Understanding Self-Determination Theory

Introduction

Most leaders in organizations perceive that motivating their staff is part of an organization’s responsibility. Organizational roles have been reliant extensively on motivation, where managers try to get things done by delegating and motivating the staff through incentives, discipline or when heads of department develop a compelling vision to motivate employees through empowering and inspiring them. While organizations think that the theory of self-determination is a critical aspect in various positions, management concepts do not actually jibe with the reality of the self-determination theory. In most instances motivation is inherent or natural tendency to aspire to learn, work, master surrounding; and assimilate contemporary experiences into individual personality and not organizational expectations.

Background Information

Gagné and Deci (2005), define Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a concept that connects personality, optimal functioning and human motivation. It hypothesizes that there are two basic kind of motivation which are extrinsic and intrinsic, which are powerful dynamisms in molding people and how they behave. It is a concept that was developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan during the 1970s and 80s, experiencing remodeling and expansion in the present. According to Gagne and Deci (2005), intrinsic motivation is a drive that comes from within an individual promoting one to behave in certain ways. This originates from personal interests, core values and a personal sense of morality.

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is a drive to act in definite ways that originate from external causes and exterior accolades. Such frameworks involve employee evaluation, admiration of others, respect, prizes and grading systems. Vansteenkiste et al. (2010), claim that intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are perceived from opposite ends; with extrinsic motivation leading individuals to correspond with the standards of other individuals and intrinsic motivation is driving characteristics in response to the ideal self. A further analysis of motivation is whether it is autonomous or controlled.

Controlled motivation involves external coordination, which occurs because of people’s character being governed by external awards and punishment. As well as this, precept is another factor in controlled motivation. Gagné and Deci (2005) also present motivation that originates from only moderately incarnated activities and values. This includes motives such as protecting the ego, seeking approval and avoiding shame. Autonomous motivation, according to Parker et al. (2010), involves inspiration that originates from sources from the inside such as confidence, curiosity, feeling of self-worth, but may also involve inspiration from sources from the outside, such as, freedom, discretion and independence. But then Ankli and Palliam (2012) argue that SDT’s abstraction lacks the practical relevance in organizations because of its concepts entails behavior and well being of individuals.

Self-Determination Theory on Motivation

The construction of SDT is based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in which its formulation distinguishes work motivation within organizations. According to Gagné and Deci (2005), the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation frameworks in recent research on primary motivation psychology has identified conflict between the two systems. While SDT is a dual system Parker et al. (2010), expound that its two motivations approach have not been harmonized effectively in organizational structures. This is evident in the behaviors of some individuals attaining their goals easily, whilst others who are equally competent and subjected to similar conditions do not. It may also explain situations where individuals will voluntarily set goals they do not like. Therefore, Van den Broeck et al. (2010) suggest that it raises concerns of what mechanisms acquiesce an individual to struggle for unsympathetic goals and how can these methods be enhanced. They propose that these concerns are related to the designs of an organization: type of job, organizational development, recruitment, behavior modification, and Tohidi (2011) adds leadership, and compensation. These areas of concern have portrayed the lack of SDT relevance due to its concept.

It is important to note that motivation was historically perceived as based on the assumption that individuals are basically rational creatures having conscious avidity as well as competencies in fulfilling those ambitions according to philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. More recently personal will is considered to play a vital role in expounding human character (Cherrington, 1991). Cherrington (1991) describes the ‘will’ as one of the faculties of the human mind, similar to feelings and thoughts, and that ‘willpower’ are recent approaches derived from the ancient concept that individuals can deliberately determine how they are going to act. These aspects according to Cherrington (1991), do not effectively align with organization structure and functions. Therefore, as researched by Liu and Fang (2010), the implication is that organizations are constructed with frameworks that manage and control individuals outside their innate willpower as effectively and efficiently as possible, for the good of the organizations and its stakeholders.

A significant construct in several early philosophical writings were hedonism, which is a core approach meant to explain what motivates human character. It states that people look for pleasure and circumvent pain. Thus according to Van den Broeck et al. (2010), people pursue things that provide contentment and amusement and obviate things that lead to discomfort and pain. The principle is quite simple, specifically focusing on physical pain and gratification. It can be found in recent theories of motivation; SDT and does not explain adequately how these theories of motivation are effectively ingrained into organizational structure and functions. Kehr (2004), depicts that a motivation that profoundly explains the complexities of human behavior fails to explain why individuals engage in functions that are physically unpleasant, for example taking organizational job opportunities that contrary align with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Many organizations focus on individual with needs such as, food, shelter, education, healthcare and many others, or with individuals that have perfected specific skills and knowledge in order to exploit opportunities to meet their needs according to Alvesson (2013). A need, according to Cherrington (1991) in this case, is an internal state of imbalance or inadequacy, which possess the capacity to trigger or energize a behavioral response. Needs can be sociological or psychological, Van den Broeck et al. (2010) propose that sociological needs are those of social relationships, while psychological needs are those of a need for power or hunger. These needs according to Henry Murray (Citation) are learned, which means they originate from an external environment, thus exhibit extrinsic motivation.

Take for instance Sedalia Engine Plant (SEP), purported by Spector (1981), whereby a new manager was appointed to develop an excellent, trustworthy and equitable organization. All he required was an organizational team that was self-interested, with creative talents that could be directed towards the well-being of the plant. This would require the team to possess maximum amount of flexibility, freedom, and responsibility to which they would dedicate themselves to a high level of performance. In this case, Leroy et al. (2012), argues that SDT has been manifested by an external motivation to attain a higher level of excellence that is accompanied by rewards, such as promotion, or raised remunerations. It conflicts with the intrinsic motivation to pursue goals that meet your innate needs. Based on Van den Broeck et al. (2010) argument, it depicts that organization structure and functions call for employees that would otherwise strive outside their intrinsic motivation to self-manage, learn contemporary skills and perform in regards to the needs that have been acquired outside them.

A philosopher; Dorkin according to Gagné and Deci (2005), regards autonomy as, endorsing personal actions at the greatest level of reflection. Thus intrinsic motivation is a good example of autonomous motivation. Christensen and Wright (2011) says that when a person engages in an activity since he or she finds it interesting, then he or she is undertaking the activity with free will, such as ‘I work since I find it fun doing so.’ It contradicts with an organization’s expectations where leaders within an organization develop an interest to meet the expectation of the stakeholders. An example of this, Foxconn Technology Group in July 2011. According to Eccles et al. (2010), they considered replacing the employees with millions of robots by 2013. Their reasoning was that humans working in the organization are modeled to fit with the expectation of the organizations and not their own interest to provide services or foster production. The introduction of robots into such an organization demonstrated that organization does not depend on SDT’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to offer skilled and sophisticated responsibilities that can be fulfilled by machines.

Eccles et al. (2010), claim that organizations also shift to areas where they can attain cheap labor. Manufacturing companies have moved their operations to places such as Bangladesh and Cambodia (Eccles et al., 2010). Other focuses included educating millions of people to meet the criteria and the skillset they require to increase their performance.

Within a large organization such as SEP, it is not expected that a large number of employees (ranging from two hundred to three hundred individuals) would intrinsically or extrinsically be motivated to perform as expected. Spector (1981) elaborates that this is the reason why managers develop smaller units meant to operate autonomously, under group leaders. These units are meant to mirror the beliefs and objectives provided by the organization. These units develop an open and trusting surrounding, with individuals motivating themselves to work towards meeting the expectation of the organization.

Ankli and Palliam (2012) argue that most organization functions are not interesting to people, rather it is a necessity to get by in life or rather to survive. It might contradict a person so interested in an organized activity or a role that he pursues. But then he or she engages into such as an organization role to attain an extrinsic motivation. It is a significant aspect of SDT in the hypothesis that extrinsic motivation can vary in the extent to which it is autonomous versus when it is controlled. Several of the activities in an organization that are not interesting according to Ankli and Palliam (2012), will require extrinsic motivation. Therefore, their original portrayal depends upon the impression of a possibility between the character and a coveted outcome such as tangible reward or inherent approval.

Argyris (2017), argues that while individuals are tried to be integrated into organizations, business try to motivate behaviors through rewards or promotion in position to externally control behavior, that is, to initiate and preserve the emergencies outside that individual. Kehr (2004) claims that it is a classical kind of external motivation and it is an archetype of maintained motivation. When independently controlled, individuals act with the animus of acquiring the desired result or avoid an unpleasant one, according to Gagné and Deci (2005). They suggest that people are motivated into actions only when the action is mechanical to those intentions; such as an individual would per take an action in an organization when the organizational manager is monitoring him or her. This proposes that external motivations are dependent on intrinsic motivation or linked to each other thus cannot align with an organization.

According to Cherrington (1991), the contribution of Maslow in motivation theory is the self-actualization. It refers to the process of growing of true potential to the greatest extent, thus expressing personal capabilities and not perceived capabilities. It also includes expression of skills, talent, and emotions in the most fulfilling aspect. In this case, SDT is manifested fully in which it is not gratified or satisfied with other needs. Cherrington (1991) adds that self-actualization varies from one person to another, or rather an individual has a genetic aptitude that acts as an archetype to describe what a person is exceptionally capable of being. Self-actualization according to Derryberry and Tucker (2015), does not compel a person to excel as the better of others, but rather be the best that one can conceivably become. Cherrington describes self-actualization as being the unique SDT on motivation, challenging organization’s responsibilities and the motivation to attain extrinsic rewards. Leroy et al. (2012), claim that the aspect calls for more than the organization’s demands to acquire recognition or greater tangible rewards. Even if organizations have been identified to adopt Maslow’s theory on self-actualization for development programs such as voluntary participative management; quality of work-life programs; and job enrichment, it cannot be fully adopted since it is an intrinsic motivation that is attained after soul-searching and not under immense pressure.

Conclusion

Self-determination theory (SDT) is innately portrayed in individuals to express either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. The concept refutes that it cannot connect with the models of organizations that perceive and exceed an individuals’ ability. Individuals will take part in transactions, even those that are beyond their capacity, if there is sufficient tangible motivation; such as higher remunerations or job. Motivation may arise from aroused intrinsic or activated extrinsically, evident when an individual strives to meet external needs, depicting that perceived capabilities that are undertaken in the organization are independent of implicit and explicit motivation.

References

Ankli, R. E., & Palliam, R. (2012). Enabling a motivated workforce: exploring the sources of motivation. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 26(2), 10.

Alvesson, M. (2013). The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education, and work organization. OUP Oxford.

Argyris, C. (2017). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. Routledge.

Cherrington, D. J. (1991). Need theories of motivation.Motivation and work behavior, 5, 344. Eccles, R., Serafeim, G., & Cheng, B. (2011). Foxconn Technology Group (B).

Christensen, R. K., & Wright, B. E. (2011). The effects of public service motivation on job choice decisions: Disentangling the contributions of person-organization fit and person-job fit. Journal of public administration research and theory, 21(4), 723-743.

Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (2015). Motivation, self‐regulation, and self‐organization. Developmental Psychopathology: Volume Two: Developmental Neuroscience, 502-532.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.

Kehr, H. M. (2004). Integrating implicit motives, explicit motives, and perceived abilities: The compensatory model of work motivation and volition. Academy of management review,29(3), 479-499.

Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics,107(3), 255-264.

Liu, W. C., & Fang, C. L. (2010). The effect of different motivation factors on knowledge-sharing willingness and behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 38(6), 753-758.

Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Amiot, C. E. (2010). Self-determination as a moderator of demands and control: Implications for employee strain and engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 52-67.

Spector, B. A. (1981). Sedalia Engine Plant. Harvard Business School.

Tohidi, H. (2011). Teamwork productivity & effectiveness in an organization base on rewards, leadership, training, goals, wage, size, motivation, measurement and information technology. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1137-1146.

Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work‐related Basic Need Satisfaction scale.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,83(4), 981-1002.

Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 105-165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.