Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Managers’ Motivation Profiles: Measurement and Application:

Managers’ Motivation Profiles: Measurement and Application: To promote leadership research on managers’ motivation, a measurement (Andersen Motivation Profile Indicator [AMPI]) has been developed and tested that (a) measures achievement, affiliation, and power motivation; (b) measures the relative strengths of these factors; (c) rests explicitly on the definitions of McClelland; and (d) measures managers’ work motivation. The questionnaire has been tested for reliability and validity with responses from 580 managers. The application of the instrument in four studies with responses from 565 managers in other organizations supported McClelland’s theoretical claims: (a) managers have motivation profiles, (b) there are differences in motivation profiles between managers across organizational types, (c) there are no significant differences in motivation profiles between female and male managers, and (d) managers who are predominantly power motivated enhance organizational effectiveness. Arguably, the application of the instrument may be an indicator of its quality. The instrument facilitates leadership research on the relationship between managers’ motivation profiles and organizational specifics, gender, sociocultural factors, and organizational outcomes. Keywords achievement motivation, affiliation motivation, power motivation, motivation profile, reliability test, validity test, application One approach in leadership research describes the behavior motivation; (b) measure the relative strengths of these fac- or behavioral pattern of managers and explains the reasons tors; (c) rest explicitly on McClelland’s definitions, and indi- for the behavior. The ambition is also to predict the conse- cators; and (d) be designed to measure the work motivation quences of managerial behavior on organizational outcomes. of managers. Managerial psychology has a great deal of knowledge on Several instruments on motivation are available, but they motivation that can be used to enhance organizational effec- do not measure the three motivation factors. They do not rest tiveness (Stone, 2010). The study of motivation-based explicitly on McClelland’s definitions and are not designed behavior of formal leaders (managers) is part of this research to measure work motivation in managerial settings (e.g., tradition (e.g., Ebrahimi, 1996). A major contribution in the Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, field of motivation linked to managers’ motivation is the 1981; Gjemse & Nygård, 1970; Hansemark, 2000; James, work of McClelland (1961, 1990). He holds a significant 1998; Lennerlöf, 1966; Mehrabian, 1969, 1970). For these position in leadership research verified by the number of ref- reasons, a questionnaire an alternative to the TAT has been erences in Bass (1990) and Yukl (2010). developed. It has been tested and applied to facilitate motiva- The three motivation factors highlighted in McClelland’s tion-based leadership research. Managers’ motivation affects theory are the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation. the way they behave at work. This is the reason why empiri- According to McClelland, it is not the achievement, affilia- cal studies of managers’ motivation are important. In addi- tion, or power motivation in isolation that is of central impor- tion, studies have showed that managers in different kinds of tance. Rather, it is managers’ comprehensive motivation organizations do have different motivation profiles profiles, that is, the relative strengths of these three kinds of (Andersen, 2010a; McClelland, 1971). It is also important to motivation which are crucial. investigate the organizational outcomes of managers whose Leadership scholarship requires a test of the concept of “motivation profile” (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). To Örebro University, Sweden avoid instrument-dependent conclusions, leadership Corresponding Author: researchers also need an alternative instrument to the Jon Aarum Andersen, Örebro University, Universitetsplatsen, SE-701 82 Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). The alternative instru- Örebro, Sweden. ment must (a) measure achievement, affiliation, and power Email: jon.andersen@oru.se Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open behaviors are affected by an achievement or an affiliation or achievement satisfaction for oneself (McClelland, 1970, p. a power motivation profile. 30). Thus, a strong need for achievement was not the solution On this theoretical basis, a Norwegian-language instru- to leadership effectiveness. ment was developed and tested to measure motivation pro- Managers are also motivated by affiliation at work. files of managers (Andersen, 1991a, b). Four studies show McClelland and Burnham (1976) claimed that sociological how the empirical results accord with the theoretical founda- theory and their findings indicate that the person whose need tion of the questionnaire (Andersen Motivation Profile for affiliation (n Aff) is high does not make a good manager. Indicator [AMPI]). This demonstrates the instrument’s scope A strong need for social relationships and friendship is fun- of application. damental for persons with a strong n Aff. McClelland and Burnham (1976) have argued that managers’ need to main- tain a satisfactory social relationship with their subordinates The Theory prevents them from making effective decisions. McClelland’s theory is briefly described with emphasis on What about the power motive and leadership? The work managers’ motivation. His research has a number of charac- of McClelland and his associates offers strong support for teristics: (1) a commitment to measurement of human the view that effective leaders have a high need for power. motives; (2) a strong conviction that the TAT is a superior Clark and Clark (1990) have written, method for the study of motives; and (3) a focus on three Moreover, their work show that such leaders direct their need fundamental motivational systems: (a) achievement/success, for power in socially positive ways, that is, ways that benefit (b) power/impact, and (c) affiliation/intimacy; and (4) the others and the organization rather than merely contributing to belief that motives can be changed (McAdams, 1990). the leader’s personal status or material condition. Effective Murray (l938) pointed out that there were significant differ- leaders want power and influence because they know that it is ences between people concerning the need for or inclination through power and influence that things get done in to execute power, to overcome obstacles, and to strive to do organizations. (p. 305) something difficult well. McClelland and Steele (1972, p. 33) defined the motivation factors thus: The conclusion is that the motivation profile is effective when the need for power is stronger than the needs for Achievement—A desire to do better than other people or more achievement and affiliation. Motivation is based on needs effectively, to solve problems, to master difficult tasks. implying that an individual wants or desires to achieve, to affiliate, and to influence others (McClelland & Steele, Power—A desire to control other people, to influence their 1972). When Ebrahimi (1996) tested the Miner Sentence behaviour, or to be responsible for other people and their work. Completion Scale-H, he measured motivation in terms of the desire to compete, the desire to exercise power, and so on. Affiliation—A desire to establish and maintain friendly and James (1998) suggested a new system for measuring person- close relationships with other people. ality. It was applied to develop measures of achievement motivation. Motivation is, according to McClelland (1990), These needs are expressed in varying degrees and are a not a personality trait. Instead, motivation comprises a set of result of individual life experiences. It is important to stress acquired needs that can be changed. In addition, Bing, that there are no specific theories of motivation for managers LeBreton, Davison, Migetz, and James (2007) were con- or leaders. McClelland and his associates spent much time cerned with how to test achievement-related cognitions. on studying the motive for achievement in school children McClelland (1990) wrote that “the case for the achievement and small-business entrepreneurs. Later, they studied man- motive’s being a cognitive disposition is not persuasive for a agers in larger enterprises. No theoretical arguments sup- variety of reasons” (p. 497). He argued that the need for ported the notion that achievement-motivated managers achievement had to be distinguished from the cognitive vari- would be more successful. The achievement-motivated indi- able “attitude towards achievement” (McClelland, 1990). In vidual wishes to do things themselves or to better them- fact, McClelland (1985) found that the need factor had more selves. They focus on personal improvements (McClelland explanatory power on behavior than the cognitive one. A rec- & Burnham, 1976). ognition of the differences between needs, personality traits, McClelland (1970) wrote, “I shall never forget the and cognition linked to motivation is essential for the formu- moment when I learned that the president of one of the most lation of questionnaire items. successful achievement-oriented firms we had been studying scored exactly zero on n Achievement!” (p. 30). “How was it possible to for a man to be head of an obviously achieving Motivation Profile company and yet score low in n Achievement?” He added that stimulating achievement motivation in others requires a McClelland (1990) described specific behavioral patterns different motive and a different set of skills than wanting with the terms achievement, affiliation, and power motivated Andersen 3 behaviour. A number of empirical studies has shown that The Test these kinds of motivation affect actions and behavior with The instrument is developed specifically for measuring man- respect to energy, sensitivity, and learning (McClelland, agers’ motivation profiles. The instrument and test results 1990). McClelland and Burnham (1976) employed the terms were originally reported in Norwegian (Andersen, 1991a, b). motivation pattern and motivation profile. McClelland and The English version of the instrument has been subject to Boyatzis (1982) applied the terms motive pattern and leader- professional back-translation. “Different methods do exist ship motive pattern. The combination of an elevated need for for constructing measurement instruments representing power, a low n Aff, and a high degree of activity inhibition is abstract concepts, and each has specific advantages and dis- called the “imperial power motive syndrome” or the “leader- advantages” (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006, p. ship motive syndrome” (McClelland, 1990). A number of 457). With reference to the limitations of the TAT, a written studies (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982) has dealt with the effects of instrument was preferred. Rather than the Likert-type scales, motivation profiles on managers’ behavior. Boyatzis (1982) a forced-choice instrument was chosen because this mea- used the term power motive syndrome. surement design has several advantages compared with more Data for measuring motivational factors may originate traditional instruments (Anastasi, 1988; Baron, 1996; from a TAT measurement or a questionnaire. Both kinds of Converse & Presser, 1986). instruments may measure the relative strengths of the three The concept of motivation profile (motivation pattern) motivation factors. The scores for each respondent can be and the theoretical claim that most individuals have a moti- converted into categorical variables; that is, they identify vation profile constitute the rationale for developing a which of the three motives is stronger than the others or forced-choice instrument. The application of a forced-choice which is the strongest. In this way, data from respondents instrument minimizes the possibilities for the respondents to will classify each manager as possessing one of three motive misrepresent themselves or to cheat. The lack of clarity and profiles or belonging to the group “no profile.” According to indecision that can arise during the coding of the response McClelland (1990), it is a theoretical assumption that most alternatives thus reduces owing to the fact that the respon- individuals have a motivation profile. dent is confronted with two statements. It is a relative choice, which implies that the respondent does not have to make an The Instrument absolute judgment. Sid and Lindgren (1982) have tested the NachNaff scale by application of a 30-items forced-choice To McClelland, the TAT was a superior method for the inves- questionnaire related to McClelland’s theory. In this case, the tigation of motives, and he used it in all his empirical studies. development of the instrument was explicitly based on McClelland and Steele (1972) provided a description of this McClelland’s theory in which three factors are given. Each instrument. Despite its merits, the TAT is criticized for a of these factors is theoretically and empirically defined and number of shortcomings involving reliability and validity supported by indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972). The (Bing et al., 2007; Harper, 1975). McClelland (1985) did, first step was the formulation of the items, and thus, the face however, acknowledge the problems related to testing the validity is presented. It is imperative that the number of items reliability of TAT, as test–retests are difficult to conduct is the same for each of the three factors. The second step is to owing to the characteristics of the method. The TAT requires select which pair of items to be included in the questionnaire theoretical knowledge and experience for its proper use, (see Gill & Hodgkinson, 2007). especially with regard to coding the responses. It is both time The development of a forced-choice instrument brings to consuming and costly, and it needs to be administered under the fore the question of the number of items. For guidance, controlled conditions (Ogden Hamilton, 1975). The TAT has other forced-choice instruments that have been applied in long been considered the measurement of choice for measur- leadership research have been consulted. The leadership- ing motivation. Objective tests, however, have considerable style instrument developed by Reddin (1970) consists of potential appeal to investigators for reasons of economy and eight items for each variable, whereas Kilmann and Thomas ease of analysis (Wotruba & Price, 1975). (1977) used six items. Alternative measures, first and foremost the question- naire, are therefore recommended for further studies of moti- vation (Harper, 1975). Consequently, a number of scholars The Construction of the Instrument have developed written instruments as alternatives to the The Scaling Problem TAT (e.g., Gjemse & Nygård, 1970; Hansemark, 2000; James, 1998; Lennerlöf, 1966; Mehrabian, 1969, 1970). A forced-choice instrument requires the respondent to choose Mehrabian and Bank (1978) have tested an improved version between two descriptive terms or phrases. Both items may be of Mehrabian’s (1969) scales. It was not tested on managers. desirable or undesirable (Anastasi, 1988). These two state- A large number of contemporary researchers have mainly ments may not have the same weight or strength, which leads addressed achievement motivation, and the measurement of to the problem of scaling (Edwards, 1983). It is a theoretical achievement motivation. 4 SAGE Open requirement that the statements have the same frequency The Validity Test when responses from a large sample are compared. However, Face Validity for individual respondents, this is not the case. The instrument is especially designed to measure work The formulation of the items requires the proper handling of motivation in managerial settings. It consists of eight items the differences between motivation as personality trait, as a for each of the three motivation factors, in which one item cognitive factor, or as a need. If achievement motivation measuring achievement is paired with one measuring affilia- were a personality trait, the item could be as follows: “I am tion or power motivation. Thus, such an instrument would by nature in charge of a department that is better than its consist of 192 pairs of questions. The first step in the devel- counterparts.” If achievement motivation is based on cogni- opment involved reducing the number of pairs by randomly tion, the item could be worded in this manner: “It is impor- drawing 25% of the total. Initially, the pilot instrument con- tant to me to be in charge of a department that is better than sisted of 48 pairs of questions, which was tested for the fre- its counterparts.” If achievement motivation is an acquired quency of choices. On the basis of the responses from 372 need, the item could read like number (15 - [1]) in the ques- male managers (response rate 83%), the pairs which showed tionnaire: “I want to be in charge of a department, institution, the most equal distribution between the two alternative items organization or company that is better than its counterparts.” in each pair were selected. The comparison of achievement It is worth noting that Ebrahimi (1996) has also stressed the items with affiliation items showed a distribution of 49.5% need basis of motivation when measuring managers’ motiva- versus 50.5%, respectively. Achievement items versus power tion. The face validity is based explicitly on McClelland’s items yielded a distribution of 50.05% versus 49.95%. theory, specifically on McClelland and Steele (1972), which Finally, the comparison between affiliation items versus gives the theoretical definitions, the empirical definitions as power items, the distribution was 49.0% versus 51.0% well as indicators for each of the three motivation factors. (Andersen, 1991b). The 24 pairs that showed the most equal distribution between the two alternative items in each pair constitute the instrument. The first pair (01) in the instrument Empirical Definition—The Achievement Motive can be used to illustrate the choice the respondents have to The Achievement Motive (nAch), which is indicated by make (in this case between achievement and affiliation): someone in a story wanting to perform or do something better, 01—(a) It happens that I spend time considering how to or by someone caring about performing or doing something advance my career or how to do my job better in the long better. (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 33) run; and 01—(b) I want to consider the feelings of my subor- dinates when decisions are to be made and implemented. As the respondents are “forced” to choose one of the two state- Empirical Definition—The Affiliation Motive ments in each pair, the total sum is 24. The forced-choice The Affiliation Motive (nAff), which is indicated by someone in instrument yields the respondent’s motivation profile. a story wanting to be with someone else and enjoy mutual friendship, but not merely wanting to do something for another. The Reliability Test: Test–Retest (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 33) Instruments that are based on Likert-type scales are often subject to factor analyses. Cronbach’s alpha is used to test Empirical Definition—The Power Motive reliability. The forced-choice instrument was tested by test– The Power Motive (nPower), which is indicated by someone in retest based on the responses from 51 Swedish managers (46 a story desiring to have impact, make impression, on others or men, response rate 89%). It showed that for 42 respondents, another in the story. (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 33) the motivation factor, which was the stronger in the first test, was also the stronger in the retest (82.4%). The comparison of the choices made between the 24 item alternatives of the The Test of Validity of the Achievement Score test with the result of the retest revealed that the responses were in average 59.6% the same. For specific items, the A high degree of achievement motivation is theoretically responses were the same between the two tests, in the range associated with a high degree of internal motivation as of 37.5% to 87.5%. defined by Rotter (1966). Hamilton and Akhter (2002) also According to McClelland, most individuals have a (dis- refer to achievement motivation and Rotter (1966). The tinct) motivation profile. A test based on 272 responses instrument was tested by a comparison of the achievement showed that only 2.3% had no profile, as they scored equally scores of this instrument with the internal motivation scores on all three motives (8 + 8 + 8), while 17.6% scored equally of Rotter’s (1966) test. The response from 67 managers high on two motives (e.g., 9 + 9 + 6 or 10 + 10 + 4 or 11 + 11 showed a correlation of .857 between the internal motivation + 2). Almost 80% of the respondents had a motivation and achievement scores (Andersen, 1991a). Correlations profile. above .8 are indications of validity (Anastasi, 1988). Andersen 5 Indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 34) Item pair and item in questionnaire a. Outperforming someone else 15 - (1) I want to be in charge of a department, institution, organization, or company that is better than its counterparts. 02 - (1) I want and work to become better than others within my professional field or better than others in my organization, in my company, in my institution, or in my department. b. Meeting or surpassing some self-imposed standard of 04 - (1) At work, I continuously try to improve my own performance. excellence 13 - (1) I tend to set moderate goals and to take moderate and considered risks. c. Doing something unique 05 - (2) I want to perform something important in a wider sense, that is, something that exceeds my daily tasks. 03 - (1) I feel that I become easily motivated when I face problems that I do not immediately know how to tackle. d. Being involved over long term in doing something well— 01 - (1) It happens that I spend time considering how to advance my career or how to where there is an indication of great involvement over do my job better in the long run. time in the achievement goal 17 - (2) It stimulates me to work with unsolved problems, even if it requires hard work over a long period to succeed. Indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 39) Item pair and item in questionnaire a. Wanting to establish, restore, or maintain a close, warm and friendly 01 - (2) I want to consider the feelings of my subordinates when decisions relationship with another or others are to be made and implemented. 03 - (2) I want to create an atmosphere at work characterized by kindness and consideration for others. 05 - (1) I most enjoy work or situations that provide an opportunity for social relationships. 07 - (1) It is my desire and I work to be perceived by my subordinates as a good friend. 08 - (1) I want to be liked and to be a popular figure amongst my subordinates. 13 - (2) I want to be on a good footing with my subordinates. b. Being emotionally concerned over separation from another person, 12- (2) I often think about my personal relationship with my subordinates. which indicates a desire to restore a close relationship 15 - (2) I would try to restore disrupted relationships with subordinates when they occur. c. Desiring to participate or being concern with participating in friendly, Since this indicator is not related to work situations no items are formulated. convivial activities, such as a club reunion Indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 43): A character’s having an impact is indicated by one of the following: a. Powerful actions: 04 - (2) I need to be the one who makes decisions and implements them in − Strong, forceful actions that affect others (e.g., aggression); my company, in my institution, or in my department. 10 - (1) I want to influence and I want that I myself can decide how to solve my daily tasks. − giving help, assistance, advice or support if it has not been solicited 06 - (2) It is part of my responsibility as a manager to give advice, to help, by the other person; and to support my subordinates even if they do not directly ask for it. − trying to control another person through regulating his behavior or 08 - (2) I want that I, and not people in other departments or specialists, the conditions of this life, or through seeking important information decide what is going to happen in my organization, in my company, in my that would affect another’s life or actions; institution, or in my department. 20 - (2) I want to influence and gain control over what my subordinates do. − trying to influence, persuade, make a point, or argue with another 14 - (2) I want to influence my subordinates in order to make them share person, as long as the concern is not to reach an agreement or to my opinions. avoid misunderstanding or disagreement; − trying to impress some other person or the world at large. 02 - (2) I want to be a demanding, outspoken, and forceful manager. b. Strong positive or negative emotions in others, resulting from actions taken. Since this indicator is not related to work situations no items are formulated. c. Concerns expressed for an individual’s reputation or position. Since this indicator is not related to work situations no items are formulated. 6 SAGE Open responses from 153 vicars, out of which 145 (84%) had moti- The Test of Validity of the Affiliation Score vation profiles (Hansson & Andersen, 2001). These studies Affiliation-motivation items were tested by a comparison of have shown that managers had motivation profiles when the their score with relationships-motivated style score of instrument was applied. Fiedler’s (1967) Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) instru- ment. High LPC scores (66 to 144) are indicative of the rela- tionships-motivated leadership style. The response from the Power Motivation in Business and Public same 67 managers showed a correlation of .421 between the Managers relationships-motivated style and affiliation scores (Andersen, 1991a). Due to the number of critical judgments Managers in business are primarily concerned with influenc- regarding the LPC instrument (e.g., Green, Nebeker, & Boni, ing others. They ought to be characterized by a strong need 1976; Sashkin & Warner Burke, 1990; Schriesheim & Kerr, for power (McClelland, 1971). It is expected theoretically 1977), the application of the LPC instrument for testing the that a successful manager has a stronger need for power than affiliation items turned out to be ill-chosen. for achievement (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Now, is this the case if the instrument is applied? Data from 209 managers (Andersen, 1994) showed that The Test of Validity of the Power Score 86 managers (41%) were power motivated, 68 business man- It is argued that the power dimension is theoretically linked agers (33%) were predominately achievement motivated, to dominance and dominant behavior (McClelland, 1990). while 55 managers (26%) were affiliation motivated. The Franken’s (1982) instrument, consisting of 50 bipolar average scores for the managers were 8.31 (SD, 2.87) for the statements, was used. High scores indicate dominance. achievement-motivated managers, 6.87 (SD, 3.10) for the The responses from the same 67 managers showed a cor- affiliation-motivated ones, and 8.82 (SD, 2.88) for the power- relation of .818 between the dominance score and the motivated managers. power score of the instrument (Andersen, 1991a). The tests When comparing leadership behavior of public and pri- of reliability and validity meet the requirements of a vate managers, Andersen (2010b) reported that business research instrument. managers differed significantly from public managers in respect of motivation profile. The investigation consisted of 205 Swedish public managers and their motivation profiles The Result of the Application of the in three different agencies. Out of these, 95 managers (46%) Instrument were predominantly achievement motivated, 67 public man- In addition to testing the validity and reliability of the instru- agers (33%) were power motivated, and 43 managers (21%) ment, it is also possible to assess the quality of this instru- were affiliation motivated. The average score for the public ment in regard to some of McClelland’s major theoretical managers were 8.99 for the achievement-motivated manag- claims. The application of the instrument thus tested the ers, 6.87 for the affiliation-motivated ones, and 8.16 for the claims that (a) most respondents (i.e., managers) have a power-motivated managers. Public managers in Sweden motivation profile (i.e., one motivation factor is relatively were characterized by achievement motivation. The validity stronger than the other two), (b) business managers are test showed a low correlation between the relationships- power motivated, (c) there were no significant differences motivated style and affiliation scores. Thus, the application between men and women in managerial positions in regard of the instrument became crucial with respect to affiliation- to motivation, and (d) power-motivated managers are more motivation scores. effective. An investigation of leadership behavior of 153 vicars (whose position is the level below that of bishops) in the Church of Sweden by Hansson and Andersen (2001) found One Dominant Motivation Profile that 87 vicars (57%) were affiliation motivated, 46 vicars McClelland (1990) has claimed that most individuals have (30%) were power motivated, and 20 vicars (13%) were pre- one motivation factor which is more dominant than the other dominantly achievement motivated. As expected, vicars two, namely, a motivation profile. Data from 222 Swedish were predominantly affiliation-motivated. managers (Andersen, 1994) showed that 209 managers had Three causes may explain the differences found in man- one motivation factor scoring stronger than the other two, agers’ motivation profiles across organizations: (a) organiza- implying that 94.1% of these managers had profiles. The tional differences may lead to leadership differences, (b) the study of Andersen (2010b) contains data from 61 social- choice of profession or vocation, and (c) the differing criteria insurance managers, of which 53 (89%) had motivation pro- for promoting people to senior positions (Andersen, 2010a). files. It contains also data from 196 senior secondary-school Rainey, Backoff, and Levine (1976) argued that we cannot headmasters, out of which 172 (86%) had motivation pro- overlook a number of important differences between private files. A study of vicars in the Church of Sweden is based on and public organizations. According to McClelland (1990), Andersen 7 all motives are acquired and learned from experience. Thus, affiliation motivation. The factor that is most often mentioned managers’ experiences with different kinds of organizations, by n Ach theorists as being the least compatible with n Ach is professions, and vocations affect their motivation profiles. the n Aff (Sid & Lindgren, 1982). Their study, however, does Research indicates that public managers differ from their not contain any data on managers. On the basis of data from private-sector counterparts in terms of work-related values, 222 managers, n Ach correlated significantly at –.55 with n reward preferences, needs, and personality types (Wittmer, Aff. The same study showed that n power correlated signifi- 1991). If there are profound differences between public and cantly at –.50 with n Aff (Andersen, 1994). private organizations, this fact may help to explain differ- Ebrahimi (1996) stated that managerial motivation had ences in public and private managers’ motivation. The theo- been regarded as an independent variable in relation to the ries of person-organization fit concern the antecedents and dependent variables of organizational performance and simi- consequences of compatibility between people and the orga- lar measures. Does the claim that power-motivated managers nizations in which they work. These theories include models are more effective have empirical support? Andersen (1999) of person-vocation fit and person-group fit. Theories of per- has performed a meta-study based on three previously pub- son-vocation fit may predict vocational choice according to lished studies. The meta-study contains data from 757 man- Kristof (1996). Athanasaw (2003) addressed the question of agers (U.S. and Swedish managers). The statistical analyses why senior executives prefer civil-service positions to pri- support McClelland’s theory. The significant covariances vate-sector ones, and a link to the person-organization fit found depended neither on the data-collection instruments argument was suggested. used (TAT or this questionnaire) nor on the definition of effectiveness. Power-motivated behavior in managers appears to enhance organizational effectiveness. Power Motivation of Women and Men in Managerial Positions Critical Comments Winter (1982 in McClelland, 1990) presented a convincing McClelland’s theory is a need theory, and thus, the general case for the fact that, in general, the power motivation func- critique of need theories is valid for McClelland’s work as tions in the same way for women as it does for men. The well. It is particularly the theory of achievement motivation chief difference in male and female behaviors associated which has been subject to criticism. The argument is that with high need for power scores lies in what is called the achievement is culturally dependent. It is not possible to “profligate expansive impulse.” Women’s motives for power exclude culture and context if achievement motivation is to are expressed in more socially responsible ways. As 99% of be understood (Maehr, 1974). In addition, McClelland’s the- the 580 instrument test respondents were men, it is crucial to ory has been criticized owing to its individualistic, competi- assess the power motivation in women managers. tive, and value-based foundation (Parsons & Goff, 1978). Theoretically, we should expect the score for power motiva- In addition, criticism has been especially directed toward tion of male and female managers to be quite similar. But is McClelland’s claim that power motivation is important for this the case when both male and female managers respond? effective management. McClelland claimed that the power A study by Andersen and Hansson (2011) explored behav- need consisted of two components: personalized and social- ioral differences between women and men in managerial ized needs of power. Regarding leadership, McClelland positions. To eliminate any effects of organizational differ- holds that it is the socialized need that causes organizational ences on motivation-based behavior, the study included only effectiveness. It is therefore unsatisfactory that the socialized public managers responding to the instrument. The statistical need is defined by the use of the concept of “activity inhibi- analyses of data from three groups of Swedish public manag- tion,” which is not extensively addressed by McClelland. ers (n = 385) revealed virtually no significant differences Moreover, some studies define “leader motive profile” with between female and male managers in motivation profiles. the concept of activity inhibition, while others do not Regardless of whether there is a female or male majority of (Andersen, 1999). employees in the organization or a female or male majority of managers, no significant differences in motivation emerged. Conclusion Several researchers have argued that it is important to inves- Are Power-Motivated Managers More Effective? tigate and measure managers’ motivation and their motiva- McClelland (1970, 1990) and McClelland and Burnham tion profiles. A forced-choice questionnaire has been (1976) have suggested that power-motivated managers are developed, which measures the motivation profile of each more effective than those displaying other motivation profiles. respondent. The instrument is especially designed to mea- This claim does not imply that the higher the power motiva- sure work motivation in managerial settings. It has been sub- tion, the higher the effectiveness. Rather, the main claim is that ject to reliability and validity tests. The tests confirm that the managers’ power motivation must be stronger than their instrument is a sound research measurement. In addition, on 8 SAGE Open the empirical basis of responses from several types of man- References agers (including both men and women) in different kinds of Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York, NY: private and public organizations, the applications of this Macmillan. instrument have corroborated the four main theoretical Andersen, J. A. (1991a). Appendix to managers and motiva- claims proposed by McClelland and his associates. Managers tion—Theory and test of the AMPI instrument [In Norwegian: Vedlegg til Lederes motivasjon—teori og instrument]. Lund, have motivation profiles. Differences in motivation profiles Sweden: Lund University. exist between managers across organizational types. Virtually Andersen, J. A. (1991b). Managers and motivation—Theory and no significant differences in motivation profiles between test of the AMPI instrument [In Norwegian: Lederes motivas- female and male managers exist. Managers who are predom- jon—teori og instrument]. Lund, Sweden: Lund University. inantly power motivated enhance organizational effective- Andersen, J. A. (1994). Leadership and effectiveness [Ledelse og ness. The result of the application of the instrument for effektivitet; in Norwegian. Summary in English] (Doctoral investigating the motivation profiles of 565 managers may thesis, Studies in Economics and Management 23, The be an indicator of its quality. Institute of Economic Research). Lund, Sweden: Lund It is important to emphasize that the support for University Press. McClelland’s theory is independent of the measurement Andersen, J. A. (1999). Are power motivated leaders more effec- being applied. Regardless of whether TAT or the question- tive? A review of McClelland’s theory. In F. A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & K. D. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current topics in naire is used, the empirical results are the same. The instru- management (Vol. 4, pp. 41-59). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. ment (AMPI) has specific relevance for scholarship on Andersen, J. A. (2010a). Assessing public managers’ change-ori- management. It may contribute to research based on ented behavior: Are private managers caught in the doldrums? McClelland’s theory by facilitating investigations into the International Journal of Public Administration, 33, 335-345. relationships between power-motivated managers and orga- Andersen, J. A. (2010b). Public versus private managers: How pub- nizational outcomes, and managers’ motivation profiles lic and private managers differ in leadership behavior. Public across countries and organizational types. Administration Review, 17, 131-141. This study of managers’ motivation is limited to three Andersen, J. A., & Hansson, P. H. (2011). At the end of the road? motivation factors. In addition, the relationship between On differences between women and men in leadership behav- managers’ motivation-based behavior and their organiza- ior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32, tions does not include any specific organizational or cultural 328-441. Athanasaw, D. L. (2003). Leadership styles as perceived by career variables. The findings that power-motivated managers are senior service executives. International Journal of Public more effective are based on the assumption that this relation- Administration, 26, 1205-1234. ship is not contingent on organizational and external Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measure- variables. ment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, More research is required to investigate if and to what 69, 49-56. extent organizational variables, external variables as well Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: as cultural variables have effects on or modify the find- Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, ings of previous research, including what this article has NY: The Free Press. presented. Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & The relevance for managers is not the motivation theory James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social itself, but the findings of several investigations regarding the cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. behavior of power-motivated managers who are often in Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346-179. charge of effective organizations. Power-motivated manag- Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effec- ers take and implement decisions and advice, as well as sup- tive performance. New York, NY: John Wiley. port their subordinates, and control the activities of others. Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual dif- They persuade and influence their subordinates with the best ferences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. interests of the organization in mind. Power-motivated man- Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-498. agers use their power in socially positive ways that benefit Clark, K. E., & Clark, M. B. (1990). Measures of leadership. West others and the organization. Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, Declaration of Conflicting Interests CA: Sage. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 mea- sures and their use. London, England: Academic Press. Funding Ebrahimi, B. P. (1996). Motivation to manage in Hong Kong: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Modification and test of Miner Sentence Completion Scale-H. ship, and/or publication of this article. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12, 401-414. Andersen 9 Edwards, A. L. (1983). Techniques of attitude scale construction. McClelland, D. C., & Steele, R. S. (1972). Motivation workshops. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational York, NY: McGraw-Hill. and Psychological Measurement, 29, 445-451. Franken, F. E. (1982). Human motivation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Mehrabian, A. (1970). The development and validation of measures Cole. of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational Gill, C. M., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2007). Development and vali- and Psychological Measurement, 30, 417-428. dation of the Five-Factor Model Questionnaire (FFMQ): An Mehrabian, A., & Bank, L. (1978). A questionnaire measure of adjectival-based personality inventory for use in occupational individual differences in achieving tendency. Educational and settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 731-766. Psychological Measurement, 38, 475-478. Gjemse, T., & Nygård, R. (1970). Achievement-related motives: Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and Theoretical considerations and constructions of a measur- experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford, UK: ing instrument (Report No. 2, Fear of Failure Project). Oslo, Oxford University Press. Norway: University of Oslo. Ogden Hamilton, J. (1975). Prediction of persistence and perfor- Green, S. G., Nebeker, D. M., & Boni, M. A. (1976). Personality mance with the Hermans Prestatic Motivation Test. Educational and situational effects on leader behavior. Academy of and Psychological Measurement, 35, 915-920. Management Journal, 19, 184-194. Parsons, J. E., & Goff, S. B. (1978). Achievement motivation Hamilton, R. J., & Akhter, S. (2002). Psychometric proper- and values: An alternative perspective. In L. J. Fryans (Ed.), ties of multidimentional-multiattributional causality scale. Achievement motivation: Recent trends in theory and research Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 802-817. (pp. 349-373). New York, NY: Plenum Press Hansemark, O. C. (2000). Predictive validity of TAT and CMPS on Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing the entrepreneurial activity, “start of a new business”: A longi- public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, tudinal study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 634-654. 36, 233-144. Hansson, P. H., & Andersen, J. A. (2001). The Swedish vicar Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York, NY: and change: A problematic mismatch. Journal of Empirical McGraw-Hill. Theology, 14, 47-60. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus Harper, F. B. W. (1975). The validity of some alternative measures external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: of achievement motivation. Educational and Psychological General and Applied, 80, 1-28. Measurement, 35, 905-909. Sashkin, M., & Warner Burke, W. (1990). Understanding and James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional assessing organizational leadership. In K. E. Clark & M. B. reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131-163. Clark (Eds.), Measures of management (pp. 297-325). West Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309-325. leadership: A critical appraisal. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45). Carbondale: review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implica- Southern Illinois University Press. tions. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. Sid, A. K. W., & Lindgren, H. C. (1982). Achievement and Lennerlöf, L. (1966). Dimensions of supervision (Report No. 39). affiliation motivation and their correlates. Educational and Stockholm, Sweden: PA-Council. Psychological Measurement, 42, 1213-1218. Maehr, L. M. (1974). Culture and achievement motivation. Stone, D. L. (2010). Creating knowledge that makes important contribu- American Psychologist, 29, 887-896. tions to society. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 192-200. McAdams, D. P. (1990). Foreword. In D. C. McClelland (Ed.), van der Heijde, C. M., & van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A com- Human motivation (pp. iii-v). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge petence-based and multidimensional operationalization and mea- University Press. surement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45, McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: 449-476. Van Nostrand. Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward McClelland, D. C. (1970). The two faces of power. Journal of preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business man- International Affairs, 24, 29-47. agers. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 369-383. McClelland, D. C. (1971, January). To know why men do what they Wotruba, T. R., & Price, K. F. (1975). Relationships among do. Psychology Today, pp. 35-75. four measures of achievement motivation. Educational and McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values deter- Psychological Measurement, 35, 911-914. mine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825. Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle McClelland, D. C. (1990). Human motivation. Cambridge, UK: River, NJ: Pearson. Cambridge University Press. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive Author Biography pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743. Jon Aarum Andersen received his doctor degree from Lund McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great University, Sweden. He has 38 international research articles pub- motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54, 100-110. lished. Andersen is now affiliated to Örebro University, Sweden. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Managers’ Motivation Profiles: Measurement and Application:

Andersen, Jon Aarum
SAGE Open , Volume 8 (2): 1 – Apr 27, 2018
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/managers-motivation-profiles-measurement-and-application-XE3YXWKlUR

References (66)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244018771732
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To promote leadership research on managers’ motivation, a measurement (Andersen Motivation Profile Indicator [AMPI]) has been developed and tested that (a) measures achievement, affiliation, and power motivation; (b) measures the relative strengths of these factors; (c) rests explicitly on the definitions of McClelland; and (d) measures managers’ work motivation. The questionnaire has been tested for reliability and validity with responses from 580 managers. The application of the instrument in four studies with responses from 565 managers in other organizations supported McClelland’s theoretical claims: (a) managers have motivation profiles, (b) there are differences in motivation profiles between managers across organizational types, (c) there are no significant differences in motivation profiles between female and male managers, and (d) managers who are predominantly power motivated enhance organizational effectiveness. Arguably, the application of the instrument may be an indicator of its quality. The instrument facilitates leadership research on the relationship between managers’ motivation profiles and organizational specifics, gender, sociocultural factors, and organizational outcomes. Keywords achievement motivation, affiliation motivation, power motivation, motivation profile, reliability test, validity test, application One approach in leadership research describes the behavior motivation; (b) measure the relative strengths of these fac- or behavioral pattern of managers and explains the reasons tors; (c) rest explicitly on McClelland’s definitions, and indi- for the behavior. The ambition is also to predict the conse- cators; and (d) be designed to measure the work motivation quences of managerial behavior on organizational outcomes. of managers. Managerial psychology has a great deal of knowledge on Several instruments on motivation are available, but they motivation that can be used to enhance organizational effec- do not measure the three motivation factors. They do not rest tiveness (Stone, 2010). The study of motivation-based explicitly on McClelland’s definitions and are not designed behavior of formal leaders (managers) is part of this research to measure work motivation in managerial settings (e.g., tradition (e.g., Ebrahimi, 1996). A major contribution in the Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, field of motivation linked to managers’ motivation is the 1981; Gjemse & Nygård, 1970; Hansemark, 2000; James, work of McClelland (1961, 1990). He holds a significant 1998; Lennerlöf, 1966; Mehrabian, 1969, 1970). For these position in leadership research verified by the number of ref- reasons, a questionnaire an alternative to the TAT has been erences in Bass (1990) and Yukl (2010). developed. It has been tested and applied to facilitate motiva- The three motivation factors highlighted in McClelland’s tion-based leadership research. Managers’ motivation affects theory are the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation. the way they behave at work. This is the reason why empiri- According to McClelland, it is not the achievement, affilia- cal studies of managers’ motivation are important. In addi- tion, or power motivation in isolation that is of central impor- tion, studies have showed that managers in different kinds of tance. Rather, it is managers’ comprehensive motivation organizations do have different motivation profiles profiles, that is, the relative strengths of these three kinds of (Andersen, 2010a; McClelland, 1971). It is also important to motivation which are crucial. investigate the organizational outcomes of managers whose Leadership scholarship requires a test of the concept of “motivation profile” (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). To Örebro University, Sweden avoid instrument-dependent conclusions, leadership Corresponding Author: researchers also need an alternative instrument to the Jon Aarum Andersen, Örebro University, Universitetsplatsen, SE-701 82 Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). The alternative instru- Örebro, Sweden. ment must (a) measure achievement, affiliation, and power Email: jon.andersen@oru.se Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open behaviors are affected by an achievement or an affiliation or achievement satisfaction for oneself (McClelland, 1970, p. a power motivation profile. 30). Thus, a strong need for achievement was not the solution On this theoretical basis, a Norwegian-language instru- to leadership effectiveness. ment was developed and tested to measure motivation pro- Managers are also motivated by affiliation at work. files of managers (Andersen, 1991a, b). Four studies show McClelland and Burnham (1976) claimed that sociological how the empirical results accord with the theoretical founda- theory and their findings indicate that the person whose need tion of the questionnaire (Andersen Motivation Profile for affiliation (n Aff) is high does not make a good manager. Indicator [AMPI]). This demonstrates the instrument’s scope A strong need for social relationships and friendship is fun- of application. damental for persons with a strong n Aff. McClelland and Burnham (1976) have argued that managers’ need to main- tain a satisfactory social relationship with their subordinates The Theory prevents them from making effective decisions. McClelland’s theory is briefly described with emphasis on What about the power motive and leadership? The work managers’ motivation. His research has a number of charac- of McClelland and his associates offers strong support for teristics: (1) a commitment to measurement of human the view that effective leaders have a high need for power. motives; (2) a strong conviction that the TAT is a superior Clark and Clark (1990) have written, method for the study of motives; and (3) a focus on three Moreover, their work show that such leaders direct their need fundamental motivational systems: (a) achievement/success, for power in socially positive ways, that is, ways that benefit (b) power/impact, and (c) affiliation/intimacy; and (4) the others and the organization rather than merely contributing to belief that motives can be changed (McAdams, 1990). the leader’s personal status or material condition. Effective Murray (l938) pointed out that there were significant differ- leaders want power and influence because they know that it is ences between people concerning the need for or inclination through power and influence that things get done in to execute power, to overcome obstacles, and to strive to do organizations. (p. 305) something difficult well. McClelland and Steele (1972, p. 33) defined the motivation factors thus: The conclusion is that the motivation profile is effective when the need for power is stronger than the needs for Achievement—A desire to do better than other people or more achievement and affiliation. Motivation is based on needs effectively, to solve problems, to master difficult tasks. implying that an individual wants or desires to achieve, to affiliate, and to influence others (McClelland & Steele, Power—A desire to control other people, to influence their 1972). When Ebrahimi (1996) tested the Miner Sentence behaviour, or to be responsible for other people and their work. Completion Scale-H, he measured motivation in terms of the desire to compete, the desire to exercise power, and so on. Affiliation—A desire to establish and maintain friendly and James (1998) suggested a new system for measuring person- close relationships with other people. ality. It was applied to develop measures of achievement motivation. Motivation is, according to McClelland (1990), These needs are expressed in varying degrees and are a not a personality trait. Instead, motivation comprises a set of result of individual life experiences. It is important to stress acquired needs that can be changed. In addition, Bing, that there are no specific theories of motivation for managers LeBreton, Davison, Migetz, and James (2007) were con- or leaders. McClelland and his associates spent much time cerned with how to test achievement-related cognitions. on studying the motive for achievement in school children McClelland (1990) wrote that “the case for the achievement and small-business entrepreneurs. Later, they studied man- motive’s being a cognitive disposition is not persuasive for a agers in larger enterprises. No theoretical arguments sup- variety of reasons” (p. 497). He argued that the need for ported the notion that achievement-motivated managers achievement had to be distinguished from the cognitive vari- would be more successful. The achievement-motivated indi- able “attitude towards achievement” (McClelland, 1990). In vidual wishes to do things themselves or to better them- fact, McClelland (1985) found that the need factor had more selves. They focus on personal improvements (McClelland explanatory power on behavior than the cognitive one. A rec- & Burnham, 1976). ognition of the differences between needs, personality traits, McClelland (1970) wrote, “I shall never forget the and cognition linked to motivation is essential for the formu- moment when I learned that the president of one of the most lation of questionnaire items. successful achievement-oriented firms we had been studying scored exactly zero on n Achievement!” (p. 30). “How was it possible to for a man to be head of an obviously achieving Motivation Profile company and yet score low in n Achievement?” He added that stimulating achievement motivation in others requires a McClelland (1990) described specific behavioral patterns different motive and a different set of skills than wanting with the terms achievement, affiliation, and power motivated Andersen 3 behaviour. A number of empirical studies has shown that The Test these kinds of motivation affect actions and behavior with The instrument is developed specifically for measuring man- respect to energy, sensitivity, and learning (McClelland, agers’ motivation profiles. The instrument and test results 1990). McClelland and Burnham (1976) employed the terms were originally reported in Norwegian (Andersen, 1991a, b). motivation pattern and motivation profile. McClelland and The English version of the instrument has been subject to Boyatzis (1982) applied the terms motive pattern and leader- professional back-translation. “Different methods do exist ship motive pattern. The combination of an elevated need for for constructing measurement instruments representing power, a low n Aff, and a high degree of activity inhibition is abstract concepts, and each has specific advantages and dis- called the “imperial power motive syndrome” or the “leader- advantages” (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006, p. ship motive syndrome” (McClelland, 1990). A number of 457). With reference to the limitations of the TAT, a written studies (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982) has dealt with the effects of instrument was preferred. Rather than the Likert-type scales, motivation profiles on managers’ behavior. Boyatzis (1982) a forced-choice instrument was chosen because this mea- used the term power motive syndrome. surement design has several advantages compared with more Data for measuring motivational factors may originate traditional instruments (Anastasi, 1988; Baron, 1996; from a TAT measurement or a questionnaire. Both kinds of Converse & Presser, 1986). instruments may measure the relative strengths of the three The concept of motivation profile (motivation pattern) motivation factors. The scores for each respondent can be and the theoretical claim that most individuals have a moti- converted into categorical variables; that is, they identify vation profile constitute the rationale for developing a which of the three motives is stronger than the others or forced-choice instrument. The application of a forced-choice which is the strongest. In this way, data from respondents instrument minimizes the possibilities for the respondents to will classify each manager as possessing one of three motive misrepresent themselves or to cheat. The lack of clarity and profiles or belonging to the group “no profile.” According to indecision that can arise during the coding of the response McClelland (1990), it is a theoretical assumption that most alternatives thus reduces owing to the fact that the respon- individuals have a motivation profile. dent is confronted with two statements. It is a relative choice, which implies that the respondent does not have to make an The Instrument absolute judgment. Sid and Lindgren (1982) have tested the NachNaff scale by application of a 30-items forced-choice To McClelland, the TAT was a superior method for the inves- questionnaire related to McClelland’s theory. In this case, the tigation of motives, and he used it in all his empirical studies. development of the instrument was explicitly based on McClelland and Steele (1972) provided a description of this McClelland’s theory in which three factors are given. Each instrument. Despite its merits, the TAT is criticized for a of these factors is theoretically and empirically defined and number of shortcomings involving reliability and validity supported by indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972). The (Bing et al., 2007; Harper, 1975). McClelland (1985) did, first step was the formulation of the items, and thus, the face however, acknowledge the problems related to testing the validity is presented. It is imperative that the number of items reliability of TAT, as test–retests are difficult to conduct is the same for each of the three factors. The second step is to owing to the characteristics of the method. The TAT requires select which pair of items to be included in the questionnaire theoretical knowledge and experience for its proper use, (see Gill & Hodgkinson, 2007). especially with regard to coding the responses. It is both time The development of a forced-choice instrument brings to consuming and costly, and it needs to be administered under the fore the question of the number of items. For guidance, controlled conditions (Ogden Hamilton, 1975). The TAT has other forced-choice instruments that have been applied in long been considered the measurement of choice for measur- leadership research have been consulted. The leadership- ing motivation. Objective tests, however, have considerable style instrument developed by Reddin (1970) consists of potential appeal to investigators for reasons of economy and eight items for each variable, whereas Kilmann and Thomas ease of analysis (Wotruba & Price, 1975). (1977) used six items. Alternative measures, first and foremost the question- naire, are therefore recommended for further studies of moti- vation (Harper, 1975). Consequently, a number of scholars The Construction of the Instrument have developed written instruments as alternatives to the The Scaling Problem TAT (e.g., Gjemse & Nygård, 1970; Hansemark, 2000; James, 1998; Lennerlöf, 1966; Mehrabian, 1969, 1970). A forced-choice instrument requires the respondent to choose Mehrabian and Bank (1978) have tested an improved version between two descriptive terms or phrases. Both items may be of Mehrabian’s (1969) scales. It was not tested on managers. desirable or undesirable (Anastasi, 1988). These two state- A large number of contemporary researchers have mainly ments may not have the same weight or strength, which leads addressed achievement motivation, and the measurement of to the problem of scaling (Edwards, 1983). It is a theoretical achievement motivation. 4 SAGE Open requirement that the statements have the same frequency The Validity Test when responses from a large sample are compared. However, Face Validity for individual respondents, this is not the case. The instrument is especially designed to measure work The formulation of the items requires the proper handling of motivation in managerial settings. It consists of eight items the differences between motivation as personality trait, as a for each of the three motivation factors, in which one item cognitive factor, or as a need. If achievement motivation measuring achievement is paired with one measuring affilia- were a personality trait, the item could be as follows: “I am tion or power motivation. Thus, such an instrument would by nature in charge of a department that is better than its consist of 192 pairs of questions. The first step in the devel- counterparts.” If achievement motivation is based on cogni- opment involved reducing the number of pairs by randomly tion, the item could be worded in this manner: “It is impor- drawing 25% of the total. Initially, the pilot instrument con- tant to me to be in charge of a department that is better than sisted of 48 pairs of questions, which was tested for the fre- its counterparts.” If achievement motivation is an acquired quency of choices. On the basis of the responses from 372 need, the item could read like number (15 - [1]) in the ques- male managers (response rate 83%), the pairs which showed tionnaire: “I want to be in charge of a department, institution, the most equal distribution between the two alternative items organization or company that is better than its counterparts.” in each pair were selected. The comparison of achievement It is worth noting that Ebrahimi (1996) has also stressed the items with affiliation items showed a distribution of 49.5% need basis of motivation when measuring managers’ motiva- versus 50.5%, respectively. Achievement items versus power tion. The face validity is based explicitly on McClelland’s items yielded a distribution of 50.05% versus 49.95%. theory, specifically on McClelland and Steele (1972), which Finally, the comparison between affiliation items versus gives the theoretical definitions, the empirical definitions as power items, the distribution was 49.0% versus 51.0% well as indicators for each of the three motivation factors. (Andersen, 1991b). The 24 pairs that showed the most equal distribution between the two alternative items in each pair constitute the instrument. The first pair (01) in the instrument Empirical Definition—The Achievement Motive can be used to illustrate the choice the respondents have to The Achievement Motive (nAch), which is indicated by make (in this case between achievement and affiliation): someone in a story wanting to perform or do something better, 01—(a) It happens that I spend time considering how to or by someone caring about performing or doing something advance my career or how to do my job better in the long better. (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 33) run; and 01—(b) I want to consider the feelings of my subor- dinates when decisions are to be made and implemented. As the respondents are “forced” to choose one of the two state- Empirical Definition—The Affiliation Motive ments in each pair, the total sum is 24. The forced-choice The Affiliation Motive (nAff), which is indicated by someone in instrument yields the respondent’s motivation profile. a story wanting to be with someone else and enjoy mutual friendship, but not merely wanting to do something for another. The Reliability Test: Test–Retest (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 33) Instruments that are based on Likert-type scales are often subject to factor analyses. Cronbach’s alpha is used to test Empirical Definition—The Power Motive reliability. The forced-choice instrument was tested by test– The Power Motive (nPower), which is indicated by someone in retest based on the responses from 51 Swedish managers (46 a story desiring to have impact, make impression, on others or men, response rate 89%). It showed that for 42 respondents, another in the story. (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 33) the motivation factor, which was the stronger in the first test, was also the stronger in the retest (82.4%). The comparison of the choices made between the 24 item alternatives of the The Test of Validity of the Achievement Score test with the result of the retest revealed that the responses were in average 59.6% the same. For specific items, the A high degree of achievement motivation is theoretically responses were the same between the two tests, in the range associated with a high degree of internal motivation as of 37.5% to 87.5%. defined by Rotter (1966). Hamilton and Akhter (2002) also According to McClelland, most individuals have a (dis- refer to achievement motivation and Rotter (1966). The tinct) motivation profile. A test based on 272 responses instrument was tested by a comparison of the achievement showed that only 2.3% had no profile, as they scored equally scores of this instrument with the internal motivation scores on all three motives (8 + 8 + 8), while 17.6% scored equally of Rotter’s (1966) test. The response from 67 managers high on two motives (e.g., 9 + 9 + 6 or 10 + 10 + 4 or 11 + 11 showed a correlation of .857 between the internal motivation + 2). Almost 80% of the respondents had a motivation and achievement scores (Andersen, 1991a). Correlations profile. above .8 are indications of validity (Anastasi, 1988). Andersen 5 Indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 34) Item pair and item in questionnaire a. Outperforming someone else 15 - (1) I want to be in charge of a department, institution, organization, or company that is better than its counterparts. 02 - (1) I want and work to become better than others within my professional field or better than others in my organization, in my company, in my institution, or in my department. b. Meeting or surpassing some self-imposed standard of 04 - (1) At work, I continuously try to improve my own performance. excellence 13 - (1) I tend to set moderate goals and to take moderate and considered risks. c. Doing something unique 05 - (2) I want to perform something important in a wider sense, that is, something that exceeds my daily tasks. 03 - (1) I feel that I become easily motivated when I face problems that I do not immediately know how to tackle. d. Being involved over long term in doing something well— 01 - (1) It happens that I spend time considering how to advance my career or how to where there is an indication of great involvement over do my job better in the long run. time in the achievement goal 17 - (2) It stimulates me to work with unsolved problems, even if it requires hard work over a long period to succeed. Indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 39) Item pair and item in questionnaire a. Wanting to establish, restore, or maintain a close, warm and friendly 01 - (2) I want to consider the feelings of my subordinates when decisions relationship with another or others are to be made and implemented. 03 - (2) I want to create an atmosphere at work characterized by kindness and consideration for others. 05 - (1) I most enjoy work or situations that provide an opportunity for social relationships. 07 - (1) It is my desire and I work to be perceived by my subordinates as a good friend. 08 - (1) I want to be liked and to be a popular figure amongst my subordinates. 13 - (2) I want to be on a good footing with my subordinates. b. Being emotionally concerned over separation from another person, 12- (2) I often think about my personal relationship with my subordinates. which indicates a desire to restore a close relationship 15 - (2) I would try to restore disrupted relationships with subordinates when they occur. c. Desiring to participate or being concern with participating in friendly, Since this indicator is not related to work situations no items are formulated. convivial activities, such as a club reunion Indicators (McClelland & Steele, 1972, p. 43): A character’s having an impact is indicated by one of the following: a. Powerful actions: 04 - (2) I need to be the one who makes decisions and implements them in − Strong, forceful actions that affect others (e.g., aggression); my company, in my institution, or in my department. 10 - (1) I want to influence and I want that I myself can decide how to solve my daily tasks. − giving help, assistance, advice or support if it has not been solicited 06 - (2) It is part of my responsibility as a manager to give advice, to help, by the other person; and to support my subordinates even if they do not directly ask for it. − trying to control another person through regulating his behavior or 08 - (2) I want that I, and not people in other departments or specialists, the conditions of this life, or through seeking important information decide what is going to happen in my organization, in my company, in my that would affect another’s life or actions; institution, or in my department. 20 - (2) I want to influence and gain control over what my subordinates do. − trying to influence, persuade, make a point, or argue with another 14 - (2) I want to influence my subordinates in order to make them share person, as long as the concern is not to reach an agreement or to my opinions. avoid misunderstanding or disagreement; − trying to impress some other person or the world at large. 02 - (2) I want to be a demanding, outspoken, and forceful manager. b. Strong positive or negative emotions in others, resulting from actions taken. Since this indicator is not related to work situations no items are formulated. c. Concerns expressed for an individual’s reputation or position. Since this indicator is not related to work situations no items are formulated. 6 SAGE Open responses from 153 vicars, out of which 145 (84%) had moti- The Test of Validity of the Affiliation Score vation profiles (Hansson & Andersen, 2001). These studies Affiliation-motivation items were tested by a comparison of have shown that managers had motivation profiles when the their score with relationships-motivated style score of instrument was applied. Fiedler’s (1967) Least-Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) instru- ment. High LPC scores (66 to 144) are indicative of the rela- tionships-motivated leadership style. The response from the Power Motivation in Business and Public same 67 managers showed a correlation of .421 between the Managers relationships-motivated style and affiliation scores (Andersen, 1991a). Due to the number of critical judgments Managers in business are primarily concerned with influenc- regarding the LPC instrument (e.g., Green, Nebeker, & Boni, ing others. They ought to be characterized by a strong need 1976; Sashkin & Warner Burke, 1990; Schriesheim & Kerr, for power (McClelland, 1971). It is expected theoretically 1977), the application of the LPC instrument for testing the that a successful manager has a stronger need for power than affiliation items turned out to be ill-chosen. for achievement (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). Now, is this the case if the instrument is applied? Data from 209 managers (Andersen, 1994) showed that The Test of Validity of the Power Score 86 managers (41%) were power motivated, 68 business man- It is argued that the power dimension is theoretically linked agers (33%) were predominately achievement motivated, to dominance and dominant behavior (McClelland, 1990). while 55 managers (26%) were affiliation motivated. The Franken’s (1982) instrument, consisting of 50 bipolar average scores for the managers were 8.31 (SD, 2.87) for the statements, was used. High scores indicate dominance. achievement-motivated managers, 6.87 (SD, 3.10) for the The responses from the same 67 managers showed a cor- affiliation-motivated ones, and 8.82 (SD, 2.88) for the power- relation of .818 between the dominance score and the motivated managers. power score of the instrument (Andersen, 1991a). The tests When comparing leadership behavior of public and pri- of reliability and validity meet the requirements of a vate managers, Andersen (2010b) reported that business research instrument. managers differed significantly from public managers in respect of motivation profile. The investigation consisted of 205 Swedish public managers and their motivation profiles The Result of the Application of the in three different agencies. Out of these, 95 managers (46%) Instrument were predominantly achievement motivated, 67 public man- In addition to testing the validity and reliability of the instru- agers (33%) were power motivated, and 43 managers (21%) ment, it is also possible to assess the quality of this instru- were affiliation motivated. The average score for the public ment in regard to some of McClelland’s major theoretical managers were 8.99 for the achievement-motivated manag- claims. The application of the instrument thus tested the ers, 6.87 for the affiliation-motivated ones, and 8.16 for the claims that (a) most respondents (i.e., managers) have a power-motivated managers. Public managers in Sweden motivation profile (i.e., one motivation factor is relatively were characterized by achievement motivation. The validity stronger than the other two), (b) business managers are test showed a low correlation between the relationships- power motivated, (c) there were no significant differences motivated style and affiliation scores. Thus, the application between men and women in managerial positions in regard of the instrument became crucial with respect to affiliation- to motivation, and (d) power-motivated managers are more motivation scores. effective. An investigation of leadership behavior of 153 vicars (whose position is the level below that of bishops) in the Church of Sweden by Hansson and Andersen (2001) found One Dominant Motivation Profile that 87 vicars (57%) were affiliation motivated, 46 vicars McClelland (1990) has claimed that most individuals have (30%) were power motivated, and 20 vicars (13%) were pre- one motivation factor which is more dominant than the other dominantly achievement motivated. As expected, vicars two, namely, a motivation profile. Data from 222 Swedish were predominantly affiliation-motivated. managers (Andersen, 1994) showed that 209 managers had Three causes may explain the differences found in man- one motivation factor scoring stronger than the other two, agers’ motivation profiles across organizations: (a) organiza- implying that 94.1% of these managers had profiles. The tional differences may lead to leadership differences, (b) the study of Andersen (2010b) contains data from 61 social- choice of profession or vocation, and (c) the differing criteria insurance managers, of which 53 (89%) had motivation pro- for promoting people to senior positions (Andersen, 2010a). files. It contains also data from 196 senior secondary-school Rainey, Backoff, and Levine (1976) argued that we cannot headmasters, out of which 172 (86%) had motivation pro- overlook a number of important differences between private files. A study of vicars in the Church of Sweden is based on and public organizations. According to McClelland (1990), Andersen 7 all motives are acquired and learned from experience. Thus, affiliation motivation. The factor that is most often mentioned managers’ experiences with different kinds of organizations, by n Ach theorists as being the least compatible with n Ach is professions, and vocations affect their motivation profiles. the n Aff (Sid & Lindgren, 1982). Their study, however, does Research indicates that public managers differ from their not contain any data on managers. On the basis of data from private-sector counterparts in terms of work-related values, 222 managers, n Ach correlated significantly at –.55 with n reward preferences, needs, and personality types (Wittmer, Aff. The same study showed that n power correlated signifi- 1991). If there are profound differences between public and cantly at –.50 with n Aff (Andersen, 1994). private organizations, this fact may help to explain differ- Ebrahimi (1996) stated that managerial motivation had ences in public and private managers’ motivation. The theo- been regarded as an independent variable in relation to the ries of person-organization fit concern the antecedents and dependent variables of organizational performance and simi- consequences of compatibility between people and the orga- lar measures. Does the claim that power-motivated managers nizations in which they work. These theories include models are more effective have empirical support? Andersen (1999) of person-vocation fit and person-group fit. Theories of per- has performed a meta-study based on three previously pub- son-vocation fit may predict vocational choice according to lished studies. The meta-study contains data from 757 man- Kristof (1996). Athanasaw (2003) addressed the question of agers (U.S. and Swedish managers). The statistical analyses why senior executives prefer civil-service positions to pri- support McClelland’s theory. The significant covariances vate-sector ones, and a link to the person-organization fit found depended neither on the data-collection instruments argument was suggested. used (TAT or this questionnaire) nor on the definition of effectiveness. Power-motivated behavior in managers appears to enhance organizational effectiveness. Power Motivation of Women and Men in Managerial Positions Critical Comments Winter (1982 in McClelland, 1990) presented a convincing McClelland’s theory is a need theory, and thus, the general case for the fact that, in general, the power motivation func- critique of need theories is valid for McClelland’s work as tions in the same way for women as it does for men. The well. It is particularly the theory of achievement motivation chief difference in male and female behaviors associated which has been subject to criticism. The argument is that with high need for power scores lies in what is called the achievement is culturally dependent. It is not possible to “profligate expansive impulse.” Women’s motives for power exclude culture and context if achievement motivation is to are expressed in more socially responsible ways. As 99% of be understood (Maehr, 1974). In addition, McClelland’s the- the 580 instrument test respondents were men, it is crucial to ory has been criticized owing to its individualistic, competi- assess the power motivation in women managers. tive, and value-based foundation (Parsons & Goff, 1978). Theoretically, we should expect the score for power motiva- In addition, criticism has been especially directed toward tion of male and female managers to be quite similar. But is McClelland’s claim that power motivation is important for this the case when both male and female managers respond? effective management. McClelland claimed that the power A study by Andersen and Hansson (2011) explored behav- need consisted of two components: personalized and social- ioral differences between women and men in managerial ized needs of power. Regarding leadership, McClelland positions. To eliminate any effects of organizational differ- holds that it is the socialized need that causes organizational ences on motivation-based behavior, the study included only effectiveness. It is therefore unsatisfactory that the socialized public managers responding to the instrument. The statistical need is defined by the use of the concept of “activity inhibi- analyses of data from three groups of Swedish public manag- tion,” which is not extensively addressed by McClelland. ers (n = 385) revealed virtually no significant differences Moreover, some studies define “leader motive profile” with between female and male managers in motivation profiles. the concept of activity inhibition, while others do not Regardless of whether there is a female or male majority of (Andersen, 1999). employees in the organization or a female or male majority of managers, no significant differences in motivation emerged. Conclusion Several researchers have argued that it is important to inves- Are Power-Motivated Managers More Effective? tigate and measure managers’ motivation and their motiva- McClelland (1970, 1990) and McClelland and Burnham tion profiles. A forced-choice questionnaire has been (1976) have suggested that power-motivated managers are developed, which measures the motivation profile of each more effective than those displaying other motivation profiles. respondent. The instrument is especially designed to mea- This claim does not imply that the higher the power motiva- sure work motivation in managerial settings. It has been sub- tion, the higher the effectiveness. Rather, the main claim is that ject to reliability and validity tests. The tests confirm that the managers’ power motivation must be stronger than their instrument is a sound research measurement. In addition, on 8 SAGE Open the empirical basis of responses from several types of man- References agers (including both men and women) in different kinds of Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York, NY: private and public organizations, the applications of this Macmillan. instrument have corroborated the four main theoretical Andersen, J. A. (1991a). Appendix to managers and motiva- claims proposed by McClelland and his associates. Managers tion—Theory and test of the AMPI instrument [In Norwegian: Vedlegg til Lederes motivasjon—teori og instrument]. Lund, have motivation profiles. Differences in motivation profiles Sweden: Lund University. exist between managers across organizational types. Virtually Andersen, J. A. (1991b). Managers and motivation—Theory and no significant differences in motivation profiles between test of the AMPI instrument [In Norwegian: Lederes motivas- female and male managers exist. Managers who are predom- jon—teori og instrument]. Lund, Sweden: Lund University. inantly power motivated enhance organizational effective- Andersen, J. A. (1994). Leadership and effectiveness [Ledelse og ness. The result of the application of the instrument for effektivitet; in Norwegian. Summary in English] (Doctoral investigating the motivation profiles of 565 managers may thesis, Studies in Economics and Management 23, The be an indicator of its quality. Institute of Economic Research). Lund, Sweden: Lund It is important to emphasize that the support for University Press. McClelland’s theory is independent of the measurement Andersen, J. A. (1999). Are power motivated leaders more effec- being applied. Regardless of whether TAT or the question- tive? A review of McClelland’s theory. In F. A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & K. D. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current topics in naire is used, the empirical results are the same. The instru- management (Vol. 4, pp. 41-59). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. ment (AMPI) has specific relevance for scholarship on Andersen, J. A. (2010a). Assessing public managers’ change-ori- management. It may contribute to research based on ented behavior: Are private managers caught in the doldrums? McClelland’s theory by facilitating investigations into the International Journal of Public Administration, 33, 335-345. relationships between power-motivated managers and orga- Andersen, J. A. (2010b). Public versus private managers: How pub- nizational outcomes, and managers’ motivation profiles lic and private managers differ in leadership behavior. Public across countries and organizational types. Administration Review, 17, 131-141. This study of managers’ motivation is limited to three Andersen, J. A., & Hansson, P. H. (2011). At the end of the road? motivation factors. In addition, the relationship between On differences between women and men in leadership behav- managers’ motivation-based behavior and their organiza- ior. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32, tions does not include any specific organizational or cultural 328-441. Athanasaw, D. L. (2003). Leadership styles as perceived by career variables. The findings that power-motivated managers are senior service executives. International Journal of Public more effective are based on the assumption that this relation- Administration, 26, 1205-1234. ship is not contingent on organizational and external Baron, H. (1996). Strengths and limitations of ipsative measure- variables. ment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, More research is required to investigate if and to what 69, 49-56. extent organizational variables, external variables as well Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: as cultural variables have effects on or modify the find- Theory, research, and managerial applications. New York, ings of previous research, including what this article has NY: The Free Press. presented. Bing, M. N., LeBreton, J. M., Davison, H. K., Migetz, D. Z., & The relevance for managers is not the motivation theory James, L. R. (2007). Integrating implicit and explicit social itself, but the findings of several investigations regarding the cognitions for enhanced personality assessment: A general framework for choosing measurement and statistical methods. behavior of power-motivated managers who are often in Organizational Research Methods, 10, 346-179. charge of effective organizations. Power-motivated manag- Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effec- ers take and implement decisions and advice, as well as sup- tive performance. New York, NY: John Wiley. port their subordinates, and control the activities of others. Chan, K., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual dif- They persuade and influence their subordinates with the best ferences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. interests of the organization in mind. Power-motivated man- Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481-498. agers use their power in socially positive ways that benefit Clark, K. E., & Clark, M. B. (1990). Measures of leadership. West others and the organization. Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Converse, J. M., & Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Beverly Hills, Declaration of Conflicting Interests CA: Sage. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 mea- sures and their use. London, England: Academic Press. Funding Ebrahimi, B. P. (1996). Motivation to manage in Hong Kong: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Modification and test of Miner Sentence Completion Scale-H. ship, and/or publication of this article. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12, 401-414. Andersen 9 Edwards, A. L. (1983). Techniques of attitude scale construction. McClelland, D. C., & Steele, R. S. (1972). Motivation workshops. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational York, NY: McGraw-Hill. and Psychological Measurement, 29, 445-451. Franken, F. E. (1982). Human motivation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Mehrabian, A. (1970). The development and validation of measures Cole. of affiliative tendency and sensitivity to rejection. Educational Gill, C. M., & Hodgkinson, G. P. (2007). Development and vali- and Psychological Measurement, 30, 417-428. dation of the Five-Factor Model Questionnaire (FFMQ): An Mehrabian, A., & Bank, L. (1978). A questionnaire measure of adjectival-based personality inventory for use in occupational individual differences in achieving tendency. Educational and settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 731-766. Psychological Measurement, 38, 475-478. Gjemse, T., & Nygård, R. (1970). Achievement-related motives: Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and Theoretical considerations and constructions of a measur- experimental study of fifty men of college age. Oxford, UK: ing instrument (Report No. 2, Fear of Failure Project). Oslo, Oxford University Press. Norway: University of Oslo. Ogden Hamilton, J. (1975). Prediction of persistence and perfor- Green, S. G., Nebeker, D. M., & Boni, M. A. (1976). Personality mance with the Hermans Prestatic Motivation Test. Educational and situational effects on leader behavior. Academy of and Psychological Measurement, 35, 915-920. Management Journal, 19, 184-194. Parsons, J. E., & Goff, S. B. (1978). Achievement motivation Hamilton, R. J., & Akhter, S. (2002). Psychometric proper- and values: An alternative perspective. In L. J. Fryans (Ed.), ties of multidimentional-multiattributional causality scale. Achievement motivation: Recent trends in theory and research Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 802-817. (pp. 349-373). New York, NY: Plenum Press Hansemark, O. C. (2000). Predictive validity of TAT and CMPS on Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine, C. H. (1976). Comparing the entrepreneurial activity, “start of a new business”: A longi- public and private organizations. Public Administration Review, tudinal study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 634-654. 36, 233-144. Hansson, P. H., & Andersen, J. A. (2001). The Swedish vicar Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York, NY: and change: A problematic mismatch. Journal of Empirical McGraw-Hill. Theology, 14, 47-60. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus Harper, F. B. W. (1975). The validity of some alternative measures external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: of achievement motivation. Educational and Psychological General and Applied, 80, 1-28. Measurement, 35, 905-909. Sashkin, M., & Warner Burke, W. (1990). Understanding and James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of personality via conditional assessing organizational leadership. In K. E. Clark & M. B. reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131-163. Clark (Eds.), Measures of management (pp. 297-325). West Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “MODE” instrument. Schriesheim, C. A., & Kerr, S. (1977). Theories and measures of Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309-325. leadership: A critical appraisal. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 9-45). Carbondale: review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implica- Southern Illinois University Press. tions. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. Sid, A. K. W., & Lindgren, H. C. (1982). Achievement and Lennerlöf, L. (1966). Dimensions of supervision (Report No. 39). affiliation motivation and their correlates. Educational and Stockholm, Sweden: PA-Council. Psychological Measurement, 42, 1213-1218. Maehr, L. M. (1974). Culture and achievement motivation. Stone, D. L. (2010). Creating knowledge that makes important contribu- American Psychologist, 29, 887-896. tions to society. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 192-200. McAdams, D. P. (1990). Foreword. In D. C. McClelland (Ed.), van der Heijde, C. M., & van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A com- Human motivation (pp. iii-v). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge petence-based and multidimensional operationalization and mea- University Press. surement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45, McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: 449-476. Van Nostrand. Wittmer, D. (1991). Serving the people or serving for pay: Reward McClelland, D. C. (1970). The two faces of power. Journal of preferences among government, hybrid sector, and business man- International Affairs, 24, 29-47. agers. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14, 369-383. McClelland, D. C. (1971, January). To know why men do what they Wotruba, T. R., & Price, K. F. (1975). Relationships among do. Psychology Today, pp. 35-75. four measures of achievement motivation. Educational and McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values deter- Psychological Measurement, 35, 911-914. mine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825. Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle McClelland, D. C. (1990). Human motivation. Cambridge, UK: River, NJ: Pearson. Cambridge University Press. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive Author Biography pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743. Jon Aarum Andersen received his doctor degree from Lund McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. H. (1976). Power is the great University, Sweden. He has 38 international research articles pub- motivator. Harvard Business Review, 54, 100-110. lished. Andersen is now affiliated to Örebro University, Sweden.

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Apr 27, 2018

Keywords: achievement motivation; affiliation motivation; power motivation; motivation profile; reliability test; validity test; application

There are no references for this article.