Search results

Classical definitions of motivation typically involve two main components: direction and activation. Motivated behavior is directed toward or away from particular stimuli (i.e., appetitive and aversive motivation). Furthermore, activational aspects of motivation refer to the observation that motivated behavior is characterized by substantial activity, vigor, persistence, and exertion of effort in both the initiation and maintenance of behavior. Although separate neural systems direct organisms toward distinct motivational stimuli (e.g., food, water, sex), there appears to be a common circuitry regulating behavioral activation and the exertion of effort. Mesolimbic dopamine is one of the brain systems mediating activational aspects of motivation and exertion of effort. This system integrates aspects of motivation and motor control functions involved in the instigation of action. Research on the neurobiology of effort has contributed to our understanding of the pathophysiology of neurological and psychiatric disorders that are characterized by motivational dysfunction.

The multidimensional structure of boredom poses unique measurement challenges related to scale length and statistical modeling. We systematically address these concerns in two studies. In Study 1, we use item response theory to shorten the 29-item Multidimensional State Boredom Scale (MSBS) (Fahlman et al., 2013). In Study 2, we use structural equation modeling to compare two theoretically consistent multidimensional structures of boredom (superordinate and multivariate) with the most commonly used, yet theoretically inconsistent, structure in boredom research (unidimensional parallel model). Our findings provide support for modeling boredom as multidimensional and demonstrate the impact of model selection on effect sizes and significance.

This study consists of an examination of productivity growth following three major technological breakthroughs: the steam power revolution, electrification and the ICT revolution. The distinction between sectors producing and sectors using the new technology is emphasized. A major finding for all breakthroughs is that there is a long lag from the time of the original invention until a substantial increase in the rate of productivity growth can be observed. There is also strong evidence of rapid price decreases for steam engines, electricity, electric motors and ICT products. However, there is no persuasive direct evidence that the steam engine producing industry and electric machinery had particularly high productivity growth rates. For the ICT revolution the highest productivity growth rates are found in the ICT-producing industries. We suggest that one explanation could be that hedonic price indexes are not used for the steam engine and the electric motor. Still, it is likely that the rate of technological development has been much more rapid during the ICT revolution compared to any of the previous breakthroughs.

Post-fordist production systems emphasize the need to tap workers’ knowledge to enhance productivity and quality. Often overlooked, however, is the potential conflict in expecting workers to contribute to processes that may make their jobs harder. This article compares employee participation schemes at two General Motors assembly plants to illustrate the potency of this dilemma and the range of ways managers focus or limit employee participation to achieve the company's goals. In Silao, Mexico, General Motors carefully constructed a labor relations environment that cultivated broad employee participation. In Janesville, Wisconsin, local managers placed constraints on employee participation to ensure continuous production.

Today’s work environment requires a new type of leader development. It is no longer enough for leaders to be qualified and knowledgeable. Leaders must be focused, adaptable, and resilient in order to be effective amid the increasingly distracting and chaotic organizational world. We argue that current methods of leader development need to evolve to encompass leader well-being and focus on intrapersonal competencies in order to adequately prepare leaders for today’s stressful work world. We provide a holistic development framework for leaders which we believe is a better match for the intrapersonal capabilities required by leadership roles. Our approach is two-fold. First, we believe it is important to educate leaders on the potential interaction between the external sources of stress and leaders’ neurophysiological and subjective well-being. Second, we believe leaders need different development experiences, ones that can help renew psychological resources. We review four categories of holistic leadership practices – mindfulness, social connections, positive emotion inductions, and body-based practices – which can help to counter the effects of overload and exhaustion. We also discuss the future of holistic leader development and suggest directions for future research.