Internal and external validity issues with motivation to manage research: A reply to Miner, Smith, and Ebrahimi

Abstract

J. B. Miner, N. R. Smith, and B. Ebrahimi (1985, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 290–298) question findings ( K. Bartol, C. R. Anderson, and C. E. Schneier, 1980, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 22–32) counter to arguments by Miner and his colleagues (e.g., J. B. Miner and N. R. Smith, 1982, Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 297–305) that motivation to manage scores among college business students have declined and stabilized over the past 25 years. The Bartol et al. (1980, 1981, Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 40–44) data also show contrary findings of significant sex differences in motivation to manage. The controversy highlights significant internal and external validity questions regarding motivation to manage research. The internal validity questions include the fact that scorers not trained by Miner are highly likely to assign higher motivation to manage scores on Miner Sentence Completion Scale (MSCS) protocols than do Miner and his colleagues, possible difficulties with the scoring manual, and possible sex bias in the MSCS itself. Major external validity issues center on the fact that the thesis regarding declines in motivation to manage among business students and attendant projections of shortages in managerial talent essentially rest on comparisons with and generalizations from a single baseline sample from the University of Oregon in 1960–1961.