In response to this ongoing discussion about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, let me add that studying motivation as a unidimensional construct, as has been mostly done in organizational behavior, is a very limited way to study motivation. What the debate and research on intrinsic/extrinsic motivation has brought is an enlarged view of the construct. Debates are good, as they make people think a bit more seriously about the ideas. It sparks great studies of the construct and associated phenomena, such as performance and well-being.
That being said, I would like to clarify some things that are being said about intrinsic motivation. The way Ed Deci has defined intrinsic motivation since the early 70's is actually very simple: It's about doing something for its own sake (interest and enjoyment), as opposed to doing it for instrumental reasons (which can include doing it for a reward, but also doing it because you want to learn something, build your career, get a promotion, or save the world). The best example of intrinsic motivation is a child playing. If you ask a child why she plays, she won't tell you "to build my cognitive capacity", she will say "because it's fun!". But think about giving blood. How many people would say it's fun? Not many, unless you enjoy physical pain. People do it to help others. This is not intrinsic motivation. It's instrumental to something: helping others. It's extrinsic motivation. By having clear definitions of constructs, there is no confound. So I don't think there is a muddle in the definitions of intrinsic motivation and achievement motivation. Achievement motivation can encompass both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It can be done for fun, or for instrumental reasons (e.g., reaching a meaningful or important goal). I think that current research on goal orientations gives a good framework to study achievement motivation.
Self-determination theory, on the other hand, defines motivation more broadly than just goal or achievement based. It studies motivation at the domain level (e.g., work motivation, school motivation, sport motivation, motivation to be in a friendship, a relationship, a diet, a therapy...) and at the state level (right now, my motive for doing X activity is...). The many publications coming out of research using self-determination theory (which was developed out of Ed Deci's research, and now counts over 500 empirical studies in all kinds of journals including the top ones, and in many field, such as education, social and sport psych to name a few) will help interested readers really get a good grasp of how different kinds of motivations differ in their definitions and operationalizations. A good source to get the basics is the following website:
In the work context, one can get a good review of what has been done using SDT in the Gagné & Deci (2005) paper published in JOurnal of Organizational Behavior. Sorry for the self-advertizement, but I can't help it at this point in the discussion.
I agree with Ed Locke's point that lab studies do not NECESSARILY translate into the work domain, simply because the work domain is much more complex. It doesn't mean that it WOULDN'T. We just don't know because NO ONE has tested it. It is very likely to be moderated by many organizational factors. We make a good case of this about compensation research in the following paper:
Gagné, M., & Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation systems through the lens of self-determination theory: Reconciling 35 years of debate. Canadian Psychology, 49, 225-232.
In it, we argue indeed that there is a big gap in research on the effects of compensation systems on motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic).
REgarding the effects of control on motivation, the SDT literature is very convincing that it indeed does. What it says is that rewards can do two things: It can increase feelings of competence because it gives you information about your mastery of things, and/or it can undermine feelings of autonomy because it is FELT as controlling your behavior. NO doubt that money is inanimate but those who decide how they are administered at not... So rewards in themselves do nothing to motivation, it's what they represent that does, and that's most often conferred through relationships...
SDT says that three psychological needs are important, and the evidence is quite strong that they are. Autonomy is one of them and the evidence in management research (on job design, autonomous work groups, Karasek's job control theory, etc...) provides good evidence that it is important for workers to feel autonomous. Competence is also important. It's at the basis of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Relatedness is also important, as seen in research on social support, good leadership, etc... as well as research in social psychology by Baumeister on belongingness and social rejection.
To sum up, I strongly believe that self-determination theory can be used as an effective framework to study many organizational constructs and phenomena. It is an underused paradigm in our field.
Marylene Gagne
Associate PRofessor
Management Department
John Molson School of Business
Concordia University
MOntreal, Canada