humanistic management and self-determination theory

« HUMANISTIC MANAGEMENT
AND SELF-DETERMINATION
THEORY : THE IMPACT OF THE
‘PERCEPTION OF WORK
SUPERVISION’ ON EMPLOYEES’
‘SELF-REGULATED MOTIVATION’:
AN EMPIRICAL FRENCH STUDY »
Stéphanie ARNAUD
Professeur Associée
ICN Business School - Chercheur Associée CERGAM - IAE d'Aix-en-Provence
Université Nancy 2
CEREFIGE
Cahier de Recherche n°2011-07
CEREFIGE
Université Nancy 2
13 rue Maréchal Ney
54000 Nancy
France
Téléphone : 03 54 50 35 80
Fax : 03 54 50 35 81
[email protected]
www.univ-nancy2.fr/CEREFIGE
n° ISSN 1960-2782
-1-
« HUMANISTIC MANAGEMENT AND SELF-DETERMINATION
THEORY : THE IMPACT OF THE ‘PERCEPTION OF WORK
SUPERVISION’ ON EMPLOYEES’ ‘SELF-REGULATED
MOTIVATION’: AN EMPIRICAL FRENCH STUDY »1
Abstract: We study the main principles of “humanist philosophy”, in order to interpret them
in terms of human resources management (HRM) practices. We show the similarities between
a “humanist HRM” and the recommendations of the self-determination theory (Deci and
Ryan, 2000). Then, we describe a French empirical study (568 questionnaires). Our
‘perception of the work supervision scale’ is very satisfactory. Our ‘self-regulated motivation
scale’ is bi-dimensional. The structural equations model is satisfactory (X²/dl: 2.91; RMSEA:
0.08; GFI: 0.907). Results show the crowding-out / crowding-in effect of self-regulated
motivation by a type of management perceived as controlling / informative and autonomy
supportive. So there is a crowding-in effect of employees’ self-regulated motivation by a
humanist HRM.
Key words: Humanist philosophy / Human Resource Management / self-regulated
motivation, self-determination, structural equations model.
Titre : « Management Humaniste et Théorie de l’Autodétermination : L’impact de la
‘perception du management’ sur la ‘motivation autorégulée’ des employés : une étude
empirique française »
Résumé : Nous étudions les principes de la philosophie humaniste, afin de les traduire en
pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines (GRH). Nous mettons en évidence les
similarités entre une GRH humaniste et les recommandations de la théorie de
l’autodétermination (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Puis, nous décrivons une étude empirique réalisée
en France (568 questionnaires). L’échelle « perception du management » est très satisfaisante.
L’échelle « motivation autorégulée » est bidimensionnelle. Le modèle d’équations
structurelles est satisfaisant (X²/dl: 2.91; RMSEA: 0.08; GFI: 0.907). Les résultats témoignent
d’un effet d’éviction / renforcement de la motivation autorégulée par un mode de management
perçu comme source de contrôle / informatif et support de l’autonomie. Il existe donc un effet
de renforcement de la motivation autorégulée par une GRH humaniste.
Mots clés : Philosophie humaniste / Gestion des Ressources Humaines / Motivation
Autorégulée / Autodétermination / Modèle d’équations structurelles.
1
Ce papier a fait l’objet d’une présentation lors de la “4th International Conference on Self-Determination
Theory, in Ghent, Belgium, May 13 – 16, 2010”. Nous remercions à cette occasion les organisateurs et les
participants, pour leurs remarques enrichissantes.
-2-
Introduction
The aim of this article is to demonstrate that humanist management can enhance selfregulated motivation at work. First, we briefly study the main principles of “humanist
philosophy” (section 1), which we then interpret in terms of HRM practices in order to
explain what it means to follow a “humanist HRM” (section 2). Then, we show its similarities
with the recommendations of the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) in terms of
an autonomy supportive work environment (section 3). Numerous experiments and field
investigations show the links between this type of work environment and a crowding-in effect
of self-regulated motivation at work, by the mediation of the feeling of self-determination.
However, our aim is not to write a state of the art review on this theme, which is why we only
quote the main theoretical and empirical studies about the self-determination theory. Last but
not least, we describe an empirical study conducted in France, with 568 questionnaires
distributed to French workers (section 4). We draw up two scales in French: the ‘perception of
the work supervision scale’ and the ‘self-regulated motivation scale’ in order to construct a
structural equations model and test for our hypotheses. We describe and comment on the
results and the limits of our empirical study.
1. From the Humanist Philosophy to the HRM.
1. 1. The main principles of humanistic thinking.
During the Renaissance, humanistic thinking began to develop with Petrarque,
Erasmus, Rabelais, Pic de la Mirandole, etc. According to these authors, “we are not born
Human, we become Human” (Erasmus), thanks to education, the acquisition of knowledge,
the development of our capacity to use rightly our liberty and to distinguish Good from Evil.
This notion of liberty, which characterizes human beings, is highlighted by Pic de la
Mirandole in his “Discourse on the dignity of man” (1993). In this text, the author imagines
what God would say about the Human Being: “All other creatures have a defined nature
contained by laws laid down by us. You alone, free of all hindrance, following your own free
decision that I have given you, you will decide on your own nature. I have placed you at the
centre of the universe, in order that you may look that much more easily all around you at all
that is the world. I made you neither heavenly nor earthly, neither mortal nor immortal;
following your own will and for your own merit, as modeller and sculptor of your own self,
create yourself in your own chosen form.”2 The creation of oneself by oneself is central in the
humanistic conception of human being. We can decide to use our liberty and capacity of
reflexion in order to develop some aspects of our personality and to become the author of our
life. In other words, according to the humanists, human beings can develop their own selfdetermination.
After the Renaissance, the Enlightenment goes into detail on the humanist thinking.
Kant focuses on the concept of “moral autonomy” and his “categorical requirement”:
“Always treat others as an end and never just as a means”. In a French dictionary, (the
“ Treasure of the French Language”, 1840), we find that humanism is “a philosophical
2
« Toutes les autres créatures ont une nature définie contenue entre les lois par nous prescrites ; toi seul, sauf de
toute entrave, suivant ton libre arbitre auquel je t’ai remis, tu te fixeras ta nature. Je t’ai placé au centre de
l’univers, afin que tu regardes avec d’autant plus d’aisance à l’entour de toi tout ce qui est au monde. Je ne t’ai
fait ni céleste ni terrestre, ni mortel, ni immortel ; d’après ton vouloir et pour ton propre honneur, modeleur et
sculpteur de toi-même, imprime-toi la forme que tu préfères. »in « Discours sur la dignité de l’homme », Pic de
la Mirandole, (1993).
-3-
attitude which holds the human being in the highest esteem and which claims for each human
being the possibility to develop his own humanity and his human faculties, to make them
flourish”3. Following the humanists, by “human faculties” we are given to understand moral
autonomy, exercising one’s liberty and the capacity to create oneself by oneself. With the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment, humanist principles are: autonomy, liberty, dignity,
equality between men and the right to develop our human potentialities (our talents).
During the twentieth century, Mounier (1949) and Leroux (1999) develop the
philosophy of “personalism”. According to Mounier (1949, p.4), “personalism is a philosophy
(…). Its central statement being the existence of free and creative persons, it introduces
into the very heart of these structures a principle of unpredictability which disperses any
desire for definitive systematization”4. Personalist philosophy states that, unlike other
animals, the human being has a sphere of liberty, an ability to be self-determined, and the will
to give a meaning to his life (Leroux, 1999, p.18). “It was expected that personalism would
begin by defining the person. But only the objects (…) that can be placed within sight are
defined. But the person is not an object. [The person] is an activity born of self creation,
communication and adhesion, who takes hold of himself and recognizes himself in his act, as
a personalization movement”5 (Mounier, 1949, p.5 - 6). In this quotation, we can recognize
the principle of self-determination, of “creation of oneself by oneself”, highlighted five
centuries before, by Pic de la Mirandole (“as modeller and sculptor of your own self, create
yourself in your own chosen form.”).
In fact, personalism adds an important principle to the humanist ontology of the
human being: “the need to be recognized by others”; in other words, the need to be socially
integrated. We could use the self-determination theory terminology and speak about “the
fundamental need of relatedness”. Leroux (1999) makes a distinction between the
“personality” and the “person”. The “personality” contains all our potential and latent talents.
If we decide to develop and to materialize our talents and express our personality, we will
need to meet other people in order to obtain their recognition about who we are. We can
really become a “person” and have a complete feeling of existence when we receive the
recognition from other persons about who we are and what we create and achieve. “The
person also appears to us as a presence directed towards the world (…) Other persons do not
limit this presence, they bring it into being and make it grow. It only exists towards others, it
only recognizes itself through others, it only finds itself in others. The primitive experience of
the person is the experience of the second person. The you, and in him, the us, precedes the I,
or at least accompanies it”6 (Mounier, 1949, p33). “When called on, our judgment calls for the
participation of a third person, called on to give his own evaluation of our act and what it
3
« attitude philosophique qui tient l’homme pour la valeur suprême et revendique pour chaque homme la
possibilité d’épanouir librement son humanité, ses facultés proprement humaines » in « Trésor de la langue
française » (1840).
4
« Le personnalisme est une philosophie (…) Son affirmation centrale étant l’existence de personnes libres et
créatrices, il introduit au cœur de ces structures un principe d’imprévisibilité qui disloque toute volonté de
systématisation définitive » Mounier (1949, p.4).
5
« On s’attendait à ce que le personnalisme commençât par définir la personne. Mais on ne définit que des objets
(…) que l’on peut placer sous le regard. Or la personne n’est pas un objet. [La personne] est une activité vécue
d’autocréation, de communication et d’adhésion, qui se saisit et se connaît dans son acte, comme mouvement de
personnalisation » (Mounier, 1949, p.5 - 6).
6
« La personne nous apparaît aussi comme une présence dirigée vers le monde (…) Les autres personnes ne la
limitent pas, elles la font être et croître. Elle n’existe que vers autrui, elle ne se connaît que par autrui, elle ne se
trouve qu’en autrui. L’expérience primitive de la personne est l’expérience de la seconde personne. Le tu, et en
lui le nous, précède le je, ou au moins l’accompagne » (Mounier, 1949, p33).
-4-
reveals”7 (Leroux, 1999, p.73.). At any meeting, the person will try to obtain recognition from
others, in order to have the feeling of existing in the eyes of others: “I am being seen,
therefore I exist”8 (Todorov, 1995, p.38). We don’t exist without others. “We believe that it is
the essence of Man to create materially and morally, to make things and to make himself”9
(Bergson, 1993). We don’t come into being as a human, we become human in developing our
talents and potentials, the best of our personality, our moral autonomy, our self-determination.
We become a “person” by inviting the benevolent regard of another in order to hold the
attention required to obtain recognition of who we are and what we are creating. We become a
“person” through the regard of others, which allows us to “exist” and to be “recognized”.
To summarize, to become a person and develop our humanity, we must be involved in
a process of “creation of oneself by oneself”. But, in order to develop this self-determination,
the environment must satisfy some conditions and be supportive. Given what we have written
before, we can conclude that each human being should:
- have a large sphere of autonomy to use his liberty,
- encounter stimulating challenges to develop his talents and potentials,
- surround himself with other people he can trust, in order to have a feeling of recognition and
acceptance, to have a feeling of being considered as an end and not only as a means.
1. 2. Tools and practices for a humanist management.
To be qualified as “humanist”, the work organization and mode of management will have to:
- be supportive of the person’s liberty and the development of his moral autonomy,
- facilitate the development of his talents and potential, with stimulating challenges,
- make social relations based on trust, mutual respect and mutual recognition and encounters
with trustworthy people possible and easy,
- consider each person as an end and not just as a means, as an individual.
a/ Participative and delegative management could satisfy the need for autonomy: the
employee should have the possibility to take decisions and initiatives in his job, to participate
in developing the objectives and choose his means and ways of working.
b/ A variety of tools and practices could allow the employees’ need to develop their talents
and abilities at work and to be satisfied: job enlargement, job enrichment and empowerment,
continuing education and vocational training, a grant of responsibility, the quality and the
regularity of a feedback from supervisors. Tasks should represent a level of challenge
corresponding to the level of the employee’s abilities: “the right people at the right place”.
Challenges that are too easy don’t stimulate and develop abilities. Inversely, challenges that
are too difficult don’t permit the employee to be successful in his task.
c/ When supervisors give recognition and are constantly attentive, their subordinates can trust
them and develop feelings of being understood and supported. Work relationships must be
based on trust and mutual respect. A regular dialog between supervisors and their
subordinates, an appraisal performance system and a compensation system perceived as fair,
encouragements and congratulations, etc., can allow the need for recognition and mutual
respect to be satisfied (Peretti, 2004, 2005).
7
« Mis en appel, notre jugement réclame le concours d’un tiers, appelé à porter sa propre évaluation sur notre
acte et ce qu’il révèle » (Leroux, 1999, p.73.)
8
« On me regarde, donc je existe » (Todorov, 1995, p.38).
9
« Nous croyons qu’il est de l’essence de l’homme de créer matériellement et moralement, de fabriquer des
choses et de se fabriquer lui-même » (Bergson, 1993).
-5-
d/ A humanist management should respect the result of the self-determination logic.
Discrimination at the recruitment stage and during the work contract must be forbidden.
Employees’ right to privacy must be preserved (Arnaud, 2006, 2007). Each employee must be
respected in his singularity and subjectivity. A personalized HRM could realize this objective.
Each practice and tool of management must be designed using as its starting point the
singularity and the subjectivity of the employee. For example, the level of autonomy granted
to an employee must be adapted to his capacity and desire to be self governing and
autonomous. The “General Causality Orientation Scale” (GCOS)10 can be employed to
estimate the autonomy orientation. This is a 12 item-scale. “This is an individual difference
measure of people's relatively enduring motivational orientations and was developed for use
with individuals who are at least 17 years of age. It assesses autonomous, controlled, and
impersonal causality (motivational) orientations”.11 “Autonomously regulated people feel
agentic in their own behaviour, whereas controllingly regulated people feel like pawns to
external forces. The General Causality Orientations Scale assesses three different causality
orientations to action: (1) an autonomous orientation representing a tendency towards
volitional engagement in action (internal locus of causality); (2) a controlled orientation
representing a tendency to orient toward and to be regulated by controls and contingencies
(external locus of causality); and (3) an impersonal orientation representing a tendency not to
engage in action, akin to helplessness (impersonal locus of causality)” (M. Gagné, 2003).
Managers could use this scale to adjust their type of management according to their
subordinate’s orientation type. A “situational management or leadership”12 (Hersey &
Blanchard, 1972; Tissier, 1988) and the concept of “GRH à la carte”13 (Colle, 2006) are also
solutions to personalize HRM.
We find strong similarities between the humanist principles and the fundamental needs
of human beings studied by the self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000). So,
obviously, when we develop what could be a humanist mode of management, we find the
same recommendations as those done by the “self-determination theory” about what is called
an “autonomy supportive work environment”. We are going to develop these similarities in
the next section. We will also reply to the question of the effectiveness of this type of
management.
2. The self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 2000).
2. 1. The SDT’s principles.
According to the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000), all human beings want to be selfdetermined and need to satisfy three innate fundamental psychological requirements for this:
the need for competence, autonomy and relatedness. “Autonomy refers to volition – the desire
to self-organize experience and behaviour and to have activity be concordant with one’s
10
This scale can be found on: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html
Quotation extracted from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html
12
“Le management situationnel désigne un ensemble d’outils efficaces et actuels pour adapter le mode de
management aux situations en utilisant l’autonomie des individus et des groupes comme indicateurs de base. La
diversité des individus exige que les managers disposent d’une gamme très variée de comportements. (…) aucun
style ou tempérament n’est a priori recommandable (…) l’efficacité consiste à adopter, à un instant donné, le ou
les styles que commande la situation” (Tissier, 1988, p.23).
13
This concept can be defined as “un mode de gestion personnalisé selon lequel l’organisation se rapproche du
projet et des besoins personnels de chaque salarié en lui offrant divers espaces de choix dans son emploi” (Colle,
2006, p. 11).
11
-6-
integrated sense of self (…) Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others – to
love and care, and to be loved and cared for” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p.231). Self-determination
deals with the degree to which a person “feels a sense of choice in her life” and the degree to
which she “feels like herself”14. Consequently, we can see that this theory shares with the
humanist philosophy the same ontology.
The satisfaction of the three fundamental needs enhances the feeling of selfdetermination which in turn permits self-regulated motivation: The self-motivated person acts
volitionally and not through external forces. She has an internal locus of causality (De Charm,
1968). “Intrinsically motivated activities were defined as those that individuals find
interesting and would do in the absence of operationally separable consequences” (Deci &
Ryan, 2000, p.233). Inversely, extrinsic motivated activities are defined as those that
individuals would do only for their consequences. They feel obligated or controlled by
external contingencies (Gagné, 2003). Between these two extremes, there is a continuum in
terms of different levels of regulation: introjection, identification, integration. “When the
process of internalization is differentially successful, such that external regulations are
internalized through the processes of introjection, identification, or integration, the result will
be different types of extrinsic motivation that vary in the extent to which they are controlled
versus autonomous. External regulation, which is evident when no internalization has
occurred, represents the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, for people’s behaviour
is regulated by others’ administration of contingencies. Introjected regulation, which involves
internal prods and pressures and is characterized by inner conflict between the demand of the
introject and the person’s lack of desire to carry it out, is still relatively controlled even
though the regulation is within the person. In contrast, by identifying with the value of the
activity, internalization will be fuller, people will experience greater ownership of the
behaviour and feel less conflict about behaving in accord with the regulation, and the
behaviour will be more autonomous. Finally, with integration, the most complete and
effective internalization, the person’s extrinsically motivated actions will be fully volitional”
(Deci & Ryan, 2000, p.236). Identified, integrated and intrinsic motivations are self-regulated
and generate volitional engagement in action, with an internal locus of causality (Gagné,
2003, p.203; De Charm, 1968).
If the three fundamental basic needs are unfulfilled, self-regulated motivation can be
undermined. “Social contexts and individual differences that support satisfaction of the basic
needs facilitate natural growth processes including intrinsically motivated behaviour and
integration of extrinsic motivations, whereas those that forestall autonomy, competence, or
relatedness are associated with poorer motivation, performance, and well-being” (Deci &
Ryan, 2000, p.227). Social context or persons such as managers who facilitate and support
satisfaction of the three basic needs are called “autonomy supportive”: “Contexts that are
described as autonomy supportive are characterized as giving people choice and
encouragement for personal initiative and also support people’s competence in a climate of
relatedness (Deci et al., 2001), are predicted to promote autonomous motivation (e.g., intrinsic
motivation) as opposed to controlled motivation (e.g., extrinsic motivation) (…). An
autonomy supportive person (or a work environment) would typically provide a good
rationale for asking someone to engage in an activity, give some choice to the person,
acknowledge the person’s feelings toward the activity, and encourage the person to take
initiative and convey confidence in the person’s abilities” (Gagné, 2003, p.203-204).
14
Words inspired by http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html
-7-
2. 2. Empirical studies.
Numerous experiments and field investigations conducted in USA, Bulgaria, Canada,
Japan, Russia and Australia show that self-regulated motivation enhances creativity, learning,
flexibility, well-being, task involvement and performance at work (Vallerand & Bissonnette,
1992; Hayamizu, 1997; Yamauchi & Tanaka, 1998; Miserandino, 1996; Benware & Deci,
1984; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman & Ryan, 1981; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Valas & Sovik,
1993). The many works of Amabile and her team (Amabile, 1988, 1993 ; Amabile &
Gryskiewicz, 1989 ; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996) reveal the fundamental
importance of the employees’ intrinsic motivation to guarantee creativity and innovation at
work (qualities essential for R&D, for example).
Moreover, several experiments and field investigations demonstrate that an autonomy
supportive work environment which facilitates the satisfaction of the three fundamental needs
permits the feeling of being self-determined, higher levels of self-regulated motivation,
performance, involvement, trust in one’s supervisor, loyalty towards the firm, etc. (Baard &
al., 2004 ; Deci & al., 2001 ; Pajak & Glickman, 1989 ; Blais & Brière, 1992). “Autonomy
support has been shown to lead to greater engagement in an initially uninteresting activity and
increased positive feelings toward the activity (Deci & al. 1994)” (Gagné, 2003, p.204). In
comparison with a situation without any feedback, a positive and constructive feedback
between supervisors and employees raises their intrinsic motivation by the mediation of the
satisfaction of their need for competence (Deci, 1971; Deci & Cascio, 1972; Boggiano &
Ruble, 1979). These experiences show that this feeling of self-determination is effectively
associated with greater levels of self-regulated motivation.
Inversely, some empirical studies show that monitoring, threats of punishment and
strict and rigid procedures decrease the feeling of being self-determined and consequently
self-regulated motivation (Deci & Cascio, 1972 ; Lepper & Greene, 1975 ; Harackiewicz,
Manderlink & Sansone, 1984 ; Reeve & Deci, 1996 ; Amabile, DeJong & Lepper, 1976 ;
Fisher, 1978 ; Zuckerman & al., 1978; Sherman et Smith, 1984).
We find strong similarities between what SDT calls “an autonomy supportive work
environment” and what we call a “humanist mode of management”. Needs of autonomy,
competence, relatedness, recognition, dignity, are essential to the development of the human
faculties of each human being. SDT talks about a postulate of self-determination; humanists
define human faculties by the creation of oneself by oneself. We share the same ontology and
we recommend the same type of work environment. Based on the several empirical studies
briefly exposed, we can suppose that a humanist management would permit to stimulate the
feeling of self-determination and, as a consequence, self-regulated motivation. Therefore, a
humanist management should allow the stimulation of creativity, innovation, learning
capacity, flexibility, work involvement, loyalty, performance, etc. We will now put these
hypotheses to the test in France.
3. A French empirical study.
We carried out an empirical study in 2006, with a self-administered questionnaire
completed by employees having one or several supervisors. We built scales and a structural
equations model to test our principal hypothesis which postulates a link between a humanistic
management and the improvement of self regulated motivation at work.
-8-
3. 1. Methodology & psychometric analysis of scales.
Employees were recruited mainly by mail to participate in a questionnaire study about
their work experience. We obtained a convenience sample constituted by 582 employees,
using the “snowball” distribution method. This method doesn’t guarantee a strictly
representative sample of the whole French active population but it is quite diversified on
numerous demographic variables. (See the detailed sample composition on demographic
characteristics – age, gender, education level, income level, etc. – in annex n°1). 14
questionnaires were not used because they were not properly completed. We also decided to
delete questionnaires with more than 14% of missing values. We finally obtained 554
respondents. We verified the random characteristics of missing values and replaced it by the
“hot deck” method (Goldberg & Velicer, 2006). Exploratory factor analysis was conducted
with 254 respondents; we kept 300 questionnaires for the confirmatory factor analysis
(Roussel & al., 2002).
It is very difficult to express items from scales built in others countries with other
languages and cultures (Bartikowski, Chandon & Gierl, 2006). So we decided to create new
items in French to draw up the ‘perception of the work supervision’ scale and the ‘selfregulated motivation’ scale, using statements on a 6-points Likert scale. However, we used
the “Intrinsic Motivation Inventory” (IMI) and the Work Climate Questionnaires (WCQ) to
elaborate our items15. “The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) is a multidimensional
measurement device intended to assess participants’ subjective experience related to a target
activity in laboratory experiments. It has been used in several experiments related to intrinsic
motivation and self-regulation (Deci & al., 1994). The interest/enjoyment subscale is
considered the self-report measure of intrinsic motivation; thus, although the overall
questionnaire is called the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, it is only the one subscale that
assesses intrinsic motivation, per se. The value/usefulness subscale is used in internalization
studies (Deci et al, 1994), the idea being that people internalize and become self-regulating
with respect to activities that they experience as useful or valuable for themselves (…) The
Work Climate Questionnaire belongs to “a family of questionnaires that assesses the
perceptions of individuals about the degree to which a particular social context is autonomy
supportive versus controlling. (…) One of the central tenets of SDT is that the quality of
social contexts influences the motivation, performance, and well-being of individuals who
operate within them. The theory uses the concept of autonomy support versus control to
characterize the quality of social environments, hypothesizing that autonomy-supportive
social contexts tend to facilitate self-determined motivation, healthy development, and
optimal functioning.”16
We followed the Gerbing & Anderson paradigm (1988) to calculate the stability,
validity and reliability of the scales. The exploratory factor analysis made it possible to purify
scales deleting bad items. Then, we realized a confirmatory factor analysis for each scale, and
evaluated their convergent validity and their internal consistency.
The feeling of being monitored.
We created a variable named “the feeling of being monitored”, noted from 0 to 5. To evaluate
the importance and the extent of the “traditional and informatics monitoring system” of their
job, we proposed to the respondents a list of twelve monitoring methods. Then, we created a
new variable named “monitoring system importance” with the sum of all monitoring methods
15
16
See http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html
Quotation extracted from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/index.html
-9-
present at work, moderated by their extent and gravity, based on two levels of gravity and
extent we evaluated. The twelve monitoring methods proposed were:
1. Physical presence or passage of a supervisor near your work station.
2. Monitoring your work station by video camera.
3. Time clock for your work hours.
4. Fingerprint, facial or eye biometrics time clock (for your work hours and your movements
around the company premises).
5. Account of the Internet connections globally throughout the company.
6. Account of the Internet connections at your work station.
7. Monitoring your computer work (keyboard keys, files and records)
8. Reading and/or recording the contents of your emails.
9. Account of the amount of time that your phone is used.
10. Account of the telephone numbers that you dial (detailed invoice).
11. Listening to and/or recording the content of your phone calls
12. Locating your professional trips using GPS in your work vehicle or a smart card in your
mobile phone.
The French version is :
1. Présence physique ou passage d’un supérieur hiérarchique à proximité de votre poste de
travail.
2. Surveillance par vidéo caméra, à votre poste de travail.
3. Pointeuse pour vos horaires de travail.
4. Pointeuse par relevé des empreintes digitales ou par reconnaissance faciale ou oculaire
(pour vos horaires de travail ou pour vos déplacements dans l’entreprise).
5. Relevé des connexions Internet au niveau global dans l’entreprise.
6. Relevé des connexions Internet à votre poste de travail.
7. Surveillance de votre activité informatique (touches du clavier, fichiers, dossiers).
8. Lecture et/ou enregistrement du contenu de vos mails.
9. Relevé des temps d’utilisation de votre téléphone.
10. Enregistrement des numéros de téléphone que vous composez (facture détaillée).
11. Ecoute et/ou enregistrement du contenu de vos communications téléphoniques.
12. Localisation de vos déplacements professionnels avec GPS sur votre véhicule de fonction
ou carte à puce sur votre téléphone portable.
The ‘perception of the work supervision’ scale.
We elaborated 6 items to capture and evaluate each aspect of a humanist management or an
autonomy supportive work environment. The employee answers according to his perception
about his supervisors and about their mode of supervision. Items proposed in French are
strongly derived from the WCQ17.
1. My supervisors recognize the true quality of my work.
2. In general, I can really trust my supervisors.
3. My direct supervisor gives me autonomy.
4. Overall, I feel that my supervisor understands me.
5. My supervisor regularly helps me to evaluate my skills.
6. My relations are not good with my supervisors.
17
“My manager conveyed confidence in my ability to do well at my job”; “I feel a lot of trust in my manager”;
“I feel that my manager provides me choices and options”; “I feel understood by my manager”; “My manager
made sure I really understood the goals of my job and what I need to do”
(http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/auton_work.html).
- 10 -
The French version of this scale is:
1. Mes supérieurs reconnaissent à sa juste valeur la qualité de mon travail.
2. De façon générale, j’ai vraiment confiance dans mes supérieurs hiérarchiques.
3. Mon supérieur hiérarchique direct m’accorde de l’autonomie.
4. Globalement, je me sens vraiment compris(e) par mon supérieur.
5. Mon supérieur m’aide régulièrement à évaluer mes compétences.
6. Mes relations avec mes supérieurs hiérarchiques sont difficiles.
Respondents reported their answers on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree).
Item n°6 was reversed. The exploratory (principal component) factor analysis gives one
dimension, with a Cronbach alpha equal to 0.841. The confirmatory factor analysis gives a
Jöreskog rhô equal to 0.873. So we can conclude there is a high level of internal consistency.
Standardized regression coefficients are all significant (p<0.000) and ranged from 0.52 to
0.89. Following Fornell & Larcker, (1981), we calculated the convergent validity which is
correct (rhô vc = 0.54). This scale is really satisfactory (X²/dl = 2.223, RMSEA = 0.064, GFI
= 0.978, AGFI = 0.949). So, items were averaged to form a single index of the “perception of
supervision”.
Figure 1. The ‘perception of the work supervision’ scale.
X² = 20,008 dl = 9 X²/dl = 2,223
RMSEA = ,064 GFI = ,978 AGFI = ,949
,80
e1
Compris
,31
,89
e2
Relation difficile
,56
,50
,70
Perception
Encadrement
e3
Autonomie
,66
,81
Confiance envers supérieur
,62
e4
,38
,77
Information compétence
e5
,59
Reconnaissance
e6
The ‘self-regulated motivation’ scale
Employees have to indicate on a scale from 1 to 6 the extent to which they feel satisfaction,
pleasure, interest, enjoyment, importance of their work, attachment to their enterprise. As it
has been said before, we used items adapted from the Work Preference Inventory (WPI) and
the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Amabile & al., 1994, p.956), including items such
as: “I enjoy doing this activity very much”, “I would describe this activity as very
interesting”, “I think this is an important activity”. Our initial version of the “self-regulated
motivation scale” contained 11 items:
- 11 -
1. How important is it for you to have the feeling of a job well done?
2. How important is it for you to grow and flourish at your work?
3. How important is it for you to keep your promises and commitments towards your
supervisors?
4. How important is it for you to keep your promises and commitments towards your
work colleagues?
5. Overall, my work is really interesting.
6. I have a lot of pleasure from doing my work.
7. I do much more than I am asked to in my work.
8. The work that I do is very important and useful.
9. I’m really pleased for my company when its performance improves.
10. I’m very attached to my company.
11. Having to take initiatives challenges me.
The French version of this scale is:
1. Quelle est l’importance pour vous d’avoir le sentiment du travail bien fait ?
2. Quelle est l’importance pour vous de vous épanouir dans votre travail ?
3. Quelle est l’importance pour vous de tenir vos engagements envers vos supérieurs
hiérarchiques ?
4. Quelle est l’importance pour vous de tenir vos engagements envers vos collègues de
travail ?
5. Mon travail est très intéressant.
6. J’ai beaucoup de plaisir à réaliser mon travail.
7. Je fais beaucoup plus que ce que l’on me demande dans mon travail.
8. Le travail que je réalise est très utile et très important.
9. Je suis très content pour mon entreprise lorsqu’elle améliore ses performances.
10. Je suis très attaché à mon entreprise.
11. Devoir prendre des initiatives me stimule.
Items n°1 to n°4 are rated on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 6 (highly important).
Others items are rated on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree). Exploratory
factor analysis eliminated several items that were relatively bad (low factor loadings and/or
high cross loadings). We finally kept only six items. As it was expected according to the
theory, we obtain a bi-dimensional solution. The confirmatory factor analysis shows a strong
correlation between the two axes (0.73). The first axis, composed of three items, deals mainly
with the intrinsic motivation:
- I really enjoy doing my work.
- Overall, my work is really interesting.
- My work is very important and very useful.
The French version of this scale is:
- J’ai beaucoup de plaisir à réaliser mon travail.
- Globalement mon travail est très intéressant.
- Le travail que je réalise est très utile et très important.
The internal consistency and convergent validity of this first dimension are satisfactory
(Jöreskog rhô = 0.833, rhô vc = 0.631). Standardized regression coefficients are all significant
(p<0.000) and range from 0.60 to 0.88. The second axis is more concerned with aspects of
integrated and identified extrinsic motivation:
- I do much more than I am asked to in my work.
- I’m really pleased for my company when its performance improves.
- I’m very attached to my company.
The French version of this scale is:
- 12 -
- Je fais beaucoup plus que ce que l’on me demande dans mon travail.
- Je suis très content pour mon entreprise lorsqu’elle améliore ses performances.
- Je suis très attaché à mon entreprise.
For this second axis, convergent validity and internal consistency are less satisfactory than for
the first one (Jöreskog rhô = 0.697, rhô vc = 0.45) and ought to be improved in next empirical
studies. However, all items are significant (p<0.000) and standardized coefficients regression
ranged from 0.36 to 0.81. Adjustment indexes of this bi dimensional scale are not satisfactory
(X²/dl = 4.912, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.894, RMSEA = 0.11).
3. 2. The conceptual model.
In accordance with SDT, it was hypothesized that employees who perceive the work
environment to be autonomy supportive – in other words more philosophical, a humanist
work environment – would report higher levels of self-regulated motivation and smaller
feeling of being monitored, whatever the monitoring systems and tools used to collect
information. We propose the following hypotheses:
H1: The “positive” perception of work supervision has a positive impact on the two
self-regulated motivation dimensions (H1a and H1b).
H2: The feeling of being monitored has a negative impact on the two self-regulated
motivation dimensions (H2a and H2b).
H3: The importance of the monitoring systems has a positive impact on the intensity
of the feeling of being monitored.
H4: The importance of the monitoring systems has a negative impact on the perception
of the work supervision.
H5: The positive perception of the work supervision has a negative impact on the
intensity of the feeling of being monitored.
The “feeling of being monitored” was predicted to partially mediate the relations of the
“perception of the work supervision” and “self-regulated motivation”. It was also predicted to
mediate the relation of the importance of monitoring systems and self-regulated motivation.
Obviously, the more extensive the monitoring systems are, the more the feeling of being
monitored should increase. But in fact, it could depend on the perception employees have
about their supervisors who use those monitoring tools and information collected to evaluate
their subordinates (George, 1996): Do managers use data collected to control and punish or to
give constructive feedback to their subordinates? That is why we hypothesize that the
perception of work supervision can affect the feeling of being monitored and partially
mediates the relations of the importance of monitoring systems and the feeling of being
monitored.
Our conceptual model is summarized in figure 2:
- 13 -
Figure 2. Conceptual Model
Importance of
monitoring
systems
H4 -
H3
+
Feeling of
being
monitored
H2a -
Intrinsic
Motivations
(first
dimension)
H5 H1a +
Perception of
work
supervision
H2b H1b +
Internalized
Extrinsic
Motivations
(second
dimension)
3. 3. Results.
The structural equation model is quite satisfactory. Its fit to the data is acceptable
(X²/dl: 2.91; RMSEA: 0.08; GFI: 0.907). To examine the discriminant validity of our model,
we use the most rigorous method (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The smallest extracted variance
(0.45 for the second dimension of self-regulated motivation) is higher than the highest shared
variance (0.42), shared between the work supervision perception and the first dimension of
self-regulated motivation. So, the discriminant validity of our model is satisfactory. Thus we
can examine our hypotheses. All estimated paths are significant.
Table 1. Standardized Regression Weights
Standardized
Regression
weights
Perception of work
supervision
Feeling of being monitored
Feeling of being monitored
Intrinsic Motivation (first
dimension)
Internalized extrinsic
motivation
Intrinsic Motivation (first
dimension)
Internalized Extrinsic
Motivation (second
dimension)
<-- Importance of
- monitoring systems
<-- Importance of
- monitoring systems
<-- Perception of work
- supervision
<-- Feeling of being
- monitored
<-- Feeling of being
- monitored
<-- Perception of work
- supervision
<-- Perception of work
- supervision
- 14 -
-,223
,430
-,237
-,139
-,151
,651
,575
S.E.
C.R
.
Proba
3,701
***
,006 8,525
***
,010
4,348
,077
2,694
,100
2,525
10,06
,072
3
,041
,095 7,594
***
,007
,012
***
***
The standardized path coefficient from “the perception of work supervision” to
“intrinsic motivation” (the first dimension of self-regulated motivation) is strong and
significant (γ = 0.65, p < 0.001), like the one to “internalized extrinsic motivation” (the
second dimension of self-regulated motivation) (γ = 0.58, p < 0.001). As a result, we can keep
our central hypothesis H1 which postulates that a positive perception of work supervision has
a crowding in effect on employees’ self-regulated motivation. We defined our latent variable
named “perception of the work supervision” as a set of humanist principles applied to the
mode of supervision (autonomy, constructive feedback, challenges, listening, mutual trust and
respect, acknowledgement, etc., to promote each human being’s self-determination). So, we
can conclude that our model confirms the crowding in effect of employees’ self-regulated
motivation by a humanist management.
Figure 3. The structural equations model
X² = 209,837 dl = 72 X²/dl = 2,914
RMSEA = ,080 GFI = ,907 AGFI = ,865
e17
e16
,52
,66
,77
e15
,81
compris_15
e14
,37
e22
,60
,31
,56
relation_difficile_17
perception
encadrement
reconnaissance_7
e19
information_compétence_16
,05 ,72
,88
,60
,78
e18
autonomie_14
confiance_supérieur_13
e20
-,22
e5
,58
,65
attachement_entreprise_32
,81
-,24
,41
,00
indicateur
synthétique
du niveau
de surveillance
e4
,56
content_pour_entreprise_31
,75
,36
,13
Motivation
extrinsèque
internalisée
,43
,65
-,15
plus_que_demandé_27
e23
e8
,50
e24
,60
Sentiment
d'être
surveillé
Motivation
intrinsèque
e21
,87
,88
,77
,36
travail_utile_important_29
-,14
,29
plaisir_dans_travail_26
e6
e7
- 15 -
,75
Mon travail est très intéressant
e2
The standardized regression weight from the feeling of being monitored to the intrinsic
motivation is negative and significant as expected, but low (γ = - 0.14; p = 0.007); the one
towards the internalized extrinsic motivation is also negative, significant and low (γ = - 0.15;
p = 0.012). Consequently, we can keep our hypothesis H2 which postulates a crowding out
effect of self-regulated motivation by the feeling of being monitored, even if this effect is low.
The standardized path coefficient from the importance of monitoring systems to the
feeling of being monitored (H3) is unsurprisingly positive and significant (γ = 0.43; p <
0.001). The standardized regression weight from the importance of monitoring systems to the
perception of work supervision (H4) is negative and significant but quite low (γ = -0.22; p <
0.001). As hypothesized by H5, the perception of work supervision has a negative impact on
the intensity of the feeling of being monitored (γ = -0.24; p < 0.001); this result means that
when the positive perception of work supervision increases, the feeling of being monitored
decreases.
In conclusion, hypotheses are validated and results show the crowding-out / crowdingin effect of self-regulated motivation by a type of management perceived as controlling /
informative and autonomy supportive. So we can conclude on a crowding-in effect of
employees’ self-regulated motivation at work by a humanist management.
3. 4. Indirect effects study.
We developed an exploratory step to search the best model with all the possible mediations.
Then, we compared different models obtained and we selected the best, which presented the
best fit to the data, but also made sense and was coherent with our theoretical framework. For
example, we assessed a model which postulated causality from the feeling of being monitored
towards the perception of work supervision. Consequently, the perception of work supervision
became the mediator of the feeling of being monitored to the self-regulated motivation. This
could be theoretically consistent. But the goodness of fit of this n°2 model to the data was
much lower than what was obtained with the n°1 model set out in this paper.
Figure 4. Another model with inversed causality and other mediation.
Importance of
monitoring
systems
H4 -
H3
+
Feeling of
being
monitored
H2a -
H5 H1a +
Perception of
work
supervision
Intrinsic
Motivations
(first
dimension)
H2b H1b +
Internalized
Extrinsic
Motivations
(second
dimension)
We also tried to create an additional model, which postulates a direct path from the
‘importance of monitoring systems’ to ‘self-regulated motivation’, but this path was not
significant. Importance of monitoring systems doesn’t retain any direct path to self-regulated
motivation and is completely mediated by the perception of work supervision and the feeling
of being monitored.
- 16 -
At last, we tried to elaborate a model which postulates only a direct path from ‘perception of
the work supervision’ to self-regulated motivation and no mediation though ‘feeling of being
monitored’. But it was poorer, with a low fit to the data. ‘Perception of the work supervision’
retains a direct path to self-regulated motivation but is also mediated though feeling of being
monitored as indicated in a significant indirect effect.
3. 5. Discussion and limits.
We can now compare our results with those of the Anglo-Saxon literature. With
hypothesis H5, we corroborate the results of an empirical study developed by George (1996)
in the United States who found that the feeling of being monitored depends partially on
employees’ work supervision perception : “ Management has a key role to play in designing
systems that are effective yet are not viewed as too onerous or invasive “ (George, 1996, p.
478).
With hypothesis H1 (“A positive perception of work supervision has a positive impact
on both dimensions of employee’s self-regulated motivation”), we confirm results found in
the empirical study of Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri & Holt (1984) which showed that when
supervisors acknowledge their employees’ emotions and subjectivity, intrinsic motivation of
these latter increases. Deci & al., (1989) realized an organizational redesign study in a
company with about 1000 employees, in order to enhance its performance. “They trained
managers to be autonomy supportive with their subordinates and found that autonomy support
predicted later trust in the organization, positive affect at work, and work satisfaction. (…)
Baard & al. (1999) and Deci & al. (2001) found support for a model where management
autonomy support was related to the satisfaction of employees’ needs, which was related in
turn to higher performance evaluations, engagement in one’s work, and well-being, in both
Bulgarian and American samples.” (Gagné, 2003, p.204).
With hypothesis H2 (“The feeling of being monitored has a negative impact on both
dimensions of self-regulated motivation”), we obtain results similar to those in empirical
studies which show a crowding out effect of self-regulated motivation by incentives systems
perceived by employees as controlling (strong monitoring and threats of punishment) (Deci &
Cascio, 1972 ; Lepper & Greene, 1975 ; Harackiewicz, Manderlink & Sansone, 1984 ; Reeve
& Deci, 1996 ; Amabile, DeJong & Lepper, 1976 ; Zuckerman & al., 1978; Sherman et
Smith, 1984).
In conclusion, the problematic is more about the form (“controlling or informative”)
that the incentive systems should take, than its presence or absence. Thus, when activity
control and performance monitoring are perceived as fair, stimulating, and provide a positive
and constructive feedback, the incentive system is named “informative” and increases both
self-regulated and extrinsic motivations.
However, our results ought to be interpreted taking into account the limits of our
empirical study. The data collection was made in one shot, so we cannot really test for the
causalities hypothesized theoretically (Kline, 2004). The next study should consist of a
longitudinal study. We cannot generalize our results because our sample isn’t representative
of the whole French population (60 % were women, 27 % executives and 3.4% workers). In
addition, we should also duplicate this study on several samples in order to verify the external
validity. Moreover, data collected consisted in self-perception and intention statements, which
could be affected by a social desirability bias (Amabile & al., 1994). It would be more
rigorous to realize an empirical investigation with observed behaviours. Furthermore, items
and scales must be improved, especially for the internalized extrinsic motivation. At last, the
model could be improved if we introduced the individual differences in terms of causality
- 17 -
orientations. The work environment alone doesn’t explain the entire level of fundamental
needs satisfaction. “SDT proposes that both individual differences in autonomy orientations
and contextual supportiveness will influence need satisfaction” and so in turn, self-regulated
motivation (Gagné, 2003, p.202). “Independent of how supportive the context is, differences
in causality orientations can lead people to have their basic needs differentially met, because
people with different causality orientations may perceive the same context differently, and/or
because people with different orientations may elicit different reactions during interpersonal
interactions” (Gagné, 2003, p.203). Our next study could use the General Causality
Orientation Scale (GCOS) in order to take into account individual differences.
Conclusion
We have shown that humanistic philosophy postulates that each human being wants to
be self-determinated (creation of oneself by oneself), wants to be a “person” recognized by
others. A humanistic management consists of giving to employees a supportive work
environment, with autonomy, stimulating challenges, constructive feedback,
acknowledgement, mutual respect and trust, enabling employees to achieve fulfilment. We
converge towards SDT which “proposes that human beings have basic psychological needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Contexts that support the satisfaction of these
needs will promote a person’s enjoyment of activities and the autonomous self-regulation of
behaviours. People are more likely to be intrinsically motivated, that is, to do an activity
simply for the enjoyment they derive from it, when they can freely choose to pursue the
activity (autonomy), when they master the activity (competence), and when they feel
connected and supported by important people, such as a manager, a parent, a teacher, or teammates (relatedness). Early research using this framework focused mostly on examining how
decreases in experienced autonomy influenced intrinsic motivation. For example, research has
shown that controlling rewards (Deci, 1971; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999), deadlines
(Amabile et al., 1976), and evaluation (Amabile, 1979) can decrease the enjoyment of an
activity, whereas choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) and acknowledging people’s feelings
toward activities or rules regarding an activity (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri,&Holt, 1984) can
enhance it.” (Gagné, 2003, p.202). Our empirical study, developed in France, shows that an
autonomy supportive mode of supervision has substantial positive influences on employees’
self-regulated motivation at work, partly through decreasing their feeling of being monitored
by NTIC and other monitoring systems. In this way, we confirm SDT in a French context and
the efficiency of a humanist type of management to enhance self-regulated motivation at
work.
- 18 -
Bibliography
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E., (1994), “The Work Preference
Inventory : Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 66, n°5, pp.950-967.
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M., (1976), “Effects of externally imposed deadlines
on subsequent intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, pp.9298.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, S., (1989), “The Creative Environment Scales : The Work
Environment Inventory”, Creativity Research Journal, 2, pp.231-254.
Amabile, T. M., (1988), “A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations”, Research
in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, edited by B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings. Greenwich,
CT : JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M., (1993), “Motivational Synergy : Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace”, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 3,
n°3, pp.185-201.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M., (1996), “Assessing the Work
Environment for Creativity”, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 39, n°5, pp.11541184.
Arnaud, S., (2006), Le respect de la vie personnelle des salariés dans la relation de travail.
Thèse de sciences économiques, GREQAM, Université Paul Cézanne, Aix-Marseille.
Arnaud, S., (2007), Analyse économique du droit au respect de la vie personnelle :
Application à la relation de travail en France. Revue Internationale de Droit Economique, n°2.
Baard, P. P., Deci, R. L., & Ryan, R. M., (2004), “Intrinsic Need Satisfaction : A Motivational
Basis of Performance and Well-Being in two Work Settings”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, vol 34, n°10.
Bartikowski , B., Chandon, J-L., & Gierl H., (2006), “Calibration internationale des échelles
sémantiques”, Décisions Marketing, 43, pp. 207-220,
Benware, C., & Deci, E. L., (1984), “Quality of learning with an active versus passive
motivational set”. American Educational Research Journal, 21, pp.755-765.
Bergson, H., (1993), La pensée et le mouvant, Quadrige, P.U.F., 1ière édition 1938.
Blais, M. R., & Brière, N. M., (1992), “On the mediational role of feelings of selfdetermination in the workplace : Further evidence and generalization”, Unpublished
manuscript, University of Quebec at Montreal, Canada.
Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N., (1979), “Competence and the overjustification effect : A
developmental study”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, pp.1462-1468.
Colle, R., (2006)., L’influence de la GRH à la carte sur la fidélité des salariés : le rôle du
sentiment d’autodétermination. Thèse de sciences de gestion, IAE de Puyricard, Université
Paul Cézanne, Aix-Marseille.
De Charm, (1968), Personal Causation : The Internal Affective Determinants of Behavior,
New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M., (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior, New-York, Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F., (1972), “Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of
negative feedback and threats”, Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association,
Boston, MA.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M., (2000), “The What and Why of Goal Pursuits : Human Needs and
the Self-Determination of Behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, n°4, pp.227-268.
Deci, E. L., (1971), “Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 18, n°1, pp. 105-115.
- 19 -
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M., (1989), “Self-determination in a work
organisation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp.580-590.
Deci, E. L., Eghari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R., (1994), “Facilitating internalization :
The self-determination theory perspective”, Journal of Personality, 62, pp.119-142.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P., (2001),
“Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organisations of a former Eastern
Bloc Country: a cross-cultural study of self-determination”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, vol. 27, pp.930-942.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M., (1981), “An instrument to assess
adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic
motivation and perceived competence”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, pp.642-650.
Durieu, F., & Roussel, P., (2002), “L’implication organisationnelle dans les réseaux de
franchise : un concept pertinent pour les entreprises en réseaux ?”, Revue de Gestion des
Ressources Humaines, 44, 2ième trimestre, pp.2-19.
Fisher, C., (1978), “The effects of personnel control, competence, and extrinsic reward
systems on intrinsic motivation”. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21,
pp.273-288.
Fornell, C., Larker, D., (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable
Variables and Measurement Errors”, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, pp. 39-50.
Friedman, G., (1956), Le travail en miettes, trad. française, Gallimard
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R., (2001), “Motivation Crowding Theory : A Survey of Empirical
Evidence”, Journal of Economic Surveys, vol. 15, n°5, pp.589-611.
Frey, B. S., (1993), “Does Monitoring Increase Work Effort ? The Rivalry between Trust and
Loyalty”, Economic Inquiry, 31, pp.663-670.
George, J. F., (1996), “Computer-Based Monitoring : Common Perceptions and Empirical
Results”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, n°4, pp.459-480.
Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C., (1988), “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development
Incorporating Unidimensionality an its assessments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.
XXV, May. pp.186-192.
Goldberg, L. R. & Velicer, W. F., (in press), “Principles of Exploratory Factor Analysis”, in
S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal an abnormal personality, Second edition, New York,
NY: Springer.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M., (1987), “Autonomy in children’s learning : An experimental
and individual difference investigation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
pp.890-898.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink G., & Sansone, C., (1984) : “Rewarding pinball wizardry :
The effects of evaluation on intrinsic interest”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
47, pp.287-300.
Hayamizu, T., (1997), “ Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation : Examination of reasons
for academic study based on the theory of internalization”, Japanese Psychological Research,
39, pp.98-108.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K., Management of organizational behavior, Prentice Hall, 1972.
Hosmer, L. T., (1995), “Trust : The connecting link between organizational theory and
philosophical ethics”, The Academy of Management Review, 20, pp.379-403.
Kline, R. B., (2004). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New
York: Guilford Publications.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K., (1984), “Setting limits on children’s
behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic
motivation and creativity”, Journal of Personality, 52, pp.233-248.
Lalande, A., (2002), Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, Quadrige, P.U.F.
- 20 -
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D., (1975), “Turning play into work : Effects of adult surveillance
and extrinsic rewards on children’s intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 31, pp.479-486.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D., (1978), The Hidden Cost of Reward: New Perspectives on the
Psychology of Human Motivation, New York: John Wiley.
Leroux, A., (1999), Une société à vivre. Refonder le personnalisme, P.U.F.
Miserandino, M., (1996), “Children who do well in school : Individual differences in
perceived competence and autonomy in above average children”, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 88, pp.203-214.
Mounier, E., (1949), Le personnalisme, Que sais-je, P. U. F.
Pajak, E., & Glickman, C. D., (1989), “Informational and controlling language in simulated
supervisory conferences”, American Educational Research Journal, 26, pp.93-106.
Peretti, J-M., (2001), Ressources humaines, 6ième édition, Vuibert.
Peretti, J-M., (2004), Les clés de l’équité dans l’entreprise, Editions d’Organisation.
Peretti, J-M., (2005), Tous reconnus, (ss la dir.), Editions d’Organisation.
Pic de La Mirandole, J., (1993). Œuvres philosophiques, traduction O. Boulnois & G.
Tognon, Paris, P.U.F.
Petit, J-F., (2000), Penser avec Mounier. Une éthique pour la vie, Lyon, Chronique Sociale.
Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L., (1996), “Elements within the competitive stimulation that affect
intrinsic motivation”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, pp.24-33.
Rosanas, J., & Velilla, M., (2004), “The Ethics of Management Control Systems”, Working
Paper n°563, IESE Business School, Universidad de Navarra.
Roussel, P., Durrieu, F., Campoy, E. & El Akremi, A., (2002), Méthodes d’Equations
Structurelles : Recherche et Application en Gestion, Economica, Paris.
Sherman, J., Smith, H., (1984), “The Influence of Organizational Structure on Intrinsic versus
Extrinsic Motivation”, The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 27, n°4, pp.877-885.
Valas, H., & Sovik, N., (1993), “Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school
mathematics: Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory of motivation”.
Learning and Instruction, 3, pp.281-298.
Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R., (1992), “Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as
predictors of behavior : A prospective study”, Journal of Personality, 60, pp.599-620.
Yamauchi, H., & Tanaka, K., (1998), “Relations of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs and
self-regulated learning among Japanese children”, Psychological Reports, 82, pp.803-816.
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L., (1978), “On the importance of
self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behaviour”, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 4, pp.443-446.
- 21 -
Annexe 1 : Description of the sample
Variables
Age
Under 25 years old
between 25 and 39
years
40 years and over
Marital status
Living as a couple
Not living as a couple
Salary
Less than 1500 euros
Between 1500 and
2000 euros
Between 2000 and
3000 euros
Over 3000 euros
Hours worked
Full-time
Part-time
Your highest
qualification
None
Cap,
bep,
(trade
proficiency cert.)
Bepc (school cert.)
Vocational
training
cert.
Baccalaureate
Bac+2
More than bac + 2
Current type of
position
Unqualified worker
Qualified worker
Staff
Agent C or D (public)
Agent B or VRP (sales)
Technician
Engineer
Management
Variables
Emplo
yees
115
252
20.8
45.5
187
33.8
195
359
35.2
64.8
271
150
48.9
27.1
100
18.1
33
5.9
448
106
80.9
19.1
3
45
.5
8.1
19
19
3.4
3.4
74
107
287
13.4
19.3
51.8
2
17
123
71
89
48
55
149
.4
3.1
22.2
12.8
16.1
8.7
9.9
26.9
Staff
Female
Type of work contract
Fixed term contract
Permanent contract
Training
Temporary
Apprenticeship contract
Assisted employment
Other
Number of hours
overtime per week
None
between 1 and 5
over 5
Number of employees
in the company
Less than 10
between 10 and 49
between 50 and 200
over 200
How many people do
you have under your
management?
None
1 to 5 people
Over 5 people
How many years have
you been with this
company or branch?
Less than 1 year
between 1 and 5 years
over 5 years
%
%
Gender
Male
217
39.2
- 22 -
337
60.8
80
310
5
10
75
5
69
14.4
56.0
.9
1.8
13.5
.9
12.5
173
232
149
31.2
41.9
26.8
76
127
81
270
13.7
22.9
14.6
48.7
405
83
66
73.1
15
11.9
109
197
248
19.7
35.6
44.8
- 23 -