Content uploaded by Anaïs Thibault Landry
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anaïs Thibault Landry on Jul 27, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422318757210
Advances in Developing Human
Resources
1 –14
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1523422318757210
journals.sagepub.com/home/adhr
Article
Self-Determination Theory
Can Help You Generate
Performance and Well-Being
in the Workplace: A Review
of the Literature
Lara Manganelli1, Anaïs Thibault-Landry1,
Jacques Forest1, and Joëlle Carpentier1
Abstract
The Problem.
According to self-determination theory (SDT), employees can experience different
types of motivation with respect to their work. The presence of the different types of
motivation is important given that, compared with controlled regulation (introjected and
extrinsic motivation), autonomous regulation (intrinsic and identified motivation) leads
to a host of positive individual and organizational outcomes. Despite this empirically
validated phenomenon, managers remain unaware of the outcomes of motivation in
the workplace and of the practices that can foster autonomous regulation through
psychological need satisfaction. The focus of the article will be to review relevant
literature to reveal the benefits that SDT principles can bring to the workplace.
The Solution.
Managers are encouraged to promote autonomous regulation first by assessing their
employees’ motivation for a particular outcome and by structuring three elements
of the work environment (job design, interpersonal relationships/leadership, and
compensation) in such a way as to facilitate need satisfaction (autonomy, competence,
and relatedness). Some questions we try to answer are as follows: What are the
outcomes of different motivation types in the workplace? Why are an employee’s
basic psychological needs important to consider? What kinds of tools are available to
assess employees’ motivation with regard to their work? Which work practices are
likely to encourage autonomous regulation?
1Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Jacques Forest, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal, 315 Rue
Sainte-Catherine Est, Montreal, Québec, Canada H2X3X2.
Email: forest.jacques@uqam.ca
757210ADHXXX10.1177/1523422318757210Advances in Developing Human ResourcesManganelli et al.
research-article2018
2 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
The Stakeholders.
Employees, managers (individuals in direct contact with employees), leaders
(individuals who oftentimes are in a position to influence organizational strategies
and processes) and human resource development (HRD) practitioners interested in
stimulating optimal functioning at work.
Keywords
self-determination theory, motivation, need satisfaction, well-being, performance
Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that individuals experience different types
of motivation with respect to their work. Considering the different reasons individuals
invest effort into their job is important given that, compared with controlled regula-
tion, autonomous regulation leads to a host of favorable outcomes, such as well-being
and performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Nevertheless, managers
remain unaware of the effects of motivation and of the practices that can foster optimal
motivation through psychological need satisfaction. Thus, the first aim of this article
is to provide managers with an understanding of work motivation from the perspective
of SDT and to review research findings regarding the outcomes of motivation in the
workplace. Second, this article aims to help managers promote autonomous regulation
by describing specific tools that can be utilized to diagnose employee motivation and
by summarizing research regarding workplace practices (job design, interpersonal
relationships and leadership, and compensation) that influence need satisfaction.
Finally, research from distinct but related fields will be presented to provide insights
into additional actions that can be taken to foster optimal motivation.
Motivation According to SDT
SDT differentiates between four types of motivation that, according to Deci and Ryan
(2000) lie on a continuum ranging from autonomous to controlled regulation. A task
that is inherently interesting may generate autonomous regulation because the task is
pursued for its own sake, for the enjoyment and interest that it produces. For work tasks
that are not inherently pleasurable, however, external factors may come into play to
motivate the individual to perform the task. The factor that determines where on the
continuum an individual’s motivation lies is the extent to which these external factors
have become integrated (or internalized) into an individual’s sense of self. Thus, the
more an external factor becomes internalized within the self, the more autonomous an
individual’s regulation becomes. For instance, a doctor motivated primarily by a belief
that his or her job is important for society has internalized the value for the outcome of
the activity into his or her sense of self, leading to a relatively autonomous type of
motivation. Although the continuum perspective has, for several decades, served as a
theoretical foundation for understanding motivation, it has recently been challenged by
authors, revealing a lack of empirical support for this type of conceptualization.
Specifically, Chemolli and Gagné (2014) argue that motivation is better defined as a
Manganelli et al. 3
multidimensional construct in that the different types of motivation are actually concep-
tually distinct, each leading to different outcomes. Regardless of the perspective
adopted, however, most authors agree that four primary types of motivation exist (e.g.,
Sheldon, Osin, Gordeeva, Suchkov, & Sychev, 2017).
Intrinsic motivation refers to carrying out a task for the sheer pleasure and enjoy-
ment the task brings, whereas identified motivation refers to doing a task because it is
in line with one’s values and is perceived to be important. Controlled regulation, how-
ever, includes introjected motivation, which represents the motivation to carry out a
task because of an internal pressure to behave or act in certain ways (e.g., to avoid
feelings of guilt or to prove one’s worthiness) and extrinsic motivation, which repre-
sents the most controlled type of motivation. Extrinsic motivation refers to an indi-
vidual motivated by the pursuit of external rewards, such as money or prestige, or the
avoidance of external forms of punishment, such as social sanctions. As will be dem-
onstrated, the relative presence of autonomous and controlled regulation is associated
with important workplace consequences.
Correlates of Autonomous and Controlled Motivation
A vast amount of research points to the conclusion that, compared with controlled regula-
tion, autonomous regulation leads to a host of positive individual and organizational out-
comes (Gagné & Deci, 2005). From a psychological standpoint, autonomously motivated
employees experience greater well-being (Gagné et al., 2015), happiness (Deci & Ryan,
2008), and energy (Gagné et al., 2015) as well as lower levels of distress and burnout
(Deci & Ryan, 2008; Fernet, Guay, & Senécal, 2004). With respect to workplace behav-
ior, autonomous regulation is associated with greater performance and productivity
(Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Trépanier, Forest, Fernet, & Austin, 2015). Specifically,
autonomously motivated employees display greater persistence, concentration, effort,
and engagement in their work tasks (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans,
2013). Moreover, they are more likely to fulfill the prescribed requirements of their role,
cope with change more effectively, and display proactive and innovative work behaviors
(Devloo, Anseel, De Beuckelaer, & Salanova, 2015; Gagné et al., 2015). Controlled regu-
lation, on the contrary, is associated with impaired performance and persistence due to
difficulties related to concentration and memory (Vallerand, 1997) as well as more physi-
cal complaints, psychological distress, and lower levels of engagement (Trépanier et al.,
2015). Finally, from an organizational perspective, autonomously motivated employees
have less work absences and lower turnover intentions and tend to be more strongly com-
mitted to their organization (Gagné et al., 2015). Given these importance consequences,
the following section aims to help managers promote autonomous regulation.
Fostering Autonomous Regulation at Work
Measuring Employee Motivation
The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS; Gagné et al., 2015) is a useful
tool to assess employee motivation as it has been validated across a wide range of
4 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
cultures, languages, and organizational contexts. The MWMS allows for the assess-
ment of six dimensions of motivation, namely, amotivation (absence of motivation),
intrinsic, identified, and introjected regulation as well as two subdimensions of extrin-
sic regulation (social and material extrinsic regulation). Thus, the scale can measure
two subtypes of extrinsic motivation, namely, by material rewards (such as money) or
by social rewards (such as prestige or social approval). The Work Extrinsic and
Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS; Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier, &
Villeneuve, 2009) can also be used to assess the motivation types proposed by SDT.
The WEIMS also measures integrated regulation, a form of motivation that is said to
be more fully internalized than identified regulation. Although previous research typi-
cally reveals that it is difficult to statistically separate integrated regulation from iden-
tified and intrinsic regulation subscales, the scale nevertheless reveals satisfactory
psychometric properties (Tremblay et al., 2009). Assessment tools such as the MWMS
and the WEIMS can help managers evaluate the current motivation of their employees
to implement more adapted practices and/or policies. This would be eased, for exam-
ple, with the individualized interpreted self-report of the MWMS, where personal
results are compared with a sample of more than 4,000 individuals. If the use of these
questionnaires is too time-consuming or burdensome, using motivational interviewing
techniques might be a good alternative (Vansteenkiste & Sheldon, 2006).
Need Satisfaction and Frustration
In order for managers to implement practices aimed at increasing autonomous regula-
tion, an understanding of the antecedents of motivation is needed. According to SDT,
the satisfaction of three psychological needs is essential to facilitate optimal work-
place functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The need for autonomy suggests that individu-
als must have a say in the way their work is carried out and be able to act in accordance
with their values. The need for competence specifies that individuals must perceive
that the work they do is important and leads to significant results, and the need for
relatedness is expressed as the desire to have meaningful relationships with others
(Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Employees working in environments that facilitate need satisfaction experience
more positive work outcomes (Gagné & Deci, 2005). On the contrary, employees
working in environments in which their needs are actively thwarted, whereby they
experience feelings of rejection, incompetence, and/or oppression, are more likely to
experience dysfunction at work (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-
Ntoumani, 2011). Most importantly, autonomous regulation can be promoted by work
contexts that encourage the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs (Gagné
& Forest, 2009). Three aspects of the work environment, namely, the way in which a
job/work is designed (e.g., a job that provides autonomy in the way tasks are exe-
cuted), the quality of the interpersonal relationships and leadership (e.g., organiza-
tional leaders who actively focus on satisfying employee psychological needs), as well
as the compensation system in place (e.g., a system with decreased emphasis on pay-
for-performance schemes) can be structured in such a way as to facilitate employee
Manganelli et al. 5
need satisfaction and autonomous regulation. Figure 1 presents a summary of the
research findings described in this article and proposes a framework through which
work practices may lead to a number of workplace outcomes. It is important to note
that this remains a hypothesized model and that a different causal ordering of con-
structs may also be possible.
Work Practices That Promote Need Satisfaction and Autonomous
Regulation
Job design. Research suggests that organizations can act on five main job characteris-
tics, namely, task variety, task identity, task significance, job autonomy, and feedback,
to foster autonomous regulation (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). First, a job should pro-
vide employees with opportunities to work on a variety of tasks that require different
skills and talents (task variety). Second, employees should have the possibility to per-
form all the tasks necessary to complete their job from beginning to end to see the final
product of their work (task identity). Relatedly, a job should also allow employees to
complete tasks that are meaningful and that have a significant impact on the organiza-
tion (task significance), as well as the autonomy and freedom to make decisions and
execute their job as they see fit (job autonomy). Finally, employees should receive
direct and clear feedback about their effectiveness particularly from a supervisor and/
or colleagues (feedback). This feedback can be given in a need-supportive manner, not
only when it is positive but also negative, by using perspective taking, giving choices
of solutions paired with tips, based on clear expectations, given with a considerate
tone of voice and which avoids personal-related statements; this is called change-
oriented feedback (Carpentier & Mageau, 2013).
Figure 1. Hypothesized framework of the processes by which work practices may lead to
various workplace outcomes.
6 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
A substantial amount of research demonstrates that jobs structured according to these
five characteristics are effective in satisfying individuals’ basic psychological needs and,
consequently, at increasing autonomous regulation and decreasing controlled regulation
(Hadi & Adil, 2010; Trépanier et al., 2015; van Hooff & van Hooft, 2017).
In addition to these five work characteristics, job crafting, which allows employees
to take an active role in initiating changes to their job according to their interests and
values, also allows employees to satisfy their basic psychological needs (Slemp &
Vella-Brodrick, 2014). Finally, a number of human resource management practices are
also important correlates of employees’ need satisfaction. Specifically, employees
having access to career development, training, and mentoring opportunities in their job
are more likely to satisfy their basic psychological needs (Marescaux, De Winne, &
Sels, 2012).
Interpersonal relationships and leadership. An important factor that can influence auton-
omous regulation is whether managers (individuals in direct contact with employees)
and leaders (individuals who oftentimes are in a position to influence organizational
strategies and processes) adopt behaviors that directly support the satisfaction of the
three psychological needs. Certain leadership styles, such as transformational (Fernet,
Trépanier, Austin, Gagné, & Forest, 2015) and authentic leadership (Leroy, Anseel,
Gardner, & Sels, 2015), if adopted skillfully, can help satisfy employees’ psychologi-
cal needs, which in turn may encourage autonomous regulation. Transformational
leadership is defined as the adoption of behaviors that transform employees’ values
and mobilizes them to achieve organizational goals that transcend their own interests
(Bass, 1985). Leaders and managers who engender this type of leadership tend to
exhibit four important characteristics: (a) they are able to “walk the talk” and behave
according to the high expectations they put forth (idealized influence), (b) they inspire
by providing a vision and a sense of meaning to their employees’ work (inspirational
motivation), (c) they foster innovation by encouraging employees to challenge exist-
ing approaches (intellectual stimulation), and (d) they demonstrate genuine concern
for the needs and feelings of their employees (individualized consideration). High-
quality transformational behaviors have been found to facilitate the satisfaction of
employees’ psychological needs (Kovjanic, Schuh, & Jonas, 2013), promote autono-
mous regulation, as well as decrease controlled regulation (Fernet et al., 2015).
A number of other leadership characteristics are also likely to encourage employee
need satisfaction. Authentic leadership style refers to leaders and managers who are
able to enact their true selves in the workplace. Given that authenticity means being
honest with oneself and about one’s own strengths and weaknesses, displaying sincer-
ity with others and behaving in a way that reflects personal values, leaders and manag-
ers who engender these behaviors make it more likely for employees to attain need
satisfaction (Leroy et al., 2015). Moreover, highly skilled empowering leaders and
managers (who share power with employees) who adopt behaviors such as highlight-
ing the significance of work, providing participation in decision making, expressing
confidence in employees’ abilities, and removing bureaucratic hindrances to perfor-
mance, also encourage autonomous regulation (Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Manganelli et al. 7
With respect to managers (individuals in direct contact with employees) specifi-
cally, high-quality supervisor–employee interactions, characterized by support, mutual
trust, respect, and obligation are associated with need satisfaction and autonomous
regulation (Baard et al., 2004; Graves & Luciano, 2013). Moreover, managers who (a)
actively provide employees with choice and minimize surveillance (autonomy); (b)
provide workers with resources and training as well as challenging tasks, objectives,
and feedback (competence); and (c) have regular interactions with their employees,
encourage cooperation, and validate their employees’ emotions at work (relatedness),
are more likely to foster need satisfaction and autonomous regulation (Gagné et al.,
2015). Despite these findings, it is estimated that between 10% and 16% of workers
experience abusive supervision (Namie & Namie, 2000), which refers to behaviors
such as publicly ridiculing and humiliating employees, belittling employees through
negative evaluations, threatening, and/or excluding subordinates (Tepper, 2000).
Through such behaviors, abusive supervisors are less likely to encourage the satisfac-
tion of employees’ basic psychological needs (Lian, Ferris, & Brown, 2012). For
instance, being belittled may lead employees’ to doubt about their abilities and achieve-
ments and may reduce their sense of competence. Autonomy may be undermined as
negative evaluations and threats may lead employees to adopt behaviors in line with
what a supervisor desires to avoid the abusive behavior (Lepper & Greene, 1975).
Finally, excluding behaviors may reduce relatedness need satisfaction as it communi-
cates to an employee that he or she is not a respected member of the work group
(Ferris, Brown, Berry, & Lian, 2008).
Compensation. A final element that may influence need satisfaction and autonomous
regulation is an organization’s compensation system. Most of the research on compen-
sation has focused on the effects of performance contingent pay (i.e., pay based on
meeting or exceeding job performance outcomes) on employee motivation. Findings
suggest that, compared with mechanical or simple tasks, offering rewards (such as
money) that are contingent on the performance of complex tasks (requiring a higher
level of cognitive resources) or for which quality is important, decreases autonomous
regulation (Frey & Jegen, 2005). The reason that contingent pay decreases autono-
mous regulation is that it has a tendency of narrowing employees’ attention exclu-
sively on work outcomes that are linked to pay, thus limiting autonomy in the way
work is carried out (Balkins, Roussel, & Werner, 2015). Nevertheless, some authors do
recognize that the negative effect of performance contingent pay can be reduced if the
controlling aspects of pay are contained, for instance, by presenting performance goals
in a more generalized way as to allow employees more discretion in selecting mean-
ingful performance outcomes and the means to attain them (Balkins et al., 2015) and
if pay informs the recipients about their level of competence, for instance, by allocat-
ing pay on an ex post basis (employee is not aware of the amount, form, and timing of
a bonus; Balkins et al., 2015; Gagné & Forest, 2009). Recent research also sheds light
on the fact that it is the informative and/or controlling meaning and interpretation of
the reward (i.e., Is it need-thwarting or need-supportive), and not the reward itself,
which is motivating or demotivating (Thibault Landry, Forest, Zigarmi, Houson, &
8 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
Boucher, 2017). Moreover, the scientific community urges researchers to focus their
efforts on deciphering, from a motivational and not from an administrative point of
view, when, if, and with whom pay is positive and negative (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan,
2017).
A final aspect of compensation systems that appears to be an important predictor of
motivation is justice (Gagné & Forest, 2008). When employees perceive that the pro-
cesses used by an organization to arrive at pay decisions are fair and just, this increases
the likelihood that their basic psychological needs are satisfied and consequently
increases their autonomous regulation (Olafsen, Halvari, Forest, & Deci, 2015). It has
also been demonstrated that base pay appears to elicit more autonomous regulation
than annual and quarterly pay-for-performance, which tend to elicit more controlled
regulation (Kuvaas, Buch, Gagné, Dysvik, & Forest, 2016).
Insights From New Avenues of Research
Materialism and Money Motives
Researchers have recently begun focusing on the impact of employees’ psychological
relationship with money on work outcomes. Individuals pursue financial success for a
variety of reasons and the nature of their motivations is crucial for need satisfaction
(Landry et al., 2016). Wanting to make money to participate in leisure activities,
achieve freedom to live one’s life according to one’s values, give to charity, to gain fair
compensation for one’s work, and to feel proud of oneself lead to higher levels of well-
being as these pursuits encourage the satisfaction of psychological needs. On the con-
trary, when individuals make money primarily to compare themselves favorably with
others, overcome feelings of self-doubt, boost their self-esteem, as well as to spend
impulsively, elevated ill-being is witnessed because these pursuits lead to the frustra-
tion of the psychological needs (Landry et al., 2016). Relatedly, materialistic employ-
ees, (i.e., those placing a high importance on income and material possessions relative
to other life domains) are significantly less likely to satisfy their psychological needs
(Dittmar, Bon, Hurst, & Kasser, 2014). These findings are important because research
suggests that efforts by an organization to provide opportunities for autonomy may not
be embraced by individuals exhibiting a negative relationship with money (Deckop,
Jurkiewicz, & Giacalone, 2010). Although future research is needed to find effective
strategies to reduce such monetary motivations in the workplace, it is important for
managers to be aware that all employees may not react to practices facilitating need
satisfaction in the same way.
Psychological Strengths at Work
In recent years, there has also been a growing interest in the use of employees’ psycho-
logical strengths at work. Psychological strengths are defined as personal characteris-
tics, such as judgment, honesty, and kindness that are energizing for an individual and
which lead to maximal effectiveness (Linley, 2008). From an historical perspective,
Manganelli et al. 9
management practices have mainly focused on identifying employees’ weaknesses to
improve them. However, employees given the opportunity to utilize their psychologi-
cal strengths at work are more likely to progress in their goals, which in turn facilitates
the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs (Linley, Nielsen, Gillett, & Biswas-
Diener, 2010). Although future research is needed to explore the direct associations
between strengths use, need satisfaction, and autonomous regulation, these findings
suggest that organizations should focus on helping employees identify and use their
strengths at work. Managers can begin implementing this approach by using the well-
validated free online questionnaire, Values in Action, which assesses 24 psychological
strengths and provides a personalized report ranking the importance of each strength.
Other tools that permit the assessment and development of psychological strengths
include the Realise2 survey developed by the Center of Applied Positive Psychology
and Gallup’s Strengthsfinder survey.
Practical Implications
This article suggests three important levers through which organizations can encour-
age the satisfaction of employees’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
As some models suggest, like the multilevel personality in context model, for example
(Sheldon, Cheng, & Hilpert, 2011), actions and interventions can be hierarchically
organized. Following this general idea, we have identified three elements, ranging
from intraindividual (job characteristics), interpersonal (leadership styles), to organi-
zational (compensation).
First, need satisfaction may depend on the characteristics of employees’ job situa-
tion. To encourage feelings of competence, it may be fruitful for organizations to allow
employees to use and develop a variety of skills in their job (e.g., by expanding their
responsibilities and/or providing training opportunities) and provide ownership in the
execution of projects/tasks from start to finish. Also, providing employees with greater
flexibility in the way their work is scheduled and/or executed may contribute to fulfill-
ing their need for autonomy. Finally, job tasks that have a direct impact on the work of
others are likely to encourage relatedness need satisfaction. Also, as mentioned earlier,
allowing employees to craft either job and personal resources, for example, or demands
(Le Blanc, Demerouti, & Bakker, 2017) can be an opportunity to allow them to satisfy
their basic psychological needs.
The research summarized in this article also points to the notion that the quality of
the relationship between employees and their superiors (managers and/or leaders) can
have an important influence on need satisfaction. Organizational leaders as well as
managers are encouraged to adopt behaviors that can directly encourage the satisfac-
tion of their employees’ needs. Autonomy can be encouraged by actively providing
employees with choice, opportunities to participate in decision making, as well as
minimizing surveillance. Competence need satisfaction can be encouraged by provid-
ing training, challenging work, performance feedback, and coaching. It is equally
important to encourage a sense of relatedness by having regular positive interactions
with employees, demonstrating genuine concern for employees’ experience as well as
10 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
encouraging cooperation. As training managers and leaders is feasible and leads to
positive results (Hardré & Reeve, 2009), this practice should be encouraged and
implemented.
A final way organizations can encourage the satisfaction of employee psychologi-
cal needs is through compensation practices. Considering the widespread use of per-
formance contingent pay among organizations, there are several ways such systems
can be structured to limit their negative effects on need satisfaction (Balkins et al.,
2015). First, the allocation of pay can be done on an ex post basis (employee is not
aware of the amount, form, and timing of pay). This is less likely to undermine the
need for autonomy, as employees will be less inclined to focus on pay, and is more
likely to inform the individual that effective performance occurred (satisfying the need
for competence). Moreover, performance goals can be presented in a more generalized
way to allow employees discretion in selecting meaningful performance outcomes and
the means to attain them as well as more choice concerning the amount and timing of
pay (e.g., allowing employees to choose among different levels of pay at risk). New
types of compensation, for example, prosocial bonuses, which inject social elements
within money, can unlock positive benefits with the same amount of money spent. For
example, three different interventions have shown that US$10 spent on individual
bonus leads to a US$3 return on investment (thus a net loss), whereas the same US$10
spent on a prosocial bonus leads to a US$52 return on investment (Anik, Aknin,
Norton, Dunn, & Quoidbach, 2013). Knowing how, when, and with whom money can
affect psychological need satisfaction is thus a promising future research avenue (e.g.,
Thibault Landry et al., 2016).
Other actions that could be taken at the organizational level, either by managers,
leaders, or HR department, include career development and developmental appraisal,
training, direct employee participation, and mentoring (Marescaux et al., 2012), but
we decided to focus our attention on pay as it oftentimes is the most idiosyncratic dif-
ference between work and other spheres of life.
Conclusion
Employees can exhibit four different types of motivation with respect to their work.
The relative presence of the different types of motivation is important given that, com-
pared with controlled regulation, autonomous regulation leads to a host of positive
individual and organizational outcomes. Managers are thus encouraged to promote
autonomous regulation first by assessing their employees’ current motivation and by
structuring three elements of the work environment (job design, interpersonal relation-
ships/leadership, and compensation) in such a way as to facilitate psychological need
satisfaction.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Manganelli et al. 11
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Anik, L., Aknin, L. B., Norton, M. I., Dunn, E. W., & Quoidbach, J. (2013). Prosocial bonuses
increase employee satisfaction and team performance. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e75509.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis
of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
34, 2045-2068.
Balkins, D. B., Roussel, P., & Werner, S. (2015). Performance contingent pay and autonomy:
Implications for facilitating extra-role creativity. Human Resource Management Review,
25, 384-395.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
(2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal
control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37,
1459-1473. doi:10.1177/0146167211413125
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Carpentier, J., & Mageau, G. A. (2013). When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation,
well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 14, 423-435. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.003
Chemolli, E., & Gagné, M. (2014). Evidence against the continuum structure underlying moti-
vation measures derived from self-determination theory. Psychological Assessment, 26,
575-585.
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work orga-
nizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319-338. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49,
14-23.
Deckop, J. R., Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2010). Effects of materialism on work-
related personal well-being. Human Relations, 63, 1007-1030.
Devloo, T., Anseel, F., De Beuckelaer, A., & Salanova, M. (2015). Keep the fire burning:
Reciprocal gains of basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and innovative work
behaviour. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 491-504.
Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relationship between materialism
and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
107, 879-924.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-
determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,
39-56.
12 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
Fernet, C., Trépanier, S. G., Austin, S., Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2015). Transformational leader-
ship and optimal functioning at work: On the mediating role of employees’ perceived job
characteristics and motivation. Work & Stress, 29, 11-31.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Berry, J., & Lian, H. (2008). The development and validation of the
Workplace Ostracism Scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1348-1366.
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2005). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15,
589-611.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. doi:10.1002/job.322
Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation systems through the lens of self-
determination theory: Reconciling 35 years of debate. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie
canadienne, 49, 225-232.
Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2009). La motivation au travail selon la théorie de l’autodétermination
[Work motivation according to self-determination theory]. In J. Rojot, C. Vandenberghe &
P. Roussel (Eds.), Comportement organisationnel—Volume 3: Théorie des organisations,
motivation au travail, engagement dans l’organisation [Organizational behavior – Volume
3: Organizational, work motivation and organizational commitment theories] (pp. 215-
234). Bruxelles, Belgium: De Boeck.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., van den Broeck, A., . . . Westbye,
C. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven
languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
24, 178-196.
Graves, L. M., & Luciano, M. M. (2013). Self-determination at work: Understanding the role of
leader-member exchange. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 518-536.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hadi, R., & Adil, A. (2010). Job characteristics as predictors of work motivation and job sat-
isfaction of bank employees. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36,
294-299.
Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2013). Volunteer engagement and intention to quit
from a self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43,
1869-1880.
Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-sup-
portive motivating style toward employees: An intervention study. International Journal of
Training and Development, 13, 165-184.
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance:
An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work
engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 543-555.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Gagné, M., Dysvik, A., & Forest, J. (2016). Do you get what you pay
for? Sales incentives and implications for motivation and changes in turnover intention and
work effort. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 667-680. doi:10.1007/s11031-016-9574-6
Landry, A. T., Kindlein, J., Trépanier, S. G., Forest, J., Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., & Brodbeck,
F. C. (2016). Why individuals want money is what matters: Using self-determination theory
to explain the differential relationship between motives for making money and employee
psychological health. Motivation and Emotion, 40, 226-242.
Le Blanc, P. M., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2017). How can I shape my job to suit me bet-
ter? Job crafting for sustainable employees and organizations: An international perspective.
In N. Chmiel, F. Fraccaroli & M. Sverke (Eds.), Work and organizational psychology: An
international perspective (pp. 48-63). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley.
Manganelli et al. 13
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance
and extrinsic rewards on children’s intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, 479-486.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, authentic fol-
lowership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal
of Management, 41, 1677-1697.
Lian, H., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Does taking the good with the bad make things
worse? How abusive supervision and leader–member exchange interact to impact need
satisfaction and organizational deviance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 117, 41-52.
Linley, P. A. (2008). Average to A+: Realizing strengths in yourself and others. Coventry, UK:
CAPP Press.
Linley, P. A., Nielsen, K. M., Gillett, R., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signature strengths
in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and impli-
cations for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5, 6-15.
Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2012). HR practices and HRM outcomes: The role of
basic need satisfaction. Personnel Review, 42(1), 4-27.
Namie, G., & Namie, R. (2000). The bully at work: What you can do to stop the hurt and reclaim
your dignity on the job. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks.
Olafsen, A. H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E. L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of
pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic
work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56, 447-457.
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal func-
tioning: Applying the Multilevel Personality in Context (MPIC) model. Psychological
Inquiry, 22, 1-16. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.532477
Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D., & Sychev, O. A. (2017). Evaluating
the dimensionality of self-determination theory’s relative autonomy continuum. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1215-1238. doi:10.1177/0146167217711915
Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2014). Optimising employee mental health: The rela-
tionship between intrinsic need satisfaction, job crafting, and employee well-being. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 15, 957-977.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 178-190.
Thibault Landry, A., Forest, J., Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., & Boucher, E. (2017). The carrot
or the stick? Investigating the functional meaning of cash rewards and their motivational
power according to Self-Determination Theory. Compensation and Benefits Review,
088636871775090. doi: 10.1177/0886368717750904.
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comporte-
ment, 41, 213-226.
Trépanier, S.-G., Forest, J., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2015). On the psychological and motiva-
tional processes linking job characteristics to employee functioning: Insights from self-
determination theory. Work & Stress, 29, 286-305.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14 Advances in Developing Human Resources 00(0)
van Hooff, M. L. M., & van Hooft, E. A. J. (2017). Boredom at work: Towards a dynamic spill-
over model of need satisfaction, work motivation, and work-related boredom. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 133-148. doi:10.1080/13594
32X.2016.1241769
Vansteenkiste, M., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). There’s nothing more practical than a good the-
ory: Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 45, 63-82.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity:
The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107-128.
Author Biographies
Lara Manganelli is a third-year doctoral student in organizational psychology at Université du
Québec à Montréal (UQAM). Her current research pertains to the processes by which money
leads to well-being and the ways in which individuals can develop a psychologically healthier
relationship with money. She also works on projects investigating the effects of human resource
management practices on organizational behavior.
Anaïs Thibault-Landry is a fourth-year doctoral student in organizational psychology at
UQAM. Her primary research focus is on the effects of compensation practices on motivation,
performance, and well-being. She has also worked on projects examining the associations
between motivations for making money and psychological well-being.
Jacques Forest is a licensed psychologist and certified human resources professional (CHRP)
as well as a professor-researcher at École des sciences de la gestion (ESG) UQAM. His primary
research interests pertain to the antecedents and consequences of motivation in the workplace
using self-determination theory (SDT). He has done research on the impact of compensation
strategies, strengths management, job design, and leadership on workplace motivation, all in the
aim of knowing how it is possible to simultaneously increase performance and well-being. He
has helped develop the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale, which is now available in 14
different languages with eight additional translations in progress.
Joëlle Carpentier is a researcher in the fields of organizational and sport psychology and a pro-
fessor at ESG UQAM. Her research mainly focuses on specific behaviors adopted by leaders and
peers that facilitate motivation and well-being in domains where high levels of performance are
expected. Her primary research focus is on the definition and operationalization of a high-quality
feedback by supervisors and colleagues, as well as on its determinants and consequences.
