Elements of the Self-Determination Theory
The Self-Determination Theory proposes that autonomous motivation is distinct from controlled motivation (Gagne and Deci, 2005) where autonomy “involves acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice” (Gagne and Deci, 2006, p. 333) while controlled motivation involves external regulation. It proposes that uninteresting activities require extrinsic motivation; thus, making the activity externally regulated.
External regulation is the use of external factors to initiate and maintain a behavior. However, the Self-Determination Theory names another type of extrinsic motivation where the regulation of a behavior and the value that is associated with it becomes internalized. Internalization is when people have imbibed regulatory structures, attitudes, or values to the point that the presence of external factors is no longer required. When internalization happens, the regulation of behavior becomes internal.
According to the theory, internalization consists of 3 processes, namely “introjection, identification, and integration” (Gagne and Deci, 2006, p. 334). Introjected regulation refers to a person’s adherence or compliance to a regulation without accepting the regulation as his or her own. In this type of regulation, the person feels as if he or she is controlled by the regulation, as is the case with putting pressure on oneself to prove one’s worth or behaving in a way so as to lift or preserve one’s ego. Identified regulation, on the other hand, is when the value of a behavior is aligned with the person’s selected goals, which makes him or her capable of identifying with the behavior’s value. This type of regulation provides the person with more freedom as the behavior is considered a reflection of oneself. Finally, the “fullest type of internalization” (Gagne and Deci, 2006, p. 335) is integrated regulation, which enables extrinsic motivation to be completely volitional or autonomous. With this type of regulation, the person sees the behavior as an integral part of their identity, which comes from their sense of self; and thus, is self-determined. It should be noted that while intrinsic motivation drives one to get involved in interesting activities, internalization is what drives someone to get involved in uninteresting but important activities (Koestner and Losier, 2004).
SDT also proposes that in order for intrinsic motivation and internalization to thrive, it is important for a person’s psychological needs to be met, and these needs are for autonomy, competence, and relatedness where relatedness refers to a person’s need to connect to others.
After having identified the psychological needs that would foster an integrated extrinsic motivation, SDT suggests that social contexts be in place to enable the fulfillment of the aforementioned psychological needs. One is autonomy support, which can come in the form of an emphasis on choice instead of on control; an acknowledgment that the activities people perform might be uninteresting; and a meaningful explanation for performing a task. Moreover, autonomy support can be classified as either 1.) the interpersonal ambience, which can refer to the organizational culture and atmosphere, and to the interpersonal styles of the managers; and 2.) specific social contextual factors such as meaningful positive feedback and choice where the former can pertain to the particulars of the job.
Finally, SDT also takes into consideration people’s individual differences in terms of their “orientation toward the initiation and regulation of their behavior” (Gagne and Deci, 2006, p. 339), which the theorists refer to as general causality orientations. These general causality orientations are autonomy orientation, control orientation, and impersonal orientation. Autonomy orientation refers to a person’s tendency to be self-determined in that they view social contexts as autonomy supportive. Control orientation, on the other hand, refers to a person’s tendency to be controlled due to their view that social contexts are controlling. Lastly, impersonal orientation refers to a person’s tendency to be amotivated.
Autonomy orientation is also found to have a positive relation to satisfying interpersonal relationships; integration in personality; ego development; self esteem, and self actualization. Control orientation, on the other hand, is related more to the accordance of more value to wages and other extrinsic motivators; defensive functioning; Type A behavior; and public self-consciousness, while impersonal orientation is associated with depression, self-derogation, and the belief that outcomes cannot be controlled.
Motivational Problems of the Staff on the Ward
The motivational problems of the staff on the ward are rooted in Madeline’s management style, which is very controlling. She micromanages her staff by wanting to know everything they do at all times. As a result, the nurses do follow her orders and abide by her rules, but they do so out of fear of the possible consequences if they don’t do as they’re told and not because they want to do it. This is the reason that Madeline feels that her staff isn’t happy and that they’re not motivated. As Gagne and Deci (2005) indicated, being controlled makes one act with a sense of having to engage in an action or with a sense of pressure, whereas being intrinsically motivated makes one act in an entirely volitional manner. Moreover, “excessive control, nonoptimal challenges, and a lack of connectedness disrupt the inherent actualizing and organizational tendencies endowed by nature” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 76), which then results in a lack of responsibility and initiative, as well as in psycopathology and distress.
With regards to Margaret, she feels that she is being restricted from showng off her competency because her ideas and suggestions are ignored or are unappreciated. Moreover, she feels that her competency is being questioned, with the way that Madeline keeps checking on her. As well, this doesn’t give her the autonomy to perform her tasks in the way that she prefers because Madeline is always on her heels, so-to-speak.
It can be said that the same problems exist for Molly. Molly has been a nurse for a long time, and although she isn’t knowledgeable with the new techniques that the younger nurses know, she believes that she is competent, that her ways are better or that she is at least more comfortable with the techniques she’s used to, and that her performance is reflected by the positive feedback that the patients give about her. As such, she would then have a tendency to resent having her competency questioned, which can lead to a lack of motivation. Moreover, she may feel that she has no autonomy in her work, with the way that the new techniques are imposed on her. To do well in her job, she should be able to make the choice on how she can best perform her job.
Finally, on Madeline’s part, the motivational problems stem from her inability to provide the autonomy support and the competency support in the social context. As such, the kind of organizational climate created within the ward is one that does not foster motivation.
Steps that Madeline Might Take
She can provide support for autonomy by trusting her staff to do their work on their own. As deCharms stated, a contributing factor in all motivated behavior is a person’s desire to be in control of their fate (Deci and Ryan, 1985). As long as she doesn’t hear of any complaints or negative feedback then she should be able to supervise her staff from a distance. However, if she really must know what her staff is doing, then she can probably ask them to give her status reports, which they can prepare and submit at their own time. This way, they are not interrupted in their work; they’re still able to do their work on their own, but Madeline also gets the information she needs to ensure that everything is running smoothly.
With regards to Margaret, Madeline should be more open to Margaret’s ideas. Madeline shouldn’t see Margaret’s suggestions as criticism against her; but rather, should make some effort to consider the benefits of Margaret’s ideas. After all, they may indeed improve the way things are done in the ward and at the same time, this would make Margaret feel that she’s heard and that her opinions are valued. To start off, Madeline, for example, can ask Margaret to write a proposal for the software application that Margaret suggests they use so that Madeline can evaluate it further and so that there’s some formality in the process if they do decide to implement it. In addition, this would ensure that Margaret gets credit for her idea. By being open to Margaret’s ideas and being open to possibilities, not only does Madeline exhibit support for Margaret’s competency but also fosters relatedness as working together on Margaret’s ideas would lead to rapport being established between them. As well, Madeline should allow Margaret to perform her work on her own, especially when she knows that Margaret is doing a good job. Instead of imposing her rules on Margaret, Madeline should constantly give her positive feedback for her good performance. With Margaret being autonomy oriented, the positive feedback will fulfill her needs for self-esteem, self-actualization, and ego development.
On the other hand, Madeline should be less imposing on Molly. She may not seem to resist the instructions given to her, but because she is control oriented, she perceives the social context as controlling and tends to allow herself to be controlled. This doesn’t mean, though, that she’s highly motivated because her motivation stems from the pressure she feels due to the control Madeline imposes. As such, Madeline can help motivate Molly by letting Molly feel more relaxed in the work environment by giving her autonomy in her work and by allowing her to choose the methods she wants to use to perform her job effectively. She should also not impose the new techniques on Molly and should trust in Molly’s competency. If, however, there’s a need for Molly to apply the new techniques, then Madeline can relay this information in a no-controlling manner. She should also state that she understands how the new techniques are uninteresting for Molly. As well, Madeline should ensure that Molly gets all of the patients’ positive feedback about her. This won’t only motivate Molly but would also promote constant communication between Molly and Madeline, which in turn would foster relatedness.
Critical Assessment of the Insights from STD in Relation to the Case Study
The insights from STD can be applied to the problem posed in the case study. As previously discussed, the motivational problems posed in the case study can be solved by providing for the employees’ psychological needs for competency, autonomy, and relatedness by providing the social context to support such. In addition, since every person is different, the provision of social contextual support should also take into consideration the people’s general causality orientation.
With the proper implementation of SDT, it is possible to foster an integrated intrinsic motivation in the people involved where the source of motivation becomes innate in them. As such, it creates long-term motivation among the persons involved (Stone, Deci and Ryan, 2008).
On the other hand, one weakness of SDT is that it does not quantify the appropriate amount of autonomy that is beneficial. After all, everyone has free will and the privilege of autonomy may be used either positively or negatively. Some studies show that providing choice results in positive outcomes while other studies show that it is beneficial on certain measures but not on others (Katz and Assor, 2006).
Similarly, with the lack of control mechanisms, self-determination can lead to bad choices or bad behavior (Stainton, 2000). Does SDT have propositions to ensure that motivation is created for the good? Finally, SDT does not take into consideration a person’s level of self efficacy (Techatassanasoontorn, 2008). As such, can a person with low self-efficacy be motivated by the same needs postulated by the SDT? Does self determination promote self-efficacy or vice versa?
In conclusion, it can then be said that while SDT does raise a lot of good points on how to create and sustain motivation, it may be best to incorporate it with other theories of motivation.
References
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M., 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Springer.
Gagne, M. and Deci, E., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp. 331-361.
Katz, I. and Assor, A., 2006. When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, pp. 429-442.
Koestner, R. and Losier, G. F., 2004. Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivated: A closer look at introjections, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In: E. L. Deci and Ryan, R. M., eds. Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Ch.5.
Ryan, R. and Deci, E., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well being. American Psychologist, 55 (1), pp. 68-78.
Stainton, T., 2000. What is self-determination? Paper presented at the First International
Conference on Self-Determination and Individualised Funding (Seattle, WA).
Stone, D. N., Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M., 2008. “Beyond talk: Creating autonomous
motivation through self-determination theory.” Journal of General Management, 34 (3),
pp. 75-91.
Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., 2008. The integrated self-determination and self-efficacy theories of ICT training and use: The case of the socio-economically disadvantaged. Pennsylvania State University.
