Advertisement

A dynamic computational model of employees goal transformation: Using self-determination theory

Abstract

Following self-determination theory, this paper investigates the relations of employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ autonomy-supportive or controlling environments to their intrinsic or extrinsic work goals using both a field study and a computational dynamics model (Vancouver and Weinhardt in Org Res Methods 15(4):602–623, 2012), which is a recent and innovative technique. In Study 1, we did an empirical study with 128 employees over a half-year period and found that employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ autonomy-supportive environments satisfied employees’ basic psychological needs and promoted their intrinsic goals; controlling environments frustrated their basic needs and promoted their extrinsic goals. In Study 2, we used a system dynamics model to simulate the change in employees’ extrinsic goals, and the results showed that perceptions of supervisors’ autonomy-supportive environments related to the transformation of employees’ extrinsic goals. The study contributes by demonstrating that employees’ perception of supervisors’ environments could be a reason for employees’ different goal orientations, and it contributes by simulating the use of the dynamic process of goal transformation in research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Adner, R., Polos, L., Ryall, M., & Sorenson, O. (2009). The case for formal theory. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 201–208.

  2. Ballard, T., Yeo, G., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2017). The dynamics of avoidance goal regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 41(6), 698–707.

  3. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.

  4. Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67(6), 3296–3319.

  5. Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1459–1473.

  6. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.

  7. Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 440–464.

  8. Benita, M., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2014). When are mastery goals more adaptive? It depends on experiences of autonomy support and autonomy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 258–267.

  9. Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002.

  10. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.

  11. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: PlenumPress.

  12. Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.

  13. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19–43.

  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037.

  15. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

  16. Duriez, B. (2011). The social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits revisited: The moderating role of general causality orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 684–687.

  17. Duriez, B., Giletta, M., Kuppens, P., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits and peer dynamics: Selection and influence processes among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36(5), 925–933.

  18. Frodi, T., & O’Keane, V. (2016). Integrating the stress systems and neuroimaging in depression. In T. Frodi (Ed.) Systems neuroscience in depression (pp. 269–308). Cambridge: Academic Press.

  19. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

  20. Gillet, N., Colombat, P., Michinov, E., Pronost, A. M., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). Procedural justice, supervisor autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job performance: The mediating role of need satisfaction and perceived organizational support. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(11), 2560–2571.

  21. Gillet, N., Gagne, M., Sauvagère, S., & Fouquereau, E. (2013). The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(4), 450–460.

  22. Grouzet, F. M., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800–816.

  23. Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees: An intervention study. International Journal of Training and Development, 13(3), 165–184.

  24. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications Press.

  25. Hulin, C. L., & Ilgen, D. R. (2000). Introduction to computational modeling in organizations: The good that modeling does. In D. R. Ilgen & C. L. Hulin (Eds.), Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: The third scientific discipline (pp. 3–18). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

  26. Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange, and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.

  27. Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104–1124.

  28. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287.

  29. Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 907–914.

  30. Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1988). On time and method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc Press.

  31. Koestner, R., Powers, T. A., Milyavskaya, M., Carbonneau, N., & Hope, N. (2015). Goal internalization and persistence as a function of autonomous and directive forms of goal support. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 179–190.

  32. Kohn, A. (2008). The brighter side of human nature: Altruism and empathy in everyday life. New York: Basic Books Press.

  33. Landry, A. T., Kindlein, J., Trépanier, S., Forest, J., Zigarmi, D., Houson, D., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2016). Why individuals want money is what matters: Using self-determination theory to explain the differential relationship between motives for making money and employee psychological health. Motivation and Emotion, 40(2), 226–242.

  34. Lekes, N., Gingras, I., Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Fang, J. (2010). Parental autonomy-support, intrinsic life goals, and well-being among adolescents in China and North America. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(8), 858–869.

  35. Li, Y. (2015). Can pursuit for material bring us happiness and well-being? Studies on materialistic values and its effects. Journal of Beijing University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 15(4), 7–12.

  36. Lindwall, M., Weman-Josefsson, K., Sebire, S. J., & Standage, M. (2016). Viewing exercise goal content through a person-oriented lens: A self-determination perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 85–92.

  37. Nie, Y., Chua, B. L., Yeung, A. S., Ryan, R. M., & Chan, W. Y. (2015). The importance of autonomy support and the mediating role of work motivation for well-being: Testing self-determination theory in a Chinese work organisation. International Journal of Psychology, 50(4), 245–255.

  38. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

  39. Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well being. American Psychologist (63), 397–427.

  40. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publications Press.

  41. Scherbaum, C. A., & Vancouver, J. B. (2010). If we produce discrepancies, then how? Testing a computational process model of positive goal revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(9), 2201–2231.

  42. Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1467–1492.

  43. Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, 2(1), 261–293.

  44. Taber, C. S., & Timpone, R. J. (1996). Computational modeling. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.

  45. Tang, H. (2008). The Chinese version of aspiration index: Reliability and validity. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16(1), 15.

  46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.

  47. Van Yperen, N. W., & Orehek, E. (2013). Achievement goals in the workplace: Conceptualization, prevalence, profiles, and outcomes. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 71–79.

  48. Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Living systems theory as a paradigm for organizational behavior: Understanding humans, organizations, and social processes. Behavioral Science, 41(3), 165–204.

  49. Vancouver, J. B., & Purl, J. D. (2017). A computational model of self-efficacy’s various effects on performance: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(4), 599–616.

  50. Vancouver, J. B., Putka, D. J., & Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Testing a computational model of the goal-level effect: An example of a neglected methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 100–127.

  51. Vancouver, J. B., Tamanini, K. B., & Yoder, R. J. (2010). Using dynamic computational models to reconnect theory and research: Socialization by the proactive newcomer as example. Journal of Management, 36(3), 764–793.

  52. Vancouver, J. B., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2012). Modeling the mind and the milieu: Computational modeling for micro-level organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 602–623.

  53. Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Vigo, R. (2014). Change one can believe in: Adding learning to computational models of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(1), 56–74.

  54. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31.

  55. Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., Witte, H., & Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 251–277.

  56. Vansteenkiste, M., Smeets, S., Soenens, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 333–353.

  57. Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Duriez, B. (2008). Presenting a positive alternative to strivings for material success and the thin-ideal: Understanding the effects of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits. Positive Psychology: Exploring the Best in People, 4, 57–86.

  58. Wang, M., Zhou, L., & Zhang, Z. (2016). Dynamic modeling. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 241–266.

  59. Welsh, D. T., & Ordóñez, L. D. (2014). The dark side of consecutive high performance goals: Linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 79–89.

  60. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333.

  61. Williams, G. C., Hedberg, V. A., Cox, E. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and health-risk behaviors in adolescents 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1756–1771.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jian Zhang.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Employees’ perception of basic need = Basic need

Employees’ comparator for basic need = IF THEN ELSE(Employees’ perception of basic need < 0, -(Standard of basic need-Employees’ perception of basic need), IF THEN ELSE (Employees’ perception of basic need < 1, Standard of basic need-Employees’ perception of basic need, Employees’ perception of basic need-Standard of basic need/2))

Employees’ goal orientation = IF THEN ELSE (Employees’ comparator for basic need > 1, importance*EXP (Employees’ comparator for basic need), IF THEN ELSE (Employees’ comparator for basic need< − 1, -importance*SQRT (-Employees’ comparator for basic need), importance*Employees’ comparator for basic need))

$$\mathop {{\text{Well-being}}\;=\smallint }\nolimits^{} \left( {\text{bias}} \times {\text{employees' goal orientation}}\right) {\text{dt}}$$
$${\text{Basic need}}\;{\text{=}}\mathop \smallint \nolimits^{} \left( {{\text{employees' goal orientation}} \times 0.5+0.2 \times {\text{employees' perception of environment}}} \right){\text{dt}}$$

Employees’ perception of environment = − 3 + STEP (6, 5)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Zhang, J., Forest, J. et al. A dynamic computational model of employees goal transformation: Using self-determination theory. Motiv Emot 43, 447–460 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09753-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Goal content
  • Autonomy-supportive/controlling environments
  • Computational dynamics model
  • Goal transformation