We tested the longstanding belief that performance is a function of the interaction between cognitive ability and motivation. Using raw data or values obtained from primary study authors as input (k = 40 to 55; N = 8,507 to 11,283), we used meta-analysis to assess the strength and consistency of the multiplicative effects of ability and motivation on performance. A triangulation of evidence based on several types of analyses revealed that the effects of ability and motivation on performance are additive rather than multiplicative. For example, the additive effects of ability and motivation accounted for about 91% of the explained variance in job performance, whereas the ability-motivation interaction accounted for only about 9% of the explained variance. In addition, when there was an interaction, it did not consistently reflect the predicted form (i.e., a stronger ability-performance relation when motivation is higher). Other key findings include that ability was relatively more important to training performance and to performance on work-related tasks in laboratory studies, whereas ability and motivation were similarly important to job performance. In addition, statelike measures of motivation were better predictors of performance than were traitlike measures. These findings have implications for theories about predictors of performance, state versus trait motivation, and maximal versus typical performance. They also have implications for talent management practices concerned with human capital acquisition and the prediction of employee performance.