Self-Determination in a Work Organization

1 Journal of Applied Psychology1989, Vol. 74, No. 4, 580-590 Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association, in a work OrganizationEdward L. Deci, James P. Connell, and Richard M. RyanUniversity of RochesterResearch testing Self-Determination theory was discussed in terms of recent work on intrinsic moti-vation, participative management, and leadership. On three occasions, managers' interpersonal ori-entations toward supporting subordinates' Self-Determination versus controlling their behavior were related to perceptions, affects, and satisfactions of the subordinates.

2 Data from 23 managersand their subordinates in a major corporation showed that managers' orientations did correlate withthe subordinate variables, although the magnitude of the relation varied, seemingly as a function offactors in the corporate climate. An organizational development intervention, focused on the conceptof supporting subordinates' Self-Determination , was provided for the managers. Evaluation of theprogram showed a clearly positive impact on managers' orientations, though a less conclusive radia-tion to be self -determining means to experience a sense of choicein initiating and regulating one's own actions.

3 Recent researchlinking Self-Determination to, enhanced creativity (Amabile,1983), conceptual learning (Benware & Deci, 1984), self -es-teem (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981), and generalwell-being (Langer & Rodin, 1976) has stimulated psychologiststo clarify the antecedent conditions that promote self -determi-nation and to detail the relevance of Self-Determination to vari-ous applied related to Self-Determination have been vigorouslyresearched and discussed in the organizational literature forover a quarter century. Argyris (1957) and McGregor (1960),for example, stressed that organizational contexts providingworkers the opportunity to satisfy their higher order needs(Maslow, 1943) promote effective performance.

4 Furthermore,management styles ( , Likert, 1967; Marrow, Bowers, & Sea-shore, 1967) and organizational designs ( , Hackman & Old-ham, 1980; Herzberg, 1966) that permit greater participationin decision making and greater flexibility in doing one's jobhave been found to be positively associated with employee satis-faction, quality of work life, and organizational effectiveness( , Lawler, 1986), although these positive effects have emergedmore clearly for some employees than for others (Hackman &Lawler, 1971).Our research tested Self-Determination theory (Deci & Ryan,1985) by exploring the interpersonal work climate created bymanagers for their subordinates.

5 More specifically, it focused onthe degree to which managers' interpersonal orientations tendto support subordinates' Self-Determination , that is, their senseThis research was supported by a grant from the Xerox Corporationto the Human Motivation Program at the University of would like to thank John W. Robinson and Robert W. Mann, bothof Xerox, for facilitating the project. In addition, we would like to thankRobert E. Driver, Christina M. Frederick, Wendy S. Grolnick, John , and Paul F. Tero for their help with various aspects of concerning this article should be addressed to Ed-ward L.

6 Deci, Human Motivation Program, Department of Psychology,University of Rochester, Rochester, New "York choice and personal initiative. The idea of managers' sup-porting Self-Determination is conceptually and philosophicallyconsistent with participative management and vertical job en-largement, although it differs from them by focusing on the in-terpersonal orientation of managers rather than on the decision-making process or the job variables in the organizational literature that are perhapsclosest to that of a manager's support for self -determinationhave been systematized in Bowers and Seashore's (1966) theoryof leadership.

7 These authors defined the management functionof support as managers' behaviors that enhance subordinates'feelings of personal worth, and they aligned this concept to Hal-pin and Winer's (1957) idea of consideration and Likert's (1961)principle of supportive relationships. Our concept of supportingself- determination is also related to Bowers and Seashore's ideaof support, although it extends their idea by specifying the fac-tors that are likely to lead to subordinates' feelings of personalworth. These factors, which comprise the concept of managers'support for Self-Determination , have emerged from recent moti-vation research.

8 Thus, elaboration of the point requires a briefreview of that motivation ResearchIn a recent literature review, Deci and Ryan (1985) arguedthat the functional significance ( , the psychological meaning)of any input affecting the initiation and regulation of inten-tional behavior can be usefully classified as either informational( , as supporting autonomy and promoting competence) orcontrolling ( , as pressuring one to think, feel, or behave inspecified ways). Experiencing an input as informational fostersself- determination , whereas experiencing it as controlling di-minishes studies on the contextual factors that affect self -deter-mination were laboratory experiments involving external ma-nipulations from which inferences could be drawn aboutwhether specific events ( , reward structures, deadlines, orpositive feedback) tend to be experienced as informational ( ,as supporting Self-Determination ) or controlling ( , as thwart-ing Self-Determination ).

9 These studies indicated, for example,580 Self-Determination AT WORK581that choice (Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978)and positive feedback (Blanck, Reis, & Jackson, 1984; Deci,1971) tend to be experienced as informational, whereas task-contingent rewards ( , Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983), dead-lines (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), threats of punish-ment (Deci & Cascio, 1972), surveillance (Lepper & Greene,1975), and evaluations (Smith, 1974) tend to be experienced recent studies have shown, however, that although aspecific event ( , positive feedback)

10 Tends, on average, to havea particular functional significance, the interpersonal contextwithin which the event is administered has an important influ-ence on the functional significance of the event. Thus, for exam-ple, Ryan (1982) reported that positive feedback could be expe-rienced as either informational or controlling, depending on theexperimenter's style of communication. Similarly, Ryan, Mims,and Koestner (1983) concluded that performance-contingentrewards could be either informational or controlling, andKoestner, Ryan, Bernieri, and Holt (1984) concluded that limitsetting could be either informational or controlling, again de-pending on the interpersonal contexts surrounding the focus on the interpersonal context within which events oc-cur seems particularly important when applying these conceptsto organizational settings, because many events such as rewardstructures, evaluations, and deadlines are relatively invariant inthese settings.