رویکرد پروفایل برای نظریه حق تعیین سرنوشت انگیزه ها در محل کار

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits the existence of distinct types of motivation (i.e., external, introjected, identified, integrated, and intrinsic). Research on these different types of motivation has typically adopted a variable-centered approach that seeks to understand how each motivation in isolation relates to employee outcomes. We extend this work by adopting cluster analysis in a person-centered approach to understanding how different combinations or patterns of motivations relate to organizational factors. Results revealed five distinct clusters of motivation (i.e., low introjection, moderately motivated, low autonomy, self-determined, and motivated) and that these clusters were differentially related to need satisfaction, job performance, and work environment perceptions. Specifically, the self-determined (i.e., high autonomous motivation, low external motivation) and motivated (i.e., high on all types of motivation) clusters had the most favorable levels of correlates; whereas the low autonomy (i.e., least self-determined) cluster had the least favorable levels of these variables.

Across the many theories of work motivation it is quite common to conceptualize motivation as varying primarily in quantity rather than in quality or type (Gagné & Deci, 2005). As an exception, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Ryan and Deci, 2000) suggests that there are two primary types of motivation that can guide individual behavior: extrinsic motivation (i.e., to attain a reward or consequence separable from an activity itself) and intrinsic motivation (i.e., to do something because of an inherent inclination or interest; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Further, extrinsic motivation can be divided into four types ranging from least to most autonomous: external (i.e., for reward or praise), introjected (i.e., to avoid guilt or anxiety), identified (i.e., because the person sees value in the activity), and integrated (i.e., because the person has internalized the reasons for engaging in the behavior; Gagné and Deci, 2005, Koestner and Losier, 2002, Ntoumanis, 2002 and Wang and Biddle, 2001). Research from a variety of domains has linked these distinct forms of motivation to situational characteristics (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003), well-being outcomes (e.g., Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995), and effective functioning (e.g., high effort expenditure, better learning; Grolnick and Ryan, 1987 and Ryan and Connell, 1989). However, most of this research has adopted a ‘variable-centered’ approach in which the focus is on testing the relationships of each type of motivation with other variables (cf. Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Although such an approach provides valuable information about the direct and unique links of each motivation with other variables, it ignores the possibility that (a) distinct constellations of motivational profiles exist in the population and (b) these SDT motivation profiles may correspond to differences in other variables. This perspective is consistent with taking a ‘person-centered’ approach to conceptualizing SDT motivations, arguing that distinct motivational profiles might exist and that investigating these motivation ‘types’ might reveal unique insights into the ways in which SDT motivations tend to co-occur and the effects of these profiles on other variables. Studies conducted in the educational and sport realms have made some progress in looking at motivation profiles (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2002, Ratelle et al., 2007 and Wang and Biddle, 2001), but to our knowledge no organizational research has examined this issue. The present study aims to bridge this gap in the literature by (a) assessing each of the primary motivations described by SDT in an organizational setting, (b) identifying motivation profiles in our sample, and (c) linking the motivation profiles to correlates at work.

Across the many theories of work motivation it is quite common to conceptualize motivation as varying primarily in quantity rather than in quality or type (Gagné & Deci, 2005). As an exception, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Ryan and Deci, 2000) suggests that there are two primary types of motivation that can guide individual behavior: extrinsic motivation (i.e., to attain a reward or consequence separable from an activity itself) and intrinsic motivation (i.e., to do something because of an inherent inclination or interest; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Further, extrinsic motivation can be divided into four types ranging from least to most autonomous: external (i.e., for reward or praise), introjected (i.e., to avoid guilt or anxiety), identified (i.e., because the person sees value in the activity), and integrated (i.e., because the person has internalized the reasons for engaging in the behavior; Gagné and Deci, 2005, Koestner and Losier, 2002, Ntoumanis, 2002 and Wang and Biddle, 2001). Research from a variety of domains has linked these distinct forms of motivation to situational characteristics (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003), well-being outcomes (e.g., Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995), and effective functioning (e.g., high effort expenditure, better learning; Grolnick and Ryan, 1987 and Ryan and Connell, 1989). However, most of this research has adopted a ‘variable-centered’ approach in which the focus is on testing the relationships of each type of motivation with other variables (cf. Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Although such an approach provides valuable information about the direct and unique links of each motivation with other variables, it ignores the possibility that (a) distinct constellations of motivational profiles exist in the population and (b) these SDT motivation profiles may correspond to differences in other variables. This perspective is consistent with taking a ‘person-centered’ approach to conceptualizing SDT motivations, arguing that distinct motivational profiles might exist and that investigating these motivation ‘types’ might reveal unique insights into the ways in which SDT motivations tend to co-occur and the effects of these profiles on other variables. Studies conducted in the educational and sport realms have made some progress in looking at motivation profiles (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2002, Ratelle et al., 2007 and Wang and Biddle, 2001), but to our knowledge no organizational research has examined this issue. The present study aims to bridge this gap in the literature by (a) assessing each of the primary motivations described by SDT in an organizational setting, (b) identifying motivation profiles in our sample, and (c) linking the motivation profiles to correlates at work.