Organizational

Psychology
Original Manuscript Review

Organizational Psychology Review

1–34
Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic ª The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
motivation: A meta-analysis on [Link]/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20413866211006173

self-determination theory’s [Link]/home/opr

multidimensional
conceptualization of work
motivation

Anja Van den Broeck

KU Leuven, Belgium; North West University, South Africa

Joshua L. Howard
Monash University, Australia

Yves Van Vaerenbergh

KU Leuven, Belgium

Hannes Leroy
Erasmus University, Netherlands

Marylène Gagné
Curtin University, Australia

Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to shed light on the added value of the complex multidimensional view on
motivation of Self-determination theory (SDT). We assess the unique and incremental validity of
each of SDT’s types of motivation in predicting organizational behavior, and examine SDT’s core
proposition that increasing self-determined types of motivation should have increasingly positive
outcomes. Meta-analytic findings (124 samples) support SDT, but also adds precision to its pre-
dictions: Intrinsic motivation is the most important type of motivation for employee well-being,
attitudes and behavior, yet identified regulation is more powerful in predicting performance and

Paper received 2 December 2020. Received revised March 10, 2021

Corresponding author:
Anja Van den Broeck, Department of Work and Organization Studies, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Email: [Link]@[Link]
2 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, introjection has both positive and negative
consequences, while external regulation has limited associations with employee behavior and has
well-being costs. Amotivation only has negative consequences. We address conceptual and
methodological implications arising from this research and exemplify how these results may inform
and clarify lingering issues in the literature on employee motivation.

Keywords
extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation, self-determination theory, well-being, performance,
meta-analysis, motivation

Employee motivation is defined as the force aligned with one’s values and sense of self).
that drives the direction, intensity, and persis- Research on these various types of motivation
tence of employee behavior (Pinder, 2008). It is in the context of work has grown exponentially
an important determinant of job performance, and has been frequently cited (e.g., Gagné &
on par with employees’ personal abilities (Van Deci [2005] is cited over 2000 times), and their
Iddekinge et al., 2014), and has been considered popularity in management books reflects their
a contributing factor to employee well-being resonance within practice (e.g., Fowler, 2014;
(e.g., Demerouti et al., 2001). It may therefore Pink, 2009). Given the growing importance of
be no surprise that employee motivation is seen these types of motivation for research and prac-
as one of the most enduring and compelling tice, the first aim of this meta-analysis is to take
topics in work and organizational psychology stock: we provide a comprehensive overview of
(Kanfer et al., 2017). what we know about the outcomes associated
Motivation has been approached from mul- with these different types of motivation, and sub-
tiple different perspectives. The old saying “Find sequently identify the gaps and limitations
a job you enjoy, and you will never have to work within this body of research in order to guide
a day in your life” advocates for the value of future research.
intrinsic motivation (i.e., doing an activity out of Second, and perhaps most importantly, we
inherent interest or pleasure) relative to extrinsic also aim to assess the degree to which it is
motivation (i.e., engaging in an activity to valuable and necessary to differentiate between
achieve a separable outcome; Ryan & Deci, each of SDT’s different types of motivation.
2017). Extending this dichotomy, in addition to According to SDT, each of these motivation
amotivation (i.e., a lack of motivation) and types can be ordered along a continuum of self-
intrinsic motivation, Self-Determination Theory determination, ranging from more controlled to
(SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) posits that people more autonomous or volitional types of moti-
may have several different and unique extrinsic vation. Yet despite this predictable linear order,
reasons to invest their time and energy in partic- each is also expected to have different implica-
ular behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These rea- tions for employee outcomes (Deci & Ryan,
sons are referred to as: external (i.e., being 2000). Although the underlying structure and
pressured by others), introjected (i.e., putting nature of the different types of motivation have
pressure on oneself through ego-involvement), been carefully conceptualized, their incremental
identified (i.e., doing an activity because one and unique contribution to core organizational
finds it meaningful), and integrated regulations behavior outcomes are not well understood. At
(i.e., engaging in an activity because this is fully the empirical level, this is mainly due to the
Van den Broeck et al. 3

dominance of scoring methods that combine attitudes, and behaviors. Furthermore, we

some of the motivation types (e.g. into a relative examined the potential boundary conditions of
autonomy index or into the overarching factors these relations through both contextual (e.g.
of autonomous and controlled motivation; cultural contexts & job type) and methodological
Howard et al., 2020), and multicollinearity (scales used and publication bias) moderators.
issues caused by the highly correlated nature of From these results, we address several theoretical
these motives (Howard et al., 2017). Moreover, and methodological issues within the SDT liter-
the theoretical proposition regarding how these ature and take steps to integrate SDT with
motivation types should relate to specific facets neighboring motivation theories.
of employee well-being and performance In providing more detailed and nuanced
remains rather broad. For example, SDT- information on SDT’s different types of moti-
scholars argue that “when people’s goal- vation, and their consequences, this study con-
directed behavior is autonomous rather than tributes to our understanding of employee
controlled, the correlates and consequences are motivation over and above recent qualitative
more positive” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 243; see reviews of work motivation (Kanfer & Chen,
also Deci et al., 2017). This however raises the 2016; Kanfer et al., 2017). It goes beyond a
question of whether each type of motivation meta-analysis shedding light on the importance
yields unique relations with outcomes. For of one’s level of motivation (defined uni-
example, if there is linear dependence between dimensionally) for individual performance (Van
regulation types—that is, if intrinsic motivation Iddekinge et al., 2014). Our study goes further
always produces better employee outcomes than than meta-analyses on intrinsic and extrinsic
identified regulation, and identified regulation is motivation (or proxies, such as the presence of
always better than introjected regulation—a incentives), which have only focused on per-
more simplified motivational perspective may formance outcomes (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012;
be warranted. While some authors have theo- Cerasoli et al., 2014). Moreover, by providing
rized that each regulation type produces better meta-analytic evidence for the relative impor-
outcomes in certain circumstances and for dif- tance of SDT’s different types of motivation in
ferent outcomes (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Koestner predicting many organizationally relevant out-
& Losier, 2002), strong evidence remains scat- comes, we extend previous meta-analytic work
tered and relatively scarce. Empirical evidence that was limited to examining: a) the interrela-
for the theorized differential associations with tions among the different types of motivation in
outcomes, and for explaining incremental var- and of themselves (Howard et al., 2017); b)
iance in outcomes, is necessary in order to sup- leader autonomy support as a specific antecedent
port (or refute) the theoretical claims within of these types of motivation (Slemp et al., 2018);
SDT. c) the relations of the different types of work
To test the validity and unique contribution motivation with the basic psychological needs at
of SDT’s multidimensional view to our under- work (Van den Broeck et al., 2016); d) the
standing of work motivation and work out- relations between specific health-related moti-
comes, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to vation and health-related outcomes (e.g. smok-
examine how each of SDT’s types of motiva- ing cessation, healthy eating & mental health;
tion relates to a broad array of outcomes. We Ng et al., 2012); and e) the associations of
used relative weights analyses to assess the autonomous and controlled motivation on well-
incremental validity of the different types of being and autonomy support in specific popu-
work motivation in predicting employee out- lations, such as teachers (Slemp et al., 2020). In
comes, and summarized their specific relations the following we elaborate on SDT and the
with various aspects of employee well-being, specific research questions of this meta-analysis.
4 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

Figure 1. Different types of motivation. Note: Integration is put in grey as together with previous evidence,
our results show there is little added value in considering this type of motivation.

Self-determination theory’s contingency between their actions and the out-

different types of motivation comes they desire, thereby resulting in very
little desire to exert effort (e.g., Green-Demers
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a broad et al., 2008).
theory of human motivation that has been ap- Furthermore, SDT differentiates between
plied to various life domains including sports, qualitatively different types of extrinsic moti-
education, and organizational psychology. It vation that fall along a continuum of self-
originated from the work of Deci (1971) which determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000). First,
built upon the distinction between intrinsic external regulation is a non-self-determined type
motivation (i.e., doing the activity because of of extrinsic motivation and relates to the classic
the intrinsic interest derived from it) and ex- “carrot and stick” approach. Employees are
trinsic motivation (i.e., doing an activity to externally regulated when they do something
obtain an external outcome; Ryan & Deci, solely to obtain rewards or avoid punishments
2017). These ideas were developed further to from others such as managers, colleagues, or
propose that people have qualitatively different clients. These external contingencies can be
reasons to engage in extrinsically motivated material (e.g., obtaining a bonus or avoiding
behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). being fired) or social in nature (e.g., when one
To date, SDT arguably presents one of the seeks approval or avoids being criticized by
most comprehensive perspectives on the com- others; Gagné et al., 2015). Externally regulated
plexities of human motivation. First, as depic- tenure-track professors, for example, may put a
ted in Figure 1, SDT acknowledges that people lot of effort into their job because they want to be
may experience a lack of motivation, otherwise tenured.
known as being “a-motivated” (Deci & Ryan, Second, introjected regulation is a parti-
2000). When amotivated, employees lack the ally internalized form of extrinsic motivation
intention to engage in a behavior as they do not and, hence, is still relatively low on self-
see any reasons to do so. They may not value determination. It is evident when people pur-
the activity, feel capable of engaging or sus- sue an activity out of ego-involvement or
taining the particular behavior, or perceive a contingent self-esteem such as when rewarding
Van den Broeck et al. 5

or punishing oneself through self-related emo- however, they are most often considered as
tions, that is, when one aims to approach posi- autonomous due to their volitional nature, just
tive feelings such as pride, and aim to avoid like intrinsic motivation.
negative ones such as guilt or shame, often
using self-controlling language such as
Qualitatively or quantitatively
“I should do X.” Scholars experiencing intro-
jected regulation may, for example, attempt to
different constructs
publish more for perceived reputational gains, Although SDT explicitly details the conceptual
or remain silent in seminars to avoid losing face differences between the various types of moti-
in front of their colleagues. Like in the case of vation, in terms of the source and quality of
external regulation, introjected regulation is motivation, there is an ongoing debate con-
characterized by feelings of being controlled cerning whether SDT’s types of motivation
and pressured, albeit by internal rather than should be considered: a) qualitatively differ-
external forces (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Conse- ent constructs; or b) quantitatively different
quently, external and introjected regulations are manifestations of the underlying construct
regarded as controlled forms of motivation and of self-determination, ranging from non-
are often combined into one factor. self-determined (i.e., a-motivation) to fully
Third, in the case of identified regulation, the self-determined motivation (i.e., intrinsic moti-
reasons for engaging in the behavior are more vation). If the types of motivation are qualita-
internalized and are thus more self-determined tively different, they should factor into separate
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). Identified regulation constructs and relate differentially to various
reflects engaging in activities because of per- outcomes. If they only differ in terms of the
ceived personal meaningfulness and importance. quantity of self-determined motivation, it
Academics identifying with the importance of would be possible and adequate to represent all
student learning may, for example, be motivated types by using a single factor predicting all of
to provide extra help for students who are the variance in outcomes (Chemolli & Gagné,
struggling to foster such learning. 2014), thus questioning the validity of the
Finally, in the case of integrated regulation, complex multidimensional view of SDT.
the reason underlying the behavior is not only Both perspectives have received some degree
completely internalized and self-determined, but of empirical support through factor analysis and
also fully integrated within one’s value system. examination of the inter-correlations between
Integrated reasons for engaging in an activity are the different types of motivation. On the one
seen as an inherent and coherent part of one’s hand, Gagné et al. (2015) differentiated the
identity or true sense of self (Deci & Ryan, various types of motivation into separate con-
2000). When driven by integrated regulation, structs based on confirmatory factor analysis
people do not only find the behavior valuable, using data from 3435 employees across several
they enact the behavior simply because it reflects languages (e.g., French, English, German). On
who they are. For example, academics may the other hand, using multidimensional scaling
study how to best design online classes, because based on meta-analytic correlations, Howard
applying evidence-based procedures has become et al. (2017) concluded that “people experience
a critical part of their professional identity, these motivational regulations as differing in
which they endeavor to enact across situations degree of self-determination” (p. 1357), due to
and time. Notably, identified and integrated the fact that adjacent types of motivation (e.g.,
regulations are still considered extrinsic forms of external and introjected regulation) correlated
motivation as they are instrumental in reaching more strongly than non-adjacent types (e.g.,
an outcome separate from the activity itself— external and identified regulation). Most
6 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

recently, Howard et al. (2018) integrated both SDT’s types of motivation, and hence examine
perspectives. Based on bifactor ESEM, they the added value of differentiating between them,
concluded that SDT’s types of motivation rep- we aim to answer the following research ques-
resent quantitatively different levels of self- tion through this meta-analysis:
determination, captured in a general factor; yet
they also have unique qualitative motivational Research Question 1: Do the types of moti-
characteristics that allow them to explain var- vation correlate differentially, and in a non-
iance in basic need satisfaction and commitment linear fashion, with outcomes, therefore
over and above this general factor. explaining incremental variance in outcomes?
One exception is integrated regulation. This
Studying the discriminant and incremental
type of regulation could not be distinguished
validity of the various types of motivation also
from identified and intrinsic regulation in con-
allows for a more fine-grained analysis of how
firmatory factor analysis (Gagné et al., 2015),
exactly the different types of motivation relate
and its meta-analytic correlations with identified
to various outcomes. The general statement that
and intrinsic regulation were untenably high
increasingly autonomous forms of motivation
(Howard et al., 2017). Questions have therefore
(i.e., from external to intrinsic) should lead to
been raised about the distinctiveness of this type
more positive outcomes (Gagné et al., 2015)
of motivation, which may explain why inte-
leaves at least three questions around how the
grated regulation has not been included in most
different types of motivation should be related
validated scales (except for Tremblay et al.,
to these outcomes.
2009) and, consequently, why it has been often
First, the contribution of extrinsic autono-
excluded from research on work motivation.
mous types of motivation, relative to intrinsic
motivation, remains unclear. Based on their
Associations with outcomes conceptualization, we identified three different
perspectives on their relative contribution in
Despite their clear conceptual differentiation,
whether the different types of motivation also explaining employee well-being and behavior.
hold discriminant and incremental validity in First, given that intrinsic motivation is consid-
empirically predicting important workplace out- ered the “prototype of autonomous motivation”
comes remains unknown. SDT proposes that (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 197), it may be posited
with increasingly autonomous forms of moti- that SDT considers intrinsic motivation as
vation (i.e., from amotivation to external to the most valuable type of motivation to drive
intrinsic motivation), employees should in- employee outcomes (Sheldon et al., 2003).
creasingly show “optimal functioning” (Deci & Secondly, and alternatively, as intrinsic moti-
Ryan, 2000), which is defined as the “mani- vation does not have “greater value or greater
festation of intra- and interpersonal growth autonomy” than integrated regulation (Ryan &
and development in terms of employee well- Deci, 2017, p. 198), both may be similar in
being (e.g., positive emotions, vitality), atti- nature, and should therefore have similar rela-
tudes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational tions with employee optimal functioning.
commitment), and behavior (e.g., performance, Finally, in specifying several autonomous types
proactivity, and collaborative behaviors)” (Van of extrinsic motivation, SDT implies that each
den Broeck et al., 2019, p. 30). However, this type should be beneficial in at least some cir-
general statement leaves us to question whether cumstances and for some outcomes. While
each of the different types of motivation has intrinsic motivation directs employees to do
unique relations with such outcomes. Therefore, what they themselves find interesting in the
to further study the discriminant validity of moment, identified and integrated types of
Van den Broeck et al. 7

regulation should help employees sustain to employee well-being, attitudes, and beha-
efforts toward personally meaningful goals vior; and are these results indicative of these
(Gagné & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2017). In types of motivation being detrimental,
line with this reasoning, identified regulation is unrelated, or beneficial to employee
sometimes shown to relate more strongly to functioning?
outcomes such as proficient task performance,
job effort, and health behaviors such as smok- Finally, while it is posited that autonomous
ing abstinence than intrinsic motivation types of motivation lead to more beneficial out-
(Koestner & Losier, 2002; Ng et al., 2012)— comes than controlled types of motivation, the
suggesting that the effect of the motivational implications of amotivation are unclear. Is hav-
type depends on the outcome of interest. ing controlled types of motivation more detri-
mental for employee functioning than having
Research Question 2: Do identified, inte- no motivation at all? Or does having at least
grated, and intrinsic regulation relate differ- some motivation yield better consequences than
entially to outcomes? being amotivated. Theoretically, this has led to
debates about whether the quality of motivation
Second, SDT’s general proposition raises is more important than the quantity (Van den
the question of whether the two forms of con- Broeck et al., 2013); and questions about
trolled motivation (i.e., external and introjected
whether the use of incentives, which are
motivation): a) impair employee functioning
assumed to increase levels of external regulation
(i.e., negatively relate to well-being, adaptive
(Gerhart & Fang, 2015), may foster well-being
attitudes, and performance), b) are unrelated
and performance when employees are amoti-
to these outcomes (i.e., are not important moti-
vated. To shed light on this issue, we examine
vational processes), or c) are less positively
the following research question:
related to these outcomes compared to autono-
mous types of motivation. The lack of theore- Research Question 4: Does amotivation
tical specification on how external and relate more negatively to employee well-
introjected motivation relate to outcomes has being, attitudes, and behavior than external
led scholars to pose diverging hypotheses about regulation?
these relations (e.g., Gagné et al., 2015; Van
den Broeck et al., 2011). The literature demon-
strates mixed empirical results; even when the Contextual moderators
same scale is used to assess the types of moti-
vation, external regulation has frequently failed Finally, we performed moderation analyses to
to relate to employee functioning, but also explore whether contextual factors (i.e., national
sometimes seems to mildly improve it (Gagné culture and blue versus white collar) and me-
et al., 2015). Introjected regulation has been thodological factors (i.e., differences between
shown to relate both positively and negatively measurement scales and publication status) in-
to aspects of well-being such as burnout (van fluence the relations between the types of
Beek et al., 2011, 2012). As such, it remains motivation and employee outcomes.
unclear how each of these regulations relate to In terms of contextual factors, we first ex-
outcomes, and the degree to which they are amine whether culture may affect the associa-
empirically distinguishable (or not). Therefore, tions between SDT’s types of motivation and
we posit the following research question: employee well-being, attitudes, and behavior.
Because of its emphasis on autonomy, SDT has
Research Question 3: Do external and intro- frequently been criticized to be less applicable to
jected types of motivation relate differentially people who may attach less value to autonomy
8 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

(Iyengar & Lepper, 1999)—such as is the case in overestimate the true effect sizes by no less than
collectivistic (i.e., Eastern) rather than indivi- 12% on average (McAuley et al., 2000). Given
dualistic (i.e., Western) cultures, and among blue this, we deemed it necessary to examine
versus white collar workers. In collectivistic whether publication bias moderates the rela-
cultures, for example, following externally tions of the different types of motivation with
imposed group norms is socially encouraged outcome variables.
and people are highly motivated to avoid guilt Finally, we examine whether apparent dif-
and shame (Buchtel et al., 2018). External and ferences in the operationalization of types of
introjected regulations may naturally fit these motivation alter their correlations with out-
cultures, and following the person-environment comes. Much in line with the initial focus on
fit literature (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), more tangible outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000), almost
controlled types of motivation may therefore be all available measures of external regulation
related to better outcomes in collectivistic focus on one’s orientation to acquire money and
(compared to individualistic) cultures. Similarly, earn an income (e.g., “it allows me to earn
while blue-collar workers attach high impor- money,” “I’m paid to do it”; Fernet et al., 2008;
tance to pay and job security, white collar Tremblay et al., 2009). Recently however,
workers put greater emphasis on developing Gagné et al., (2015) explicitly differentiated
themselves and being autonomous (De Witte & between external regulation for material (e.g.,
Van den Broeck, 2011). As such, the latter group financial rewards, job security) and social
may benefit more from more autonomous types reasons (e.g., to get approval or respect from
of motivation, compared to the former. These others). While these material and social ex-
assumptions stand in strong contrast to SDT’s ternal reasons resulted in separate factors,
claim of being universal (Deci & Ryan, 2000), Gagné et al. (2015) did not examine their dif-
and research supporting SDT’s propositions in ferential effects. Yet, some research seems to
collective cultures (Chirkov et al., 2003; Slemp suggest that the implications of external material
et al., 2018; Yu et al., 2018) and among blue- and social motivation may diverge. For ex-
collar workers (Ilardi et al., 1993). Given these ample, compared to external social motivation,
conflicting perspectives, it is imperative to meta- being externally regulated for material reasons
analytically test whether culture and job type has been found to relate more strongly to job
moderate the relations between the types of satisfaction (Smokrović et al., 2019) but less
motivation and their correlates. strongly to burnout (Tóth-Király et al., 2020).
Second, we also examine whether the results Also, in his initial research on SDT, Deci found
depend on methodological features such as that material rewards had more detrimental
publication status (published versus unpub- effects than feedback, the latter of which is
lished) and the specific operationalizations of more social in nature (Deci, 1971; Deci et al.,
the types of motivation. As the review process 1999). To examine whether the outcomes of
tends to be biased toward publishing significant material and social external regulation differ
results (Rosenthal, 1979), scholars may be systematically, we examine, based on all avail-
tempted to include or exclude hypotheses and able evidence, whether the nature of the external
analyses based on whether or not they are regulation scale (i.e., material versus social)
supported, which may lead to the under- moderates the relations of external motiva-
reporting of empirical evidence that does not tion with employee well-being, attitudes, and
align with presumed theory and stronger sup- performance.
port for a theory than is warranted based on Introjected regulation has also been oper-
empirical results (Rubin, 2017). Only including ationalized in different ways. Some scales pri-
published studies in a meta-analysis may marily include items that reflect employees’
Van den Broeck et al. 9

motivation to avoid negative feelings (e.g., generalizable and robust, we sought to answer
feeling unworthy, ashamed, guilty) that put a the following research question:
threat to one’s self-esteem (e.g., Fernet et al.,
2008). Others adopt a more balanced approach, Research Question 5: Are the relations
including also approach-oriented items referring between the types of motivation and their
to positive feelings (e.g. self-worth, pride) that outcomes generalizable across cultures, job
types, published versus unpublished studies,
may boost one’s self esteem (e.g., Gagné et al.,
and measures?
2010, 2015). Yet each of these scales are con-
sidered to indicate the same SDT construct of
introjected regulation. SDT scholars thus routi- Method
nely ignore the well-established differential We conducted a meta-analysis of the relations
effects of approach and avoidance motivation between SDT’s types of motivation and their
(Carver, 2006; Higgins, 2002), and initial studies conceptual outcomes that have been examined in
suggesting that approach-oriented introjection the literature. Before examining the strength and
may be less harmful than avoidance-oriented direction of these relations for each motivation
introjection (Assor et al., 2009). To see type, we studied their relative importance in
whether more nuanced measurement of intro- explaining employee outcomes using relative
jected regulation is needed, this meta-analysis weights analysis (RWA). RWA is a procedure
systematically compares introjection scales that commonly employed in organizational psy-
rely only (Fernet et al., 2008) or heavily chology to determine the unique and relative
(Tremblay et al., 2009) on avoidance items contribution of multiple correlated predict-
compared to those that cover both approach and ors, thereby addressing the problem of multi-
avoidance introjected regulation (Fernet, 2011; collinearity and hence unstable beta coefficients
Gagné et al., 2010, 2015). in regression analyses (Tonidandel & LeBreton,
Finally, because integrated and identified re- 2015). Multicollinearity is often encountered
gulations are hard to empirically differentiate when using SDT-based motivation scales
(Howard et al., 2017), most scales do not have (Howard et al., 2017), which has forced most
a separate subscale for integrated regulation. researchers to use aggregated scores (e.g., con-
However, careful reading of the literature re- trolled and autonomous motivation or the rela-
vealed that the identified regulation scale of tive autonomy index; Howard et al., 2020). Such
Gagné et al. (2015) may include items that go scores however prevent examination of the pre-
above and beyond finding work as merely cise relationships between each type of motiva-
meaningful, and may draw upon elements of tion and the outcomes, and potentially lead to
integrated regulation (i.e., putting effort in this information loss and reduced variance accounted
jobs aligns with my personal values/has personal for in published research. Using RWA in this
significance to me). To further assess the meta-analysis allowed us to look at the relative
importance of separating the construct of inte- importance of each motivation type in predicting
grated regulation, we therefore ran a moderation work-related outcomes and to determine if the
analysis comparing this scale reflecting identi- multidimensional conceptualization of work
fied and integrated regulation (i.e., Gagné et al., motivation offered by SDT adds valuable
2015) with all other scales purely referring to information about work motivation.
identified regulation.
In summary, to examine the degree to which Inclusion criteria
our findings on the relationships between SDT’s We included empirical studies if they a) pre-
types of motivation and employee outcomes are sented primary quantitative research; b)
10 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

referred to one of the major validated SDT Coding

scales specific to the work domain (i.e., Blais
The first two authors and four research assistants
et al., 1993; Fernet, 2011; Fernet et al., 2008;
(with expertise in organizational psychology)
Gagné et al., 2010, 2015; Tremblay et al., 2009)
entered all potentially relevant information into a
or adaptations thereof; c) provided correlations
spreadsheet. These variables included the scale
between at least one regulation and one work-
used, the nationality and sector of the sample, as
related outcome (well-being, attitudes, and
well as outcomes of motivation. Correlation
behavior); and d) examined adult participants in
coefficients were collected as effect sizes of
an organizational setting. This resulted in the
primary interest. Intercoder agreement rates
exclusion of studies including unemployed
were high (Cohen’s K ¼ .94; McHugh, 2012),
people, volunteers, students, and athletes, as
and disagreements were all resolved through
well as experimental, laboratory, and interven-
reexamination of articles. Correlations between
tion studies.
regulations and covariates that did not occur at
least twice and that could not be meaningfully
integrated with similar variables were removed.
Literature search
First, we searched for all articles validating a
work motivation scale in the realm of SDT as Meta-analytic procedures
mentioned above, and all studies citing these We conducted this meta-analysis following the
works (years 1989–Oct 2020). Second, the Hunter-Schmidt model (Schmidt & Hunter,
databases of Web of Science, Google Scholar, 2015), with random-effects models applied
EBSCO and PsycINFO were searched indepen- throughout. This method assumes that between-
dently by the authors using the following search study variance can be attributed to either study
terms: “external”, “introjected”, “identified”, artifacts or moderating effects. It is strongly
“integrated”, “intrinsic”, “motivation”, and “þ recommended over the alternative fixed-effects
self determin*,” which were paired with model which assumes that between-study var-
“employ*” or “work*.” Additionally, we sear- iance is solely due to sampling error and does
ched using scale names as keywords (e.g., not allow for moderating factors—an untenable
Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale, assumption in all but a few instances.
MWMS). All duplicates were removed and ex- For each relation between a type of motiva-
clusion criteria were applied. Of the remaining tion and an expected outcome, corrections for
articles, 92 did not provide correlation tables or reliability were made before weighting correla-
other pertinent information (e.g., only aggregate tions according to sample size (Schmidt &
motivation scores were reported). Authors were Hunter, 2015). When alpha coefficients were not
contacted to obtain missing information and obtainable, mean reliability scores were imputed
simultaneously asked for other unpublished data. for the scale. The standard deviation and stan-
Accordingly, 90 authors were contacted with a dard error of the corrected correlations were
14% response rate. These authors provided an calculated (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). Based
additional 21 samples. In total, our search upon the estimated standard error, 95% confi-
resulted in 104 articles and manuscripts con- dence intervals (CI) were calculated around the
taining 124 samples (72 published, 32 unpub- corrected correlation coefficients, with CIs in-
lished samples) that met our inclusion criteria. dicating a significant effect when zero is not
The overview of the search process (Figure S1), included within the CIs. Examination of 95%
references, and final dataset are available in CIs were used to indicate the extent to which the
supplementary materials. relations of the various types of motivation with
Van den Broeck et al. 11

outcomes are significantly different or not. In Results

accordance with Cumming and Finch (2005),
non-overlapping CIs indicated differences bet- The relative importance of the motivation
ween values at a probability approximately equal types
to < .01, and CIs which overlapped less than 50% To examine whether the types of motivation
were considered indicative of differences in correlated differentially and in a non-linear
values of approximately p < .05. The 80% cred- fashion with employee outcomes, and therefore
ibility intervals (CV) and the percentage of the explain incremental variance in these outcomes
proportion of variance explained by sampling (RQ1), we first provide an overview of the
and measurement error (the “75% rule”) were associations between SDT’s motivation types
used to assess the homogeneity of the effect size and broad categories of desirable (e.g., perfor-
distribution (Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). We used mance) and undesirables outcomes (e.g., dis-
two different metrics to assess publication bias:
tress). Overall, results outlined in Figure 2 and
Egger’s regression intercept (z) test (Egger et al.,
Table S3, show that increasingly autonomous
1997) and Begg and Mazumdar’s (1994) rank
types of motivation related increasingly posi-
correlation (t) test. As recommended by Van
tively with desirable and increasingly negatively
Aert et al. (2019), we only calculated these sta-
with undesirable outcomes. In general, intrinsic
tistics when 10 effect sizes were available in
motivation related more strongly with the out-
order to achieve sufficient statistical power.
comes compared to identified regulation. The
To assess the incremental validity of the types
CIs of these relations did not overlap, providing
of motivation, relative weights analysis (RWA)
first evidence for the discriminant validity of the
was conducted in the R software package
following procedures from Tonidandel and types of motivation. Integrated regulation was an
LeBreton (2015). Analyses were based on the exception in this regard as its relations over-
corrected meta-analytic correlations among the lapped significantly with those of identified and
types of motivation derived in this study (see intrinsic motivation (Cumming & Finch, 2005).
Table S2 in supplementary materials). Each These results should however be interpreted with
model consisted of motivation types predicting a caution due to the limited number of observa-
single outcome variable, with this process tions containing integrated regulation and the
repeated for each available outcome. Results of very large CIs resulting from this. External and
these analyses produce relative weights repre- introjected regulations were positively related to
senting the variance in an outcome accounted for both desirable and undesirable outcomes, yet
by the predictor, as well as rescaled relative effect sizes were generally very small. Amoti-
weights, which presents the information as a vation related more strongly to the outcomes
percentage of R2. than external regulation.
Subgroup analyses were performed to Second, we performed RWA to examine the
examine whether contextual and methodological incremental validity of SDT’s types of motiva-
moderators would influence the results. Fol- tion. Integrated regulation was omitted from this
lowing Aguinis et al.’s (2008) recommendations, analysis due to the paucity of available effect
we used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) proce- sizes. As presented in Table 1, the results indi-
dures for a subgroup analysis with categorical cated that, in general, the other motivation types
variables. Even though we are aware that sub- each made unique contributions in accounting
group analysis is suboptimal to meta-regressions for the outcomes. The total explained variance in
(Geyskens et al., 2009), this analysis was chosen each outcome ranged from 1% (i.e., absentee-
because of the (at times) limited number of ism) to 40% (i.e., engagement), and the different
effect sizes per relationship. types of motivation accounted for about 30% or
12 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60
Amovaon External Introjected Idenfied Integrated Intrinsic

Desirable Undesirable

Figure 2. Summary of results regarding the relationships of the types of motivation on outcomes. Note.
Desirable outcomes include affective commitment, normative commitment, engagement, job satisfaction,
OCB, performance, & proactivity. Undesirable outcomes include absenteeism, burnout, continuance com-
mitment, distress, turnover intention.

Table 1. Relative weights analysis of the different types of motivation predicting outcomes.

Amotivation External Introjected Identified Intrinsic

Outcomes R2 RW % RW % RW % RW % RW %

Distress .10 .01 11.88 .00 4.82 .01 12.65 .04 35.60 .04 35.05
Burnout .27 .10 33.96 .00 .56 .02 5.82 .02 8.85 .14 50.82
Engagement .40 .03 6.29 .00 .14 .01 2.11 .12 28.75 .25 62.71
Job Satisfaction .39 .07 17.73 .00 .42 .01 2.54 .10 24.96 .21 54.34
Affective Com. .33 .02 4.51 .00 .72 .03 8.33 .09 27.80 .20 58.64
Normative Com. .33 .00 .38 .01 3.43 .13 38.29 .05 15.54 .14 42.36
Continuance Com. .05 .00 7.84 .04 76.78 .00 8.62 .00 4.87 .00 1.88
Turnover Intention .12 .01 4.08 .01 4.99 .00 2.50 .04 34.96 .07 53.47
Performance .25 .06 22.80 .00 .84 .04 17.40 .09 35.30 .06 23.65
Proactivity .27 .01 2.54 .03 11.38 .03 9.93 .06 21.27 .15 54.87
OCB .19 — — .02 9.99 .06 33.91 .06 31.05 .05 25.04
CWB .28 .04 14.47 .02 8.12 .03 10.90 .04 14.45 .15 52.06
Absenteeism .01 — — .00 0.34 .00 2.36 .00 11.26 .01 86.04
Average 11.50 9.43 11.95 22.67 46.23
Note: RW: relative weight; %: rescaled relative weight (i.e., relative weight divided by full model R2); Affective Com.:
Affective commitment; Normative Com.: Normative commitment; Continuance Com.: Continuance Commitment;
CWB: Counterproductive Work Behaviors.

more of the variance in the well-being outcomes as evidenced by its disproportionately high
(except for distress) and CWB. Intrinsic moti- relative weights and accounting for over 46.23%
vation was the most important motivation factor of the motivational effects on outcomes. It
Van den Broeck et al. 13

explained more than 50% of the variance in well-being constructs of engagement and job
burnout, engagement, job satisfaction, affective satisfaction. Introjected regulation, in contrast,
commitment, turnover intentions, proactivity, seemed to have both negative and positive well-
counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and being implications: it was positively related to
absenteeism and was the strongest predictor for burnout and distress, as well as to engagement
10 out of the 13 outcomes. and job satisfaction. Identified regulation and
Identified regulation was the second most intrinsic motivation were negatively associated
important motivation type, explaining over with distress and burnout, and were positively
22.67% of the variance in the outcomes. It was associated with engagement and job satisfaction.
more important for performance than intrinsic Results for integrated regulation followed the
motivation, predicted an equal amount of var- same pattern.
iance as intrinsic motivation in distress, and In terms of job attitudes, we calculated the
was, together with introjected regulation, the meta-analytic correlations for turnover inten-
most important predictor of OCB. Introjected tion and affective, normative, and continuance
(11.95%) and amotivation (11.50%) predicted commitment (Meyer et al., 2004). As shown
about the same amount of additional variance in Table 2, while amotivation was unrelated to
in the outcomes. Introjected regulation was normative commitment and turnover intentions,
particularly important in predicting normative it was related negatively to affective commit-
commitment, while amotivation accounted for ment and positively to continuance commitment.
considerable variance in burnout. External reg- External, introjected, and identified regulations
ulation was the least important motivation type, were each positively associated with all types of
explaining less than 10% of the variance in the commitment and negatively associated with
outcomes. It was only of particular importance in turnover intentions. Integrated regulation and
explaining continuance commitment. Notably, intrinsic motivation followed largely the same
except for external regulation, all types of pattern, although intrinsic motivation was unre-
motivation explained a substantial proportion of lated to continuance commitment.
variance in performance, with identified regu- As shown in Table 3, the results for work-
lation being the most important predictor. place behaviors (i.e., performance, proactivity,
organizational citizenship behavior [OCB],
counterproductive work behavior [CWB], and
Specific relations between motivation types
absenteeism) seemed to deviate from the pattern
and outcomes observed for well-being and attitudes. Specifi-
We then examined the specific relations between cally, although few correlations were available
each of SDT’s type of motivation and the spe- for amotivation, the results showed its detri-
cific outcomes to answer RQ2 and RQ3. Table 2 mental association with employee performance
shows the meta-analytic calculations between and proactivity and its positive relation with
the types of motivation and the four different CWB. External regulation, in contrast, related
well-being aspects we could examine given the positively to performance and proactivity, was
available data (i.e., distress, burnout, engage- negatively related to organizational citizenship
ment, and job satisfaction). Amotivation was behavior (OCB), and unrelated to the other
clearly associated with decreased well-being: it performance outcomes. Introjected and Identi-
related positively to burnout and negatively to fied regulations were both positively related to
work engagement and job satisfaction. External performance, proactivity, and OCB, but also
regulation was also associated with well-being unrelated to CWB and absenteeism. Integrated
costs, relating positively to both distress and regulation was positively related to performance.
burnout, but it was unrelated to the positive Intrinsic motivation related positively to all
 Table 2. Meta analytic correlations of the different types of motivation with well-being and attitudes.

rank
correlation
k N r r S.D. S.E. 95% CI 80% CV % acc Eggers’ z test

Amotivation Distress 5 1820 0.12 0.15 0.32 0.14 [0.13; 0.43] [0.17; 0.47] 4.1% — —
Burnout 16 8266 0.34 0.44 0.21 0.05 [0.34; 0.54] [0.21; 0.67] 3.9% 1.83 .53**
Engagement 12 6532 0.22 0.27 0.14 0.04 [0.34; 0.19] [0.4; 0.13] 12.3% 1.60 .33
Job satisfaction 18 11202 0.25 0.32 0.11 0.03 [0.37; 0.27] [0.45; 0.19] 11% .05 .17
Affective com. 14 10277 0.12 0.17 0.28 0.07 [0.31; 0.02] [0.42; 0.09] 3.1% .32 .13
Normative com. 4 5432 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03 [0.08; 0.03] [0.06; 0] 54.6% — —
Continuance com. 5 5635 0.07 0.1 0.05 0.02 [0.06; 0.15] [0.06; 0.15] 45.2% — —
Turnover intention 9 9799 0.07 0.1 0.22 0.07 [0.05; 0.24] [0.11; 0.3] 3.5% — —
External Distress 40 20746 0.07 0.09 0.12 0.02 [0.05; 0.12] [0.02; 0.2] 20.1% .99 .12
Burnout 50 26679 0.07 0.08 0.18 0.03 [0.03; 0.13] [0.11; 0.28] 7.5% .33 .32***

14
Engagement 51 24809 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.02 [0.03; 0.05] [0.13; 0.15] 14.7% .80 .07
Job satisfaction 54 28594 0.02 0.03 0.19 0.03 [0.02; 0.09] [0.15; 0.22] 7.9% .40 .20*
Affective com. 45 23796 0.04 0.06 0.18 0.03 [0.01; 0.11] [0.11; 0.23] 10.1% .68 .09
Normative com. 8 6542 0.1 0.15 0.13 0.05 [0.06; 0.24] [0.02; 0.27] 10.8% — —
Continuance com. 13 8127 0.22 0.33 0.12 0.03 [0.26; 0.39] [0.17; 0.48] 7.9% 1.00 .14
Turnover intention 18 16184 0.06 0.08 0.13 0.03 [0.14; 0.02] [0.18; 0.03] 14.4% 1.66 0.01
Introjected Distress 38 20603 0.05 0.06 0.14 0.02 [0.02; 0.1] [0.07; 0.19] 15.4% .17 .07
Burnout 57 30625 0.07 0.08 0.18 0.02 [0.03; 0.13] [0.1; 0.26] 8.5% 2.60** .19*
Engagement 47 25852 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.02 [0.14; 0.21] [0.04; 0.32] 12.5% .92 .06
Job satisfaction 54 28216 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.03 [0.12; 0.22] [0.02; 0.36] 7.6% .50 .08
Affective com. 42 21208 0.21 0.26 0.22 0.03 [0.19; 0.33] [0.03; 0.49] 5.3% .74 .08
Normative com. 10 7352 0.36 0.45 0.07 0.02 [0.41; 0.50] [0.31; 0.6] 6.4% 1.12 .20
Continuance com. 12 7776 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.05 [0.05; 0.24] [0.02; 0.27] 14% .32 .17
Turnover intention 23 20002 0.08 0.1 0.14 0.03 [0.16; 0.05] [0.24; 0.03] 9.3% .06 .08
(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)

rank
correlation
k N r r S.D. S.E. 95% CI 80% CV % acc Eggers’ z test

Identified Distress 39 17907 0.2 0.23 0.18 0.03 [0.29; 0.18] [0.42; 0.04] 8% 1.54 .06
Burnout 56 26730 0.21 0.25 0.17 0.02 [0.29; 0.2] [0.42; 0.08] 9.3% .28 .03
Engagement 49 26633 0.49 0.57 0.1 0.01 [0.54; 0.59] [0.42; 0.71] 6.2% 1.33 .13
Job satisfaction 51 23451 0.38 0.47 0.18 0.02 [0.43; 0.52] [0.26; 0.69] 4.3% 2.18* .07
Affective com. 41 22840 0.37 0.46 0.12 0.02 [0.43; 0.5] [0.3; 0.62] 6.9% 1.31 .07
Normative com. 8 6804 0.3 0.38 0.13 0.05 [0.29; 0.47] [0.27; 0.5] 9.4% — —
Continuance com. 9 7047 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.04 [0.02; 0.17] [0; 0.19] 19% — —
Turnover intention 11 10762 0.24 0.29 0.18 0.06 [0.4; 0.18] [0.48; 0.1] 3.7% .40 .02
Integrated Distress 5 7758 0.14 0.16 0.28 0.12 [0.41; 0.08] [0.45; 0.12] 1.2% — —
Burnout 4 7581 0.18 0.22 0.03 0.01 [0.24; 0.19] [0.26; 0.18] 31% — —

15
Engagement 2 3788 0.33 0.4 0.22 0.15 [0.1; 0.69] [0.23; 0.56] 2.1% — —
Job satisfaction 11 6859 0.3 0.35 0.1 0.03 [0.3; 0.41] [0.24; 0.47] 14% 1.01 .11
Affective com. 4 2728 0.4 0.47 0.12 0.06 [0.35; 0.6] [0.36; 0.58] 10.5% — —
Continuance com. 2 433 0.37 0.52 0.21 0.15 [0.23; 0.8] [0.26; 0.77] 5.9% — —
Turnover intention 5 4737 0.14 0.18 0.1 0.04 [0.26; 0.09] [0.27; 0.08] 15.6% — —
Intrinsic Distress 47 25114 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.03 [0.3; 0.18] [0.48; 0] 4.5% 1.22 .12
Burnout 62 33980 0.34 0.4 0.21 0.03 [0.45; 0.35] [0.63; 0.17] 3.8% .80 .12
Engagement 62 30311 0.61 0.67 0.19 0.02 [0.62; 0.72] [0.43; 0.91] 1.7% 3.17** .35***
Job satisfaction 60 32734 0.48 0.57 0.2 0.03 [0.52; 0.62] [0.33; 0.81] 2.3% 1.40 .20*
Affective com. 48 25748 0.44 0.55 0.14 0.02 [0.5; 0.59] [0.37; 0.72] 4.6% 1.80 .13
Normative com. 9 7455 0.37 0.47 0.11 0.04 [0.39; 0.54] [0.3; 0.63] 4.2% — —
Continuance com. 11 7857 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.04 [0.02; 0.13] [0.04; 0.14] 22% .32 .11
Turnover intention 24 20426 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.05 [0.42; 0.22] [0.6; 0.05] 2% .35 .09
Note: k: number of effect sizes; N: total subject number; r: average correlation coefficient; r: correlation corrected for unreliability and weighted by sample; SD: Standard
deviation, SE: Standard error; CI: Confidence intervals, CV: Credibility intervals; % acc: percent of variance attributable to sampling error; Com.: Commitment. Table only
includes relations for which more than one correlation could be found.
 Table 3. Meta analytic correlations of the different types of motivation with behaviors.

rank
correlation
k N r r S.D. S.E. 95% CI 80% CV % acc Eggers’ z test

Amotivation Performance 10 9531 0.2 0.28 0.06 0.02 [0.32; 0.24] [0.39; 0.17] 10.4% .15 .11
Proactivity 2 444 0.1 0.11 0.01 0.01 [0.13; 0.09] [0.19; 0.03] 1819.9% — —
CWB 2 332 0.18 0.21 0.07 0.05 [0.11; 0.31] [0.17; 0.25] 123.5% — —
External Performance 29 17335 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.02 [0; 0.08] [0.06; 0.13] 22.8% .46 .03
Proactivity 18 6759 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.07 [0.06; 0.34] [0.05; 0.45] 6.2% 1.66 .11
OCB 10 9939 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.02 [0.11; 0.03] [0.12; 0.03] 47.1% .96 .07
CWB 5 1088 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.07 [0.01; 0.28] [0.02; 0.29] 23.4% — —
Absenteeism 18 7556 .00 .00 0.07 0.02 [0.04; 0.03] [0.05; 0.04] 64.7% .76 .06
Introjected Performance 25 16628 0.22 0.28 0.17 0.03 [0.22; 0.35] [0.13; 0.44] 8% .80 .03
Proactivity 11 4712 0.22 0.27 0.16 0.05 [0.17; 0.37] [0.1; 0.44] 10% .06 .16
OCB 8 9414 0.24 0.29 0.21 0.07 [0.15; 0.44] [0.1; 0.49] 3% — —

16
CWB 2 332 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.11 [0.35; 0.07] [0.26; 0.02] 39.7% — —
Absenteeism 18 7556 0 0 0.07 0.02 [0.03; 0.03] [0.05; 0.05] 64.2% .67 .09
Identified Performance 27 17163 0.35 0.43 0.16 0.03 [0.37; 0.49] [0.24; 0.61] 4.7% 1.78 .11
Proactivity 15 5187 0.33 0.38 0.18 0.05 [0.29; 0.48] [0.18; 0.59] 7.8% 1.07 .20
OCB 8 9414 0.29 0.34 0.27 0.1 [0.16; 0.53] [0.08; 0.61] 1.5% — —
CWB 4 687 0.02 0.04 0.41 0.2 [0.44; 0.36] [0.43; 0.35] 6% — —
Absenteeism 18 7556 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02 [0.05; 0.01] [0.07; 0.03] 62.9% .88 .12
Integrated Performance 4 1128 0.26 0.31 0.04 0.02 [0.27; 0.35] [0.27; 0.34] 77.2% — —
Intrinsic Performance 43 21200 0.3 0.36 0.2 0.03 [0.3; 0.42] [0.15; 0.56] 5.7% 2.44* .21*
Proactivity 26 9491 0.39 0.47 0.21 0.04 [0.39; 0.55] [0.27; 0.66] 6.9% 3.29*** .29*
OCB 16 12259 0.26 0.31 0.29 0.07 [0.17; 0.45] [0; 0.62] 1.8% .03 .24
CWB 5 1337 0.3 0.36 0.14 0.06 [0.48; 0.24] [0.51; 0.21] 17.3% — —
Absenteeism 18 7556 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.02 [0.1; 0.04] [0.12; 0.02] 60.5% .12 .05

Note: k: number of effect sizes; N: total subject number; r: average correlation coefficient; r: correlation corrected for unreliability and weighted by sample; SD: Standard
deviation, SE: Standard error; CI: Confidence intervals, CV: Credibility intervals; % acc: percent of variance attributable to sampling error; Com.: Commitment. Table only
includes relations for which more than one correlation could be found.
Van den Broeck et al. 17

constructive behaviors and was the only type of to explain this observed variance and to examine
motivation that significantly related (negatively) the generalizability of our results (i.e., RQ 5).
to absenteeism. This was done for all relations for which enough
We then examined if CIs overlapped to effect sizes were available. For amotivation this
determine whether regulations were associated was generally not the case. The full results are
differentially with outcomes (Cumming & available in the supplementary materials S4 to
Finch, 2005). Focusing on adjacent types of S10 and summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
motivation, amotivation and external regula- In examining whether the relations between
tion were similar in only 2 out of 11 comparisons the motivation types and outcomes varied
(pertaining to distress and CWB). External and depending on cultural context (i.e., “Western”
introjected regulations were similar in 5 out cultural contexts such as Canada vs. “Eastern”
of 13 comparisons (the negative well-being cultural contexts such as China), only 7 out of 47
indicators [distress and burnout], turnover, pro- correlations (15%) testing for different results
activity, and absenteeism). Introjected and id- did not overlap: Introjected regulation related
entified regulations overlapped on 6 out of more strongly to burnout, yet less strongly to job
13 comparisons, including normative and con- satisfaction and affective commitment in West-
tinuance commitment, and all types of behavior ern compared to Eastern countries. Intrinsic
except for performance (i.e. proactivity, OCB, motivation also related more strongly to burn-
CWB, and absenteeism). Finally, identified and out, engagement, job satisfaction and affective
intrinsic motivation overlapped in 8 out of 13 commitment in the West than in the East.
comparisons. Exceptions were burnout, engage- The results comparing blue versus white
ment, job satisfaction, affective commitment, collar workers showed significant differences
and absenteeism. This indicates that there is between both groups in 10 out of 44 comparisons
some overlap in the consequences of these types (23%). They all pointed at a stronger relation
of motivation for employee optimal functioning. between motivation and employee well-being,
The results for integrated regulation overlapped attitudes, and performance for blue collar work-
with either those of identification or intrinsic ers compared to white collar workers; external
motivation in 6 out of 8 comparisons (job sa- regulation related more strongly to engagement,
tisfaction and continuance commitment were and all types of motivation—except for external
exceptions herein), suggesting the nomological regulation—related more strongly to job satis-
networks between these variables are nearly faction. Introjected regulation was more indica-
identical. tive of affective commitment, while intrinsic
motivation associated more strongly with nor-
mative commitment. Both introjected regulation
Moderation analyses and intrinsic motivation related more strongly to
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, for most relation- turnover intentions and performance.
ships, sampling and measurement error account No systematic pattern was present regarding
for less than 75% of the observed variance the effects of publication status. In only 12 out
(Schmidt & Hunter, 2015). Only for a few rela- of 47 cases (25%) were differences were found
tions, which were typically based on few obser- between published and unpublished data. In
vations, was this threshold exceeded, suggesting nine cases the published data presented stronger
that sampling and measurement error could effect sizes, while in the other three cases the
account for differences in the magnitude of these effects in the unpublished data were stronger.
few correlations. The credibility intervals were To gain further insight into whether publica-
generally large, including zero in 34% of the tion bias was an issue in our data, we supple-
cases. Hence, moderator analyses are necessary ment this moderation analysis with Egger’s
18 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

regression test and the rank-correlation test.

Intrinsic These tests further indicated that overall, the
¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
<

<

<

Note. < indicates e.g. significantly lower effect sizes for published data compared to unpublished; > represents greater effect sizes e.g. for published compared to
reported results did not seem affected by pub-
Identified

unpublished; ¼ represents non-significant differences using p ¼ .05 as a cut-off. More detailed results are available in the supplementary materials Tables S4–6.
lication bias. However, for burnout, smaller
Published vs. Unpublished

¼
¼
¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
correlations tended to be reported less often,
>

> which was also the case for studies examining

Introjected

the associations between intrinsic motivation

and engagement, performance, and proactivity.
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
<

<

<
Finally, we examined whether the various
External

operationalizations of SDT’s types of motiva-

¼
¼

¼
¼

¼
¼
¼

¼
<

<

<

tion, as reflected in the different measurement

Amotivation

scales, could explain differences in the strength

of the relationships between these types of
¼
>

motivation and employee outcomes (Table 5 and

Intrinsic

S7–10). Concerning external regulation, mate-

rial external regulation related more strongly
¼
¼
¼

¼
>

>

>
>

than social external regulation to turnover

Identified

intention, but no differences were found for

¼
¼
¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
>

burnout, engagement, performance, and OCB.

Blue vs. White Collar

Introjected

For introjected regulation, the results indicate

that measures that only tap into avoiding nega-
Table 4. Subgroup analyses testing moderation of various sample characteristics.

¼
¼
¼

¼
¼

¼
>
>

>
>

tive emotions associate more strongly with

External

burnout, compared to measures including some

approach items or a balanced mix of avoidance
¼
¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
>

and approach items. This result was not repli-

Amotivation

cated with regards to distress, which was the

only other outcome on which the three types of
¼

measures for introjected regulation could be

Intrinsic

compared. No further differences were found in

¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

the strength of the relations between the unba-

>
>
>
>

lanced and balanced scales tapping into intro-

Identified

jected regulation and job satisfaction, affective

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
¼
¼

commitment, or turnover intentions. Slight dif-

Western vs. Eastern

Introjected

ferences in the operationalization of identified

regulation led to very few differences in the
¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
>

<
<

relationships: Identified measures excluding

External

integrated regulation items associated more

strongly with distress and job satisfaction; but no
¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
¼
¼
¼
¼

differences were found for burnout, engagement,

Amotivation

affective or continuance commitment, turnover

intentions, performance, proactivity, or OCB.
¼
¼
¼
¼

¼
¼
Turnover Intention
Continuance Com.
Normative Com.
Job Satisfaction
Affective Com.

Discussion
Performance
Engagement

Absenteism
Covariates

Proactivity
Burnout
Distress

Motivation is a critical issue for employees and

CWB
OCB

employers alike (Kanfer & Chen, 2016). Self-

18
Van den Broeck et al. 19

Table 5. Subgroup analyses testing moderation of various operationalizations of the types of motivation.
Material vs. Only avoidance vs. Unbalanced vs. Indentified
Social Only avoidance vs. balanced avoidance/ balanced avoidance/ measures without
External unbalanced avoidance approach introjected approach introjected vs. with integration
Covariates Reguation introjected regulation regulation regulation items

Distress ¼ ¼ ¼ >
Burnout ¼ > > ¼ ¼
Engagement ¼ ¼
Job Satisfaction ¼ >
Affective Com. ¼ ¼
Normative Com.
Continuance Com. ¼
Turnover Intention > ¼ ¼
Performance ¼ ¼
Proactivity ¼
CWB
OCB ¼ ¼
Absenteeism

Note. > represents greater effect sizes for e.g. material vs. social external regulation scales; ¼ represents non-significant
differences using p ¼ .05 as a cut-off. More detailed results are available in the supplementary materials Tables S7–10.

determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, RQ5). In doing so, this meta-analysis provides a
2000) has provided a nuanced view on this more precise picture of the value and necessity
topic, suggesting that one should not only take of SDT’s nuanced view of the nature and con-
into account how much employees are moti- sequences of employee motivation.
vated (i.e., amotivation versus motivation), or
whether they are intrinsically or extrinsically
motivated, but also which types of extrinsic Answers to our research questions
motivation they hold (i.e., external, introjected, Research question 1: Relative contribution of the
identified or integrated regulation). types of motivation. All in all, our meta-analysis
SDT has become increasingly popular in provides support for the discriminant and
organizational psychology, and it is therefore incremental validity of SDT’s different types of
time to take stock of the associations between motivation in explaining variance in employee
SDT’s different types of work motivation and outcomes that we consider to be crucial in the
important outcomes in the organizational liter- field of organizational psychology. Our results
ature (i.e., employee well-being, attitudes, and indicate that the correlations of SDT’s types of
performance). This helps us to understand the motivation, ordered along the continuum of
strengths and limitations of the current body of self-determination, show a linear trend with
research, and to identify avenues for future employee outcomes. While several relations
research. By obtaining all relevant data, this between the motivation types and employee
meta-analysis allows us to shed light on some outcomes overlapped, RWA revealed that every
fundamental issues that remain unclear within type of motivation (including amotivation)
existing SDT research: whether (i.e., RQ1) and holds incremental validity in predicting
how (i.e., RQ2–4) each of the SDT types of employee well-being, attitudes, and behavior.
motivation is uniquely influential in predicting These findings align with previous research
a broad range of employee outcomes, and to that has examined the structure of SDT’s types
what extent these results are generalizable (i.e., of motivation (Howard et al., 2017, 2018). Using
20 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

meta-analytic multidimensional scaling and bi- were developed (e.g. Tremblay et al., 2009) were
factor analysis, respectively, these studies highly related to identification and intrinsic
showed that each of the types of motivation can motivation and that the relations of these inte-
be ordered along a continuum of self- grated regulation scales with the other types of
determination (Howard et al., 2017), reflected motivation overlapped considerably with those
by their loadings on a general factor representing of identification and intrinsic motivation
the degree of self-determination in each item (Howard et al., 2017).
(Howard et al., 2018). This “truncus communis” Our meta-analysis expands these findings on
likely accounts for most of the linear trend in our integrated motivation. It shows that integrated
data and the overlapping confidence intervals. In regulation is hardly examined within the context
addition to this general factor, SDT’s types of of work, which is consistent with other meta-
motivation have been shown to possess unique analyses in the academic setting (Slemp et al.,
properties, which are reflected in their specific 2020) and the health context (Ng et al., 2012).
factors. These factors likely play a strong role in Our results add to this body of research in
the unique and incremental effects of the types revealing that the associations between inte-
of motivation on employee outcomes, as evi- grated regulation and employee well-being,
denced in our RWA. attitudes, and performance almost always over-
Integrated regulation is an exception in this lap with the associations of identified and
regard: the limited results pertaining to this type intrinsic motivation. Further, when no overlap
of motivation indicate that its correlations are was found, contrary to expectations, integrated
almost identical to those of identified regulation regulation (or scales mixing items for identified
or intrinsic motivation, meaning that it adds little and integrated regulation) did not show the
incremental explanatory value beyond that of the stronger relations with the outcomes than
other motivation types. Despite being clearly (purely) identified regulation.
differentiated at the conceptual level, the mea- We therefore see little compelling evidence
surement of integrated regulation has challenged to focus on integrated regulation in future
SDT researchers for a long time. Even the first questionnaire research in the context of work.
scale to assess SDT’s different types of regula- This is not to say, however, that integrated reg-
tions (i.e., Ryan & Connell, 1989, tapping into ulations should be omitted from SDT theory.
academic motivation) did not include a scale for The lack of differentiation between integrated,
integrated regulation, which could be attributed identified, and intrinsic motivation in ques-
to the fact that children may not be mature tionnaire research may simply be due to the fact
enough to have integrated extrinsic regulations that people may describe themselves as being
in a coherent sense of self (Howard et al., 2017). more consistent across time and situations than
The survey of Ryan and Connell (1989) served they truly are (Sadler & Woody, 2003). This
as an example for many subsequent scales to consistency bias may then cause individuals to
assess SDT’s types of motivation in different life say that they consistently engage in particular
domains. Despite considerable efforts, many behavior because they have integrated this rea-
other authors also failed to include integrated son (e.g., it has become a fundamental part of
regulation in these scales, as such items could who they really are; Tremblay et al., 2009),
not be differentiated from items of identification while actually they may only merely identify
or intrinsic motivation through of factor analysis with the value of the particular behavior (e.g.,
(see e.g. Gagné et al., 2015, and Pelletier et al., because it allows them to attain work objectives
1995, in the work and sports domain, respec- that they consider important; Fernet et al., 2008),
tively). Moreover, meta-analytic findings indi- yet the behavior may not be displayed across
cated that the integrated regulation scales that time and settings. Hence, because people like to
Van den Broeck et al. 21

see themselves as more consistent than they analytic findings that have highlighted the
really are, people may confuse valuing some- importance of intrinsic motivation for high
thing as a lower order goal with striving for a quality performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014). That
higher level, well-integrated goal that defines is, the current meta-analytical results indicate
one’s identity and drives consistent behavior that some types of extrinsic motivation (i.e.,
(Kruglanski et al., 2002). Future research identified regulation) may sometimes lead to
avoiding, or accounting for, this consistency bias higher levels of performance, extra-role beha-
(e.g. through observations or interviews) may be vior, or helping behavior than intrinsic motiva-
better suited for examining whether integrated tion. We encourage further research examining
regulation has discriminant validity vis a vis the differential impact of identified regulation
SDT’s other types of motivation. and intrinsic motivation on the quantity, quality,
and duration of (ideally objectively-rated) per-
Research questions 2–5: Specific associations for formance to further support this claim. All in all,
the types of motivation. With respect to the spe- our findings indicate that work does not need to
cific impact of the autonomous types of moti- be “all play” for employees to feel well and
vation (i.e., research questions 2), the results perform well, as long as they find their work
support the highly beneficial nature of intrinsic meaningful.
motivation in the workplace: intrinsic motiva- Our results also help uncover the complex
tion explained the most variance in almost all nature of controlled motivation. Specifically, our
outcomes (except continuance commitment and results highlight that the question of whether
OCB), and was the sole predictor of absentee- controlled forms of motivation are detrimental,
ism, albeit with a small impact. Overall, these unrelated, or less positively related to employee
results suggest that making work inherently outcomes (i.e., RQ3), should be answered in a
enjoyable and interesting pays off. nuanced way, taking into account the particular
Comparing these results with those of iden- outcome and the type of controlled motivation
tified regulation, which represents an autono- under study. First, our meta-analysis highlights
mous type of extrinsic motivation, we see some the Janus face of introjected regulation: enga-
overlapping results. However, RWA suggests ging in a particular behavior to boost one’s self
that intrinsic motivation and identified regula- esteem was positively related to both ill-being
tion yield differential and incremental effects: (e.g., distress) and well-being (e.g., engage-
while intrinsic motivation associates more ment). It also related to all forms of commit-
strongly with well-being than identified regula- ment, though most strongly to normative
tion, the opposite is true for employee behavior commitment (see also Meyer et al., 2004), and
(i.e., performance and OCB). This supports the was a relatively strong predictor of performance
idea that engaging in a particular behavior and OCB. This indicates that introjected people
because one considers it meaningful or valuable may perform well by pressuring themselves or
(e.g., because it corresponds to one’s values, striving to feel better about themselves, but with
motives or goals; Sheldon, 2011; Sheldon & some well-being price to pay. In general, these
Schüler, 2011) may be more important for con- results were found across operationalizations of
tinuous effort investment, goal directed beha- introjected regulation that focused solely on
vior, or “going the extra mile,” than engaging in avoiding negative emotions such as guilt or
a behavior because it is inherently enjoyable— shame (i.e., avoidance-based operationalisation),
especially when work tasks become more and also operationalisations that also incorpo-
tedious or stressful. This idea has already been rated at least some measurement of striving for
voiced by some SDT-scholars (Gagné & Deci, positive emotions such as pride (i.e., inclusion of
2005), and adds nuance to previous meta- approach-based operationalisations).
22 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

Second, the current results also show that encourage future research incorporating con-
expecting rewards (e.g., praise, bonus) or aim- textual and methodological variables to further
ing to avoid of punishments (e.g., criticism, explain the variability in our results and inves-
being fired) may not be the best types of tigate the generalizability of our conclusions.
motivation: they may be stressful; will mostly In sum, our results show that SDT’s types of
lead to continuance commitment, which is the motivation can have different implications for
form of commitment associated with the worst employee well-being, attitudes and perform-
performance and well-being outcomes (Meyer ance. However, the relationships were a bit
et al., 2004); offer quite limited contributions to more complex than can be summarized by
employee performance; and inhibit OCB. These SDT’s higher-level proposition that increasingly
results resemble previous meta-analytic find- autonomous forms of motivation (i.e., from
ings in the health context (Ng et al., 2012), but amotivation to external, introjected, and identi-
add the perspective of RWA, highlighting the fied regulation, to intrinsic motivation) should
small relative impact of external regulation in associate increasingly (positively) with em-
explaining these outcomes. Notably, whether ployee optimal functioning (Deci & Ryan,
one is driven by material (e.g., money) or social 2000). Specifically, identified regulation may
(e.g., social pressure) external reasons did not sometimes associate with more beneficial (per-
make a difference in terms of employee well- formance related) outcomes than intrinsic moti-
being or behavior, except that being driven by vation; introjected regulation may associate with
external material reasons may lead to increased both positive and detrimental outcomes; while
odds of turnover. All in all, the results showed external regulation, and particularly amotiva-
that external regulation should therefore not be tion, likely have negative implications. Despite
the only, or even the most important, form of these nuances, the results support the validity
extrinsic work motivation to rely on in the work and usefulness of SDT’s multidimensional view
domain. on motivation as a comprehensive framework to
Pertaining to research question 4, the results understand the complex phenomenon of moti-
indicated that amotivation proved particularly vation. Most importantly, these results indicate
helpful in understanding burnout and was that not only the quantity, but also the nuanced
associated strongly (and negatively) with per- differences in the quality of motivation matters.
formance. The current meta-analytic results As such, SDT goes above and beyond most
therefore indicate that having no motivation motivational theories, which do not take into
(i.e., low quantity of motivation) may be more account the nature or quality of motivation, and
detrimental than external regulation (i.e., low instead focus solely on how much one is moti-
quality of motivation). vated (Kanfer & Chen, 2016; Kanfer et al.,
The moderation analysis (i.e., research ques- 2017)—of which Goal Setting Theory is a prime
tion 5) showed that relationships between moti- example, yet has nonetheless dominated the lit-
vation types and employee outcomes are erature on employee motivation and practice
generally generalizable across contexts in terms (Locke & Latham, 2019).
of cultures and job types. With some exceptions,
the results did not seem to be systematically
affected by publication bias or the particular
Implications for theory and practice
operationalizations of the types of motivation. Modeling of the different types of motivation. Our
This attests to the universality of SDT and the results attest to the discriminant validity of the
reliability of our results. However, given the various types of motivation and provide further
limited number of studies able to be included evidence of their specific implications for
in the moderation analysis, we nonetheless employee outcomes. These results thus have
Van den Broeck et al. 23

clear implications for how the types of motiva- well-being, attitudes and behavior; and it may
tion should be modeled in future research. First, also mask the more nuanced and complex find-
as mentioned above, we argue that questionnaire ings of introjected regulation.
studies may leave out integrated regulation until Grouping identified and intrinsic motivation
we find better ways to capture it. Second, our into the composite of autonomous motivation
results indicate that, unfortunately, relatively may be less problematic, as both relate to out-
few studies have paid attention to amotivation. comes in the same direction. However, such an
Some scholars have posited that people would approach would miss out on the difference in the
have at least some kind of motivation to do their strength of the relations of these two types of
job, making the study of amotivation irrelevant motivation with employee well-being and
(Gagné et al., 2015). Yet, recent person-centered behavior (e.g., Koestner & Losier, 2002), and
studies estimate that about 10 to 25% of workers further prevent research verifying the effects of
are predominantly amotivated (Howard et al., targeted interventions on each type of motiva-
2016). The current meta-analytic results further tion. Future research therefore needs to consider
attest to the importance of amotivation by the role of each type of motivation. While this
showing its incremental value for understanding can be achieved through the use of highly
employee outcomes. We therefore contend that complex bi-factor models (Howard et al., 2020),
SDT scholars should not only focus on the this meta-analysis also points to the viability of
motivational types (i.e., quality of motivation), using relative weights analysis as a way to cir-
but also on the amount of motivation (i.e., cumvent potential issues of multicollinearity
quantity of motivation)—and, importantly, when bi-factor modeling is not feasible. We do
include amotivation alongside SDT’s different not recommend the use of regression analysis as
types of motivation in order to fully understand the current meta-analytic correlations (available
employees’ motivation in the workplace. upon request) highlighted that multicollinearity
Most importantly, the results highlight that would lead to unreliable regression coefficients
there are clear advantages in considering the when the different types of motivation are
motivational regulations separately rather than included simultaneously, leading to suppression
in composites (e.g., a relative autonomy index, effects and Heywood cases.
or autonomous versus controlled motivation).
These results align with the conclusions of Contributions to the motivation literature. This
Howard et al. (2020), providing additional meta-analysis also amplifies SDT’s contribution
meta-analytic insights demonstrating that con- to the wider literature on (employee) motivation.
sidering the regulations separately may not only First, the results regarding the associations with
lead to more explained variance, it also allows intrinsic and identified motivation make clear
for a more nuanced understanding of the there is not necessarily a tradeoff between
implications of motivation on employee func- motivating employees to perform well and/or
tioning, thus offering more nuanced guidelines sustaining their health-related well-being, as
for interventions. suggested by the HR-literature (Van De Voorde
First and foremost, it is not advisable to group et al., 2012); enhancing both types of employee
external and introjected regulations together to autonomous motivation is likely to lead to both
form a construct of controlled motivation, as the outcomes. SDT’s types of motivation may also
use of such a composite score masks their dif- help explain why focusing on HR-practices that
ferential effects. Non-significant results of increase external regulation (e.g., performance-
controlled motivation may be driven by the non- contingent pay; Gagné & Forest, 2008) or
significant population correlations of external introjected regulation (e.g. employee of the
regulation with the various aspects of employee month programs; Johnson & Dickinson, 2010)
24 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

may have no or limited effects on performance emotions than with an (un)balanced mix of
and raise well-being issues. approach and avoidance items. However, a true
Second, the importance of identified regula- comparison with solely approach oriented
tion for employee outcomes is in line with, and introjected regulation could not be made, as no
contributes to the reviving of, research on the such scales are available within organizational
meaning of work (Allan et al., 2019; Rosso et al., psychology. We would encourage future
2010). We complement this line of work, research to look further into this issue and inte-
showing that meaningful work may not only grate approach/avoidance theories (e.g., Carver,
relate to well-being (Allan et al., 2019), but 2006; Higgins, 2002; Kuhl, 2000) with SDT.
also—and particularly—contributes to predict- Such research could allow us to see whether
ing performance. Moreover, SDT may help to initial findings showing that avoidance intro-
solve some issues regarding the conceptualiza- jected regulation is more detrimental than a
tion of “meaning.” When people identify with focus on approach introjected regulation (Assor
extrinsic reasons to engage in a particular et al., 2009) can be replicated and generalized
behavior, they bring together both inter-personal across contexts.
and intra-personal experiences into one coherent Second, even when focusing on either
sense of self—and meaning can therefore be approach or avoidance, measures for introjected
derived from both other and self-oriented regulation can be criticized for including an
experiences (Bailey et al., 2019). SDT further amalgam of negative (e.g., guilt and shame) and
specifies identified regulation as an autonomous positive (e.g., pride) emotions. Yet, each of
extrinsic type of motivation, which helps us to these emotions represent qualitatively different
understand why employees may find meaning in constructs, with external shame and hubristic
work because it serves another end (i.e., extrinsic pride for example being more negatively re-
motivation), yet experience this type of moti- lated to outcomes than internal shame and au-
vation as internal (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). thentic pride (Kim et al., 2011; Tracy & Robins,
Our findings indicate that theories that use the 2007). Third, moderating variables may alter
intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy are too simplistic the implications of these discrete emotions.
to capture this important nuance. This shows Shame may for example lead employees to
how SDT may help to understand and reconcile engage in either OCB or CBW, depending on
issues or inconsistencies regarding facets of the reparability and injustice of the situation
motivation in the broader literature on organi- (Daniels & Robinson, 2019). Apart from these
zational psychology. self-relevant emotions, the focus on maintain-
The results pertaining to introjected regula- ing or improving one’s self-esteem included in
tion point at the importance of specifying moti- introjected regulation (Leary, 2007) may be a
vational constructs. We see at least four reasons fourth aspect, adding ambivalence to intro-
why introjected regulation has these mixed cor- jected regulation, as a focus on self-esteem
relates. First, introjected regulation includes both may only lead to negative consequences if it
a focus on avoiding emotions that pose a threat pertains to contingent self-esteem (Ferris et al.,
to one’s self esteem (e.g., guilt, shame) and 2009). Future research could further investigate
striving for positive emotions that may boost whether, and under what circumstances, the
one’s self-esteem (e.g., pride). Our moderation various aspects inherent in introjected regula-
analysis could not find any differences in the tion may associate differently with employee
strength of the relations of introjected regulation outcomes.
operationalized in different ways—except for Notably, some SDT-scholars argue that the
burnout, which was more strongly associated heterogeneity inherent in introjected regulation
with scales tapping into avoiding negative represents the “partially internalized” nature of
Van den Broeck et al. 25

this type of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). performance is increasingly important in the
Introjected regulation is neither clearly con- context of work (Carpini et al., 2017). This then
trolled, nor clearly autonomous, but rather falls brings into question the value of motivating
somewhere in between—and therefore will, by employees externally. Second, and perhaps
definition, result in a mix of desirable and most notably, HRM and management studies
undesirable outcomes. Our results pointing at typically examine turnover and performance of
the Janus-face of introjected regulation are in employees following incentivization interven-
line with this perspective and expand previous tions, but rarely do they consider the well-being
results demonstrating that introjected regula- implications (Jiang et al., 2015; Shaw & Gupta,
tion is equidistant between external and iden- 2015). We show that external regulation is
tified regulation (Howard et al., 2017), with likely to have a negative impact on employee
moderately positive factor loadings on a gen- well-being. Such an effect may well lead to
eral factor of self-determination (Howard et al., further problems over time, including perfor-
2018). In any case, our results overall indicate mance issues and turnover, and as such may not
that managers should withhold from fostering be as beneficial as is believed. We argue that
employee motivation through introjected regu- much progress can be made through better
lation, and focus instead on increasing autono- integration of these literatures, building upon
mous types of motivation instead. the current findings to inform future research.
Finally, our results for external regulation
stand in sharp contrast with studies of extrinsic
Limitations and suggestions for future
motivation and monetary incentives (Cerasoli
et al., 2014), and the ubiquitous use of man- research
agement methods that coerce employees into This meta-analysis has some limitations, which
behaving in certain ways through the use of may also inspire future research to advance the
reinforcements, monitoring, and sanctions. For study of employee motivation through SDT’s
example, the literature within HRM strongly multidimensional perspective. First, the quality
supports the effectiveness of monetary-based of this meta-analyses is of course based on the
incentives (Shaw & Gupta, 2015), and the quality of the primary studies. As the majority
prevalence of individual reward schemes in of research included in this meta-analysis relied
contemporary organizations likewise assume a on cross-sectional correlational survey designs,
positive effect on employee outcomes. The lit- shared method variance and self-report bias
erature from SDT summarized here provides may have obscured our results (Podsakoff et al.,
critical nuances to these strongly held beliefs. 2003). There is a clear need for longitudinal and
First, our findings indicate that external regu- quasi-experimental research that would meet
lation, which likely results from striving for more causality criteria so we can improve our
rewards and avoiding punishments, is far less understanding of how the various types of work
strongly related to performance than the other motivation influence work-related outcomes.
types of motivation. This may be explained by Second, parts of the literature on SDT’s
previous meta-analytic findings that incentives multidimensional view on motivation include
are more strongly related to how much one very few studies. This limited the sample size on
performs (i.e., how much output one generates), which some of the effect sizes were based (e.g.,
and less predictive of performance quality (i.e., relations with CWB, the relations of amotiva-
creativity, quality of the output; Cerasoli et al., tion, moderation analysis) and forced us to
2014). Although the current results did not aggregate several constructs into a broader
allow us to differentiate between these types of category (e.g., CWB includes withdrawal as well
performance, delivering high quality as interpersonal deviance) to have sufficient
26 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

sample numbers to run analyses. This may have motivation more relevant for interesting or
influenced the precision of some of our esti- creative tasks. This would nuance earlier
mates. The limited number of available corre- findings focusing on performance quantity and
lations also prevented us from modeling the quality in the context of work (Cerasoli et al.,
structural relations among our variables and 2014) and shed light on which of the types of
testing research questions pertaining to, for motivation are likely to predict diverse per-
example, the relative importance of motivation formance criteria such as proficiency, crea-
types for various aspects of performance, tivity, being a good team player, and adapting
including the quantity and quality of work. to rapid changes.
Answering such questions would be informative We would also encourage scholars to move
in understanding the extent to which results beyond the study of SDT’s types of motiva-
differ for hedonic (e.g., happiness) versus tion in and of itself, and in relation to other
eudemonic (e.g., mindfulness) well-being (Ryan OB-related constructs, and integrate other mo-
et al., 2008). tivational theories. Previous research in the
The results of our meta-analysis clearly domain of work, for example, have endeavored
demonstrate SDT’s focus on positive outcomes, to marry the different types of motivation with
much in line with the 20-year-old criticism that goal achievement theory. On the one hand, such
SDT does not account for the “dark side” of studies show that autonomous motivation is
human functioning (Pyszczynski et al., 2000). related to mastery-approach goals; while con-
Although scholars have since broadened their trolled motivation and amotivation relates to
scope and started to include ill-being (e.g., mastery-avoidance goals and both performance-
distress), this criticism is still very applicable to approach and -avoidance goals (Vanthournout
the behavioral outcomes studied to date. Future et al., 2015). On the other hand, intrinsic moti-
research could include more negative beha- vation and mastery-approach goals also predict
viors, such as antisocial behaviors (e.g., devi- outcomes such as work effort (Dysvik &
ance, sabotage, theft, cheating; e.g., Tremblay Kuvaas, 2013). We welcome future research that
et al., 2009) as this would increase our sheds more light on the temporal and synergistic
understanding of whether externally regulated effects of SDT’s and other types of motivation in
people just “don’t contribute” in organiza- order to facilitate a more integrated literature on
tions, as our current results suggest, or whether work motivation.
they actively cause trouble (e.g., conflict, cheat- Relatedly, such studies could also make use
ing, etc.). of profile analysis to see which types of moti-
We also encourage future research to dis- vation naturally co-occur with SDT’s types of
entangle the finding that all types of motiva- motivation. Previous studies have differentiated
tion (except external) were important for employees based on profiles characterized by
performance. Relations between the types of different levels of the types of motivation (e.g.,
motivation and performance may not be Howard et al., 2016; Van den Broeck et al.,
straightforward, and might depend on abilities 2013). Whereas these studies adopt a person-
(Van Iddekinge et al., 2014), task character- oriented perspective, our meta-analysis is
istics, and types of performance (Byron & among the first to meta-analytically examine
Khazanchi, 2012; Cerasoli et al., 2014). Con- the nomological network of each of the various
sequently, it may be that external regulation is types of motivation from a variable centered
particularly relevant for task performance on perspective. Our results may therefore help
simple/boring tasks, while identified regula- profile studies further interpret their results and
tion may be more relevant for complex tasks inform the literature about the added value of
that require extended effort, and intrinsic both approaches. Moreover, to shed further
Van den Broeck et al. 27

light on the specific nature of the types of 2012). Leaders can also articulate a compelling
motivation, future research may examine more vision that speaks to the values of their
closely the implications of holding various employees, which is the hallmark of transfor-
types of motivation at the same time by looking mational and charismatic leadership research
at their interactions. Previous research indicates (Bass & Avolio, 1995). All in all, our results
that the specific combination of high autono- highlight the importance of differentiating
mous and low controlled motivation is associ- between the various types of motivation, above
ated with high levels of performance; while a and beyond their general degree of self-
combination of low autonomous and high determination or categorization into autono-
controlled motivation is associated most mous and controlled motivation. Organizations
strongly with distress (Grant et al., 2011; can therefore strategically decide which type of
Strauss et al., 2017). As our results provided motivation they want to foster in order to
evidence for differential effects among the achieve the outcomes they value the most.
autonomous as well as the controlled motiva-
tion types, a nuanced perspective examining the
implications of interactions between the types
Conclusion
of motivation may provide additional insights. Self-determination theory has become a popular
theory within organizational psychology (see
also Deci et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al.,
Practical implications 2016). Taking stock of this growing body of
The results of this meta-analysis show that literature, this meta-analysis revealed that dif-
when organizations want to achieve employee ferentiating between each of the various types of
well-being, positive attitudes, and performance, motivation is valuable for understanding
they should shy away from trying to motivate employee well-being, attitudes, and behavior.
employees to work through incentives and The available empirical evidence also provided
sanctions; external regulation was shown to be additional detail to SDT’s overall theoretical
the least potent form of motivation to regulate statement that the correlates of the different
performance, and was also associated with high types of motivation become more and more
well-being costs. Instead, organizations should positive as autonomy increases (Deci & Ryan,
nurture intrinsic motivation, perhaps through 2000). It seems that, in some cases, identified
motivating, job design (Van den Broeck et al., regulation may be more important than intrinsic
2016), or autonomy support from colleagues motivation. Introjected regulation is an ambiva-
(Jungert et al., 2018) or supervisors (Slemp lent type of motivation, while external regulation
et al., 2018), as intrinsic motivation is most has small positive associations with performance
strongly associated with employee optimal and negative relations with well-being. Our
functioning. However, organizations are not results show that amotivation should be consid-
limited to solely promoting intrinsic motiva- ered too in SDT research, particularly because it
tion. Though intrinsic motivation is the best is strongly associated with distress and low
predictor for most outcomes, when it comes to performance. Given the promising results
work performance and OCB, identified regu- regarding the incremental and discriminant
lation is potentially more important. This means validity of SDT’s various types of motivation,
that organizations should not only think about we encourage scholars to further invest in
how to make jobs more fun and interesting, but examining their differential effects in more
should also concentrate on creating meaning detail. Such endeavors should, however, make
by, for example, increasing the perceived use of more nuanced analysis such as RWA, and
impact of one’s work on beneficiaries (Grant, rely on more ambitious research methods so that
28 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

firmer conclusions can be drawn on the impor- research agenda. Human Resource Development
tance of the quality of employee motivation. Review, 18(1), 83–113.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor
Acknowledgements leadership questionnaire: Leader form, rater
We would like to dedicate this manuscript to Willy form, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short).
Lens and thank Filip Germeys, Joseph Carpini, and Mind Garden.
Richard Ryan for their comments on a previous ver- Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating
sion of this manuscript. characteristics of a rank correlation test for pub-
lication bias. Biometrics, 1088–1101.
Funding Blais, M. R., Lachance, L., Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following M., & Riddle, A. S. (1993). The work motivation
financial support for the research, authorship, and/ inventory. Revue Quebecoise de Psychologie.
or publication of this article: This research was Buchtel, E. E., Ng, L. C. Y., Norenzayan, A., Heine,
funded by grant support from KU Leuven (VKH- S. J., Biesanz, J. C., Chen, S. X., Bond, M. H.,
C9278-StG/14/035) and FWO (V402915N and Peng, Q., & Su, Y. (2018). A sense of obligation:
V404216N). Cultural differences in the experience of obliga-
tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
ORCID iD 44(11), 1545–1566. [Link]
Anja Van den Broeck [Link] 0146167218769610
0002-5896-9506 Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and
creative performance: A meta-analytic test of the-
Supplemental material oretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bul-
Supplemental material for this article is available letin, 138(4), 809–830. [Link]
online. a0027652
Carpini, J. A., Parker, S. K., & Griffin, M. A. (2017).
References A look back and a leap forward: A review and
Aguinis, H., Sturman, M. C., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). synthesis of the individual work performance lit-
Comparison of three meta-analytic procedures for erature. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2),
estimating moderating effects of categorical vari- 825–885. [Link]
ables. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 0151
9–34. [Link] Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the
92896 self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation
Allan, B. A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H. M., & and Emotion, 30(2), 105–110.
Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014).
meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives
56(3), 500–528. [Link] jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-
12406 analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4),
Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). 980–1008. [Link]
Identified versus introjected approach and Chemolli, E., & Gagné, M. (2014). Evidence against
introjected avoidance motivations in school the continuum structure underlying motivation
and in sports: The limited benefits of self-worth measures derived from self-determination theory.
strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 575–585.
101(2), 482–497. [Link]
Bailey, C., Yeoman, R., Madden, A., Thompson, M., Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U.
& Kerridge, G. (2019). A review of the empirical (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individu-
literature on meaningful work: Progress and alism and independence: A self-determination
Van den Broeck et al. 29

theory perspective on internalization of cultural Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2013). Intrinsic and
orientations and well-being. Journal of Personal- extrinsic motivation as predictors of work effort:
ity and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110. The moderating role of achievement goals. Brit-
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye ish Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 412–430.
confidence intervals and how to read pictures of [Link]
data. American Psychologist, 60(2), 170–180. Egger, M., Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C.
Daniels, M. A., & Robinson, S. L. (2019). The shame (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a sim-
of it all: A review of shame in organizational life. ple, graphical test. BMJ: British Medical Journal,
Journal of Management, 45(6), 2448–2473. 315(7109), 629–634.
[Link] Fernet, C. (2011). Development and validation of the
De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2011). Arbeid work role motivation scale for school principals
in het nieuwe millenium: Van verplichting tot (WRMS-SP). Educational Administration Quar-
ontplooiing? In K. Abts, K. Dobbelaere, & L. terly, 47(2), 307–331. [Link]
Voyé (Eds.), Nieuwe tijden, nieuwe mensen. Bel- 0013161X10385108
gen over arbeid, gezin, ethiek, religie en politiek Fernet, C., Senecal, C., Guay, F., Marsh, H., & Dow-
(pp. 71–104). Lannoo. ISBN: 9789020996739. son, M. (2008). The work tasks motivation scale
Open Access. for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career Assess-
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated ment, 16(2), 256–279. [Link]
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Per- 1069072707305764
sonality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L.
[Link] M. (2009). When does self-esteem relate to devi-
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A ant behavior? The role of contingencies of self-
meta-analytic review of experiments examining worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5),
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic moti- 1345–1353. [Link]
vation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. Fowler, S. (2014). Why motivating people doesn’t
[Link] work . . . and what does: the new science of lead-
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). ing, energizing, and engaging (Vol. 36, No. 12).
Self-determination theory in work organizations: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
The state of a science. Annual Review of Organi- Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination
zational Psychology and Organizational Beha- theory and work motivation. Journal of Organiza-
vior, 4, 19–43. tional Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. [Link]
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general caus- 10.1002/job.322
ality orientations scale: Self-determination in per- Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of com-
sonality. Journal of Research in Personality, pensation systems through the lens of self-
19(2), 109–134. [Link] determination theory: Reconciling 35 years of
6566(85)90023-6 debate. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Cana-
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and dienne, 49(3), 225–232. [Link]
“why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the a0012757
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M.-H., Aubé, C.,
Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. [Link] Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation
S15327965PLI1104_01 at work scale: Validation evidence in two lan-
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & guages. Educational and Psychological Measure-
Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands- ment, 70(4), 628–646. [Link]
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied 0013164409355698
Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. [Link] Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-
1108/02683940710733115 Braud, L., van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K.,
30 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, prevention decision making. Journal of Con-
S. T., Halvari, H., Indiyastuti, D. L., Johnson, P. A., sumer Psychology, 12(3), 177–191. [Link]
Molstad, M. H., Naudin, M., Ndao, A., Olafsen, A. org/10.1207/153276602760335031
H., Roussel, P., Wang, Z., & Westbye, C. (2015). Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017).
The multidimensional work motivation scale: Testing a continuum structure of self-determined
Validation evidence in seven languages and nine motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bul-
countries. European Journal of Work and Organi- letin, 143(12), 1346–1377. [Link]
zational Psychology, 24(2), 1–19. [Link] 7/bul0000125
10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892 Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S. S., &
Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2015). Pay, intrinsic moti- Forest, J. (2018). Using bifactor exploratory
vation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and structural equation modeling to test for a conti-
creativity in the workplace: Revisiting long-held nuum structure of motivation. Journal of Man-
beliefs. Annual Review of Organizational Psy- agement, 44(7), 2638–2664. [Link]
chology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 1177/0149206316645653
489–521. [Link] Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Van den
sych-032414-111418 Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at work: A
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., self-determination theory approach. Journal of
& Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation Vocational Behavior, 95–96, 74–89. [Link]
of meta-analysis practices in management org/10.1016/[Link].2016.07.004
research. Journal of Management, 35(2), Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Morin, A. J. S (2020).
393–419. [Link] Putting the pieces together: Reviewing the struc-
28501 tural conceptualization of motivation within
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Bene- SDT. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 846–861.
ficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the perfor- [Link]
mance effects of transformational leadership. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of
Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
458–476. [Link] research findings (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M.
Dekas, K. (2011). The performance implications (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of moti-
of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autono- vation: Main effects and discrepancies associated
mous and controlled motivations. Organizational with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
116(2), 241–251. [Link] 23(21), 1789–1805.
obhdp.2011.03.004 Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking
Green-Demers, I., Legault, L., Pelletier, D., & Pelle- the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
tier, L. G. (2008). Factorial invariance of the Aca- intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and
demic Amotivation Inventory (AAI) across Social Psychology, 76(3), 349–366.
gender and grade in a sample of Canadian high Jiang, K., Hu, J., Liu, S., & Lepak, D. P. (2015).
school students. Educational and Psychological Understanding employees’ perceptions of human
Measurement, 68, 862–880. resource practices: Effects of demographic dis-
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation similarity to managers and coworkers. Human
through the design of work: Test of a theory. Resource Management, 56(1), 69–91. https://
Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- [Link]/10.1002/hrm.21771
mance, 16, 250–279. Johnson, D. A., & Dickinson, A. M. (2010).
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates Employee-of-the-month programs: Do they really
distinct values: The case of promotion and work? Journal of Organizational Behavior
Van den Broeck et al. 31

Management, 30(4), 308–324. [Link] Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional

1080/01608061.2010.520144 aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology,
Jungert, T., Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., & 58(1), 317–344. [Link]
Osterman, U. (2018). How colleagues can support psych.58.110405.085658
each other’s needs and motivation: An interven- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The develop-
tion on employee work motivation. Applied Psy- ment of goal setting theory: A half century retro-
chology, 67(1), 3–29. [Link] spective. Motivation Science, 5(2), 93–105.
apps.12110 [Link]
Kanfer, R., & Chen, G. (2016). Motivation in orga- McAuley, L., Pham, B., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D.
nizational behavior: History, advances and pros- (2000). Does the inclusion of grey literature influ-
pects. Organizational Behavior and Human ence estimates of intervention effectiveness
Decision Processes, 136, 6–19. [Link] reported in meta-analyses? Lancet, 356(9237),
10.1016/[Link].2016.06.002 1228–1231. [Link]
Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Moti- 6(00)02786-0
vation related to work: A century of progress McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The
journal of applied psychology. Journal of Applied kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 276–282.
Psychology, 102(3), 338–355. [Link] [Link]
1037/apl0000133 Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C.
Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011). (2004). Employee commitment and motivation:
Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta- A conceptual analysis and integrative model.
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.
68–96. [Link] Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thogersen-Ntoumani, C.,
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., & Williams,
three ways of being highly motivated: A closer G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to
look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on
motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Psychological Science, 7(4), 325–340. [Link]
Handbook of self-determination research. Uni- org/10.1177/1745691612447309
versity of Rochester Press, 101–121. Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Fortier, M. S., Valler-
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & John- and, R. J., Briére, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995).
son, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation,
fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports:
person-organization, person-group, and person- The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of
supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1), 35–53.
281–342. [Link] [Link]
2005.00672.x Pinder, C. (2008). Work motivation in organizational
Kruglanski, A., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, behavior (2nd ed.). Psychology press.
R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A Pink, D. H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about
theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental what motivates us. Riverhead Books.
Social Psychology, 34, 331–378. [Link] Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff,
10.2307/2092805 N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to research: A critical review of the literature and
motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy-
personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, chology, 88(5), 879–903.
P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S.
self-regulation (pp. 111–169). Academic Press. (2000). Toward a dialectical analysis of growth
32 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

and defensive motives. Psychological Inquiry, on psychological needs: A two process model.
11(4), 301–305. Psychological Review, 118(4), 552–569. https://
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and [Link]/10.1037/a0024758
tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, Sheldon, K. M., & Schüler, J. (2011). Wanting, hav-
86(3), 638–641. [Link] ing, and needing: Integrating motive disposition
2909.86.3.638 theory and self-determination theory. Journal of
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5),
(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical 1106–1123. [Link]
integration and review. Research in Organiza- Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D. B., Brown, K. G., Bar-
tional Behavior, 30, 91–127. [Link] rick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Applying self-
1016/[Link].2010.09.001 determination theory to organizational research.
Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Iden- In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris, Research in
tifying when different types of undisclosed post Personnel and Human Resources Management
hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. (Vol. 22, pp. 357–393). Emerald Group Publish-
Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 308–320. ing Limited. [Link]
[Link] 01(03)22008-9
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., & Cho, A. S. H. (2020). A
of causality and internalization: Examining meta-analysis of autonomous and controlled
reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of
forms of teacher motivation. Journal of Voca-
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5),
tional Behavior, 121(October 2019), 103459.
749–761. [Link]
[Link]
2810024
Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination
M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the work-
theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
place: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and
development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Emotion, 42(5), 706–724. [Link]
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living
1007/s11031-018-9698-y
well: A self-determination theory perspective on
Smokrović, E., Žvanut, M. F., Bajan, A., Radić, R.,
eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1),
& Žvanut, B. (2019). The effect of job satisfac-
139–170. [Link]
tion, absenteeism, and personal motivation on job
9023-4
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are quitting: A survey of Croatian nurses. Journal of
who you’re talking to? Interpersonal style and East European Management Studies, 24(3),
complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. 398–422. [Link]
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2019-3-398
84(1), 80–96. [Link] Strauss, K., Parker, S. K., & Shea, D. O. (2017).
[Link] When does proactivity have a cost? Motivation
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of at work moderates the effects of proactive work
meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in behavior on employee job strain. Journal of
research findings. SAGE. Vocational Behavior, 100, 15–26. [Link]
Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2015). Let the evidence org/10.1016/[Link].2017.02.001
speak again! Financial incentives are more effec- Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). RWA
tive than we thought. Human Resource Manage- web: A free, comprehensive, web-based, and
ment Journal, 25(3), 281–293. [Link] user-friendly tool for relative weight analyses.
1111/1748-8583.12080 Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2),
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral- 207–216. [Link]
motive and experiential-requirement perspectives 51-z
Van den Broeck et al. 33

Tóth-Király, I., Morin, A. J. S., B}othe, B., Rigó, A., of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. [Link]
& Orosz, G. (2020). Toward an improved under- 10.1177/0149206316632058
standing of work motivation profiles. Applied Van den Broeck, A., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Van
Psychology, 0(0), 1–32. [Link] Coillie, H. (2013). Unraveling the importance
apps.12256 of the quantity and the quality of workers’
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Emerging motivation for well-being: A person-centered
insights into the nature and function of pride. perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 82(1), 69–78. [Link]
16(3), 147–150. [Link] 11.005
8721.2007.00493.x Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H.,
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pel- Vansteenkiste, M., Germeys, F., & Schaufeli,
letier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work W. (2011). Understanding workaholics’ motiva-
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value tions: A self-determination perspective. Applied
for organizational psychology research. Cana- Psychology: An International Review, 60(4),
dian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 600–621. [Link]
213–226. [Link] 2011.00449.x
Van Aert, R., Wicherts, J., Van Assen, M., & Van Iddekinge, C. H., Aguinis, H., Mackey, J. D., &
Deortentiis, P. S. (2014). A meta-analysis of
Macleod, M. (2019). Publication bias examined
the relative and interactive effects of ability
in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine:
and motivation on performance. Journal of
A meta-meta-analysis. Plos One, 14(4), 0215052.
Management, 44(1), 249–279. [Link]
van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., &
Anthony/Zotero/storage/8BTHMBGT/01492063
Schreurs, B. H. J. (2012). For fun, love, or money:
[Link]
What drives workaholic, engaged, and burned-out
Vanthournout, G., Kyndt, E., Gijbels, D., & Van den
employees at work? Applied Psychology: An Inter-
Bossche, P. (2015). Understanding the direct and
national Review, 61(1), 30–55. [Link]
indirect relations between motivation to partici-
1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00454.x
pate, goal orientation and the use of self-
van Beek, I., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2011).
regulation strategies during a formal training.
Workaholic and work engaged employees: Dead
Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(S1),
ringers or worlds apart? Journal of Occupational 89–106. [Link]
Health Psychology, 16(4), 468–482. [Link] 0601-7
org/10.1037/a0024392 Yu, S., Levesque-Bristol, C., & , & Maeda, Y.
Van De Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, (2018). General need for autonomy and subjec-
M. (2012). Employee well-being and the HRM- tive well-being: A meta-analysis of studies in the
organizational performance relationship: A review US and East Asia. Journal of Happiness Studies,
of quantitative studies. International Journal of 19(6), 1863–1882. [Link]
Management Reviews, 14(4), 391–407. https:// s10902-017-9898-2
[Link]/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00322.x
Van den Broeck, A., Carpini, J., & Diefendorff, J.
(2019). Work motivation: Where do the dif- Author biographies
ferent perspectives lead us. In R. Ryan (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of human motivation. Anja Van den Broeck is an associate professor
John Wiley & Sons. of work and organization studies at KU Leuven,
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Belgium. Her research goal is to examine how,
Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination and under which circumstances individuals
theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal may thrive at work. In her research, she
34 Organizational Psychology Review XX(X)

unravels the interplay between job design, Hannes Leroy is an Associate Professor at Rot-
well-being and motivation. terdam School of Management, Erasmus Uni-
versity. His research interests include the study
Joshua L. Howard is an assistant professor at of authenticity and its value to organizations,
the Monash Business School, Department of especially its leadership implications. He holds
Management, Monash University. His main a PhD from the University of Leuven in
research goal centers around understanding Belgium.
work motivation and he wants to innovate this
field through conducting meta-analyses and
using advanced psychometrics. Marylène Gagné (PhD University of Roche-
ster) is Professor of Organizational Behavior
Yves Van Vaerenbergh is an associate profes- at the Future of Work Institute, Curtin Univer-
sor of marketing at the department of market- sity in Perth Australia. Her research examines
ing, KU Leuven in Belgium. His research how job design, management, and compensa-
interests include mainly service issues, such tion affect people’s motivational orientations
as service failures, service recovery, service toward their work. She also examines the con-
innovations, and meta-analysis. He published sequences of these orientations for individual
in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- and organizational performance and for indi-
ence, Journal of Service Research, among vidual mental health.
others.