Perceived investment in employee
development, intrinsic motivation and work performance
Bård KuvaasandAnders Dysvik, Department of Leadership and Organisational Management, Norwegian School of Management BI Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 19, no 3, 2009, pages 217–236
The purpose of this study was to explore alternative relationships between perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and different facets of work performance. Three cross-sectional surveys of a total of 826 respondents from organisations located in Norway showed that the relationship between perceived investment in employee development and work effort was mediated by intrinsic motivation. In addition, intrinsic motivation was found to moderate the relationship between perceived investment in employee development and organisational citizenship behaviour. The form of the moderation revealed a positive relationship only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation.
Contact: Bård Kuvaas, Department of Leadership and Organisational Management, Norwegian School of Management BI, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway. Email: [email protected]hrmj_103 217..236
INTRODUCTION
I
nvesting in employee development is vital in maintaining and developing the skills, knowledge and abilities of both individual employees and the organisation as a whole (e.g. Lee and Bruvold, 2003). In addition, and according to social exchange theory, when organisations invest in their employees, employees tend to reciprocate in positive ways (Settoon et al., 1996; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).Simply put, when organisations offer organisational inducements in the form of developmental opportunities, employees become prosocially motivated, that is, they desire to expend effort to benefit the organisation.
Relying on social exchange theory, Lee and Bruvold (2003) developed a generic measure of perceived investment in employee development (PIED) and tested a model including affective and continuance commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intention among more than 400 nurses in two different countries. They found that PIED was positively related to employees’ affective commitment and job satisfaction, but not to continuance commitment, and that the relationship between PIED and turnover intention was fully mediated by job satisfaction and affective commitment. Lee and Bruvold (2003) thus contributed to the human resource management (HRM) literature by demonstrating that organisational inducements in the form of investments in employee development can indeed create obligations on the part of the employees to reciprocate in positive ways, which, in turn, may improve our understanding of how ‘best practice’, high-performance, high- commitment, high-involvement and human-capital-enhancing HRM can result in
higher organisational performance. Lee and Bruvold (2003: 994) also proposed that
‘investing in employee development may create a dynamic relationship where employees may work harder’ and called for research on ‘other important outcomes such as in-role performance and helping behavior’.
The purpose of the present study is to respond to this call and investigate the relationship between PIED, work quality, work effort and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). In doing so, we integrate social exchange theory and self- determination theory (SDT) and propose two models: one where intrinsic motivation is proposed to mediate the relationship and one where intrinsic motivation is proposed to moderate it. Both models are based on recent attempts (Meyer et al., 2004; Gagné and Deci, 2005; Grant, 2007, 2008) to investigate simultaneously two different types of motivation: one type with its origin in social exchange relationships and one that originates from the job itself, where employees become intrinsically motivated because they experience pleasure, interest and enjoyment in their jobs (Deci et al., 1989; Vallerand, 1997). Theories of social exchange and intrinsic motivation are rooted in different literatures and, despite their mutual interest in explaining many of the same employee outcomes, there have been few attempts to integrate prosocial and intrinsic motivation. While recent theoretical developments of SDT have laid the ground for integration (Gagné and Deci, 2005), empirical research is scarce. As far as social exchange theory is concerned, most scholars rely almost exclusively on the norm of reciprocity to explain why social exchange leads to favourable work outcomes (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Coyle-Shapiro and Shore, 2007), without taking into account the important motivating potential emanating from the job itself.
The intended contribution of this study is therefore twofold. First, we respond to the call for research relating PIED to work performance. Second, by empirically testing models with intrinsic motivation as a mediator and moderator, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of how different motivational sources interact and thereby in part can explainhow PIED may be related to work performance.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Whereas investment in employee development means equipping employees with knowledge and competence development, PIED refers to employees’ assessment of their organisations’ commitment to help employees learn to identify and obtain new skills and competencies (Lee and Bruvold, 2003). Below, we first develop hypotheses where intrinsic motivation is proposed to mediate the relationship between PIED and facets of work performance.
A mediated model of PIED, intrinsic motivation and work performance
Lee and Bruvold (2003) followed the motivational processes of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and argued that employees who believe that their organisation is committed to providing skill and competence development should reciprocate by way of organisational commitment and job satisfaction. Blau (1964), however, originally argued that intrinsic inducements offered by the organisation could exist in the relationship or in the job. Accordingly, Blau (1964) explicitly acknowledged both task-related intrinsic motivation and prosocial motivation emanating from
interpersonal giveaways. In addition to acknowledging these two different motivational sources, SDT suggests that the social environment influences employee outcomes through intrinsic or autonomous work motivation. According to SDT,
‘work climates that promote satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs will enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation and promote full internalization of extrinsic motivation and that this will in turn yield (the) important work outcomes’, where three basic psychological needs refer to the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness (Gagné and Deci, 2005: 337). Prior research has established strong positive relationships between need fulfilment and intrinsic motivation (Gagnéet al., 1997; Richeret al., 2002) and several studies reviewed by Gagné and Deci (2005) have provided support for the proposition that autonomy-supportive work environments promote basic need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Still, most of these studies have operationalised autonomy-supportive work environments by way of managerial autonomy support, and not explored alternative antecedents.
Furthermore, SDT research has typically investigated either the antecedents or the outcomes of intrinsic motivation (Grouzetet al., 2004). In this study, we investigate both a potential antecedent and employee outcomes and suggest that to the extent that PIED enhances work performance it is through its impact on intrinsic motivation.
First, and as far as the relationship between intrinsic motivation and work performance is concerned, recent research suggests that intrinsic motivation is a potent predictor of both task performance (Kuvaas, 2006a,b, 2007; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006) and OCB (Chiu and Chen, 2005; Piccolo and Colquitt, 2006). Second, employees who believe that their organisation is committed to employee development may perceive that the organisation is concerned about their long-term growth and therefore develop positive feelings towards the employer (Lee and Bruvold, 2003), which in turn should promote satisfaction of the need for relatedness.
Third, and according to Lee and Bruvold (2003), PIED gives employees a greater sense of controlover their career because of the opportunities to gain new skills and competencies and update old ones, which should increase satisfaction of the need for autonomy. Furthermore, because the organisation takes the risk that developmental opportunities may increase the attractiveness of employees outside the organisation, PIED can signal trust in the employee, which may further satisfy the need for autonomy. Fourth, and with respect to the need for competence, employees who actually take the opportunity to update their skills and competencies and gain new ones will probably experience greater satisfaction of the need for competence than employees who do not have such an opportunity. Accordingly, based on SDT we suggest that if PIED increases work performance, it is because it reflects a perceived work climate that enhances intrinsic motivation through need satisfaction. Initial empirical support for such a model is provided by Dysvik and Kuvaas (2008), who observed that the relationship between perceived training opportunities and both work performance and citizenship behaviours was fully mediated by intrinsic motivation. Therefore, we hypothesise:
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between perceived investment in employee development and (a) work effort, (b) work quality and (c) OCB is mediated by intrinsic motivation.
A moderated model of PIED, intrinsic motivation and work performance Grant (2008) recently reported a study where intrinsic motivation strengthened the relationship between prosocial motivation and employee outcomes such as persistence, productivity and performance. Grant claims that employees experience prosocial motivation as more autonomous when intrinsic motivation is high because intrinsically motivated employees feel that performing well is beneficial to their own self-selected goals, as they enjoy their work and value the outcome of helping others.
Drawing on concepts from research on prosocial personality, prosocial motivation should be pleasure-based rather than pressure-based (Gebauer et al., 2008) because employees feel volition, autonomy and free choice in their efforts to benefit others by way of in-role and extra-role work performance when prosocial motivation is accompanied by intrinsic motivation. When intrinsic motivation is low, however, employees will experience prosocial motivation as more controlled because they do not enjoy their work or benefiting others through their work (Ryan and Connell, 1989; Grant, 2008). Then, prosocial motivation will be better characterised as pressure-based and involving ought representations (Gebauer et al., 2008), and possibly result in stress and role overload (Bolino and Turnley, 2005) and other psychological costs that may impede or diminish any positive effects on work performance (Grant, 2008). Drawing on this logic and research, prosocial motivation emanating from PIED, as suggested by social exchange theory, should be experienced as more autonomous and pleasure-based and less controlling and pressure-based when accompanied by high levels of intrinsic work motivation.
Beyond the effect of perceiving prosocial motivation emanating from PIED as more or less autonomous or controlled depending on the level of intrinsic motivation, extant research suggests that intrinsically motivated persons may benefit more from developmental activities than their less intrinsically motivated counterparts. Findings from studies in educational settings reviewed by Deci and Ryan (2000) show that intrinsically motivated students are more likely to perceive learning content more constructively and have higher levels of persistence in acquiring the learning content than students with lower levels of intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, intrinsically motivated employees are found to be more self-driven and more autonomy-oriented than those less intrinsically motivated (e.g.
Ryan and Deci, 2000; Thomas, 2002), which suggests that they will take more responsibility for ensuring the necessary levels of skills and competencies when offered developmental opportunities. Performance appraisal research, for instance, suggests that a positive performance appraisal reaction is positively related to work performance only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation (Kuvaas, 2006a). These findings suggest that intrinsically motivated employees may be more active in response to PIED and therefore benefit more from developmental opportunities with respect to skills and abilities, which suggest that intrinsic motivation should moderate the relationship between PIED and work quality.
Because intrinsically motivated employees are also more engaged and involved with their jobs (e.g. Guay et al., 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), they may to a greater extent use developmental opportunities to increase their own work effort, as well as be more engaged and involved in the work of their colleagues, when compared with employees with lower intrinsic motivation. Accordingly, we believe that the
relationship between PIED and work performance should be stronger for higher than for lower levels of intrinsic motivation:
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between perceived investment in employee development and (a) work effort, (b) work quality and (c) OCB is moderated by intrinsic motivation: the higher intrinsic motivation, the stronger positive relationships.
METHODOLOGY Samples and procedure
We tested the hypotheses in three different samples, in line with recent calls by Kline (2004) for an increase of replication studies in organisational behaviour research. The details of each study are presented below.
Study 1. Respondents were drawn from four different organisations located in Norway: one government agency, one labour union, one bank and one temporary staff agency. In April 2008, a questionnaire was distributed to 337 employees by use of a web-based tool (Confirmit), which resulted in complete data from 182 employees and a response rate of approximately 54 per cent. Because of issues of anonymity, we were not allowed to collect data on demographic variables.
Study 2. Respondents were drawn from a bank located in Norway. In April 2008, a questionnaire was distributed to 280 employees by use of a web-based tool (Confirmit), which resulted in complete data from 156 employees and a response rate of approximately 56 per cent. Of the respondents, approximately 49 per cent were women and 51 were men. Their average organisational tenure was approximately 17 years. With respect to educational level, which was measured by six categories, 47 per cent held a university degree of three years’ study or more. Base pay was measured by nine categories, where approximately 47 per cent reported to earn more than NOK450,000.
Study 3. Respondents were drawn from four different organisations located in Norway: one telecommunication company, one energy company, one bank and one newspaper organisation. In June 2008, a questionnaire was distributed to 955 employees by the use of a web-based tool (Confirmit), which resulted in 488 complete responses, representing a response rate of approximately 50 per cent. Of the respondents, approximately 40 per cent were women and 60 were men. Their average organisational tenure was approximately 13 years. With respect to educational level, which was measured by six categories, 44 per cent held a university degree of three years’ study or more. Base pay was measured by six categories, where approximately 50 per cent reported to earn more than NOK450,000.
Measures
All the items were scored on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A description of each item included in study 1 is presented in the Appendix. Perceived investment in employee development was
measured by seven items that were partly adapted from Lee and Bruvold (2003) and partly developed for this study. The reason we developed our own measure was that we wanted to assess employees’ perception of the organisation’s long-term and continuous commitment to investment in employee development, rather than their perception of particular learning or developmental practices. Example items are ‘My organisation stands out as an organisation that is very focused on continuous development of the skills and abilities of its employees’ and ‘I definitely think that my organisation invests more heavily in employee development than comparable organisations’.
Intrinsic motivation was measured by four items from a six-item scale used by Kuvaas (2006b). Because two of the items in the original scale loaded on a separate factor, we developed two additional items (referred to as IM4 and IM6 in the Appendix).
The ten-item measure of work effort and work quality was developed based on a six-item self-report scale (Kuvaas, 2006b). As this scale did not distinguish between effort and quality, we used four of the items in the original scale that clearly referred to quality or effort and developed six additional items to be used in the present study.
OCB was measured by the seven-item helping behaviour scale validated by Van Dyne and LePine (1998).
Analysis
As a first step to determine item retention, we followed the advice of Medskeret al.
(1994) and performed an exploratory principal component analysis with varimax rotation. According to Brannick and Williams (see Hurley et al., 1997), explorative factor analysis is well suited when the purpose is to evaluate and increase discriminant validity. Furthermore, as we exclusively rely on self-report measures, we applied relatively stringent rules-of-thumb and retained only items with a strong loading of 0.50 or higher on the target construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 2007), a cross-loading of less than 0.35 on other included factors (Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery, 2003) and a differential of 0.20 or higher between included factors (Van Dyneet al., 1994).
To test the hypotheses containing direct and mediational relationships (Hypothesis 1a, 1b and 1c), the three-step procedure recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used.1 According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the following conditions must be met to support a mediating relationship. First, the independent variable must be significantly associated with the mediator. Second, the independent variable must be significantly associated with the dependent variable. Finally, after the mediator is entered in the regression model, the relationship between the independent and dependent variables should either disappear (full mediation) or significantly diminish (partial mediation). In order to test for significance of full versus partial mediation, we ran Sobel tests (Preacher and Leonardelli, 2001) and used the computer software MedGraph (Jose, 2003).
To test the moderation hypotheses (Hypothesis 2a, 2b and 2c), we used hierarchical moderated regression (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Interaction terms often create multicollinearity problems because of their correlations with main effects. We thus computed the interaction terms by centring the variables before multiplying them with each other. To probe the form of the interactions, we followed procedures
recommended by Aiken and West (1991) and first plotted low versus high scores on PIED and intrinsic motivation (one standard deviation below and above the means using standardised scores). We then conducted tests to determine whether the slopes for high versus low levels of PIED and intrinsic motivation were significant and whether they were significantly different from each other.
Finally, because some of the control variables suffered from a few instances of missing data, we performed the regression analyses with the mean of the variable substituted for missing observations.
Results
The principal component analysis for study 1 revealed that one of the PIED measures did not meet the 0.5 loading criterion and that one of the work effort items cross-loaded on the work quality component (see the Appendix). These items were removed before the scales were computed. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all the variables are reported in Table 1a.
The first condition for mediation was met as PIED was significantly related to intrinsic motivation (b =0.31,p<0.001) when controlled for organisational affiliation.
The second condition (see Table 2a), that PIED should be related to the dependent variables before intrinsic motivation is entered, was only met for work effort (b =0.23, p<0.01). Because this relationship became insignificant after intrinsic motivation was included and the Sobel test supported full mediation (Z=3.35, p<0.001), the relationship between PIED and work effort was mediated by intrinsic motivation, providing support for Hypothesis 1a, but not 1b and 1c.
The significant interaction term in predicting OCB suggests that the relationship between PIED and OCB is moderated by intrinsic motivation, although the increase in explained variance was modest. To probe the form of this interaction, we followed the procedure recommended by Aiken and West (1991) and plotted low versus high scores on PIED and intrinsic motivation (one standard deviation below and above the means using standardised scores). The results, displayed in Figure 1, suggest a marginally significant positive relationship between PIED and OCB for employees high in intrinsic motivation and a negative relationship for employees low in intrinsic motivation. Finally, at-test revealed that the two slopes were significantly different from each other (t=4.02,p<0.001), providing support for Hypothesis 2c. As there were no significant interaction terms when predicting work effort and work quality, Hypothesis 2a and 2b were not supported.
The principal component analysis for study 2 revealed that one of the intrinsic motivation items loaded on a separate component, two of the OCB items did not meet the 0.5 loading criterion and two of the work effort items cross-loaded on the work quality component. These items were removed before the scales were computed. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all the variables are reported in Table 1b.
The first condition for mediation was met once again as PIED was significantly related to intrinsic motivation (b =0.42, p<0.001) after the control variables were included. The second condition (see Table 2b), that PIED should be related to the dependent variables before intrinsic motivation is entered, was met for all the dependent variables. Finally, after intrinsic motivation was included, these relationships became insignificant when predicting work effort and work quality,
TABLE1Descriptivestatistics,correlationsandscalereliabilities (a)Study1a MeanSD1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. 1.Organisation10.450.50 2.Organisation20.240.43-0.50 3.Organisation30.250.43-0.52-0.32 4.Organisation40.070.25-0.24-0.15-0.15 5.PIED3.120.790.07-0.010.11-0.31(0.92) 6.Intrinsicmotivation3.780.78-0.240.060.160.120.25(0.92) 7.Workeffort4.140.53-0.150.020.050.180.150.44(0.81) 8.Workquality3.670.49-0.100.06-0.030.140.020.310.45(0.81) 9.OCB3.940.48-0.15-0.050.080.250.010.410.470.50(0.85) (b)Study2b MeanSD1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9. 1.Gender1.490.50 2.Education4.131.31-0.39 3.Tenure17.4112.860.05-0.55 4.Basepay5.612.17-0.450.46-0.15 5.PIED3.530.550.07-0.07-0.07-0.09(0.87) 6.Intrinsicmotivation3.830.49-0.050.080.020.170.39(0.85) 7.Workeffort4.010.470.14-0.120.09-0.010.270.38(0.72) 8.Workquality3.540.390.00-0.060.110.170.210.250.36(0.74) 9.OCB3.930.38-0.04-0.080.130.080.250.280.320.34(0.77)
(c)Study3c MeanSD1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14. 1.Organisation10.520.50 2.Organisation20.170.38-0.48 3.Organisation30.150.35-0.43-0.19 4.Organisation40.160.37-0.46-0.20-0.18 5.Gender1.410.49-0.240.110.220.01 6.Managerialposition1.260.440.12-0.11-0.250.19-0.25 7.Tenure13.2311.72-0.15-0.060.40-0.120.10-0.08 8.Education3.991.400.03-0.04-0.140.14-0.080.20-0.28 9.Basepay4.261.720.15-0.12-0.200.11-0.260.450.070.43 10.PIED3.220.73-0.190.100.070.090.150.000.00-0.09-0.13(0.91) 11.Intrinsicmotivation3.630.70-0.120.050.010.10-0.030.220.100.010.270.28(0.90) 12.Workeffort4.240.500.040.03-0.070.050.020.21-0.04-0.060.110.160.51(0.83) 13.Workquality3.750.47-0.080.040.020.05-0.020.07-0.020.020.030.110.310.49(0.78) 14.OCB3.890.45-0.01-0.010.05-0.02-0.030.130.02-0.050.070.220.360.420.37(0.84) aN=182;coefficientalphasindicatingscalereliabilitiesareinparentheses;correlationsequaltoorgreaterthan0.15aresignificantatthe0.05levelandthoseequal toorgreaterthan0.24atthe0.001level. bN=156;coefficientalphasindicatingscalereliabilitiesareinparentheses;correlationsequaltoorgreaterthan0.16aresignificantatthe0.05levelandthoseequal toorgreaterthan0.27atthe0.001level. cN=488;coefficientalphasindicatingscalereliabilitiesareinparentheses;correlationsequaltoorgreaterthan0.09aresignificantatthe0.05levelandthoseequal toorgreaterthan0.15atthe0.001level. PIED,perceivedinvestmentinemployeedevelopment;OCB,organisationalcitizenshipbehaviour.
TABLE2Regressionanalyses WorkeffortWorkqualityOCB Step1Step2Step3Step4Step1Step2Step3Step4Step1Step2Step3Step4 (a)Study1a Organisation20.090.100.030.040.090.100.040.040.030.03-0.03-0.01 Organisation30.110.100.020.020.030.02-0.05-0.050.140.130.050.06 Organisation40.21**0.28***0.18*0.19*0.16*0.18*0.100.100.28***0.30***0.20**0.23** PIED0.23**0.110.100.08-0.02-0.010.09-0.03-0.05 IM0.39***0.40***0.30***0.30***0.38***0.41*** PIED¥IM0.08-0.030.18* DR20.05*0.04**0.13***0.010.030.000.08***0.000.08**0.010.12***0.03* R20.050.090.220.230.030.030.110.110.080.090.210.24 F2.88*4.51**9.95***8.50***1.671.514.42**3.69**5.14**4.20**9.44***9.23*** (b)Study2b Gender0.150.150.140.130.070.070.060.06-0.03-0.03-0.04-0.04 Education-0.07-0.04-0.08-0.10-0.10-0.07-0.09-0.10-0.09-0.06-0.08-0.10 Tenure0.060.090.050.030.080.110.090.090.100.1411.0.09 Basepay0.100.110.050.030.26**0.27**0.24*0.24*0.130.140.100.09 PIED0.27**0.130.120.23**0.160.160.27**0.18*0.17* IM0.33***0.34***0.150.160.20*0.21* PIED¥IM0.20**0.080.22** DR20.030.07**0.08***0.04**0.060.05**0.020.000.030.07**0.03*0.05** R20.030.110.190.230.060.110.130.130.030.100.130.18 F1.313.53**5.92***6.45***2.363.68**3.64**3.29*1.233.36**3.78**4.62***
(c)Study3c Organisation10.000.030.080.07-0.09-0.07-0.04-0.040.020.070.100.09 Organisation2-0.02-0.02-0.03-0.040.010.010.000.000.050.050.040.03 Organisation3-0.01-0.01-0.02-0.020.020.020.010.020.130.13*0.13*12* Gender0.10*0.080.080.08-0.02-0.04-0.04-0.040.00-0.02-0.03-0.03 Managerialposition21***0.19***0.13**0.13**0.070.060.020.020.14**0.12*0.090.09 Tenure-0.09-0.08-0.10*-0.10*-0.04-0.03-0.04-0.04-0.06-0.05-0.06-05 Education-0.17**-0.16**-0.10*-0.10*-0.010.000.040.04-0.11*-0.10-0.06-0.06 Basepay0.12*0.13*-0.03-0.040.010.02-0.09-0.090.090.100.000.00 PIED0.16**0.010.010.10*0.010.010.22***0.14**0.13** IM0.51***0.51***0.33***0.33***0.32***0.32*** PIED¥IM0.060.020.11* DR20.07***0.03**0.20***0.000.010.01*0.09***0.000.03*0.05***0.08***0.01* R20.070.100.300.300.010.020.110.110.030.080.160.17 F4.70***5.62***20.40***18.80***0.871.275.71***5.20***2.18*4.75***9.15***9.00*** *p<0.05,**p<0.01,***p<0.001. aN=182;standardisedregressioncoefficientsareshown. bN=156;standardisedregressioncoefficientsareshown. cN=488;standardisedregressioncoefficientsareshown. OCB,organisationalcitizenshipbehaviour;PIED,perceivedinvestmentinemployeedevelopment;IM,intrinsicmotivation.
whereas a significant drop was observed for OCB, but intrinsic motivation was not significantly related to work quality. Sobel tests revealed no mediation for work quality (Z=1.69, n.s.), but that the relationship between PIED and work effort was fully mediated by intrinsic motivation (Z=3.26, p<0.01) and that the relationship between PIED and OCB was partially mediated by intrinsic motivation (Z=2.13, p<0.05). Accordingly, we obtained support for Hypothesis 1a and partial support for 1c, but not support for 1b.
Turning to the moderation hypotheses, Table 2b reveals significant interaction terms for both work effort and OCB and an increase in explained variance of 4 and 5 per cent, respectively. The plots in Figure 1 suggest positive relationships between PIED and both work effort and OCB for employees high in intrinsic motivation and no relationship for employees low in intrinsic motivation. Finally, t-tests revealed that the two slopes were significantly different from each other (t=1.91,p<0.05 for work effort and t=2.46, p<0.01 for OCB). Accordingly, Hypothesis 2a and 2c was supported whereas 2b was not.
FIGURE 1 Plots of significant interaction terms
Study 1
3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4 4,2 4,4
perceived investment in employee development
perceived investment in employee development organisational citizenship behaviour
High intrinsic motivation (p < .06) Low intrinsic motivation (p < .001)
perceived investment in employee development
perceived investment in employee development
organisational citizenship behaviour organisational citizenship behaviour
High intrinsic motivation (p < .001) Low intrinsic motivation (n.s.)
High intrinsic motivation (p < .001) Low intrinsic motivation (n.s.)
High intrinsic motivation (p < .001) Low intrinsic motivation (n.s.)
Study 2
3,6 3,8 4 4,2
Work effort
Study 2
3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3
Study 3
3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3
Low High Low High
Low High Low High
OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour; IM, intrinsic motivation; PIED, perceived investment in employee development.
The principal component analysis for study 3 revealed that one of the OCB items cross-loaded on the work effort component. This item was removed before the scales were computed. Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all the variables are reported in Table 1c.
The first condition for mediation was met once again as PIED was significantly related to intrinsic motivation (b =0.28, p<0.001) after the control variables were included. The second condition (see Table 2c), that PIED should be related to the dependent variables before intrinsic motivation is entered, was met for all the dependent variables. Finally, after intrinsic motivation was included, these relationships became insignificant when predicting work effort and work quality, and a significant drop was observed for OCB. Sobel tests revealed that the relationship between PIED and both work effort (Z=5.84,p<0.001) and work quality (Z=4.75, p<0.001) was fully mediated by intrinsic motivation, while the relationship between PIED and OCB (Z=4.77, p<0.001) was partially mediated by intrinsic motivation, providing support for Hypothesis 1a and 1b, and partial support for 1c.
Finally, Table 2c reveals a significant interaction term in predicting OCB, but only an increase in explained variance of 1 per cent. The plots in Figure 1 again suggest a positive relationship between PIED and OCB for employees high in intrinsic motivation and no relationship for employees low in intrinsic motivation. Finally, the t-test again revealed that the two slopes were significantly different from each other (t=3.48,p<0.001), providing support for Hypothesis 2c, but not for 2a and 2b.
DISCUSSION
In the current study, we have responded to a call for research on the relationship between PIED and work performance (Lee and Bruvold, 2003) and investigated the role of intrinsic motivation as a mediator and a moderator. With respect to mediation, the data from all of the three studies suggest that the relationship between PIED and work effort is fully mediated by intrinsic motivation. In one of the three studies, intrinsic motivation fully mediated the relationship between PIED and work quality, but it should be noted that the direct relationship between PIED and work quality was relatively weak also before intrinsic motivation was entered (b =0.10,p<0.05). For two of the three studies, intrinsic motivation partially mediated the relationship between PIED and OCB. For two out of the nine instances where intrinsic motivation did not mediate the relationship between PIED and the dependent variable, the reason was that PIED was not significantly related to work quality and OCB before intrinsic motivation was entered into the model. These findings suggest that, to the extent that PIED is related to different facets of work performance, this can largely be explained by the influence PIED has on intrinsic motivation.
In addition, our results indicated that intrinsic motivation moderated the relationship between PIED and OCB in all of the three studies and the relationship between PIED and work effort in one of the studies. Interestingly, and accordant with our hypotheses, all the significant moderations suggest that there were positive relationships only for employees with high levels of intrinsic motivation. These findings also imply that the partially mediated relationship between PIED and OCB is less practically significant as they indicate that PIED is only positively related to OCB when intrinsic motivation is high. Thus, and in contrast to social exchange
theory, simply offering organisational inducements in the form of PIED and expecting elevated levels of prosocial behaviour fails to be supported in our study.
A plausible explanation for this contingency is that intrinsically motivated employees
‘experience autonomy in acting freely to benefit others, competence in successfully helping others, and relatedness in connecting their actions to outcomes that matter in the lives of other people’ (Grant, 2008: 50). In addition, the higher work engagement and involvement of highly intrinsically motivated employees may make them respond more broadly in response to PIED, where they act as ‘missionaries’
who exert helping behaviours towards their colleagues and share the positive experience of their work environment with their peers. The explanation that intrinsically motivated employees should respond more proactively to developmental opportunities and therefore be better trained and more skilled is less likely, as intrinsic motivation did not moderate the relationship between PIED and work quality in any of the three studies.
In sum, the present study should contribute to the emerging literature that integrates theories of social exchange and intrinsic motivation by exploring how the two sources of motivation may interact in predicting facets of work performance.
First, empirical support for mediation and the observation that the extent to which PIED is related to work performance can partly be explained by intrinsic motivation, provides empirical evidence that social or work climate factors other than autonomy support can influence intrinsic motivation, and in turn, work performance (Gagné and Deci, 2005). Second, whereas Grant (2008) identified a similar motivational synergy in predicting in-role performance, the observation that there was a positive relationship between PIED and OCB only for intrinsically motivated employees should advance existing knowledge about the conditions under which organisational inducements and prosocial motivation is likely to increase citizenship behaviour.
Finally, and in response to the call for research on PIED and work performance (Lee and Bruvold, 2003), the findings of our study do not suggest any direct or strong relationship. Accordingly, in order to better understand this relationship it is probably wise to extend the theoretical lenses from relying exclusively on social exchanges and prosocial motivation to include theories of intrinsic motivation.
Limitations and research directions
The contributions of this research should be viewed in the light of several limitations.
First, the data were gathered at one point in time, making it impossible to draw inferences of causality or rule out the possibility of reverse causality. Consequently, longitudinal or experimental studies are needed to come closer to causality inferences on the relationships examined in the present study. Another limitation is the reliance on self-reported questionnaire data, causing concerns about possible mono-method bias and percept-percept inflated measures (e.g.Crampton and Wagner, 1994). The principal component analyses, however, generated five to seven factors with eigenvalues of 1 or more, and an explained variance of the first factor ranging from 25.4 (study 2) to 28.2 (study 1) per cent. Although this test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) is nothing more than a diagnostic technique to assess the extent to which common method variance may be a problem (Podsakoffet al., 2003), it seems to indicate that mono-method variance was not a serious threat in our studies. Besides, to the extent mono-method variance has inflated the results this would probably only be the case
for the mediation hypotheses, as there is no reason to expect interactions owing to common-method variance (e.g.Harrisonet al., 1996; Xie, 1996).
The self-reported measures of work effort, work quality and organisational citizenship behaviour may have resulted in an upward bias. Still, research among salespeople suggests that self-rated performance tends to be upward-biased, but also that the amount of bias does not seem to vary across performance levels (Sharma et al., 2004). Accordingly, the respondents in the present studies may have overestimated their levels, without necessarily affecting the results. Still, the mean value for self-reported work quality was ‘only’ 3.65 across the three studies compared with 3.75 for intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, whereas performance ratings by supervisors help rule out the validity threats of self-report and the mono-method, performance appraisal research suggests that performance ratings conducted by supervisors may be even more biased than self-report measures (Levy and Williams, 2004; Murphy, 2008). Thus, it is not obvious that the extra effort involved in gathering performance data by supervisors or peers would have produced better performance data. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to gather both self-reportandsupervisor or peer measures of task and contextual performance.
Beyond conducting similar studies with longitudinal designs and data from several sources, an interesting avenue for future research would be to investigate the moderating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between multiple human resource (HR) practices and employee outcomes, as the vast majority of studies to date suggest that this relationship is mediated rather than moderated by intrinsic motivation.
Implications for HR policy and practice
If the associations between PIED, intrinsic motivation and the dependent variables represent causal relationships, our findings may have important implications for practice. Given the central role played by intrinsic motivation, organisations may use our findings to tailor their HR polices in general, and their selection and work design practices in particular, towards intrinsic motivation. With respect to work design and intrinsic motivation, close attention should be paid to intrinsically motivational job characteristics such as job autonomy, skill variety, task identity, task significance and feedback from the job (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Humphreyet al., 2007). As far as selection practices are concerned, organisations should try to hire employees with the potential and capacity to find meaning and enjoyment in their work. Following Pfeffer, we add to the importance of selection: ‘Organizations serious about obtaining profits through people will expend the effort needed to ensure that they recruit the right people in the first place’ (Pfeffer 1998: 100). Finally, and from an HR policy standpoint, research on ‘best practice’ HRM often views the fulfilment of employee needs as an end in itself (e.g. Guest, 1997) and pertains to flexible, autonomous and empowering work systems that rest primarily on employees’ self-regulated behaviour and discretionary effort (e.g. MacDuffie, 1995; Trusset al., 1997). Such a view fits nicely with SDT and the positive effect of autonomy-supporting work environments on need fulfilment and intrinsic motivation (Gagné and Deci, 2005), which suggests that organisations should pay attention to autonomy support and empowerment also when they design and implement other HR practices than investment in employee development.
Conclusion
This study has introduced intrinsic motivation as a mediating and moderating influence on the relationship between PIED and different facets of work performance. Across three different studies, our findings suggest that intrinsic motivation completely mediates the relationship between PIED and work effort. In addition, intrinsic motivation seems to moderate the relationship between PIED and organisational citizenship behaviour. These findings may contribute to emerging literature that integrates theories of social exchange and intrinsic motivation by exploring how the two sources of motivation may interact in predicting facets of work performance.
Note
1. Although this approach is the most widely used, more sophisticated methods are available (see MacKinnon et al., 2002).
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991).Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986). ‘The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51: 6, 1173–1182.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York: Wiley.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2005). ‘The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work- family conflict’. Journal of Applied Psychology,90: 740–748.
Chiu, S.F. and Chen, H.L. (2005). ‘Relationship between job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediational role of job satisfaction’. Social Behavior and Personality, 33: 6, 523–539.
Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. and Shore, L.M. (2007). ‘The employee-organization relationship:
where do we go from here?’Human Resource Management Review,17: 166–179.
Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994). ‘Percept-percept inflation in micro- organizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 67–76.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005). ‘Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review’. Journal of Management,31: 6, 874–900.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior’.Psychological Inquiry,11: 4, 227–268.
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P. and Ryan, R.M. (1989). ‘Self-determination in a work organization’.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 4, 580–590.
Dysvik, A. and Kuvaas, B. (2008). ‘The relationship between perceived training opportunities, work motivation and employee outcomes’. International Journal of Training and Development,12: 3, 138–157.
Gagné, M. and Deci, E.L. (2005). ‘Self-determination theory and work motivation’.Journal of Organizational Behavior,26: 331–362.
Gagné, M., Senecal, C.B. and Koestner, R. (1997). ‘Proximal job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: a multidimensional model’.Journal of Applied Social Psychology,27: 1222–1240.
Gebauer, J.E., Riketta, M., Broemer, P. and Maio, G.R. (2008). ‘Pleasure and pressure based prosocial motivation: divergent relations to subjective well-being’.Journal of Research in Personality,42: 2, 399–420.
Grant, A.M. (2007). ‘Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference’.Academy of Management Review,32: 2, 393–417.
Grant, A.M. (2008). ‘Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity’. Journal of Applied Psychology,93: 1, 48–58.
Grouzet, F.M.E., Vallerand, R.J., Thill, E.E. and Provencher, P.J. (2004). ‘From environmental factors to outcomes: a test of integrated motivational sequence’.
Motivation and Emotion,28: 4, 331–346.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J. and Blanchard, C. (2000). ‘On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS)’.Motivation and Emotion,24: 3, 175–213.
Guest, D. (1997). ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and research agenda’.International Journal of Human Resource Management,8: 3, 263–276.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976). ‘Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory’.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,16: 250–279.
Harrison, D.A., McLaughlin, M.E. and Coalter, T.M. (1996). ‘Context, cognition, and common method variance: psychometric and verbal protocol evidence’.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,68: 3, 246–261.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007). ‘Integrating motivational, social and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature’.Journal of Applied Psychology,92: 5, 1332–1356.
Hurley, A.E., Scandura, T.A., Schriesheim, C.A., Brannick, M.T., Seers, A., Vandeberg, R.J.
and Williams, L.J. (1997). ‘Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues, and alternatives’.Journal of Organizational Behavior,18: 667–683.
Jose, P.E. (2003). MedGraph-I: A programme to graphically depict mediation among three variables. The internet version, version 2.0. 2008. Retrieved 05.12.2008, Available at:
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/psyc/staff/paul-jose-files/medgraph/medgraph.php Kiffin-Petersen, S. and Cordery, J.L. (2003). ‘Trust, individualism and job characteristics as
predictors of employee preference for teamwork’. International Journal of Human Resource Management,14: 1, 93–116.
Kline, R.B. (2004). Beyond Significance Testing – Reforming Data Analysis Methods in Behavioral Research, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kuvaas, B. (2006a). ‘Performance appraisal satisfaction and employee outcomes:
mediating and moderating roles of motivation’.International Journal of Human Resource Management,17: 3, 504–522.
Kuvaas, B. (2006b). ‘Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the roles of pay administration and pay level’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27: 3, 365–385.
Kuvaas, B. (2007). ‘Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance appraisal and work performance’.Personnel Review,36: 3, 378–397.
Lee, C.H. and Bruvold, N.T. (2003). ‘Creating value for employees: investment in employee development’. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 6, 981–1000.
Levy, P.E. and Williams, J.R. (2004). ‘The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future’.Journal of Management,30: 6, 881–905.
MacDuffie, J.P. (1995). ‘Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance:
organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry’.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review,48: 197–221.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G. and Sheets, V. (2002). ‘A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects’.
Psychological Methods, 7: 1, 83–104.
Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994). ‘A review of current practices for evaluating causal-models in organizational-behavior and human-resources management research’.Journal of Management,20: 2, 439–464.
Meyer, J.P., Becker, T.E. and Vandenberghe, C. (2004). ‘Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual analysis and integrative model’.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 6, 991–1007.
Murphy, K.R. (2008). ‘Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance’.Industrial and Organizational Psychology,1: 148–160.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (2007). Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). ‘Seven practices of successful organizations’. California Management Review,40: 2, 96–124.
Piccolo, R.F. and Colquitt, J.A. (2006). ‘Transformational leadership and job behaviors: the mediating role of core job characteristics’.Academy of Management Journal,49: 2, 327–340.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986). ‘Self reports in organizational research: problems and prospectus’.Journal of Management,12: 531–544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). ‘Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies’.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 5, 879–903.
Preacher, K.J. and Leonardelli, G.J. (2001). Calculation for the Sobel test: an interactive calculation tool for mediation tests, available at: http://www.people.ku.edu/~preacher/
sobel/sobel.htm
Richer, S.F., Blanchard, C. and Vallerand, R.J. (2002). ‘A motivational model of turnover’.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,10: 2089–2113.
Ryan, R.M. and Connell, J.P. (1989). ‘Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
examining reasons for acting in two domains’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 749–761.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’. American Psychologist,55: 68–78.
Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996). ‘Social exchange in organizations:
perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity’.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 3, 219–227.
Sharma, A., Rich, G.A. and Levy, M. (2004). ‘Comment: starting to solve the method puzzle in salesperson self-report evaluations’. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,XXIV: 2, 135–139.
Thomas, K.W. (2002). Intrinsic Motivation at Work: Building Energy & Commitment, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., McGovern, P. and Stiles, P. (1997). ‘Soft and hard models of human resource management: a reappraisal’.Journal of Management Studies, 34: 1, 53–73.
Vallerand, R.J. (1997). ‘Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation’, in M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, pp. 271–360.
Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998). ‘Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity’. Academy of Management Journal,41: 1, 108–119.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation’.Academy of Management Journal, 37: 4, 765–802.
