In this part, we will review work motivation and job performance and their measurements. Then, we will develop the hypotheses between them. Finally, as a meta-analysis, we will propose a research question about the moderators that might influence the relationships between motivation and performance.
Before the 1970s, organizational psychologists primarily directed their attention toward job satisfaction, often sidelining the exploration of work performance (Organ, 2018). However, the tide turned in the 1980s, when scholars began conceptualizing individual job performance as a distinct construct (Campbell and Wiernik, 2015). Job performance is commonly characterized by two key forms: task performance and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), providing a structured framework for evaluating employee contributions (Hoffman et al., 2007; Sidorenkov and Borokhovski, 2021; Young et al., 2021). Notably, performance should not be conflated with efficiency and productivity. While performance encompasses a broader term, often associated with achieving various levels or outcomes potentially under myriad conditions, both efficiency and productivity are intricately tied to the concept of optimizing resource utilization and maximizing output production (Campbell and Wiernik, 2015).
Task performance refers to the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997, p. 99). Notably, this concept is also identified as “in-role performance/behavior” in the literature (Koopmans et al., 2011; Raja and Johns, 2010). In-role performance essentially encapsulates behaviors aimed at fulfilling formal tasks, duties, and responsibilities, often detailed in job descriptions (Becker and Kernan, 2003; Williams and Anderson, 1991). Contrarily, early meta-analyses have amalgamated related concepts, acknowledging their overlapping domains (Riketta, 2008; Young et al., 2021). OCB is delineated as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Contextual performance, reflecting actions extending beyond formal job descriptions and enhancing organizational effectiveness (MacKenzie et al., 1991), is frequently paralleled with OCB in meta-analytic practices (Riketta, 2008; Young et al., 2021). A noteworthy correlation between task performance and OCB (ρ = 0.74) is illuminated through a meta-analysis by Hoffman et al. (2007). While some scholars propose that performance can exhibit counterproductive facets (Campbell and Wiernik, 2015), meta-analysis unveils only a moderate relationship between OCB and counterproductive work behavior and reveals somewhat disparate relationship patterns with their antecedents (Dalal, 2005). Therefore, in this study, we study two fundamental dimensions of job performance: task performance and OCB.
Motivation reflects why people do something. It is widely researched in the work and educational psychological field (Anesukanjanakul et al., 2019; Christenson et al., 2012; Fishbach and Woolley, 2022; Hartinah et al., 2020; Muawanah et al., 2020). Work motivation stands distinct amidst a spectrum of related concepts. Firstly, it is imperative to differentiate motivation from personality. Personality, defined as a construct embodying a set of “traits and styles displayed by an individual, represents (a) dispositions, that is, natural tendencies or personal inclinations of the person, and (b) aspects wherein the individual deviates from the ‘standard normal person’ in their society” (Bergner, 2020, p.4). Personality acts as a distal antecedent to performance, influencing it indirectly through the medium of motivation (Judge and Ilies, 2002; Kanfer et al., 2017). Secondly, while interrelated, goal pursuit and motivation are distinctive concepts. For example, if employees aim to earn money, their motivations are characterized as external. Conversely, intrinsically motivated employees engage in work for the enjoyment derived from the process itself, potentially without being driven by explicit work goals (Deci et al., 2017). Thirdly, motivation is different from attitude. Job attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction) reflect the evaluations of one’s job (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Motivation may not necessarily include the evaluation of the job. For instance, engaged people, who usually put a great deal of effort into their work (Bakker et al., 2014), may not include the evaluation of the job. Actually, attitudes may likely be influenced by motivations, indicating they are different concepts (Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012).
As work motivation is a very grand concept, many psychological and organizational theories try to measure motivation by using different scales. For instance, in the perspective of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Theory (Bakker, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti, 2017), work engagement is regarded as the motivation factor that links job resources and job performance; in the perspective of the Self-determination Theory (SDT), motivation (e.g., intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation) is the antecedent of job performance (Deci et al., 2017; Deci and Ryan, 2000). In the review process, we notice that work engagement is one of the most widely-used measurements of motivation when researching the work motivation-job performance linkage.
Hypotheses between motivation and performance
The first potential causal relationship is that work motivation causes job performance. This argument is shown in Fig. 1. This Argument is supported by many well-established theories and empirical evidence. To start, in the JD-R theory (Bakker, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Bakker and Demerouti, 2017), engaged (well-motivated) people will accomplish job performance because they will experience more positive emotions which may increase the creation of new ideas and resources and they will be healthy and be energetic at work. The correlational relationship was confirmed by a prior meta-analysis as it found a medium correlation (ρ = 0.48) between engagement and job performance (Neuber et al., 2021). Then, from the perspective of SDT (Deci et al., 2017; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Gagné and Deci, 2005), motivation also influences performance. In particular, intrinsically motivated employees will be creative and productive, increasing their job performance. An early meta-analysis finds a moderate correlation between intrinsic motivation and performance (ρ = 0.28) (Cerasoli et al., 2014). Finally, motivation may influence performance directly by determining the level of effort and persistence an individual will exert in the face of obstacles (Kanfer, 1990). Motivation may also influence performance indirectly, as motivated individuals are more likely to set challenging goals and commit to achieving them, leading to higher performance (Locke and Latham, 2006). Together, it seems obvious that work motivation will cause subsequent job performance. When using the cross-lagged panel research design to test this hypothesis, the subsequent performance will be predicted by the previous motivation after controlling the auto-correlation effect. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
An illustration of arguments for a “motivation-causing-performance” process. This figure is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hypothesis 1: Work motivation causes job performance. In particular, work motivation (T1) is the significant predictor of job performance (T2) after controlling the auto-correlation effect of job performance (T1).
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the second potential causal relationship is that performance causes motivation. As SDT suggested, feedback will influence motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Employees who achieve job performance may receive positive feedback (e.g., pay and recognition) from their organizations and leaders (Riketta, 2008), increasing their work motivation. Applying longitudinal data, Presbitero (2017) provided indirect evidence that improvements in reward management yielded a positive change in the level of motivation (measured by engagement). Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
An illustration of arguments for a “performance-causing-motivation” process. This figure is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hypothesis 2: Job performance causes work motivation. In particular, job performance (T1) is the significant predictor of work motivation (T2) after controlling the auto-correlation effect of work motivation (T1).
According to Fig. 3, the third hypothesis is that motivation causes performance and performance causes motivation simultaneously. Combining Hypotheses 1 and 2, we could conclude this reciprocal hypothesis. Utilizing cross-lagged panel data, early studies found reciprocal relationships between (a) self-efficacy and academic performance (Talsma et al., 2018) and (b) job characteristics and emotional exhaustion (Konze et al., 2017). That is to say, there might be a reciprocal relationship between variables. Thus, we derive the following hypotheses:
An illustration of arguments for a simultaneous reciprocity between work motivation and job performance. This figure is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hypothesis 3: There is a reciprocal causal relationship between work motivation and job performance. In particular, work motivation (T1) is the significant predictor of job performance (T2) after controlling the auto-correlation effect of job performance (T1) and vice versa.
As presented in Fig. 4, the final potential causal relationship is that performance and motivation are causally unrelated. Performance and motivation may be causally unrelated due to cross-temporal research design and common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). For instance, when work motivation and job performance are measured at the same time point and rated by one person, their correlation may inflate due to common method bias and thereby draw inaccurate causality. Therefore, we put the following hypothesis:
An illustration of arguments for a causally unrelated relationship between work motivation and job performance. This figure is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hypothesis 4: Work motivation and job performance are causally unrelated. In particular, work motivation (T1) is not a significant predictor of job performance (T2) after controlling the auto-correlation effect of job performance (T1), whereas job performance (T1) is also not the significant predictor of work motivation (T2) after controlling the auto-correlation effect of work motivation (T1).
We also propose a research question about the potential moderators that may influence the relationship of interest. Following early longitudinal meta-analyses (Riketta, 2008; Talsma et al., 2018), three moderators are considered, namely, performance measurements, motivation measurements, and length of time lag (shorter vs. longer time lags between two waves).
Firstly, as we illustrated in the Introduction part, there are two measurements of work performance, namely, task performance and OCB. We would like to explore the potential moderating role of job performance measurements (task performance versus OCB). This exploration is pivotal. Theoretically, performance should envelop two dimensions: task performance and OCB (Koopmans et al., 2011). However, a disparity exists in organizational recognition and reward systems, wherein task performance is formally acknowledged, while OCB is not (Organ, 2018). The impact of such discrepancies on their respective relationships with performance remains nebulous. Undertaking a meta-analysis to probe into these moderating variables will not only deepen our understanding of the nexus between motivation and performance but also furnish supplementary evidence to buttress their interconnection.
Secondly, the motivation measurement is taken into consideration. In particular, many longitudinal studies (e.g., Shimazu et al., 2018; Nawrocka et al., 2021) use work engagement to measure motivation. Although theoretical frameworks suggest that these measures might reflect motivation, various measures of motivation may exhibit distinct relationships with performance. Despite the absence of cross-lagged meta-analyses, insights can potentially be derived from cross-temporal meta-analyses. For example, Cerasoli et al. (2014) identified a correlation of 0.26 between intrinsic motivation and performance, while Corbeanu and Iliescu (2023) observed a correlation of 0.37 between work engagement and performance. Consequently, we question whether the measurement of motivation exerts a significant moderating effect. Given that work engagement is the most prevalently utilized measure, we draw comparisons between the results pertaining to work engagement and those associated with other forms of motivation.
Finally, it is unclear how long the time lag process (i.e., the length of time between two measurement waves) will influence the relationship of interest. In the present study, time lags varied from 1 to 12 months (refer to the coding information for details). On the one hand, the relationship between motivation and performance may depend on time. For instance, even with strong motivation, employees may require time to learn and adapt to new tasks, affecting performance enhancement. Furthermore, the delay in receiving feedback or recognition, especially in long-term projects, may decelerate the positive influence of performance on motivation.
On the other hand, there may exist an optimal time lag interval in cross-lagged analysis, as suggested by Dormann and Griffin (2015). When the time lag falls short of this optimal point, the cross-lagged effect size diminishes sharply; inversely, if the time lag exceeds it, the effect size likewise declines. Aligning with prior meta-analysis efforts (Riketta, 2008), we categorize the time lag into two groups, namely, 1–6 months and 7–12 months, to explore the possible moderating influence of the time lag. The efficacy of a 6-month time lag design remains uncertain. Nevertheless, a design that maintains a 6-month interval at each end—presenting a symmetrical six-month span—prompts a subgroup analysis within the meta-analysis, increasing the likelihood of discerning potential moderating impacts. To sum up, we seek to answer the following research question:
Research Question 1: Do the causal relationship between work motivation and job performance vary due to (a) job performance measurement (task performance versus OCB), (b) work motivation measurement (work commitment versus other motivations), and (c) time lag (1–6 months versus 7–12 months)?
