Christopher P. Niemiec and Gordon B. Spence
Work is an integral part of the lives of most adults. Indeed, work‐related activities occupy a substantial portion (from 25% to 33%; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003) of employees’ waking hours (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015) and facilitate the establishment and development of a personal identity (Doherty, 2009). As the nature of work has shifted toward an emphasis on psychological demands (rather than physical demands; Lundberg & Cooper, 2011), a burgeoning corpus of empirical evidence suggests that a variety of social‐contextual factors exert influence on employees’ health and functioning on the job (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Van Rhenen, 2009). At work, some employees have opportunities to pursue tasks that are self‐endorsed and valued, to cultivate capabilities and strive for mastery, and to develop mutually supportive connections with important others. Yet other employees have experiences of pressure and coercion, inability, and disconnection from their supervisors, their co‐workers, and their jobs. Highlighting the important impact that social‐contextual factors have on employees’ performance and wellness on the job, research has shown that the former set of affordances tends to be associated with health and functioning among employees, whereas the latter set of experiences tends to be associated with stress, somatic symptom burden, emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and absenteeism (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Olafsen, Niemiec, Halvari, Deci, & Williams, 2015; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010; Williams et al., 2014).
In this chapter, we apply self‐determination theory to a discussion of optimal motivation in the workplace. From the perspective of self‐determination theory, optimal motivation involves the organization, initiation, and direction of behavior through reflection on and coherence with abiding values and interests. To be sure, the proactive tendencies toward curiosity (Loewenstein, 1994), interest (Silvia, 2008), and coherence in knowledge and action (Ryan, 1995), which are so relevant to effectivefunctioning among employees, are inherent in human nature (cf. Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Yet optimal motivation – marked by volition and self‐regulation – is also likely to be facilitated by contextual support for satisfaction of basic psychological needs. To elucidate these ideas, this chapter is divided into five main sections. First, we discuss the metatheoretical and theoretical underpinnings of self‐determination theory. Second, we review both theory and research on autonomous self‐regulation as a form of optimal motivation in the workplace. Third, we review both theory and research on intrinsic life goals as a set of optimal aspirations in the workplace. Fourth, we reflect on how managerial support for basic psychological needs might facilitate autonomous self‐regulation and the pursuit of intrinsic life goals among employees in the workplace. Fifth, we offer several directions for future research on optimal motivation in the workplace using the perspective of self‐determination theory.
Self‐determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010) is a macro‐theoretical approach to human motivation, emotion, and personality in social contexts that has direct applications in the workplace (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The philosophical starting point for SDT is its organismic‐dialectic metatheory (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2002), which provides a set of assumptions about human nature that is used to guide subsequent theoretical development. In this view, humans are proactive organisms who seek out opportunities for choice, effectiveness, and connection with others, rather than passive organisms that are pushed around by contingencies of reinforcement in their environment. Thus, by nature, humans are oriented toward psychological and social integration (autonomy and homonomy, respectively; Angyal, 1965), yet they remain vulnerable to experiences of passivity and control, ineffectiveness, and alienation from others. In addition, humans are oriented toward differentiation and integration (Piaget, 1971), synthesis (Freud, 1923/1960), and realization of full potential (Rogers, 1963), yet they remain vulnerable to psychological fragmentation and disharmony that so typify burnout and other forms of non‐optimal functioning in the workplace (Freudenberger, 1974). From the perspective of SDT, then, there exists a dialectic in which an inherent tendency toward full functioning and organismic wellness (cf. Niemiec & Ryan, 2013) stands in juxtaposition to social contexts that either support or thwart satisfaction of basic psychological needs.
The concept of basic psychological needs is a unifying principle within SDT. According to Deci and Ryan (2000, p. 229), basic psychological needs are defined as “innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity, and well‐being.” That is, satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is theorized to contribute to higher levels of psychological wellness, social integration, and physical health, as well as behavioral persistence and performance, across demographic categories, life domains, and cultures (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The need for autonomy (de Charms, 1968) refers to the experience of behavior as enacted with a sense of choice and personal endorsement, rather than heteronomy. The need for competence (White, 1959) refers to the experience of behavior as enacted with a sense of effectiveness and mastery, rather than inability. The need for relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan, 1995) refers to the experience of care for and support from important others, rather than disconnection.
As indicated above, SDT assumes that satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is a universal requirement for optimal functioning and wellness, although this perspective is not without critics (see Jordan, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 2003; Stephens, Markus, & Townsend, 2007). To be sure, research conducted within SDT over the last 40 years has shown that need satisfaction confers functional benefits for all individuals, regardless of gender, age, social class, culture, or ambient values. Need satisfaction is associated with higher levels of psychological wellness, social integration, and/or physical health among men and women (Ryan, La Guardia, Solky‐Butzel, Chirkov, & Kim, 2005); across the lifespan in infancy (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010), in adolescence (Curran, Hill, & Niemiec, 2013), in young adulthood (Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009; Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006) and adulthood (Van den Broeck et al., 2010), and in old age (V. Kasser & Ryan, 1999); across countries and cultures (Deci et al., 2001; Quested et al., 2013; Vansteenkiste, Lens, Soenens, & Luyckx, 2006); and across social class (Williams, Niemiec, Patrick, Ryan, & Deci, 2009). More germane to our focus on the workplace, Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2004) found that need satisfaction is associated with higher levels of performance evaluation and adjustment, as well as somewhat lower levels of anxiety and depression, among employees.
Having outlined the metatheoretical and theoretical underpinnings of SDT, in the next section we review both theory and research on autonomous self‐regulation as a form of optimal motivation in the workplace.
Motivation has been a longstanding topic of theoretical and empirical inquiry within psychology. At a broad level of analysis, motivation means to be moved or to be put into action. Historically, two distinct views on motivation have been prevalent within psychology. The so‐called traditional view considers motivation to be a unitary concept – one that differs in amount rather than type. In the workplace, for instance, some employees have a high level of motivation and other employees have a low level of motivation. Indeed, performance and persistence in the workplace are presumed to follow from a high level of motivation. In this view, managers bear the responsibility for generating motivation in their subordinates, often by using contingencies of reinforcement (Skinner, 1953, 1971) through which engagement is presumed to derive in the workplace (Locke & Latham, 1990; Vroom, 1964). In contrast, the so‐called differentiated view considers there to be distinct types of motivation that function in different ways, and SDT views motivation from a differentiated perspective.
One type of motivation is intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity for its own sake (Deci, 1975; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). With intrinsic motivation, there are no separable outcomes or contingencies that reinforce the behavior. Rather, the activity is inherently satisfying and, as a result, such behavior occurs spontaneously and often manifests as exploration and play. Intrinsic motivation is perceived as emanating from the self (with an internal perceived locus of causality; de Charms, 1968) and is accompanied by affective experiences such as interest and excitement (Izard, 1977), enjoyment, and – at times – “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Intrinsic motivation is the embodiment of the proactive organism and plays an important role in healthy development (Flavell, 1999). As the prototype of volitional behavior, SDT posits that satisfaction of autonomy and competence is necessary for both the maintenance and enhancement of intrinsic motivation. To be sure, research has shown that meaningful choice (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008) and competence (Vallerand & Reid, 1984) support intrinsic motivation, while controlling rewards (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999), along with other forms of pressure and coercion (Deci, Driver, Hotchkiss, Robbins, & Wilson, 1993; Ryan, 1982), undermine intrinsic motivation.
A second type of motivation is extrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity for the sake of a separable outcome or contingency, such as to obtain a reward or avoid punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Extrinsic motivation describes behavior that is not inherently satisfying or enjoyable. Some theorists (Harter, 1981) have viewed extrinsic motivation as antithetical to intrinsic motivation, and thus incompatible with volition. Yet, from the perspective of SDT, there are distinct types of extrinsic motivation that vary in their degree of self‐determination (Ryan & Connell, 1989) and exist along an underlying continuum of relative autonomy, which reflects the extent to which extrinsic motivation has been internalized into the self.
According to SDT, through internalization people come to endorse the importance and value of extrinsic motivation (Ryan, 1993), and this natural, active process is necessary for self‐initiation and maintenance of behavior that is important for effective social functioning yet is not done for its own sake. The least internalized type of extrinsic motivation is external regulation, in which the behavior is done to comply with external contingencies of reinforcement. For instance, an employee who is motivated by external regulation might complete tasks at work because of pressure from a manager or from co‐workers. Such behavior is likely to be maintained only insofar as contingencies of reinforcement are in place in the environment (Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Deci, 2008). The next type of extrinsic motivation is introjected regulation, in which the behavior is done to comply with internal (rather than external) contingencies of reinforcement. For instance, an employee who is motivated by introjected regulation might complete tasks at work to feel pride and self‐aggrandizement for having worked hard enough, or to avoid guilt and shame for not having worked hard enough. Such behavior can manifest as ego involvement or as contingent self‐esteem (Niemiec, Ryan, & Brown, 2008). From an attributional perspective, both external regulation and introjected regulation have an external perceived locus of causality (de Charms, 1968) and, therefore, are experienced as relatively controlled types of motivation.
As the process of internalization proceeds toward a higher level of autonomy, the next type of extrinsic motivation is identified regulation, in which the behavior is done because its value and relevance are understood. For instance, an employee who is motivated by identified regulation might complete tasks at work because doing so is of personal importance. The most internalized type of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation, in which the behavior is self‐endorsed and consistent with abiding values, beliefs, and other aspects of the self. For instance, an employee who is motivated by integrated regulation might complete tasks at work because doing so affords an opportunity for community contribution. From an attributional perspective, both identified regulation and integrated regulation have an internal perceived locus of causality (de Charms, 1968) and, therefore, are experienced as relatively autonomous types of motivation.
In line with SDT, correlational (Niemiec et al., 2006) and experimental (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994) studies have shown that the process of internalization is facilitated by support for satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, including in the workplace (Williams et al., 2014). Also, past research from SDT in the work domain has shown that autonomous self‐regulation is a form of optimal motivation in the workplace. That is, autonomous self‐regulation confers functional benefits for psychological wellness, social integration, and physical health, as well as work‐related experience, among employees. In what follows, we cite several illustrative examples of relevant research.
Senécal, Vallerand, and Guay (2001) examined 786 employees who lived with a romantic partner and had at least one child who lived at home, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of family alienation and emotional exhaustion. Richer, Blanchard, and Vallerand (2002) examined 490 employees in the Greater Montreal area, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion and turnover intention, and higher levels of work satisfaction. Williams et al. (2014) examined 287 employees from four leading companies in Norway, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of somatic symptom burden, emotional exhaustion, turnover intention, and absenteeism. Güntert (2015) examined 201 employees from the Swiss insurance industry, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of turnover intention, and higher levels of job satisfaction, civic virtue, and altruism. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that employees with an experience of autonomous self‐regulation at work tend to report less distance from their family, less desire to leave the company, less physical distress, and more organizational citizenship behavior.
Next, we consider research that has been conducted among professionals in the education domain. Fernet, Guay, and Senécal (2004) examined 398 faculty members from a large French‐Canadian university, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and higher levels of personal accomplishment. Lam and Gurland (2008) examined 160 non‐faculty employees from a small liberal arts college in the United States, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with higher levels of job satisfaction and job commitment. Fernet, Gagné, and Austin (2010) examined 380 employees from a French‐Canadian college, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and higher levels of personal accomplishment and relationship quality. Fernet, Austin, and Vallerand (2012) examined 586 French‐Canadian school principals, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with decreases in emotional exhaustion and increases in occupational commitment. Fernet, Guay, Senécal, and Austin (2012) examined 806 teachers in Canada, and found that increases in autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with decreases in depersonalization and emotional exhaustion, and increases in personal accomplishment. Trépanier, Fernet, and Austin (2012) examined 568 French‐Canadian school principals, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with higher levels of transformational leadership – or, the perception of oneself as effective and able to inspire others by stimulating interest. Trépanier, Fernet, and Austin (2013) examined 356 employees of a school board in Canada, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, and psychological distress – that is, anxiety, depression, irritability, and cognitive problems. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that employees with an experience of autonomous self‐regulation at work tend to report more success on the job, more relationship satisfaction, and more ability to promote success in others.
Last, we consider research that has been conducted among law enforcement personnel. Otis and Pelletier (2005) examined 122 police officers in Canada, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with lower levels of daily hassles and physical symptoms, and higher levels of future work intentions. In a first study, Gillet, Huart, Colombat, and Fouquereau (2013) examined 170 police officers in France, and found that autonomous self‐regulation for work activities is associated with higher levels of job vigor, job dedication, and job absorption. In a second study, Gillet et al. found support for these associations over time among 147 police officers in France. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that employees with an experience of autonomous self‐regulation at work tend to report less psychological and physical distress, more desire to stay in their job, and more work engagement – even in a career such as law enforcement that is marked by high stress and job demands.
The aforementioned results suggest that autonomous self‐regulation is a form of optimal motivation among employees from a variety of professions and in several countries. In the next section we review both theory and research on intrinsic life goals as a set of optimal aspirations in the workplace.
Life goals, or aspirations, are relatively stable motivational factors that bring organization and direction to behavior over extended periods of time and, therefore, may affect psychological wellness, social integration, and physical health. From the perspective of SDT, however, not all aspirations will contribute to full functioning and organismic wellness, even when the life goals are attained. Indeed, SDT distinguishes between two different categories of aspirations according to their association with satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). Research on this distinction began with the work of Kasser and Ryan (1996; see also Kasser & Ryan, 1993), who used factor analysis to identify intrinsic aspirations for personal growth and development, community involvement and generativity, meaningful affiliation and close relationships, and physical health and wellness, as well as extrinsic aspirations for wealth and material possessions, having an appealing image and being physically attractive, and social recognition and fame. Theoretically, intrinsic aspirations are likely to be associated with satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, whereas extrinsic aspirations are likely to be unassociated with satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (Kasser, 2002). Of importance, Grouzet et al. (2005) found evidence for the structural distinction between intrinsic aspirations and extrinsic aspirations across 15 cultures around the world.
Past research from SDT has examined correlates that are associated with the pursuit and attainment of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) aspirations. Kasser and Ryan (1996) examined 100 community adults (in a first study) and 192 undergraduate students (in a second study) in the United States, and found that the centrality of intrinsic aspirations is associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms, narcissism, and physical symptoms, and higher levels of positive affect, vitality, and self‐actualization. The reverse was true for the centrality of extrinsic aspirations. A similar pattern of results has been observed in Russia (Ryan et al., 1999), in Germany (Schmuck, Kasser, & Ryan, 2000), in South Korea (Kim, Kasser, & Lee, 2003), in Spain (Romero, Gómez‐Fraguela, & Villar, 2012), in Hungary (Martos & Kopp, 2012), and in Iceland (Kasser et al., 2014), as well as with risky behaviors (Williams, Cox, Hedberg, & Deci, 2000), with long‐term tobacco abstinence (Niemiec, Ryan, Deci, & Williams, 2009), with exercise (Sebire, Standage, & Vansteenkiste, 2009), and with bulimic symptoms (Verstuyf, Vansteenkiste, & Soenens, 2012). Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that pursuit of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) aspirations tends to be associated with health in several countries as well as across behaviors and life domains.
Research has examined the association between pursuit of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) aspirations and social attitudes and interpersonal behaviors, as well. Sheldon and Kasser (1995) examined 161 undergraduate students from a private university in the United States, and found that the centrality of intrinsic aspirations is associated with higher levels of cognitive empathy. McHoskey (1999) examined 70 undergraduate students from a public university in the United States, and found that the centrality of intrinsic aspirations is associated with lower levels of alienation, normlessness, antisocial behavior, and Machiavellianism (the tendency to manipulate others), and higher levels of prosocial behavior. Duriez, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, and De Witte (2007) examined 905 high school students in Belgium, and found that the centrality of extrinsic aspirations is associated with increases in social dominance orientation and racial and ethnic prejudice. Sheldon and McGregor (2000) examined 152 undergraduate students in the United States, and found that the centrality of extrinsic aspirations is associated with higher levels of acquisitiveness yet lower levels of profit in a simulated resource management game. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that pursuit of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) aspirations tends to be associated with a more healthy interpersonal orientation that may impact “the bottom line” (profit) in the workplace.
Other research from SDT has examined the association between attainment of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) aspirations and health. In two samples of college students, Kasser and Ryan (2001) found that attainment of intrinsic aspirations is associated with lower levels of depression and anxiety, and higher levels of self‐actualization, vitality, self‐esteem, and relationship quality. Attainment of extrinsic aspirations was unassociated with these indices of health. In a sample of elderly citizens, Van Hiel and Vansteenkiste (2009) found that attainment of intrinsic aspirations is associated with lower levels of ill‐being, despair, and death anxiety, and higher levels of well‐being, ego integrity, and death acceptance. Attainment of extrinsic aspirations was associated with lower levels of death acceptance, and higher levels of despair. In a sample of recent college graduates in the United States, Niemiec, Ryan, and Deci (2009) found that attainment of intrinsic aspirations is associated with lower levels of anxiety, physical symptoms, and negative affect, and higher levels of life satisfaction, self‐esteem, and positive affect. Attainment of extrinsic aspirations was unassociated with these indices of well‐being, and predicted higher levels of ill‐being. It is important to note that the associations between attainment of intrinsic aspirations and both well‐being and ill‐being were explained by satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Taken together, the results of these studies question the belief that goal attainment (regardless of content) is conducive to psychological health (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990). It is primarily when people attain intrinsic (rather than extrinsic) aspirations that they tend to experience higher levels of well‐being and lower levels of ill‐being.
Last, we consider research that has been conducted among business students and working adults. Kasser and Ahuvia (2002) examined 92 business students in Singapore, and found that the centrality of extrinsic aspirations is associated with higher levels of anxiety, and lower levels of self‐actualization and vitality. Vansteenkiste, Duriez, Simons, and Soenens (2006) examined 248 undergraduate students in Belgium who were majoring in business or studying to become teachers, and found that the centrality of intrinsic aspirations is associated with lower levels of internal distress and substance use, and higher levels of well‐being. The centrality of extrinsic aspirations was associated with lower levels of well‐being, and higher levels of internal distress and substance use. Of importance, this pattern of results was observed among business students and education students alike. Vansteenkiste et al. (2007) examined 119 employees in Belgium, and found that the centrality of an extrinsic work value orientation is associated with lower levels of job dedication, job vitality, and job satisfaction, and higher levels of short‐lived satisfaction with success, work–family conflict, emotional exhaustion, and turnover intention. It is important to note that the associations between holding an extrinsic work value orientation and the work‐related outcomes were explained by satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work. Taken together, the results of these studies underscore the benefit of intrinsic aspirations and the detriment of extrinsic aspirations, even in educational and contextual environments that tend to emphasize money, fame, and an appealing image.
The aforementioned results suggest that intrinsic life goals are a set of optimal aspirations among business students and working adults in several countries. In the next section we reflect on how managerial support for basic psychological needs might facilitate autonomous self‐regulation and the pursuit of intrinsic life goals among employees in the workplace.
A recent meta‐analysis across 184 studies in the health domain provided strong support for the association between perceptions of need support from the social context and autonomous self‐regulation (Ng et al., 2012), and research from SDT has also shown that perceptions of need support from the social context are associated with the centrality of intrinsic aspirations (Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff, 1995; Williams et al., 2000). Therefore, it is important to consider some specific ways in which managers can provide support for satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness so as to facilitate optimal motivation in the workplace.
As discussed in more detail elsewhere (Niemiec & Coulson, in press; Niemiec, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2014; Williams et al., 2011), support for satisfaction of the basic psychological needs begins with an authority figure (for instance, a manager) or peer (for instance, a colleague) who assumes the phenomenological perspective of another person (for instance, an employee). From this perspective, a need‐supportive manager works to elicit, acknowledge, and accept the employee’s thoughts and feelings about a particular occurrence in the workplace. The manager may initiate a conversation by saying, “I wonder how you understand [the occurrence] at work.” This statement is neither judgmental nor accusatory, but rather is intended to convey interest in the employee’s experience. It is important for the manager to relate to the employee in a direct and respectful way so as to develop a clear understanding of the employee’s point of view. With such an understanding, the manager may encourage the employee to reflect on personal values or aspirations, and to consider how what occurs at work may help or hinder the attainment of life goals. Throughout this conversation and moving forward, the manager encourages self‐initiation, provides a desired amount of choice for the employee, and offers meaningful rationales for limits that are set on behavior and for other relevant requests. In addition, the manager refrains from using controlling and/or manipulative language (“should,” “have to”), which can undermine depth of processing, persistence, and performance (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). Taken together, these strategies are intended to provide support for satisfaction of autonomy.
A need‐supportive manager provides structure by communicating clear, consistent norms for appropriate practice in the workplace, and it is important that structure is communicated in an autonomy‐supportive way (Curran et al., 2013; Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010). When the employee is having difficulty at work, the manager remains positive that the employee can succeed, works to identify barriers to success, and helps with building skills and learning to solve problems. The manager creates optimal challenges for the employee, which refer to interesting experiences that require attention and skill for successful completion (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Under conditions of autonomy support, adults tend to prefer activities that test their capacities and expand their skills (Shapira, 1976). The manager also offers immediate and accurate feedback on how the employee is performing on work tasks. Taken together, these strategies are intended to provide support for satisfaction of competence.
A need‐supportive manager creates a warm, empathic, and non‐judgmental interpersonal climate in the workplace, and communicates unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1957) to the employee especially vis‐à‐vis adversity at work. Taken together, these strategies are intended to provide support for satisfaction of relatedness.
Past research from SDT has examined whether managers can learn to be need supportive toward their subordinates. Among managers in a Fortune 500 company, Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) designed and implemented an organizational development intervention with a focus on providing support for subordinates’ autonomy. Results showed that managers who received need support training had an increase in their orientation toward providing support for subordinates’ autonomy, relative to managers who did not receive need support training. In addition, the effect of need support training radiated to the employees, who reported higher levels of trust in the corporation and satisfaction with the potential for advancement after the intervention. In a similar way, Hardré and Reeve (2009) found that managers who received need support training had a more autonomy‐supportive style than managers who did not receive need support training, and their employees reported higher levels of autonomous self‐regulation and engagement at work. Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that it is possible for managers to become more need supportive toward their subordinates, and such a shift in orientation among managers has associated benefits for the employees.
Other research from SDT has examined whether organizational coaches who are trained to be need supportive can facilitate internalization of motivation for important work goals among managers and supervisors. Broadly speaking, organizational coaching is an interpersonal activity that is designed to facilitate goal setting (Grant & Cavanagh, 2011) and to optimize functioning and wellness (Spence & Grant, 2013). With a focus on the enhancement of human functioning and the realization of human potential, research has shown that coaching is associated with lower levels of anxiety and workplace stress (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005), and higher levels of self‐efficacy and ability to set personal goals (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2006). It is interesting to note, though, that the academic literature on coaching has advanced in a largely atheoretical way. Recently, Spence and Oades (2011) and Spence and Deci (2013) have advocated for SDT as a theoretical framework that can be used to understand the processes and outcomes associated with coaching and to guide empirical investigations into dynamics relevant to the coaching enterprise.
Among managers and supervisors of a national provider of integrated building systems, Spence and Niemiec (2016) designed and implemented an organizational coaching intervention with a focus on training organizational coaches to be need supportive in their coaching practice. The intervention consisted of a half‐day training workshop in which coaches became familiar with the principles of SDT and their applications to coaching, as well as a series of supervision sessions that were designed to maximize fidelity. Results showed that at the end of the 10‐week coaching period, managers and supervisors whose organizational coaches were trained to be need supportive had an increase in their autonomous self‐regulation for important work goals, relative to managers and supervisors in a control condition. Also, an increase in autonomous self‐regulation was associated with an increase in perceived competence for important work goals, which in turn was associated with an increase in work engagement, a decrease in somatic symptom burden, and a decrease in mental health problems. Taken together, these results suggest that optimal motivation in the workplace is born out of interpersonal contexts that offer support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
In this chapter, we developed a conceptual model based on SDT in which managerial need support is associated with optimal motivation (autonomous self‐regulation and pursuit of intrinsic life goals) among employees, which in turn is associated with psychological wellness, social integration, physical health, behavioral persistence, and performance in the workplace. In this section, we offer several directions for future research.
First, it is important for future research to test all components of this conceptual model simultaneously and in various types of organizations, among various types of employees within organizations, and across gender, age, social class, and culture. SDT assumes that satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is a universal condition for optimal functioning and wellness. Accordingly, we speculate that the strength of association among the various components of this conceptual model will be invariant across different types of organizations, across different types of employees within organizations, and across delimiting factors associated with demographic categories. To be sure, mean‐level differences in managerial need support, optimal motivation, functioning, and wellness may exist across different types of organizations and their employees, yet we predict that the functional significance of support for autonomy, competence, and relatedness will be invariant across such categories.
Second, it is important for future research to theorize on and examine other processes by which managerial need support is associated with optimal functioning and wellness among employees. We speculate that support for the basic psychological needs will be associated with higher levels of cognitive flexibility (McGraw & Fiala, 1982; McGraw & McCullers, 1979), depth of processing (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004), creativity (Amabile, 1979), optimal challenge (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). We also speculate that support for the basic psychological needs will be associated with higher levels of integrative emotion regulation (Roth, Assor, Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009), mindfulness (Schultz, Ryan, Niemiec, Legate, & Williams, 2015), and interest taking (Deci, Ryan, Schultz, & Niemiec, 2015). Of course, most – if not all – of these cognitive, affective, and self‐regulatory factors are associated with optimal motivation and experience.
Third, it is important for future research to develop interventions that enhance managerial need support and examine their effects on autonomous self‐regulation, pursuit of intrinsic life goals, psychological wellness, social integration, physical health, behavioral persistence, and performance among employees in the workplace. Past research from SDT has shown that it is possible for managers to become more need supportive toward their subordinates (Deci et al., 1989; Hardré & Reeve, 2009). We speculate that interventions will be “successful” to the extent that they emphasize to managers the importance of assuming the phenomenological perspective of their subordinates, offering immediate and accurate feedback, and building a non‐judgmental interpersonal climate in the workplace. It is also important to examine the short‐term and the long‐term effects of such interventions on employees’ motivation, functioning, and wellness, as benefits associated with need support in the workplace are likely to continue to accrue over time.
From the perspective of SDT, optimal motivation in the workplace can take the forms of autonomous self‐regulation and pursuit of intrinsic life goals among employees. The experiences of autonomous self‐regulation and pursuit of intrinsic life goals are facilitated by satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Nonetheless, even in the most need‐supportive workplace settings employees can experience periodic setbacks in their motivation with associated consequences for their performance and wellness on the job. At these times, it is important that managers maintain trust in their employees’ organismic development, or the belief that movement toward optimal motivation is most likely to occur in need‐supportive social contexts (Landry et al., 2008). With trust, managers are more likely to create conditions in the workplace that are conducive to full functioning and organismic wellness among employees.