This is a paper I wrote on the subject of Motivation and Emotions as part of my Term 1 submission for Micro-OB. Students of Organization Behavior and HR may find it useful. In case you find it useful please drop some feedback so that I can improve my skills. Thanks!

1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
AHMEDABAD
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 course
Organizational Behavior (Micro)
Submitted on: August 27th, 2014
By
Shiva Kakkar

2. The page has been intentionally left blank

3. 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 lik e ‘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.

4. “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.,

5. 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

6. 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:

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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:

10. 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).

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.’

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The page has been intentionally left blank