Goal theory vs. control theory: Contrasting approaches to understanding work motivation

Control theory has been propounded as an original and useful paradigm for integrating a number of theories of human (especially work) motivation. This paper challenges that claim. First, it is shown that the original, mechanical control theory model is not applicable to human beings. Second, it is shown that the two approaches used by control theorists to remedy its limitations did not succeed. One approach involved incorporating propositions drawn from other theories with the result that there was nothing distinctive left that was unique to control theory. The other approach involved broadening the scope of control theory by adding deduced propositions; however, these propositions were inconsistent with what was already known about the phenomena in question based on empirical research. The control theory approach to theory building is contrasted with that of goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goal-setting theory is a grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) which evolved from research findings over a 25-year period. Goal theory developed in five directions simultaneously: validation of the core premises; demonstrations of generality; identification of moderators; conceptual refinement and elaboration; and integration with other theories. It is hypothesized that the grounded theory approach is a more fruitful one than the approaches used by control theory.The author wishes to thank Judy Olian for her helpful comments on this paper and Dong-OK Chah for making the figures.