Phase 2: Qualitative Study
III. Performance and Engagement Appraisal and Feedback
4.5 INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
4.6.7 Self-Determination Theory
According to Deci (1971, p.105), intrinsic motivation has demonstrated that “extrinsic rewards can have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation under certain conditions”. According to this author, extrinsic rewards can affect intrinsic motivation in two ways. Firstly, if there is a change in the “perceived locus of causality” i.e. when a person is intrinsically motivated, the locus of causality is within themselves. However, when external rewards are made contingent on behaviour and the individual begins to perceive that he or she is engaging in the activity for these rewards, then the “perceived locus of causality shifts from within the individual to the extrinsic reward, resulting in decreased intrinsic motivation” (Deci, 1975, p.105). Secondly, the author suggested that when people are intrinsically motivated to perform activities that make them feel self-determining and competent, the reward or feedback can negatively affect
“intrinsic motivation by negatively affecting feelings of competence or self-determination”.
89
According to Ryan and Deci (2000, p.68), the self-determination theory explores “the natural growth tendencies of people and the essential psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and personality integration”. The self-determination theory also focuses on those conditions that foster these positive processes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to these authors, “intentional human behaviour is described by two processes entailing intrinsic motivation and internalisation”. Intrinsic motivation, according to these authors, “refers to the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequences”.
These authors postulated that “intrinsic motivation is engendered when people are in conditions that support three innate psychological needs, namely, the need for self-determination - the need to initiate and regulate one’s own actions, competence - the need to produce behavioural outcomes and to understand production of these behavioural outcomes, and relatedness - the need to have satisfactory relationships with others and with the social order in general”.
Gagné and Deci (2005, p.334) suggested that fundamental to the self-determination theory is the “distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation”. According to these authors, “autonomy involves acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice”, whilst autonomy means “endorsing one's actions at the highest level of reflection”.
These authors further suggested that “intrinsic motivation is an example of autonomous motivation; while in contrast, being controlled involves acting with a sense of pressure, a sense of having to engage in the actions”. The self-determination theory postulates that “autonomous and controlled motivations” differ in terms of both their “underlying regulatory processes and their accompanying experiences”, and it further suggests that “behaviours can be characterized in terms of the degree to which they are autonomous versus controlled” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p.334).
The self-determination theory, as opposed to other theories, defines needs differently. Most organisational theories see needs as individual differences. However, according to Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, and Deci (1996), needs are seen as nutriments that are crucial for optimum human development and integrity. Thus, according to these authors, “the self-determination theory focuses on the consequences of the extent to which individuals are able to satisfy the needs within social environments, and not on the consequences of the strength of those needs for different individuals” (Ryan et al., 1996, p.9-12). A study by Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan (2000) has supported this perspective. For example, in their study of satisfaction and the three basic psychological needs in people's ongoing lives, Reis et al. (2000, p.429-431)
90
“found first that trait measures of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, as well as aggregates of the daily measures of autonomy, competence, and relatedness; all made independent contributions to well-being indices”. This, according to these authors, “confirmed the relations at the between-person level”. However, after between-person variance was removed, these authors found that “the daily fluctuations in satisfaction of the three needs independently predicted daily fluctuations in well-being”. Therefore, according to these authors, the study
“showed an association between need satisfaction and well-being at the within-person as well as between-person levels of analysis, with independent contributions being made by satisfaction of each basic need”.
The self-determination theory has been successfully linked to positive work outcomes. For example, Deci, Connell and Ryan (1989, p.585) found that “managerial autonomy support was associated with employees' being more satisfied with their jobs, having a higher level of trust in corporate management, and displaying other positive work-related attitudes”. Deci et al.
(1989, p.582) found that “the level of managers' autonomy support increased in the intervention sites relative to the control group sites and, even more importantly, that these changes radiated to their subordinates who reported increases in perceptions of the quality of supervision, trust in the organisation, and job-related satisfaction”. A study by Baard, Deci and Ryan (2004, p.2061), suggested that “performance on the job and psychological adjustment are influenced by satisfaction of people’s intrinsic needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness on the job”. According to these authors, “these opportunities for intrinsic need satisfaction are influenced by managers being perceived as autonomy-supportive, and by subordinates as autonomous causality orientation”.
For the purpose of this study, the researcher used the self-determination theory to determine the impact of motivation on performance. Firstly, according to Ryan and Deci (2000), the Self- Determination Theory proposes that people’s actions are motivated by three core needs, namely, the need for autonomy, the need for competence and the need for relatedness. Ryan and Deci (2000, p.69) suggested that if an “individual’s experience of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported”, then this could lead to “the most volitional and high quality forms of motivation and engagement for activities, including enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity”. However, according to these authors, if any of these three psychological needs are not supported or if they are “thwarted within a social context, this will have a robust detrimental impact on wellness in that setting”. Within Retek, these three needs
91
are supported through (1) engaging employees in their tasks, (2) linking rewards and recognition to the quality of their performances, and (3) by matching the values and needs of the employee to the values and needs of the organisation. By fulfilling these needs, the researcher postulates that employees will be motivated to improve their individual performance, and hence increase organisational performance.
The theories highlighted above have been developed to add value to organisations in terms of improving employee performance, as well as organisation performance. The paragraphs below highlight some of the important implications of motivation on certain factors.