INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENTAHMEDABAD

Term Paper Assignment

The Fire Within

A look into the complex interplay of motivation and emotions in the workplace

Submitted to Prof. Premilla D’Cruz

In Partial fulfillment of the requirements of courseOrganizational Behavior (Micro)

Submitted on: August 27th, 2014

By

Shiva Kakkar

The page has been intentionally left blank

The Fire Within

A look into the complex interplay of motivation and emotions in the workplace

Shiva Kakkar

The past few decades have witnessed a renewal of interest in studies pertaining to the role of emotions in

the workplace. With increased globalization and the intermingling of personal and professional lives,

organizations have started realizing that the subject of emotions cannot be ignored any longer. Research

has shown that emotions and motivation are intrinsically related concepts. Both are unanimous in their

ability to direct action and influence behavior in people. Therefore, it makes more sense to understand

and utilize the power of emotions rather than negate it. Theories like ‘Affective events theory’ (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996) and ‘Self-regulation theory’ (Bandura, 1991) have provided a concrete foundation

for the study emotions in a scientific manner. Though psychological research has suggested that there is a

high amount of correspondence between emotions and motivation, attempts at linking the two concepts in

a single framework have been few and far between. The aim of this paper is to review the current status of

research on the subject and integrate the concepts in order to derive possible new insights.

“A good life is one directed by control and reason” - Plato (Lavine, 2011)

These words by Plato are not just an opinion. They tell us how history has been shaped and

molded by the various schools of thought, dwelling and ruminating on the intricate puzzle of

human behavior. From time immemorial, various branches of human sciences like philosophy,

sociology and psychology have focused on the role of reasoning and cognition in people.

Humans are considered as logical beings, bound to act as productive members of the society

under the governance of reason. The dominance of reason over the spirited energies of passion

(emotions) has been sought as a necessary trait for constructive behavior (Lavine, 2011). On the

other hand, emotions have always been looked upon as an aberration to this reasoning behavior.

This partisan view continued for much of history, from the times of Plato till those of Descartes.

But in 1738, a young David Hume rose to the challenge and jolted philosophy out of its shackles

of logic and reason.

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other

office than to serve and obey them” (Hume, 1873).

With this brave proclamation, Hume brought the role of passions and emotions in human studies

to the forefront. His declaration reoriented the course of philosophy and made the role of

emotions in human behavior an important part of philosophical discussions. However, the

domain of management, with its roots firmly entrenched into the principles of Taylorian era,

hasn’t been that accommodating. Like Plato, Taylor also assumed human beings to be inherently

rational (Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Zerbe, 2000). What followed was a systematic simplification of

jobs aimed at increasing efficiency and boosting production. In this mechanistic system of

maximum production in minimum time, emotions were considered to be unnecessary

distractions, hampering productivity and reducing efficiency (Muchinsky, 2000).

Yet, after decades of neglect, the field has witnessed resurgence owing to its relationship with

motivation and the resulting impact on human behavior. Both motivation and emotion are

marked by their ability to energize and direct behavior (Sincero, 2012). It is imperative for us to

understand that human behavior cannot be studied in purely cognitive terms. Motivation and

emotion are inextricably related to the intellectual functioning and development of human beings

(Dai & Sternberg, 2004). The aim of this paper is to explain the intertwined relationship between

motivation and emotions and gauge its impact on behavior. To achieve this, the current status of

research on the subject is reviewed and explained in the subsequent sections. Last but not the

least, an attempt has been made to integrate the two concepts of motivation and emotion using

the framework provided by ‘Self-regulation theory’ (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994).

Emotions – A brief introduction

The field of emotions is one of the most understudied and underestimated fields in both social

and organizational contexts. Apart from the fact that historically various schools of philosophy

have leaned strongly towards cognitivism, the problem is that it’s extremely difficult to come out

with a standard definition of emotions. The question ‘what are emotions?’ still doesn’t derive a

single answer. Till date, researchers engage in heated debates over the nature and composition of

emotions. ‘It is one of the most difficult and confused fields in the whole of psychology’

commented Magda Arnold over the crisis brewing in the field (as cited in Ashkanasy et al.,

2000). Therefore, it can be said that the character of emotions has been extremely hard to

decode. Still, attempts to define emotions have led to the development of three major

perspectives from which a study into the field can be initiated:

1. The evolutionary perspective

Darwin (1873) forwarded the biological and evolutionary perspective of emotions as a ‘build-up

and discharge of the nervous system for the purpose of survival’. A deer freezes on seeing an

approaching lion. Its muscles tense up, the eyes squint and there is a sudden build-up of fear and

terror inside which makes it run for an escape. Darwin proclaimed that a similar physical

response would be seen in humans in times of crisis (Reeve, 2005). Darwin was the first to

suggest that emotions were not merely irrational or frivolous component of human (and animal)

behavior but an important aspect of survival and adaptability (Ashkanasy et al., 2000).

2. The physiological perspective

In modern philosophy, the critical work on the subject of emotions came from William James

who gave the ‘Theory of emotions’. James’ built upon Darwin’s theory of physical response and

forwarded his own viewpoint. He argued that emotions are a set of sensations caused by

physiological response to external stimuli. The experience of this physiological response is what

is termed as emotions (Lewis, Haviland-Jones, & Barrett, 2010). Even today, modern theories

like ‘Affective events theory’ follow the premise laid by James that external stimulus (events) is

the root cause of emotional changes.

3. The cognitive perspective

The study of emotions has shared an inimical relationship with cognition. Various schools of

thought view emotions as either being subdued by cognition or positioned head-to-head against

cognition. Many researchers, just like the popular notion of mind vs. heart, have positioned

themselves in favor of either cognition or emotion trying to better out each other. In reality,

cognition and emotion share an extremely close and complex bond. Lazarus (1991) states that

cognition is the interpretive process that takes place when an event has occurred and results into

the subsequent generation of emotions. This activity of interpretation is termed as ‘appraisal’.

Scherer (as cited in Lord, Klimoski, & Kanfer, 2002) says, ‘A central tenet of appraisal theory is

the claim that emotions are elicited and differentiated on the basis of a person’s subjective

evaluation or appraisal of the personal significance of a situation, object or event on a number

of dimensions or criteria’. Thus, the role of cognition cannot be discounted at all from the study

of emotions.

What are emotions?

In spite of studying emotions from various perspectives, there is no single, unique, all-

encompassing definition of emotions. Deriving from the three perspectives suggested above, it

can be said that emotions are complex systems which (through feeling, arousal, expression and

response) help an individual adapt to circumstances (Reeve, 2005). For the purpose of broad

understanding and categorization, Plutchik (1991) came out with a list of eight primary

emotions, namely:

1. Fear

2. Joy/happiness

3. Anger

4. Sadness

5. Disgust

6. Surprise

7. Contempt

8. Interest (anticipation)

Primary or ‘basic’ emotions are a small set of emotions from which the complete range of

emotional experience can be derived (Lord et al., 2002). An analogy would be the three basic

colors red, blue and green, from the combination of which the entire gamut of colors can be

derived. The problem is that there is an intense debate on the number of primary (basic)

emotions. The first attempt at categorizing and identifying primary emotions came from Wilhelm

Wundt in 1897 (as cited in Gorman, 2004). Wundt identified emotions in three dimensions:

Relaxation/Tension, Pleasantness/Unpleasantness, and Excitement/Calm. Later, Ekman and

Friesen (as cited in Gorman, 2004) came out with six universal emotions, namely:

1. Happiness

2. Sadness

3. Fear

4. Anger

5. Surprise

6. Disgust

A major theoretical framework of emotions was developed by Carroll Izard. After a lengthy

study of infant emotions and facial expressions, Izard (1991) came out with a list of ten basic

emotions, namely: fear, anger, joy, disgust, interest, surprise, contempt, shame, sadness and

guilt. However, being based upon infant studies, this classification does not suitably account for

the ability of emotions to drive actions as in the case of adults. An alternative framework was

provided by Magda Arnold who categorized basic emotions with respect to their ability in

generating distinct motivational properties and action (Reeve, 2005):

1. Anger

2. Aversion

3. Courage

4. Dejection

5. Desire

6. Despair

7. Fear

8. Hate

9. Hope

10. Love

11. Sadness.

For this paper we shall consider Arnold’s classification, as the central theme of the paper is

the ability of emotions to drive and direct behavior. The understanding of basic emotions is

necessary for researchers and organizations in order to understand the functional importance

of particular emotions (Lord et al., 2002).

Emotions in the workplace

Lately, it has been realized that emotions are of prime importance in the workplace. Everyday

emotions have a significant impact on how people behave in organizations. This undeniably has

an impact on various organizational processes. Also, a lot of work in organizations today is done

in groups and teams where emotional encounters play an important role (Ashforth & Humphrey,

1995).

It is surprising that emotions were not heeded even when one of the most respected theories of

business management - the ‘goal setting theory’ is grounded in emotions. Edwin A. Locke

(1969) proposed goal setting theory in his paper ‘What is job satisfaction?’ in which he builds

upon Nathaniel Branden’s theory of emotions. He observes,

‘Men can observe different degrees of pleasure or displeasure on different aspects of their jobs

and/or different jobs. Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are complex emotional reactions to the

job. Survival requires action and action requires a selection among alternatives. The faculty of

cognition may tell a person of all the alternatives that exist, but it cannot tell him of the

significance of those alternatives’.

According to Locke (1969), individuals make value judgments pertaining to the job (or situation)

facing them. They evaluate whether performing the particular job is useful to them or not.

Emotions help individual in making these value judgments. Branden (as cited in Locke, 1969)

explains it as follows,

‘An individual’s emotional capacity is like a barometer informing him what is for him and

against him? The relationship between value judgment and emotions is that of cause and effect.

In psychosomatic form, emotions are an estimate of an individual’s beneficial or harmful

relationship with some aspect of reality’.

Locke thus, establishes the importance of emotions in human behavior. Emotions serve as an

important tool for environmental evaluation and subsequent action. The word ‘action’ is of prime

importance here, as it serves as the point of convergence for motivation and emotions in this

paper.

Emotions – the inner workings

Both motivation and emotion are related in their ability to drive action and make a person behave

in a certain manner. In order to understand the relationship between emotions and motivation, it

is a pre-requisite to understand the relationship between emotions and action. A good way to

understand this is with the use of ‘Appraisal theory’. As mentioned earlier, the process of

‘appraisal’ comes from the cognitivist perspective. One of the pioneering models on appraisal

theory was suggested by Magda Arnold which paved the way for future study of emotions by

various researchers, most notably by Scherer and Lazarus.

Appraisal theory

Appraisal is the most important part in generation of emotions. Magda Arnold was the first to

use the term ‘appraisal’ to explain the elicitation of emotions. Arnold proposed that events can be

appraised on three dimensions (Scherer, 1999):

1. Whether the event is beneficial or harmful

2. Presence of absence of an object (towards which emotions are elicited)

3. Willingness to encounter or avoid

The model of emotional appraisal as suggested by Arnold is illustrated below.

Figure 1: Arnold's Appraisal Theory (as cited in Reeve, 2005)

Appraisal precedes and leads to the elicitation of emotions. The interpretation and evaluation of

an event (as positive or negative) results into the elicitation of certain emotions (positive or

negative emotions). The theory could be easily understood with the example described below:

Situation

An employee gets a performance rating of ‘3’ (average) (on a scale of ‘0’ to 5’ ranging from

‘poor’ to ‘excellent’) in his annual review. The employee immediately appraises the situation.

Appraisal

Scenario 1: The most likely appraisal would be of harm – ‘The rating of ‘3’ would have negative

implications on my prospects in the organization’.

Scenario 2: The other possible appraisal is that of improvement – ‘I’ll put in more hard work to

get a better rating next time’.

Emotion

Consecutively, the appraisal would lead to the formation of emotions.

Scenario 1: ‘This organization is no good. Hard work is of no use here’.

Scenario 2: ‘The environment is more challenging than expected. More hard work is required’.

Action

The elicited emotion would determine the course of action.

Scenario 1: Further reduction in efforts. Escapist and avoidant tendencies, ultimately resulting

into termination (or attrition).

Scenario 2: Increase in efforts, more competitive nature, which results into an increase in

performance.

What should be noted, is the fact that it is not the situation in itself that elicits emotions, but the

appraisal of the situation that does it. Changing the appraisal would bring about a change in

emotions (Reeve, 2005). Depending upon the emotions elicited, the further course of action

would be decided by the individual and modify his or her behavior in accordance to the situation.

Approach and withdrawal can both be understood in terms of motivation tendency. If the

emotion is positive, the motivation to take up the challenge (approach) is generated. If the

emotion is negative, the motivation to avoid the task (withdrawal) is generated (Reeve, 2005).

Izard (1992) corroborates that emotions determine the action tendency of an individual. Arnold

also substantiated her research with the responses generated in the limbic system and other

physiological reactions to explain this action tendency. The topic is not covered here as the

investigation of physiological aspects lies out of the scope of this paper.

Affective events theory

A major contribution to the study of emotions in organizations came from Weiss and

Cropanzano in the form of ‘Affective events theory’. Affective events theory (AET) is important

as it gives a framework to study emotions exclusively in the workplace. While Arnold’s

appraisal theory acts as a pointer towards the impact of emotion on action, AET goes in depth to

explain the relation between emotions and job satisfaction, which in turn determines the behavior

of the individual in the workplace. According to Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), certain ‘events’

on the job trigger emotional reactions (known as ‘affect’). The ‘affect’ leads a person to form an

overall judgment about the job (much in line with the appraisal theory) which determines the

work attitude of the person and over a period of time, his behavior on the job. According to

Weiss,

‘More recent affective experiences carry more weight in the judgment. People don’t seem to

simply add up their affective experiences. They provide some sort of meaningful structure to the

experiences, and that is what influences a person’s overall judgment. Think of going to a very

sad movie. Throughout the movie you are in a negative affective state, yet your judgment at the

end is positive. Frequency of affective experiences is a better predictor of overall judgments than

intensity. Life satisfaction is higher with a history of small but frequent pleasant experiences

than it is with a history of infrequent, but intense pleasant experiences. Presumably, job

satisfaction works the same way’. (Weiss as cited in Latham, 2007)

One of the most important aspects of AET is ‘Time’. The duration (time) of experiencing an

affective reaction determines the overall feeling of a person towards the job. There are some

events that may affect an individual once in a while (for ex. an altercation with another

employee). Though the affect is negative and may be highly intense, Weiss and Cropanzano

suggest that such an isolated incident cannot determine the behavior of the employee in the long

term. Yet, a mild but long term affect (like having unfriendly colleagues or a sarcastic boss) can

have significant impact on the employee’s behavior.

Another important dimension is to understand the difference between ‘emotions’ and ‘mood’.

According to Fridja (as cited in Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) the difference between mood and

emotions is in terms of object directedness and response. While emotions are directed towards an

object (say a person), mood often lacks any objective target. Thus, it can be said that emotions

are contextual while mood lacks any context. On the other hand, on a typical day one

experiences very few emotional surges. But throughout the day, there exists a general sustained

feeling of wellness or discomfort. This general feeling of wellness or discomfort is termed as

‘mood’. Moods are less intense but more enduring when compared to emotions. The difference is

important because though mood lacks context, it makes a person more vulnerable to the

emotions experienced. The emotions experienced would generally be in sync with the mood (a

bad mood would result into experiencing more negative emotions). Also, Weiss and Cropanzano

(1996) suggest that negative emotions carry much more impact on an individual than positive

emotions, even though on an average day positive events far exceed negative events. In order to

understand AET, a model has been suggested below:

Figure 2: Model explaining Affective events theory

1. Event: A triggering event takes place that activates the cognitive evaluation of the event

in the employee.

2. Appraisal: In line with Arnold’s theory, the individual tries to form a value judgment

over the event.

3. Repetition: If a particular set of events happen again and again, the appraisal is repeated

and gives rise to a stronger affective experience. For ex. a victim of bullying or

harassment would continuously appraise herself of the threat and would experience

strong negative emotions.

4. Negative affect: If the judgment is that the event is harmful or detrimental to

expectations, a negative affect is experienced.

5. Positive affect: If the judgment is that the event is beneficial or according to expectations,

a positive affect is experienced.

6. Mood: The affective experience would determine the mood of the employee. Negative

affect would worsen the mood and positive affect would enhance it. It is necessary to

understand the interplay between affect and mood. Both tend to act as reinforcements to

each other. Bad experiences result into a bad mood and a bad mood makes an individual

more vulnerable to negative affect.

7. Job satisfaction: If a person has a bad mood over a period of time, he or she passes

emotional judgments pertaining to job satisfaction which further goes on to determine the

behavior of the individual on the job.

Motivation – a brief introduction

The study of motivation has been a central concept in organizational behavior. Motivation is the

first step towards answering the oft repeated question ‘what causes behavior?’ Motivation holds

the key towards developing an understanding of human nature in terms of behavioral impact.

According to Reeve (2005), the study of motivation concerns processes which give behavior its

energy and direction. Greenberg (2008) defines motivation as ‘the set of processes that arouse,

direct and maintain human behavior towards attaining a goal’. One of the criticisms laid against

motivation is that motivation does not guarantee job performance (Greenberg & Baron, 2008).

Though in some cases this criticism is correct (for ex. cases wherein there is a job-skill

mismatch), to generalize that motivation doesn’t bear any impact on performance would be

short-sightedness. Any organization possesses a substantial number of reasonably skilled

employees for whom proper motivation can make all the difference. Also, motivation is

integrally related to learning and training. An organization spends tremendous amount of time,

energy and money to train an employee. But if the employee is not motivated enough to learn or

should the employee choose not to apply or use the skills learnt, all resources would be wasted

(Reeve, 2005). As a matter of fact, the sole purpose of organizational activities like performance

appraisal is to enhance competitiveness and foster motivation among employees, even though

many times it ends up doing the exact opposite. Still, there is no denial that motivation is

important in determining employee behavior.

Perspectives of motivation

At different times, the study of motivation has been shaped by different perspectives. This

resulted into dominant theories of motivation which had long lasting effects on further study of

the field. The four major perspectives are given below:

The perspective of instinct

The origin of scientific studies of motivation happened with Darwin. Darwin’s ‘theory of

evolution’ laid the foundation for the so called ‘instinct’ perspective of motivation (Gorman,

2004). Darwin suggested that motivation is nothing but an animal’s instinct to survive and

propagate (Reeve, 2005). Adaptability to situations is also a result of motivation (i.e. an animal is

motivated to adapt to certain situations in order to ensure survival).

The perspective of drive

Theories of ‘drive’ originated from the field of biology and were typically based on

physiological needs of the body (Gorman, 2004). A major contribution was made by Hull (as

cited in Reeve, 2005). Hull suggested that motivation is driven by the body’s need to satisfy its

physiological urges like hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, etc. After initial success, the interest in the

theory eroded as empirical research wasn’t able to find concrete evidence in its favor (Reeve,

2005). Yet, it is important to note that drive theories paved the way for the work of Maslow

(Maslow’s hierarchy) and McClelland (Theory of needs) and various other researchers (Gorman,

2004).

The perspective of cognition

The perspective which came to dominate the study of emotions belonged to the school of

cognition (Latham, 2007). The focus of theories changed from physiological effects to the

psychological workings of the brain. The school of behaviorism rose to prominence with the

promising work of B.F. Skinner and other researchers who proposed that motivation could be

controlled by external factors like rewards. This was something that the rapidly growing field of

business management found particularly appealing and embraced the view whole heartedly.

Locke’s goal setting theory was as a seminal work which helped shape the cognitivist thinking.

The emergence of the concept of ‘reward as the prime motivator’ can be attributed to the

cognitive school of thought.

The perspective of emotion

The resurgence of emotions as a field of study can be said to be a result of the inability of

researchers to justify certain aspects of job behavior through cognition (Latham, 2007). More

precisely, it’s their inability to attribute lack of performance on the job to cognitive abilities.

Though researchers have attributed effective performance to cognitive abilities, empirical studies

have shown that the same relationship doesn’t hold for non-performance. According to Neisser

(as cited in Dai & Sternberg, 2004) ‘human thinking is closely tied to emotions and feelings – a

link which can never be lost’. What began as a research in finding hindrances to job

performance, has shed new light on the on the role of emotions in driving motivation.

Researchers agree that emotions form an important part of human thinking and behavior (Seo,

Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004).

With this understanding, the relationship between emotion and motivation can now be studied. It

is often advised by the experienced among us to ‘remain positive and take on challenges’. In an

interview with TIME magazine (2010) the Dalai Lama said, ‘In order to carry a positive action

we must develop a positive vision’. While the relationship is very apparent in our day-to-day

lives, scientific probing requires considerable time and efforts. Very few researches have been

able to concretely link the relationship between these two concepts of emotion and motivation in

a single framework. The attempt of this paper is to use the framework of ‘Self-regulation theory’

(or SRT) (Baumeister et al., 1994) and understand this relationship.

Emotions and motivation – an intertwined relationship

It can be established from the literature cited above that emotions and motivation are intimately

related concepts. Both emotions and motivation act in a way so as to drive and direct behavior.

The activity of ‘appraisal’ results into a fight-or-flight situation which is nothing but the

motivation to accept or avoid the challenge. Another key insight lies in grand motivational

theories like those provided by Abraham Maslow. Each of the levels of Maslow’s hierarchy can

be seen as corresponding to a set of emotions (Popa & Salanta, 2013). Similarly, ‘openness to

experience’ the third of the Big Five personality traits is closely related to emotions of joy,

enthusiasm and courage (Muchinsky, 2000). Thus, it can be said that emotions have an important

role in driving motivation (Popa & Salanta, 2013).

‘Affective events theory’ (or AET) lends even more support to the proposition. To recapitulate

the basic premise, AET states that every event results into an affective experience. Depending

upon the individual, the affect can be (interpreted as) positive or negative. The affect would go

on to determine the mood leading to the individual passing a value judgment. The value

judgment goes on to determine the future behavior of the individual.

With the relationship between motivation and emotions firmly established, a fundamental

question that courts inquiry is this: ‘How can we control emotions so as to increase motivation?’

and/or ‘How can we regulate emotions in order to maximize motivation?’ The answer to this

question lies in the word ‘regulation’. Albert Bandura’s ‘Self-regulation theory’ provides a good

foundation to integrate the concepts of emotion and motivation and see it in a new light.

Emotions and motivation: From a self-regulatory perspective

Self-regulation can be defined as a person’s ability to alter behavior with respect to situational

demands (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). ‘Self-regulation theory’ (Baumeister et al., 1994) is major

theoretical framework which explains the how regulation takes place in an individual.

Baumeister (1994) lists three components essential for self-regulation:

1. Standards: Regulation is performed in order to achieve or fulfill a certain standard. Clear

and transparent standards are untenable for effective self-regulation.

2. Monitoring: Regulation is a continuous process and cannot be done unless there is a

continuous monitoring and feedback system. Monitoring is required to check progress

and ensure compliance with set standards.

3. Strength: Strength indicates the will power to self-regulate. Strength is the tenacity and

steadfastness to meet the standard.

4. Motivation: Motivation is the fuel for self-regulation. According to Baumeister (2007) by

saying ‘motivation-to-regulate’ it is meant that an individual is motivated to negate

certain impulses which can produce behavior detrimental to the standard.

The fourth component – ‘motivation’ was suggested by Baumeister in 2007. According to him,

the role of motivation has been seriously underappreciated in self-regulation theories

(Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Therefore, it becomes interesting to study the role of motivation in

self-regulation. Drawing from the literature cited, there can be two angles to view motivation in

terms of self-regulation: 1. Causal regulation and 2. Effectual regulation

1. Causal regulation

Causal regulation is the motivation to regulate emotions for the sake of task fulfillment and goal

achievement. Baumeister (2007) states that the ‘motivation-to-regulate’ negates emotional

impulses. Impulses can be seen as a function of anxiety and/or enthusiasm. Both anxiety and

enthusiasm are accompanied by emotions of fear, sadness, disgust and guilt (in case of anxiety)

and joy, interest and surprise (in case of enthusiasm). While Baumeister’s concept of motivation-

to-regulate stops at the avoidance of certain emotions, the concept of causal regulation goes

further to suggest that self-regulation not only cancels out negative emotions but effectively

replaces them with more subtle and calm (positive) emotions. For example, consider a situation

resulting into anxiety in the workplace (say, a probationer appearing for an

interview/examination). This feeling of anxiety (basic emotions of sadness, dejection and

aversion) calls for a need to self-regulate. The individual, in this case, has a set standard (i.e.

passing the examination) and is continuously monitoring his situation (i.e. preventing loss of

focus). The individual then not only negates the feeling of ‘anxiety’ but replaces it with

‘courage’ (a basic emotion in itself as per Arnold’s classification). According to Gross (2013),

people tend to decrease negative emotions while at the same time try to increase positive

emotions. This lends credence to the premise of causal regulation suggested here. Motivation

also triggers emotions that highly correlate to the individual’s goals or targets and can have a

major impact on performance (Popa & Salanta, 2013). The factor of willpower complements

motivation. Baumeister (2007) states, ‘Motivation is especially effective at substituting will

power. Will power results into ego depletion. Even then, a person with suitable motivation can

self-regulate effectively’. Another key factor is that of ‘controllability’. Motivation tends to give

a higher sense of controllability leading to more channelized efforts (Latham, 2007). This

suggests that a higher sense of positive motivation prevents negative emotions from creeping in,

thereby improving focus and enhancing results.

2. Effectual regulation

Researchers have argued that emotions constitute the primary motivational system in human

beings (Izard, 1991; Tomkins 1962, 1963, 1984 as cited in Reeve, 2005). A typical example is

that of air deprivation. Air is a primary physiological need for survival. In case a person is faced

with air deprivation, Tomkins (as cited in Reeve, 2005) argues that it’s not the loss of air per se,

but the ‘terror’ of loss of air that motivates one to act. ‘Take away the emotion and you take away

the motivation’, he says. This sufficiently explains the role of emotions in eliciting motivation

and directing behavior. In the context of a workplace, positive affect and the subsequent

elicitation of positive emotions is desirable. According to Aspinwall (1998), people in positive

mood process messages that are uplifting and avoid messages that are depressing to keep their

motivation high. Another complex finding is regarding the effect of positive emotions on

negative information and the reaction thus produced. In a series of experiments by Trope and

Neter (as cited in Aspinwall, 1998) positive emotions tend to increase attention towards negative

information in a way that is more consistent with self-evaluative motives such as improving self-

learning and preventing threats. This suggests a positive motivation (i.e. ‘fight’ attitude) to deal

with challenges. This kind of regulation which results into a higher motivational drive in

individuals is termed as effectual regulation. In another series of experiments on gambling and

risk behavior by Isen and Nygren (as cited in Aspinwall, 1998) the researchers found that

positive emotions led to better and more practical decision making. While participants took risks

when stakes were smaller, they became risk averse when the stakes got high. The experiments

are important as they conclusively suggest that the combination of positive emotions and

motivation can drive superior behavior. In both cases, the end result was marked by a change in

behavior for good. The right set of emotions can amplify and augment motivation (Popa &

Salanta, 2013) and guide behavior.

Conclusion

From the literature reviewed above, motivation and emotions can be understood as mutually

reinforcing activities resulting into a change in behavior. Emotions are the primary triggers of

action, forcing a person to act towards a goal by creating physiological changes in the body.

Motivation guides, drives and maintains behavior in order to meet the set goals. In conjunction,

the setup acts act as an effective reinforcing/self-correcting feedback system as shown below.

Regulation is the intangible control mechanism that balances the system depending upon

situational factors.

Figure 3: Motivation and emotions as a reinforcing/self-correcting feedback loop

An important learning is the role of cognition in the whole process. Cognition plays an important

role in the process of ‘appraisal’ which interprets the situation and leads to the elicitation of

emotions. While previously it was thought that concepts of cognition and emotion are divergent

in nature, it can now be seen that they are more complementary than divergent. Finally, it seems

that our understanding of the subject has come a long way and is steadily breaking away from

the paradigms of the Taylorian era. The relationship between cognition, emotions and motivation

is a complex one. Researchers (and organizations) must accept emotions as a fundamental block

of behavior and work towards utilizing this knowledge in designing motivation interventions for

organizations. The objective of researchers should be to drive peak performance from positively

oriented people. To end with, nothing sums it up better than these words of advice by the Dalai

Lama (2010), ‘Use your human intelligence in the best way you can: Transform your emotions in

a positive way.’

References

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human

relations, 48(2), 97-125.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: Research,

theory and practice Westport: Quorum Books.

Aspinwall, L. G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation &

Emotion, 22(1), 1-32.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people

fail at self-regulation: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self‐regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social

and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115-128.

Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative

perspectives on intellectual functioning and development: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Darwin, C. (1873). The expression of the emotions. New York, 12, 667.

Gorman, P. (2004). Motivation and emotion: Psychology Press.

Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in organizations: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation: Taking stock and moving forward. Emotion, 13(3), 359-

365.

Hume, D. (1873). A treatise of human nature (pp. 179-201): Courier Dover Publications.

Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions: Springer.

Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations.

Lama, D. (2010). Dalai lama: ‘21st century will be much happier’. Retrieved 13/08, 2014, from

http://www.today.com/id/37252364/ns/today-today_news/t/dalai-lama-st-century-will-be-

much-happier/

Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research, and practice Thousand Oaks,

Calif.: Sage Publications.

Lavine, T. Z. (2011). From socrates to sartre: The philosophic quest: Random House Publishing

Group.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, M., Haviland-Jones, J. M., & Barrett, L. F. (2010). Handbook of emotions: Guilford

Press.

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 4(4), 309-336.

Lord, R. G., Klimoski, R. J., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the

structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior New York: Jossey - Bass.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(7), 801.

Plutchik, R. (1991). The emotions: University Press of America.

Popa, M., & Salanta, I. I. (2013). The emotions' role in the motivation process. Managerial

Challenges of the Contemporary Society(6), 42-47.

Reeve, J. (2005). Understanding motivation and emotion: Wiley.

Scherer, K. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. Handbook of cognition and emotion, 637-663.

Seo, M.-G., Barrett, L. F., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). The role of affective experience in work

motivation. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 423-439.

Sincero, S. M. (2012). Motivation and emotion. Retrieved July 31, 2014, from

https://explorable.com/motivation-and-emotion

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the

structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 18, 1.

The page has been intentionally left blank