is, individuals in the mere presence of others, (“group size” in the integrativemodel), coupled with perceptions that their contributions are identifiable and may be evaluated by some external actoror by coworkers tend to offer extra effort; while the mere presence of others coupled with an inability to identifyindividual contributions may lead to “social loafing” (which will be discussed below) (Harkins, 1987). The presenceof others tends to have a positive effect on performance when the task is well-learned or simple and a negativeeffect on performance on unfamiliar or complex tasks (Green & Gange, 1977). There is some disagreement in thesocial facilitation literature as to whether the presence of others creates an evaluation apprehension or is simplyenergizing. However, recently Platania and Moran (2001) have provided evidence for the “mere presence ofothers” explanation.

3.2.3. Social compensationA related phenomenon stems from the social loafing literature. While social loafing suggests that individuals may

withhold effort in the presence of others, social compensation suggests that individuals will work harder collectivelythan individually when they expect their coworkers to perform poorly on a meaningful task (Williams and Karau, 1991).That is, if the task is important to the individual, and he or she believes that others will withhold effort or perform poorly,he/she may be motivated to exert greater effort in order to compensate for the inadequate contributions of these othergroup members. Thus, while the “sucker effect” form of social loafing suggests that individuals may withhold effort ifthey believe that other groupmembers will withhold effort, social compensation suggests that if the task is meaningful tothe individual, he or she might actually exert greater effort. On the other hand, individuals who perceive their capablecoworkers will withhold effort may not be motivated to compensate for them if they also perceive the task to beunimportant or not instrumental in their obtaining valued individual outcomes. Evaluation apprehension is offered as apartial explanation of the social compensation phenomenon. People in general want a positive evaluation. Workingcollectively is demotivating because when individual efforts are pooled with those of other group members, the potencyof a positive or negative evaluation is diminished (Jackson &Williams, 1985; Szymanski & Harkins, 1987) resulting insocial loafing. However, under certain conditions (i.e., a meaningful task), individuals' tendencies to socially loaf maybe counteracted by the potential for a poor evaluation.

3.2.4. Intrinsic motivationTheories of intrinsic motivation also address individuals offering effort beyond minimally acceptable levels.

Intrinsic motivation may be simply defined as effort expended on an activity for which there is no expectation of anexternal reward contingency or control (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation satisfies basic human needs forcompetence and self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Quality of performance is often taken as an indicator ofintrinsic motivation since intrinsically motivated persons “tend to experience interest and enjoyment; feel competentand self-determining; and perceive the locus of causality for their behavior to be internal” (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 34).Intrinsic motivation may result in greater effort being expended toward improving at least the quality of work, if not the


quantity (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Griffin (1991) and Rentsch and Steel (1998) provide evidence of the positiveeffects of job enrichment on performance and absenteeism.

3.3. In-role performance

Most theories of work motivation focus on in-role job performance, and need not be reviewed here. Content theories ofmotivation examine what energizes employees’ behavior to perform assignedwork (Alderfer, 1972; Herzberg et al., 1959;Maslow, 1970). Cognitive theories of motivation focus on the decision making process in which employees engage whendecided howmuch effort to offer and for how long (Adams, 1963; Locke & Latham, 1984; Vroom, 1970). Reinforcementtheories deal with encouraging appropriate behaviors (i.e., organizationally desired or in-role performance) (Bandura,1977; Skinner, 1969). Explicitly or implicitly these theories all deal with motivating employees to perform assigned tasks.

3.4. Measuring effort propensity

One important issue in advancing the proposed integration of motivation theories is how to measure effort propensity.Recently, Kidwell and Robie (2003) have proposed a scale for measuring the propensity to withhold effort. It consists ofsixteen items which measure six related dimensions of withholding effort (i.e., job neglect, two free riding dimensions,tardiness, social loafing and shirking). Obviously, some of these scale items are phenomenon specific (e.g., social loafing: “Iput forth less effort on the jobwhen others are around to do thework.”). However a few of the items seem to tap general effort

Table 1Examples of possible effort propensity scales

Effort propensity scale

1. Over the past 6 months, on average I typically performed at about _____% of my ability.2. Assuming that performing exactly what your job description or your boss requires of you is 100%, rate your average level of effort over the last 6months (0% to over 100%) _____%

3. If I wanted to, I could work about _____% harder than I normally do.4. I generally hold back about _____% of the effort I’m capable of exerting.

Effort propensity questionnaireThink about your current job, the type of work you do, the work setting, management within your organization. If you were at work right now, howhard would you be working? That is, how much effort would you put forth on your job? Use the scale below to indicate your responses to all of thequestions below (1 through 15).

Strongly agree=5, Agree= 4, Can't decide=3, Disagree=2, Strongly disagree=11. I frequently volunteer for things that are not required.2. I frequently perform tasks not explicitly required by the job.3. I frequently perform needed tasks without being told to do so.4. I adequately complete assigned duties.5. I fulfill responsibilities specified in the job description.6. I perform those tasks that are expected of me.7. I could work harder if I wanted to.8. Sometimes I intentionally withhold effort on the job.9. I work as hard as I can on my job. (R)10. I frequently take undeserved breaks or extend scheduled breaks.11. I am frequently tardy (late) for work.12. I am frequently absent from work.13. There is a good chance that I will begin seriously looking for a new job.14. I am thinking about quitting my job.15. I intend to leave this job within the next 12 months.

Scoring:Items 1, 2, and 3 multiplied by 5. (extra-role performance)Items 4, 5, and 6 multiplied by 4. (in-role performance)Items 7, 8, and 9 multiplied by 3. (social loafing/withholding effort)Items 10, 11, and 12 multiplied by 2. (withdrawal)Items 13, 14, and 15 multiplied by 1. (propensity to turnover)


propensity (e.g., “I put in less effort in my work than I know I can.”And “I expect to give less than 100 percent effort in thefuture.”). Items such as these may form the basis for a general effort propensity scale. One possible approach to measuringeffort propensity would be to attempt to tap the level of effort expended over some previous time period or expected to beexpended in the future. Items such as “Over the past six months, on average, I typically performed at about ____% ofmy ability,” and “If I wanted to I could work about ____% harder than I usually do” could be used. An example of thistype of scale appears in the first part of Table 1. With this type of scale, the higher the effort propensity score, thegreater the likelihood that the individual has or plans to offer higher levels of effort (depending upon the wording ofthe questionnaire indicating the time frame subjects should consider).

Another approach would be to follow Kidwell and Robie (2003) and add items relating to in-role performance andextra-role performance to their withholding effort scale. An example of this type of scale appears in the second part ofTable 1. Respondents could then be classified into particular categories (a social loafer, average (in-role) performer, extra-role performer), or each dimension (social loafing, extra-role performance) could be used as a criterion variable. Inaddition, a scoring mechanism, such as the one proposed in Table 1, would enable researchers to arrive at an overall effortpropensity score. Again, the higher the effort propensity score, the greater the effort the individual has or plans to offer.

Researchers will have to be careful about the time frame. For example, asking respondents to indicate the level ofeffort that they offered over some previous time frame may produce different results than asking about expected orplanned levels of effort in the future. Once initial scale development has been completed as well as preliminary tests ofthe model, an important step will be to examine the relationship between effort propensity and actual behaviors such asperformance level, absences, tardiness and turnover.

4. Discussion

While previous authors have called for integrative theories and research, most theories of effort and motivationremain very narrow in focus, dealing with limited aspects of the motivation process. At the same time, many of thesetheories incorporate many of the same predictor variables, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment.This has lead to a number of related literatures flourishing, but perhaps reinventing at least parts of the same wheel.Various terms are proffered for nearly identical phenomena. For example, terms such as organizational citizenshipbehavior, organizational spontaneity, prosocial organizational behavior, and contextual performance are all used torefer to very similar types of extra-role performance. Shirking, free-riding, and social loafing are terms used to refer tovery similar occasions of withholding effort.

Semantics problems are compounded by measurement problems. Most frequently employed observer ratingsinvolve problems of perception and perspective. Observers may not be able to distinguish between these similarphenomena. That is, observers who believe they are viewing OCB and complete their ratings forms from thisperspective may be unaware that some of the individuals they are observing are actually engaging in calculativecompliance, others in prosocial organizational behavior, others are experiencing social facilitation or socialcompensation, while others still are simply highly intrinsically motivated.

In this paper, I have reviewed several literatures which deal with effort or propensity to offer or withhold effort. Ihave used these literatures as a basis to build an exploratory integrative model of effort propensity, employing predictorvariables common to many of these literatures. It is time for an integrative model of work effort and effort propensitymay be the common denominator to these related literatures.

At this stage of theory development, few practical implications are evident. However, as the model is tested andrevised, it may serve as a more parsimonious guide for practicing managers interested in encouraging employee effortor in solving motivational problems.

The proposed model has several research implications. This model encourages researchers to examine the relativeimpact of variables which impact the entire range of effort propensity; from the complete withholding of effort orturnover, to offering levels of effort beyond that expected or required of employees. Once a measure of effortpropensity has been refined, researchers will be able to competitively test predictors. Such research will enable us todetermine whether some variables have a more important impact on effort propensity, than do other variables, since notall of these predictors are likely to be equal in explanatory power. The current state of theory development does not tellus which of these variables has the most causal impact. Future research may also identify those predictor variableswhich operate at all levels of the effort propensity continuum, and those which operate at only specific levels (e.g., in-role performance, extra-role performance).


Another important avenue of research will be to examine the relationship between effort propensity and actualoutcome behaviors such as tardiness, absenteeism, turnover, and in-role and extra-role job performance. Anotherimportant line of research involving effort propensity is the effect of the situation or work context. In some instances,withholding effort and in-role performance may be less under the control of the employee than in other work contexts.For example, in some work places withholding effort may be detectable and result in sanctions (Kidwell & Bennett,1993), while in other work places, it may be difficult to detect instances withholding effort. Therefore, the decision towithhold effort would be more under the control of the employee. The same is true of in-role performance. Whereindividual contributions are easily identified, there may be less variance in in-role performance. In these cases, effortpropensity may not have as much impact on actual behavior since the behavior is controlled by situational influences(e.g., manager observation, piece rate pay). Most importantly, as the model is tested and refined, an integration of thewide range of theories which deal with different aspects of employee effort and motivation may occur. Using theIntegrative Model of Effort Propensity as a guide, hopefully, future research will provide these answers.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422−436.Adams, J. S. (1975). Inequity in social exchange. In R. M. Steers, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244−255.Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press.Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper.Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997). Integrating justice constructs into the turnover process: A test of a referent cognitions

model. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1208−1228.Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Contention, causes and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test.

Academy of Management Journal, 32, 803−829.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bateman, T. S, & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and “employee citizenship”. Academy of

Management Journal, 26, 587−595.Becker, H. W. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32−40.Bentein, K., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Stinglhamber, F. (2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover:

A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468−482.Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What have we learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17,

345−381.Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265−292.Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C.

Borman (Eds.), Personality selection (pp. 71−98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710−725.Davy, J. A., Kinicki, A. J., & Scheck, C. L. (1991). Developing and testing a model of survivor responses to layoffs. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

38, 302−317.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.Evans, M. G. (1986). Organizational behavior: The central role of motivation. Journal of Management, 12, 203−222.Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320−333.Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay-raise decisions. Academy of Management

Journal, 32, 115−130.Freund, A. (2005). Commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of turnover intentions among welfare workers. Administration in Social Work, 29

(2), 5−21.Fried, Y. (1991). Meta-analytic comparison of the Job Diagnostic Survey and Job Characteristics Inventory as correlates of work satisfaction and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 690−697.George, J. M. (1995). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The case of social loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 68(4), 327.George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310−329.Gooding, R. Z., &Wagner, J. A. (1985). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between size and performance: The productivity and efficiency of

organizations and their subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 462−481.Graen, G. B., Novak, M. A., & Sommerkamp, P. (1982). The effects of leader-member exchange and job design on productivity and satisfaction:

Testing a dual attachment model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 109−131.Green, R. G., & Gange, J. J. (1977). Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1267−1288.Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1990). Competitive examination of two turnover theories: A two-sample test. Paper presented at the annual convention

of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA (August).


Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: A long-term investigation. Academy ofManagement Journal, 34, 425−435.

Guerin, B., & Innes, J. M. (1982). Social facilitation and social monitoring: A new look at Zajonc's mere presence hypothesis. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, 21, 7−18.

Guerin, B., & Innes, J. M. (Summer, 1984). Explanations of social facilitation: A review. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 32−52.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 35, 250−259.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Harkins, S. G., Latane, B., & Williams, K. (1980). Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16,

457−465.Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.Herzberg, F. B. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees. Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53−62.Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 350−366.Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Company.Hom, P. W., & Knicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(5), 975−987.Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), 2nd Edition. Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and

an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233−250.Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251−273.Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16−78.Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 49, 937−942.Jones, G. R. (1984). Task visibility, free riding, and shirking: Explaining the effect of structure and technology on employee behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 9, 684−695.Jones, D. A., & Skarlickid, D. P. (2003). The relationship between perceptions of fairness and voluntary turnover among retail employees. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 33(6), 1226−1243.Karambayya, R. (1990). Contextual predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual

Meeting, San Francisco, CA.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Second edition. New York: Wiley.Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. Academy of

Management Review, 18, 429−456.Kidwell, R. E., & Robie, C. (2003). Withholding effort in organizations: Toward development and validation of a measure. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 17(4), 537−561.Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150−172.Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936−941.Latane, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1995). Social loafing: Research findings, implications, and future directions. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 4(5), 134−140.Latane, B., Williams, K. D., & Harkins, S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822−832.Lee, T. W., Ashford, S. J., Walsh, J. P., & Mowday, R. T. (1992). Commitment propensity, organizational commitment, and voluntary turnover: A

longitudinal study of organizational entry processes. Journal of Management, 10, 15−32.Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management

Review, 19, 51−89.Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157−189.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1984). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Locke, E. A. (1997). The motivation to work: What we know. In M. Maehr, & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 10

(pp. 375–412). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.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(3), 388−403.Luthans, F., & Krietner, R. (1975). Organizational behavior modification. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.Lyons, T. R. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6,

99−110.Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. (1982). Learned helplessness: An alternative explanation for performance deficits. Academy of Management

Review, 7(2), 195−204.Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370−396.Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171−194.McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement motivation can be learned. Harvard Business Review, 43, 6−24.


Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Gellatly, I. R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to organizations: Evaluation of measures and analysis ofconcurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 710−720.

Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior I: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It's the

nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152−156.Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7, 80−88.Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,

237−240.Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee turnover: Causes, consequences, and control. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, B. (1979). A review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological

Bulletin, 86, 493−522.Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism–collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16.Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79, 475−480.Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages. New York: Academic Press.Organ, D. W. (1988a). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Organ, D. W. (1988b). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547−557.Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 20, 465−478.Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 157−164.Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior.

Personnel Psychology, 48, 775−802.O'Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some evidence of postdecisional justification.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21−37.O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and

internalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492−499.Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationship between individual job satisfaction and individual

performance. Academy of Management Review, 9, 712−721.Platania, J., & Moran, G. P. (2001). Social facilitation as a function of the mere presence of others. Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 190−197.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in

leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107−142.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the

theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513−563.Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among commission salespeople. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 72, 615−621.Rentsch, J. R, & Steel, R. P. (1998). Testing the durability of job characteristics as predictors of absenteeism over a six-year period. Personnel

Psychology, 51, 165−190.Rosse', J. G. (1988). Relations among lateness, absence, and turnover: Is there a progression of withdrawal? Human Relations, 41, 517−531.Rosse', J. G., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of employee health, withdrawal, and change. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 36, 324−347.Rosse', J. G., & Miller, H. E. (1984). Relationship between absenteeism and other employee behaviors. In P. S. Goodman, & R. S. Atkin (Eds.),

Absenteeism: New Approaches to Understanding, Measuring, and Managing Employee Absence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Rushbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover

of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 429−438.Schnake, M. (1991). Equity in effort: The “Sucker Effect” in coacting groups. Journal of Management, 17, 41−55.Schnake, M., Cochran, D. S., & Dumler, M. P. (1995). Encouraging organizational citizenship: The effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity, and

leadership. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7, 209−221.Seashore, S.E. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). The prediction and prevention of depression. In D. K. Routh, & R. J. DeRubeis (Eds.), The science of clinical psychology:

Accomplishments and future directions (pp. 201−224). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with

perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774−780.Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational

outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 432−443.Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology,

68, 653−663.


Staw, B. M., Bell, N., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 31, 56−77.

Stedry, A. C., & Kay, E. (1967). The effects of goal difficulty on performance. Behavioral Science, 11, 459−470.Steers, R., & Mowday, R. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommodation processes. In L. L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research

in Organizational Behavior, vol. 3. (pp. 235−281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Shapiro, D. L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 279−287.Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,

891−897.Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper and Row.Van Breukelen, W., van der Vlist, R., & Steensma, H. (2004). Voluntary employee turnover: Combining variables from the “traditional” turnover

literature with the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(7), 893−914.Vroom, V. H. (1964/70). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry. (2nd ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role

behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601−617.Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269−274.

an integrative model of effort propensity

Documents