Birte Brinkmöller
Dennis Dreiskämper
Oliver Höner
Bernd Strauss- 1Department of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
- 2Department of Sports Psychology, Institute for Sport and Sport Science, Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
- 3Department of Sport Psychology and Research Methods, Institute of Sports Science, Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
Talent identification and selection in sports pose significant challenges, necessitating a nuanced understanding of factors influencing athletes’ elite-level potential. While physical and physiological aspects have conventionally played roles in the selection process, also other constructs of talent development have to be considered. Various talent models have included psychological aspects, especially motivation, as either moderators or catalysts. Based on empirical evidence of the relationship between motivation and performance, different views are hold in which form motivation should be used for talent selection. Considering the hierarchical model of achievement motivation and self-determination theory, the importance of different motivational dimensions in talent selection is assessed. This study extends its focus beyond sports, exploring whether differences and similarities between sports and business in their selection processes exist. The objective is to discern whether scouts, coaches and recruiters prioritize motivational dimensions differently. Along with the statistical analyses [conjoint analysis, analytical hierarchy processes (AHP) and constant-sum procedures], this research aims to provide insights into the weighted importance of diverse motivational dimensions and their influence on the decision-intention of decision-makers. The study aims to provide exploratory insights into how motivational dimensions could inform talent selection processes by comparing different contexts. This research may offer a first step to further investigate practical applications for talent identification and selection processes with insights from other contexts.
Introduction
Talent identification and selection remain significant challenges in sports, requiring a comprehensive understanding of various factors influencing the likelihood of athletes reaching elite level. A successful identification of athletes is necessary to save resources, however evidence for a perfect way remains low (1).
In addition to physical and physiological performance factors, which play a central role in talent selection, further talent development variables need to be considered. Psychological characteristics, in particular motivation, can be found in numerous talent models: while Gagné [(2); Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent] assumes intrapersonal factors as catalysts in the process from “natural abilities” to “superior mastery of a systematically developed ability”, Hohmann [(3); based on Heller (4); Munich Model of Giftedness] integrates non-cognitive personality traits as moderators of talent characteristics (predictors) and performance in the sport-specific talent model. Psychological aspects as potential talent predictors can also be found in sport-specific models [(5); soccer].
Extensive literature has shown the relationship between motivation and sporting success in the last years (6–9), focusing on self-determination theory (SDT), achievement motivation and achievement goal orientation. Empirical evidence supports the relevance of motivational concepts for later success and talent development in various sports (10–12). In their systematic review on future performance in soccer, Murr et al. (13) concluded that high levels of the achievement motives hope for success (HS) and low levels of fear of failure (FF) are associated with future soccer performance. A meta-analysis (6) is limiting these relationships. Small, positive effects have been found for task orientation on future football performance (cohen's d = .28). For ego orientation only a trivial effect on future football performance was shown (cohen's d = .06). For self-determination, high levels of intrinsic motivation (IM) have been found to be associated with better athletic performance in tennis, mediated through psychological need satisfaction (14). Furthermore, positive and negative affect has been shown to be a mediator in the motivation-performance relationship (15). As a combination, Zuber et al. (16) found that intrinsically achievement-oriented soccer players have a higher likelihood to become professional players. Contrarily, high levels of amotivation and external regulation seem to be associated with drop-out (17, 18) or burn-out symptoms (19). Results show a relation between the motivational concepts but also the status as distinct concepts for each of them. The findings underscore the crucial role of motivation in influencing performance (10), either directly or mediated (14). However, it remains open, whether and how it should be considered in talent selection.
Motivation theories
Recent emphasis has shifted to a combination of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation (20) and self-determination theory [SDT; (21)] to examine competence from a motivational perspective (22, 23). Competence thereby describes the desire to feel effective in interactions with the environment through tasks that are appropriate to one's developmental level (24).
The three overarching concepts are the (1) achievement motivation, according to Atkinson (25) and McClelland (26), including the motive to achieve success (HS) and the motive to avoid failure (FF). These needs are seen as motivational dispositions, which explain how people perceive and evaluate situations. The second concept (2) are motivational orientations, which guide actions towards certain goals (22), and are most subdivided into task and ego orientation (27). Within the achievement goal theory (AGT) task orientation describes mastering a task with an individual reference norm, while ego-oriented individuals are motivated by outperforming others. The disposition of HS thereby leads to task goals, while FF is associated with an ego goal orientation. Both orientations further have an impact on the intrinsic motivation [IM; task goal orientation has a positive effect, ego goal orientation a negative one; (20)]. Furthermore, (3) SDT explains reasons for motivated behavior through the extend of self-determination (21) ranging from amotivation (no behavior) to extrinsic motivation (behavior based on rewards) to intrinsic motivation (behavior based on its own sake). While these aspects are not mutually exclusive, understanding their interplay is essential for effective talent identification. Within the three concepts the degree of disposition varies. While the achievement motivation is dispositional, achievement goal orientations are influenced by these and further dependent on the competence expectancy one has (20). Self-determination has the least state proportion as it is situational and a result of the evaluation of competence, autonomy, and relatedness [basic psychological needs theory; (28)].
Motivation in business
Next to the theoretical foundation of motivation in talent research as well as the empirical evidence of its relationship with performance, other domains have found a similar picture. In the business domain, the picture shows a different emphasis but similar results. Compared to other motivational concepts, IM has been widely studied in the business domain. From an organizational perspective, employees with IM might be beneficial to recruit, as IM fosters volunteering and prosocial behavior (29, 30). It further mediates the relationship between prosocial behavior and performance (31) and leads to increased engagement in organizational citizenship behavior (32, 33). Further, IM was ranked as the third important soft skill after hardworking and reliable (34). Further motivational research was investigating the relationship between need for achievement (nAch) and job performance, finding a positive relationship (35). Elliot and Harackiewicz (36) showed positive effects of learning (mastery) goal orientation and neutral or negative effects of performance goal orientation. A further distinction of performance goal orientation in performance-prove (demonstrating ability through superiority of others) and performance-avoid (trying to avoid negative outcomes) orientation revealed a positive prediction of sales performance for the first mentioned and a negative prediction of performance for the latter (37). The results show that the simultaneous adaption of different aspects may lead to optimal performance, in comparison to the complete absence of one or the other.
Sports and business
Comparing the domains of sports and business regarding selection processes at first glance, both domains share the aim of finding the most talented people for their organization to become successful through engaging in systematic selection processes. On closer examination, additional similarities and differences emerge. Both domains use reliable methods to assess valid constructs to predict future performance, often through multi-stage processes that combine objective data through tests [e.g., (38, 39)] as well as the assessment and decision of scouts, coaches and recruiters (39, 40). However, differences also arise, such as the age at which talent is typically selected and the focus on cognitive skills in business vs. physical skills in sports. Notably, parallels exists in the importance of psychological constructs (41, 42), though it remains unclear, whether these are assessed and valued similarly, potentially pointing to either convergence or divergence in selection practices.
Although the influence of various motivational dimensions on performance has been proven in both domains, in sport as well as in business, the systematic integration of motivation into the selection process has so far been insufficient. To date, the importance of the different dimensions of motivation has only been considered unsystematically in talent selection. The correct recording and assessment of various motivational dimensions is therefore important, as it can both increase the efficiency of the selection process and ensure the long-term success and satisfaction of the selected individuals. As motives refer to internal thoughts and emotions, they are difficult to observe [e.g., (43)]. Although tools to assess achievement-motivated behavior by coaches exists (44), in practice coaches are still asked to assess players' psychological characteristics on unstructured evaluation sheets (45). It remains open how recruiters and scouts evaluate the importance of different dimensions of motivation in selection contexts specifically. Especially the theoretical differentiation of motivation in its different dimensions seems to be overlooked in research and practice. To date there is no evidence, which aspects of motivation are mostly prioritized by recruiters and scouts.
As in both domains the decisions of recruiters and scouts are often subjective and intuitive (46, 42), decision-makers are often not able to explicitly reconstruct their decision-process (47). Especially if different selection factors are considered, the individual importance (weighting against other factors) is often still unclear. Therefore, indirect measurements, such as conjoint-analysis (48) or multiple criteria decision-making processes [e.g., Analytical Hierarchy Process; (49)] to assess the prioritization may be beneficial. Furthermore, a comparison to direct measurements can provide information about possible differences in prioritization and thus help to clarify the decision-making process for coaches, scouts and recruiters. Given these apparent parallels, a closer examination of the two domains promises first insights into shared principles and domain-specific adaptations in talent selection.
Aim of the study
Based on the presented empirical evidence, we will assess which dimensions of motivation are seen as important by decision makers to gain a deeper understanding of the priorities in selection contexts and potential differences in the prioritization of motivational dimensions. A previous citation network analysis reveals the disconnection between talent selection in sports and business.1 Factors, like different approaches to psychological aspects, such as motivation, may explain this disconnection. We further assess whether the importance differs between scouts/coaches and recruiters when rating the same population (job applicants or athletes) or whether the ratings are stable within decision-makers, independently of the rated population.
Therefore, our study attempts to assess (1) the perceived importance of different dimensions of motivation (i.e., hope for success, fear of failure, ego orientation, task orientation, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation) of decision-makers in talent selection (Research Question 1; RQ). We further investigate whether the perceived importance depends on (RQ 2.1) the domains (sport vs. business), (RQ 2.2) varying expertise of the decision makers, (RQ 2.3) contexts within the decision-maker or (RQ 2.4) whether they are rated directly or indirectly, via the selection of profiles. This will be investigated against teachers, which represent a baseline of decision-makers not related to sports or business.
Because of the intuitive decision-making (47) and the difficulty to explicitly state the decision process, the importance of motivational dimensions will be assessed indirectly and directly. Therefore, three different dependent variables (dv) will be assessed: (a) an implicit weighting for each motivational dimension, indicating how important this dimension is relative to the other dimensions, (b) the relative importance of each motivational dimension through an indirect measurement and (c) the direct assessment of the importance of the motivational dimensions.
This research aims to provide insights into the importance of different motivational dimensions in selection processes across sports and business, seeking to explore potential transferable principles that could contribute to a deeper understanding of selection strategies. This may encourage to re-evaluate existing practices, e.g., assessed motivational dimensions and assessment methods. Furthermore, the understanding of how professionals from different domains evaluate motivational dimensions may also lead to further investigation on the alignment of candidates’ qualities and the specific demands of each context as well as the goal of the selection.
Methods
Participants
For participation in the study, three groups of individuals will be recruited: coaches and scouts from the sports domain, individuals with recruitment experience from the business sector and teachers. Teachers will constitute the control group, as they are not influenced by domain-specific aspects and therefore allow for comparisons between experts and novices. Participants must be at least 18 years old and must be at least in the middle-to-expert-stage, i.e., a minimum of five years of experience in selection in sports or business. To be consistent, coaches and scouts have to work within team sports, e.g., football, basketball, etc. and need to be involved in the selection of youth academies or squads, as higher selection processes are more in alignment with personnel selection in business. Recruiters need to work in at least medium-sized companies to ensure structured selection procedures. Teachers must have completed their teacher traineeship to make sure that they have relevant experience in their field as well. Participant collection will be facilitated using the snowball sampling (50) and via social media. Snowball sampling is executed by making initial contact with personal contacts of the authors and active engagement with sports associations, businesses, and schools. Within the invitation the link for the survey is directly included as well as the invitation to distribute the survey to their own network.
Measurement procedures
To assess the three dv of the importance of the motivational dimensions different procedures will be conducted: conjoint analysis, analytical hierarchy process and constant-sum procedure. All three methods assess the relative importance of the motivational dimensions, differing in the directness of the query (from indirect to direct).
Conjoint analysis
To assess preferences and attitudes towards profiles of players and job applicants, a choice-based conjoint analysis is to be conducted. Conjoint analyses, frequently utilized in marketing research to assess consumer preferences or attitudes towards products and multi-attributive concepts (48) involve examining individual responses to discern people's preferences, relative importance, or priorities regarding the features of the object through statistical techniques. In contrast to explicitly soliciting preferences, conjoint analysis conceptualizes decision-making as a process involving trade-offs among various multi-attribute products or services (51). In this study, conjoint analysis will be adapted to the context of selection by evaluating profiles of both athletes and job applicants. The profiles exhibit varying manifestations across the motivational dimensions, specifically ego orientation, task orientation, hope for success, fear of failure, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. The gradations in motivational dimensions are demarcated as high, medium, and low, representing relative scores of questionnaires compared to “the other applicants/athletes”. Participants will be tasked with choosing the most suitable profile among three options, mimicking subjective decision-making processes akin to actual selection scenarios. The full factorial design holds 729 profiles (n = 36). The experimental design will include 27 profiles, which have been calculated with R Studio. The orthogonal design shows an acceptable fit with a d-efficiency = .876 (52).
Analytical hierarchy process
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a general theory of measurement (49) and is widely used for multiple criteria decision making (53). It is a method of decision making that allows for both deductive and inductive thinking without the use of syllogisms. Comparative judgments are made by comparing each element to every other element and assigning a numerical value to represent the relative importance of each element. Synthesis of priorities involves combining the judgments made at each level to arrive at an overall priority for each element in the hierarchy. It is used to derive ratio scales from both discrete and continuous paired comparisons. In the present study, elements represent the different dimensions of motivation (hope for success, fear of failure, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, ego orientation, task orientation) which are represented through items from validated questionnaires (Table 1). Every element (dimension of motivation) is given a paired comparison with every other element, resulting in n(n-1)/2 direct comparisons with n elements. Participants are tasked with appraising each pairwise comparison on a nine-point scale, reflecting relative importance to both sides [−4 = extremely more important (left side); 0 = identical or minimal differences in importance; 4 = extremely more important (right side); (49, 60)]. A higher numerical value signifies a more substantial disjunction in significance. We will use a 9-point scale, compared to an 18-point-scale as in the original work by Saaty (49) which is common in consumer research (60). Numeric values will be transformed. Comparisons will be randomized. Results will show the prioritized rankings, providing a clear hierarchy of the elements based on their relative significance to recruiters, scouts and teachers. Compared to conjoint analysis, the analytical hierarchy process allows for more explicit decision making by choosing only between two individual aspects and can therefore be seen as a variable-oriented approach as every dimension is rated solely against another dimension. Preferences for motivational dimensions will be, compared to conjoint analysis, assessed directly as dimensions will be rated against each other.
Table 1. Items for motivational dimensions and respective questionnaires for the analytical hierarchy process.
Constant sum procedure
To assess the explicit subjective significance assigned by recruiters, coaches and scouts to motivational dimensions, constant sum procedures will be implemented as another variable-oriented approach. Participants will be tasked with allocating a total of 100 points across the six dimensions of motivation depending on their subjective importance. A higher number of points represents a higher importance. The outcomes will not only unveil an importance ranking for the dimensions but will also provide relative importance ratings among these dimensions.
Sample size
The required sample size is calculated and reported for conjoint analysis. This is done for three reasons: (1) conjoint analysis will be the predominant analysis of the study, (2) the AHP has the advantage of small sample sizes to achieve statistically robust results (61) and (3) the calculated sample size for the constant sum procedure is smaller than for conjoint analysis.
Therefore, an a priori power analysis was conducted using cjpowR in R Studio (62). According to Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto (63), the average marginal component effect (AMCE) is the most commonly examined causal quantity in conjoint experiments. An alpha of .05 and AMCE = .02 was used. Based on three levels, 27 profiles and nine tasks, results showed a total sample size of 121 respondents resulting in n = 40 respondents for each group to reach a power of .08. As the small population of scouts within higher team sports is limited, we further follow recommendations of Orme (64) to collect a representative number of the population.
Procedure
The survey will be administered in the form of an online questionnaire. Preliminary to the survey initiation, a comprehensive elucidation of the study's procedural aspects will be provided, accompanied by a requisite privacy declaration. The questionnaire comprises several segments, which, aside from nuances in the mode of address, are analogous for recruiters, scouts, and teachers (see Figure 1). To facilitate cross-contextual comparisons, all three participant cohorts will be presented with thematic blocks encompassing sports-related and corporate applicant scenarios. For sports scenarios, the selection for the U19 national team was chosen. The equivalent for the business context is to decide for a project-management position with three years of experience. These scenarios were chosen because both seem to be shortly before a final job position. Based on their predominant job, participants will be introduced to their field of expertise. In the inaugural section, participants will get an introduction to the scenario (being a recruiter/scout) and an explanation of the different dimensions of motivation. Afterwards they will be presented various profiles within the conjoint analysis. Profiles will be presented randomly on nine pages with three profiles each. Preferences for motivational dimensions will be assessed indirectly via the selection of profiles within a decision-making process. Subsequently, the ensuing section introduces pairwise comparisons of the six motivational dimensions, employing the AHP. The final section solicits respondents’ perspectives on the relative importance of the dimensions. Subsequently, participants will receive an introduction to the respective other field, with again, a reminder of the explanation of the different dimensions. For teachers, the blocks will be randomized, ensuring that half of the participants start with evaluating athletes and half of them with the evaluation of applicants. At the end, the collection of demographic data, encompassing variables such as gender, age, title, professional tenure, vocational training, and supplementary qualifications will ensue.
Figure 1. Schematic process of the survey.
Statistical analysis
Results will be generated using R Studio. For the conjoint analysis the package cregg in R will be used (65). Analysis of the AHP will be conducted using the package ahpsurvey. For AHP, consistency ratio (CR) will be calculated to ensure that pairwise comparisons are consistent. A CR < 0.1 is seen as acceptable (66). If CR is >0.1, judgements will be revised to reach consistency (67). Prior to conducting the inferential statistical analyses, assumption checks will be performed according to the respective procedures. The significance level for all statistical tests will be set at 0.05.
To answer RQ1 a–c, for the conjoint analysis, marginal means will be calculated (68). These values represent the average outcome for a specific conjoint feature level, averaged across all other features. Furthermore, we will estimate the average marginal component effects (AMCEs). AMCEs indicate the average change in the probability of choosing a candidate when one attribute level is switched to another (63). The relative importance and rankings for all attributes will be calculated for the AHP and the constant-sum procedure for each group (scouts, recruiters, teachers) as well as their aggregation. Results will be presented individually as well as grouped for all three methodological approaches.
To answer RQ 2.1 a–c (difference between domains sports vs. business) an ANOVA will be calculated individually for each method (68). The dependent variable will be the decision of the participants, the independent variables will be groups and motivational dimensions. If a significant result occurs, the differences between the dimensions will be described descriptively post-hoc.
To answer RQ 2.2 a–c, Chi2-tests will be calculated for “applicants” and “athletes” for each method.
To answer RQ 2.3 a–c, Chi2-tests will be calculated for “scouts” and “recruiters” for each method.
To answer RQ 2d, a ranking-order for each participant for each method (n = 3) and for each rating group (applicants, athletes; n = 2) will be calculated. Chi2-tests will be calculated by the differences between each method within each rating group (3 × 2).
Data availability statement
No data was collected so far. Once data has been collected it will be made available in the Open Science Framework (OSF).
Ethics statement
The study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the corresponding author's university. The participants will need to provide their informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
BB: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DD: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. OH: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. BS: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Thea Kraushaar, Lena Wiesel and Leon Brüggemann for their support in preparing this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnote
1. ^Brinkmöller B, Dreiskämper D, Höner O, Strauss B. The (dis-)connection between Talent Selection in Sports and Business Literature—a Citation Network Analysis. University of Münster (2024).
References
1. Johnston K, Wattie N, Schorer J, Baker J. Talent identification in sport: a systematic review. Sports Med. (2018) 48(1):97–109. doi: 10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2
2. Gagné F. Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework. High Abil Stud. (2010) 21(2):81–99. doi: 10.1080/13598139.2010.525341
3. Hohmann A. Entwicklung Sportlicher Talente an Sportbetonten Schulen: Schwimmen, Leichtathletik, Handball. Petersberg: Imhof (2009). p. 351.
6. Ivarsson A, Kilhage-Persson A, Martindale R, Priestley D, Huijgen B, Ardern C, et al. Psychological factors and future performance of football players: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. (2020) 23(4):415–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.10.021
7. Kämpfe A, Höner O, Willimczik K. Multiplicity and development of achievement motivation: a comparative study between German elite athletes with and without a disability. Eur J Adapt Phys Act. (2014) 7(1):32–48. doi: 10.5507/euj.2014.003
8. Schmid M, Conzelmann A, Zuber C. Patterns of achievement-motivated behavior and performance as predictors for future success in rowing: a person-oriented study. Int J SPORTS Sci Coach. (2021) 16(1):101–9. doi: 10.1177/1747954120953658
9. Zuber C, Conzelmann A. Motivational patterns as an instrument for predicting performance not only in football? A replication study with young talented ice hockey players. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1–6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02357
10. Abbott A, Collins D. Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice in talent identification and development: considering the role of psychology. J Sports Sci. (2004) 22(5):395–408. doi: 10.1080/02640410410001675324
11. MacNamara Á, Button A, Collins D. The role of psychological characteristics in facilitating the pathway to elite performance: part I: identifying mental skills and behaviors. Sport Psychol. (2010) 24(1):52–73. doi: 10.1123/tsp.24.1.52
12. Lochbaum M, Kazak Çetinkalp Z, Graham KA, Wright T, Zazo R. Task and ego goal orientations in competitive sport. Kinesiology. (2016) 48(1):3–29. doi: 10.26582/k.48.1.14
13. Murr D, Raabe J, Höner O. The prognostic value of physiological and physical characteristics in youth soccer: a systematic review. Eur J Sport Sci. (2018) 18(1):62–74. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2017.1386719
14. Gillet N, Berjot S, Gobancé L. A motivational model of performance in the sport domain. Eur J Sport Sci. (2009) 9(3):151–8. doi: 10.1080/17461390902736793
15. Gillet N, Vallerand RJ, Lafrenière MAK, Bureau JS. The mediating role of positive and negative affect in the situational motivation-performance relationship. Motiv Emot. (2013) 37(3):465–79. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9314-5
16. Zuber C, Sieghartsleitner R, Zibung M, Conzelmann A. “Who made it to the pros?” A 5-year longitudinal study on the role of achievement motivation in football. Int J Sport Psychol. (2022) 53:75–82. doi: 10.7352/IJSP.2022.53.075
17. Calvo TG, Cervelló E, Jiménez R, Iglesias D, Murcia JAM. Using self-determination theory to explain sport persistence and dropout in adolescent athletes. Span J Psychol. (2010) 13(2):677–84. doi: 10.1017/S1138741600002341
18. Sarrazin P, Vallerand R, Guillet E, Pelletier L, Cury F. Motivation and dropout in female handballers: a 21-month prospective study. Eur J Soc Psychol. (2002) 32(3):395–418. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.98
19. Lemyre PN, Roberts GC, Stray-Gundersen J. Motivation, overtraining, and burnout: can self-determined motivation predict overtraining and burnout in elite athletes? Eur J Sport Sci. (2007) 7(2):115–26. doi: 10.1080/17461390701302607
20. Elliot AJ, Church MA. A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1997) 72(1):218–32. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218
21. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory: when mind mediates behavior. J Mind Behav. (1980) 1(1):33–43.
22. Zuber C, Zibung M, Conzelmann A. Motivational patterns as an instrument for predicting success in promising young football players. J Sport Sci. (2015) 33(2):160–8. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2014.928827
23. Conroy DE, Elliot AJ, Coatsworth JD. Competence motivation in sport and exercise: the hierarchical model of achievement motivation and self-determination theory. In: Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NLD, editors. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Exercise and Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics (2007). p. 181–92. 340–344.
24. Masten AS, Coatsworth JD. The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: lessons from research on successful children. Am Psychol. (1998) 53(2):205–20. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.205
25. Atkinson JW. Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychol Rev. (1957) 64(6):359–72. doi: 10.1037/h0043445
27. Nicholls JG. Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol Rev. (1984) 91(3):328. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
28. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci EL, Ryan RM, editors. Handbook of Self-determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press (2002). p. 3–33.
29. Gagne M. The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motiv Emot. (2003) 27:199–223. doi: 10.1023/A:1025007614869
30. Grant AM. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Acad Manage Rev. (2007) 32(2):393–417. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24351328
31. Grant AM. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J Appl Psychol. (2008) 93(1):48–58. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
32. Gagné M, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J Organ Behav. (2005) 26(4):331–62. doi: 10.1002/job.322
33. Penner LA, Midili AR, Kegelmeyer J. Beyond job attitudes: a personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational cititzenship behavior. Hum Perform. (1997) 10(2):111–31. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_4
34. Woolley K, Fishbach A. Underestimating the importance of expressing intrinsic motivation in job interviews. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. (2018) 148:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.06.004
35. Baruch Y, O’Creevy MF, Hind P, Vigoda-Gadot E. Prosocial behavior and job performance: does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference? Soc Behav Personal Int J. (2004) 32(4):399–411. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.399
36. Elliot AJ, Harackiewicz JM. Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1996) 70(3):461. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461
37. Porath CL, Bateman TS. Self-regulation: from goal orientation to job performance. J Appl Psychol. (2006) 91(1):185–92. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.185
38. Höner O, Leyhr D, Kelava A. The influence of speed abilities and technical skills in early adolescence on adult success in soccer: a long-term prospective analysis using ANOVA and SEM approaches. PLoS One. (2017) 12(8):e0182211. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182211
39. Risavy S, Fisher P, Robie C, Konig C. Selection tool use: a focus on personality testing in Canada, the United States, and Germany. Pers Assess Decis. (2019) 5(1):62–72. doi: 10.25035/pad.2019.01.004
40. Larkin P, Reeves MJ. Junior-elite football: time to re-position talent identification? Soccer Soc. (2018) 19(8):1–10. doi: 10.1080/14660970.2018.1432389
41. Sackett PR, Lievens F. Personnel selection. Annu Rev Psychol. (2008) 59(1):419–50. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093716
42. Williams AM, Reilly T. Talent identification and development in soccer. J Sports Sci. (2000) 18(9):657–67. doi: 10.1080/02640410050120041
43. Connelly BS, Ones DS. An other perspective on personality: meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychol Bull. (2010) 136(6):1092–122. doi: 10.1037/a0021212
44. Zuber C, Conzelmann A. Achievement-motivated behavior in individual sports (AMBIS-I)—coach rating scale. Ger J Exerc Sport Res. (2019) 49(4):410–23. doi: 10.1007/s12662-019-00600-6
45. Musculus L, Lobinger BH. Psychological characteristics in talented soccer players—recommendations on how to improve coaches’ assessment. Front Psychol. (2018) 9(41):1–6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00041
46. Miles A, Sadler-Smith E. “With recruitment I always feel I need to listen to my gut”: the role of intuition in employee selection. Pers Rev. (2014) 43(4):606–27. doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2013-0065
47. Johansson A, Fahlén J. Simply the best, better than all the rest? Validity issues in selections in elite sport. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2017) 12(4):470–80. doi: 10.1177/1747954117718020
48. Fiedler H, Kaltenborn T, Lanwehr R, Melles T, Berlemann M, Fantapié Altobelli C, et al. In: Matiaske W, Spieß M, editors. Conjoint-Analyse. 2., Verbesserte und Erweiterte Auflage. Augsburg München: Rainer Hampp Verlag (2017). p. 128. Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschungsmethoden.
49. Saaty RW. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model. (1987) 9(3–5):161–76. doi: 10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
50. Parker C, Scott S, Geddes A. Snowball sampling. In: Atkinson P, Delamont S, Cernat A, Sakshaug JW, Williams RA, editors. SAGE Research Methods Foundations. (2019). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036831710
51. Min SH, Kim HY, Kwon YJ, Sohn SY. Conjoint analysis for improving the e-book reader in the Korean market. Expert Syst Appl. (2011) 38(10):12923–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.087
52. Kuhfeld WF. Efficient experimental designs using computerized searches. Research Paper Series. SAS Institute, Inc (1997).
53. Vaidya OS, Kumar S. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res. (2006) 169(1):1–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
54. Härtel CEJ, Hanrahan SJ, Cerin E. Developing the task and ego orientation at work questionnaire. ANZAM 2005: Proceedings of the 19th Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference. Canberra: ANZAM (2005).
55. Rethorst S, Wehrmann R. Der TEOSQ-D zur Messung der Zielorientierung im Sport. Sportpsychologische Diagnostik, Prognostik, Intervention (1998). p. 57–63.
56. Elbe AM, Wenhold F. Cross-cultural test-control criteria for the achievement motives scale-sport. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. (2005) 3(2):163–77. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2005.9671765
57. Lang JWB, Fries S. A revised 10-item version of the achievement motives scale. Eur J Psychol Assess. (2006) 22(3):216–24. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.216
58. Burtscher J, Furtner M, Sachse P, Burtscher M. Validation of a German version of the sport motivation scale (SMS28) and motivation analysis in competitive mountain runners. Percept Mot Skills. (2011) 112(3):807–20. doi: 10.2466/05.06.25.PMS.112.3.807-820
59. Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, Van Den Broeck A, Aspeli AK, et al. The multidimensional work motivation scale: validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. Eur J Work Org Psychol. (2015) 24:178–96. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
60. Meißner M, Decker R. An empirical comparison of CBC and AHP for measuring consumer preferences. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh, USA (2009).
61. Doloi H. Application of AHP in improving construction productivity from a management perspective. Constr Manag Econ. (2008) 26(8):841–54. doi: 10.1080/01446190802244789
62. Freitag M, Schuessler J. cjpowR—a Priori Power Analyses for Conjoint Experiments (2020). R package. https://CRAN.R-project. org/package=cjpowR
63. Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ, Yamamoto T. Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Polit Anal. (2014) 22(1):1–30. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpt024
64. Orme BK. Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research. 2nd ed Madison, Wis: Research Publ (2010). p. 210.
65. Leeper T. cregg: Simple Conjoint Tidying, Analysis, and Visualization (2018). Available online at: https://thomasleeper.com (cregg/index.html)
66. Saaty TL. Decsion Making for Leaders: The Analystical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburgh: RWS publications (2001).
67. Saaty TL, Tran LT. On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Comput Model. (2007) 46(7–8):962–75. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.022
Keywords: personnel selection, psychological, assessment, talent, achievement goal theory, self-determination theory
Citation: Brinkmöller B, Dreiskämper D, Höner O and Strauss B (2024) The role of motivation in selection processes—comparing sports and business. Front. Sports Act. Living 6:1463910. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1463910
Received: 12 July 2024; Accepted: 13 November 2024;
Published: 2 December 2024.
Edited by:
Paul Larkin, Victoria University, AustraliaReviewed by:
Malgorzata Siekanska, University of Physical Education in Krakow, PolandMichael Johannes Schmid, University of Bern, Switzerland
Copyright: © 2024 Brinkmöller, Dreiskämper, Höner and Strauss. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Birte Brinkmöller, YmlydGUuYnJpbmttb2VsbGVyQHVuaS1tdWVuc3Rlci5kZQ==