elliot-stack 1.0.29 → 1.0.33

package/skills/estack-leadership-coach/references/.source-files/deci-ryan_self-determination-theory__deci-olafsen-ryan-2017-self-determination-theory-in-work-organizations.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1881 @@
+ResearchGate
+
+See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312960448
+
+
+# Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science
+
+Article . April 2017
+DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
+
+CITATIONS
+130
+
+READS
+15,694
+
+3 authors:
+
+Edward L Deci
+University of Rochester
+304 PUBLICATIONS 123,995 CITATIONS
+
+Anja H. Olafsen
+University of South-Eastern Norway
+18 PUBLICATIONS 550 CITATIONS
+
+SEE PROFILE
+
+SEE PROFILE
+
+Richard M Ryan
+Australian Catholic University North Sydney
+390 PUBLICATIONS 147,508 CITATIONS
+
+SEE PROFILE
+
+Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
+
+Project
+
+Sieving the essential ingredients to an effective science education View project
+
+Project
+
+Aboriginal Wellbeing View project
+
+All content following this page was uploaded by Edward L Deci on 27 March 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
+<!-- PageBreak [1] -->
+
+
+<figure>
+
+ANNUAL
+REVIEWS
+Further
+
+Click here to view this article's
+online features:
+
+. Download figures as PPT slides
+
+· Navigate linked references
+
+. Download citations
+
+. Explore related articles
+
+. Search keywords
+
+</figure>
+
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+
+# Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science
+
+Edward L. Deci,1,2,3 Anja H. Olafsen,2
+and Richard M. Ryan1,3
+
+1 Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester,
+New York 14627; email: deci@psych.rochester.edu, richard.m.ryan@icloud.com
+
+2 School of Business, University College of Southeast Norway, 3603 Kongsberg, Norway;
+email: Anja.Olafsen@hbv.no
+
+3 Institute for Positive Psychology & Education, Australian Catholic University,
+Strathfield, New South Wales 2135, Australia
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.
+4:19-43
+
+First published online as a Review in Advance on
+January 11, 2017
+
+The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
+Organizational Behavior is online at
+orgpsych.annualreviews.org
+
+https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
+032516-113108
+
+Copyright @ 2017 by Annual Reviews.
+All rights reserved
+
+
+## Keywords
+
+autonomy, competence, pay, extrinsic rewards, basic psychological needs,
+intrinsic motivation
+
+
+## Abstract
+
+Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation
+that evolved from research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and ex-
+panded to include research on work organizations and other domains of life.
+We discuss SDT research relevant to the workplace, focusing on (a) the dis-
+tinction between autonomous motivation (i.e., intrinsic motivation and fully
+internalized extrinsic motivation) and controlled motivation (i.e., externally
+and internally controlled extrinsic motivation), as well as (b) the postulate
+that all employees have three basic psychological needs-for competence,
+autonomy, and relatedness-the satisfaction of which promotes autonomous
+motivation, high-quality performance, and wellness. Research in work or-
+ganizations has tended to take the perspectives of either the employees (i.e.,
+their well-being) or the owners (i.e., their profits). SDT provides the con-
+cepts that guide the creation of policies, practices, and environments that
+promote both wellness and high-quality performance. We examine the rela-
+tions of SDT to transformational leadership, job characteristics, justice, and
+compensation approaches.
+
+19
+<!-- PageBreak [2] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+
+## INTRODUCTION
+
+A large percentage of adults in the world work in organizations, and their jobs vary substantially.
+Some have careers that are relatively interesting and valued by others. Their work conditions are
+supportive, and they perceive their pay to be equitable. Others, however, have jobs that are de-
+manding and demeaning. Their work conditions are uncomfortable, and their pay is not adequate
+for supporting a family. They are likely to look forward to days away from work to feel alive and
+well (Ryan et al. 2010). Both of these types of jobs may exist in organizations that are profitable.
+
+Being profitable is a minimum expectation for an organization. However, highly effective
+organizations are more than merely profitable for investors; they benefit all stakeholders, including
+employees, investors, and consumers. These highly effective organizations promote both high-
+quality performance (hence profitability) and employee thriving, in terms of motivation to work
+and wellness. In fact, rather than being antithetical aims, high-quality employee motivation and
+wellness can contribute to long-term organizational health, customer satisfaction and loyalty, and
+financial success, as many modern consultants suggest (e.g., Doshi & McGregor 2015, Mackey &
+Sisodia 2014, Pink 2009).
+
+For decades self-determination theory (SDT) has addressed the links between motivation and
+the dual concerns of performance and wellness in organizations. It has focused on what facilitates
+high-quality, sustainable motivation and what brings out volitional engagement in employees and
+customers. SDT suggests that fostering workplace conditions where employees feel supported in
+their autonomy is not only an appropriate end in itself but will lead to more employee satisfaction
+and thriving, as well as collateral benefits for organizational effectiveness. Because SDT details
+the multiple factors, including managerial styles and pay contingencies, that support employees'
+autonomy and competence at work, it provides a framework for allowing them to be more engaged
+as they and their organizations develop and thrive.
+
+
+## SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
+
+SDT is a macro theory of human motivation that has been successfully applied across domains
+including parenting, education, healthcare, sports and physical activity, psychotherapy, and virtual
+worlds, as well as the fields of work motivation and management (Deci & Ryan 1985a, Ryan &
+Deci 2017). SDT specifically suggests that both employees' performance and their well-being are
+affected by the type of motivation they have for their job activities. SDT therefore differentiates
+types of motivation and maintains that different types of motivation have functionally different
+catalyzers, concomitants, and consequences.
+
+
+### Autonomous Motivation and Controlled Motivation
+
+Autonomous motivation is characterized by people being engaged in an activity with a full sense
+of willingness, volition, and choice. Often, autonomously regulated activities are intrinsically mo-
+tivated. Perhaps more important to the workplace, however, extrinsically motivated activities can,
+under the right circumstances, also be autonomously motivated-that is, engaged with authenticity
+and vitality. When individuals understand the worth and purpose of their jobs, feel ownership and
+autonomy in carrying them out, and receive clear feedback and supports, they are likely to become
+more autonomously motivated and reliably perform better, learn better, and be better adjusted. In
+contrast, when motivation is controlled, either through contingent rewards or power dynamics,
+the extrinsic focus that results can narrow the range of employees' efforts, produce short-term
+gains on targeted outcomes, and have negative spillover effects on subsequent performance and
+work engagement.
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+20
+<!-- PageBreak [3] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Intrinsic motivation. This is a specific type of autonomous motivation. It refers to activities for
+which the motivation lies in the behavior itself. When intrinsically motivated, it is the spontaneous
+experiences of interest and enjoyment entailed in the activity that supply the "rewards." Intrinsic
+motivation is a ubiquitous human phenomenon, but it is exemplified in the play of children, who
+enthusiastically engage in activities without external rewards or prompts. However, intrinsic mo-
+tivation is also evident in the activities of adults, such as sports and avocations, and it is surprisingly
+important even in in the workplace. Employees can be intrinsically motivated for at least parts of
+their jobs, if not for all aspects of them, and when intrinsically motivated the individuals tend to
+display high-quality performance and wellness.
+
+Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) (Deci & Ryan 1980), which is one of SDT's six mini-
+theories, became well-known within the organizational psychology literature (Ambrose & Kulik
+1999). It explained that intrinsic and extrinsic incentives are not necessarily additive and introduced
+experimental research on the undermining effects of rewards (e.g., see Deci et al. 1999). These
+experiments were important in showing systematic effects of different reward contingencies on
+intrinsic motivation, but perhaps more important was that they suggested that rewards could
+shift people's perceived locus of causality or perceived competence, thus diminishing their sense
+of autonomy and/or their sense of competence. The implications of these early CET findings
+are thus broader than just intrinsic motivation, because perceptions of autonomy and competence
+impact the quality of extrinsic as well as intrinsic motivations. In fact, the primary distinction within
+SDT, accounting for substantial variance in the outcomes of studies in work organizations, as well
+as across domains, is the distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation
+(e.g., Ryan & Deci 2000, 2017), into which these early experiments had only begun to tap.
+
+Extrinsic motivation. Extrinsically motivated behavior involves doing an activity to attain a
+separable consequence, whether tangible or otherwise. That is, extrinsic motivation encompasses
+all instrumental behaviors. Rather than viewing all extrinsic motivation as "bad," which some
+authors (e.g., Gerhart & Fang 2015) have claimed we did, SDT has always maintained that extrinsic
+rewards can have different functional significances that lead to enhancements, diminishments, or
+no effects on intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci 1972). Furthermore, and very importantly, SDT has
+long differentiated extrinsic motivation into various forms, each of which is recognizable in the
+workplace, and which range from being less to more autonomous (Deci & Ryan 1985a, Ryan &
+Connell 1989).
+
+External regulation is at the least-autonomous end of the extrinsic-motivation continuum
+of autonomy. When externally regulated, individuals perceive their behavior as being directly
+controlled by others, often through contingent rewards and threats. As we shall see, external
+regulation can powerfully motivate specific behaviors, but it often comes with collateral damage
+in the form of long-term decrements in autonomous motivation and well-being, sometimes with
+organizational spillover effects. A somewhat more autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is
+introjected regulation, which involves people being focused on approval versus disapproval in their
+jobs and from their leaders. Introjected behavior is self-controlled by processes such as contingent
+self-esteem, ego-involvements, and guilt, as well as a concern with status and recognition. Still
+more autonomous is identified regulation, in which the individuals have personally identified with
+the importance or value of their work roles and behaviors. Because they have accepted as their
+own the rationale for acting, they are more autonomously self-regulated and are flexible in both
+selecting and sustaining their behavior and activities. Finally, when people assimilate and integrate
+their identifications, they can act through integrated regulation, which is the most mature and
+volitional form of extrinsic motivation. Integration is very important because there is potential for
+conflict among different identifications (e.g., an identification with one's job and an identification
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+21
+<!-- PageBreak [4] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+with one's family), so people need to bring them into coherence. When identifications have been
+integrated, people are wholeheartedly engaged and purposive with respect to the target activities,
+and without inner barriers or conflicts.
+
+According to SDT, these varied types of extrinsic motivation are salient to different degrees
+in workplaces, and each has predictable consequences. For example, some work environments
+foster more autonomous motivation and engagement in their employees, whereas others have
+them focused more on external contingencies or managers' approval.
+
+Importantly, these motivations can be seen as lying along an autonomy continuum, with the
+order from least to most autonomous being external, introjected, identified, integrated, and intrin-
+sic. Supporting this, when these motivations are measured in populations, their intercorrelations
+typically form a simplex-like pattern (Ryan & Connell 1989), in which the types of motivation
+most closely aligned along the continuum are most highly associated. The simplex pattern has
+been observed in hundreds of studies of motivation across domains such as health, sports, and
+education (Ryan & Deci 2017), as well as work (Gagné et al. 2015, Williams et al. 2014).
+
+There has thus been interest and debate about how best to model the simplex and the unique
+variances of motivational subtypes. In some studies, motivation types have been algebraically com-
+bined to form a relative autonomy index (RAI), which allows the investigator to relate employees'
+overall autonomy versus control to other variables. The RAI has been predictive of organizational
+outcomes in a variety of contexts and settings (Ryan & Deci 2017). In other studies, investi-
+gators have contrasted autonomous (intrinsic, identified) with controlled (introjected, external)
+motivation.
+
+SDT, with a multidimensional view, expects that specific qualities will be associated with each
+of the different motivation types and that they will be systematically ordered along the underlying
+continuum of autonomy, but Chemolli & Gagné (2014) questioned the continuum because it did
+not fit with a unidimensional Rasch model, which we would not have expected it to. Their data
+were derived from the multidimensional work motivation scale (MWMS) (Gagné et al. 2015),
+which assesses employees' intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external regulation, as well as
+their "amotivation." Results using the MWMS were largely consistent with the expected simplex
+pattern, but not with a Rasch model. A subsequent article by Howard et al. (2016) used bifactor
+analyses on an academic motivation scale, finding evidence for a continuum of autonomy as well
+as unique variances for distinct motives. Research from other labs using other analytic strategies
+have similarly shown support for SDT's idea that these motivational types differ in their relative
+autonomy, with important functional consequences [Roth et al. 2006; K.M. Sheldon, E.N. Osin,
+T.O. Gordeeva, D.D. Suchkov, O.A. Sychey (manuscript under review)]. However modeled,
+the general expectation from SDT is that more autonomous forms of motivation will predict
+greater persistence, performance quality, and well-being over time than will controlled forms,
+and that each of these forms of motivation will be systematically related to leadership styles, work
+conditions, and pay contingencies.
+
+
+### Basic Psychological Needs and Their Supports
+
+Fundamental to SDT is the idea that the impact of varied environmental factors (e.g., job design,
+pay contingencies, managerial styles) on workers' motivations and experiences is largely medi-
+ated by a small set of basic psychological needs. They are the needs for competence or effectance
+(e.g., White 1959), relatedness or belongingness (e.g., Baumeister & Leary 1995), and auto-
+nomy or self-determination (e.g., de Charms 1968), which are essential for psychological health
+and well-being and facilitate effective functioning in social settings (Ryan 1995). Accordingly,
+SDT researchers have regularly hypothesized and consistently found that social settings such as
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+22
+<!-- PageBreak [5] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+workplaces that support satisfaction of the basic psychological needs facilitate autonomous mo-
+tivation, psychological and physical wellness, and enhanced performance, especially on heuristic
+activities (Deci & Ryan 2000). As such, the concept of basic need support emerged as a crucial
+concept to describe the conditions within social contexts such as workgroups that influence moti-
+vation, wellness, and performance. The more narrow concept of autonomy support is also often
+used to describe social contexts, and research suggests that basic need support and autonomy
+support are closely related and have very similar consequences (Fernet et al. 2012a,b).
+
+
+## SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY MOTIVATION MODEL FOR THE WORKPLACE
+
+SDT's mini-theories have broad implications for organizations (Gagné & Deci 2005), and numer-
+ous research reports on SDT constructs within work organizations have appeared in the recent
+empirical literature. Here we review some of the more important ones. Figure 1 shows these
+core elements of SDT as applied to the work domain, depicting the general SDT model of work
+motivation. This model begins with two primary sets of independent variables: social context
+variables and individual difference variables. The predominant social context variables are the
+organizational supports versus thwarts of employees' basic psychological needs for competence,
+relatedness, and autonomy, and they are viewed as being strongly influenced by managerial styles.
+Supports of the three needs are often used as a composite, although many studies have examined
+just autonomy support. In fact, when there is organizational and managerial support for autonomy,
+supports for and satisfaction of all three of the employees' basic psychological needs at the general
+level are often quite highly correlated, first because authorities who support autonomy generally
+are attuned to and supportive of the other needs, and second because when employees have a sense
+of autonomy they themselves find ways to get the other needs satisfied. Thus, when employees
+experience support for autonomy they typically also feel more connected to the organization, and
+feel more effective, for reasons we review in this article.
+
+The most typical individual difference variables used in SDT studies have been the employees'
+general causality orientations (Deci & Ryan 1985b). Underlying the measure are three moti-
+vational orientations that employees can generally experience-an autonomy orientation that is
+
+
+<figure>
+<figcaption>Figure 1 The basic self-determination theory model in the workplace.</figcaption>
+
+Independent
+variables
+
+Mediators
+
+Dependent
+variables
+
+Workplace context
+Need supporting
+Need thwarting
+
+Basic
+psychological
+needs
+
+Work behaviors
+Performance
+Quality
+Quantity
+
+Individual
+differences
+Causality orientations
+Aspirations and goals
+
+Satisfied vs.
+frustrated
+Autonomy
+Competence
+Relatedness
+
+Motivations
+Autonomous
+Intrinsic
+Internalized
+Controlled
+Introjected
+External
+
+Health and wellness
+Well-being, vitality
+Ill-being
+
+</figure>
+
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+23
+<!-- PageBreak [6] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+proactive and interested, a controlled orientation that is focused on external contingencies to
+guide behaviors, and an impersonal orientation that lacks intentionality and is concerned with
+avoiding assessments and failures. Each of these can be differentially salient to employees, and
+in some research such orientations have been primed in individuals (e.g., Weinstein et al. 2010).
+Another measure of individual differences in SDT is extrinsic versus intrinsic aspirations or goals
+(e.g., Kasser & Ryan 1996), as is discussed below in the section on Employee Aspirations, have also
+been used in some studies of workplace motivation and satisfaction (e.g., Sheldon & Krieger 2014).
+
+Research on this general model, shown schematically in Figure 1, has had two types of mediat-
+ing variables: first, satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, typically used as a composite
+(Baard et al. 2004), but sometimes analyzed with each need separately (e.g., Richer et al. 2002),
+and second, autonomous and/or controlled motivation (e.g., Fernet et al. 2012a, Williams et al.
+2014), sometimes supplemented by perceived competence, especially in studies of health behavior
+change among adults (e.g., Williams et al. 2004). Some studies rather than assessing autonomous
+motivation have assessed only its intrinsic motivation component and examined its relation to
+other variables (e.g., Kuvaas 2009, Olafsen et al. 2015). Typically, researchers have used either
+the set of need satisfaction variables or the motivation variables, although a few studies have used
+both, in which case they have tended to predict the motivation variables from the need satis-
+faction variables, typically as mediating variables between independent variables and dependent
+variables (De Cooman et al. 2013). Finally, as noted in the introduction to the article, there have
+tended to be two types of dependent variables: performance variables (e.g., quantity or quality of
+performance or profitability) and well-being/ill-being variables (e.g., job satisfaction, vitality, or
+somatic symptoms). Many studies have selected a subset of variables, such that, for example, what
+are shown in the figure as mediators might be used as independent variables predicting outcomes.
+Other studies have examined the relations of some of the SDT variables to variables from other
+perspectives in the organizational literature. For example, studies have examined transformational
+leadership, which bears some relation to need-supportive management, as that leadership relates
+to basic need satisfaction, autonomous motivation, or both.
+
+
+### Research on the Self-Determination Theory Model in Work Organizations
+
+In reviewing organizational research guided by SDT, we begin with studies of types of motivation
+(e.g., autonomous and/or controlled) and their consequences, followed by ones that examine need
+satisfaction/frustration variables, and their consequences. We then move on to more complex sets
+of variables that include situational variables such as need supports.
+
+Consequences of autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation is a central SDT variable
+for predicting workplace outcomes. It is comprised of employees' reports of both intrinsic motiva-
+tion and well-internalized extrinsic motivation. The theory assumes that when people can identify
+with the value and importance of their work they will show enhanced qualities of work motivation.
+For example, in a study of more than 500 employees of a college, Fernet et al. (2010) found that
+autonomous work motivation led to less burnout. Richer et al.'s (2002) research on alumni from
+a business school showed that employees' autonomous motivation for their jobs was related to
+more work satisfaction and less emotional exhaustion; in turn, the work satisfaction was related to
+lower turnover intentions, and the emotional exhaustion was related to higher turnover intentions.
+Importantly, the level of turnover intentions predicted subsequent employee departures.
+
+Foss et al. (2009) found that intrinsic (i.e., autonomous) motivation was positively predictive
+of knowledge sharing (i.e., performance), whereas external (i.e., controlled) regulation was nega-
+tively predictive of giving knowledge and unrelated to receiving it. Moreover, in other research,
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+24
+<!-- PageBreak [7] -->
+
+Kuvaas (2009) found that intrinsic motivation for work among public sector employees positively
+predicted their self-reported work performance. Fernet et al. (2012a) examined both autonomous
+and controlled motivation of school principals and found that their autonomous motivation was
+negatively related to work exhaustion but positively related to work commitment, whereas con-
+trolled motivation was positively related to exhaustion.
+
+Autonomous motivation has also been examined as a moderator of relations between other
+pairs of variables. For example, Trépanier et al. (2013a) found that employees high in autonomous
+motivation experienced less stress in the presence of high job demands than did those low in
+autonomous motivation. Two studies by Grant et al. (2011) revealed that personal initiative posi-
+tively predicted objective indicators of performance only for those who were high in autonomous
+motivation and low in controlled motivation.
+
+A study done in more than three thousand companies in the Netherlands found that indicators
+of job autonomy among employees predicted profitability of the company (Preenen et al. 2016),
+although that main effect was relatively weak. This is to be expected, of course, because numerous
+major factors influence a company's revenue, including changes in relevant national and interna-
+tional markets. Nonetheless, there was also an interesting moderation effect indicating that there
+was a much stronger relation between employees' autonomy indicators and profitability in younger
+companies compared with long-established companies. For the newer companies, vital inputs from
+employees appear to be particularly important for getting established and becoming profitable.
+In sum, these studies and many others have shown that autonomous motivation predicted less
+burnout, work exhaustion, and turnover, as well as greater work satisfaction, work commitment,
+and performance, whereas controlled motivation has tended to show opposite results.
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Consequences of need satisfaction. The SDT variables, other than autonomous and controlled
+motivation, that are most often used as predictors of work outcomes are satisfaction and frustration
+of the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Research with these
+variables found that satisfaction of the three needs led to less exhaustion (Van den Broeck et al.
+2008) and less organizational deviance on the part of employees (Lian et al. 2012). In their research
+on workaholism, Andreassen et al. (2010) found that satisfaction of employees' basic psychological
+needs on the job led to greater enjoyment of their work and to their being less driven-that is,
+less compelled-by internal and external controls. One of the relatively few workplace studies that
+examined both basic need satisfaction and autonomous motivation indicated that, as predicted by
+SDT, employees who felt greater need satisfaction on the job also displayed greater autonomous
+motivation and effort expenditures (De Cooman et al. 2013). Finally, a meta-analysis of 119 distinct
+samples showed that each of the three basic need satisfactions predicted independent variance in
+intrinsic motivation and well-being, although it indicated that the need satisfactions were less
+effective in predicting negative outcomes than positive ones, leading the researchers to suggest
+using need frustration as well as need satisfaction as a predictor (Van den Broeck 2016).
+
+Gillet et al. (2012) did study both satisfaction and frustration of the basic psychological needs
+of organizational employees, revealing that satisfaction of the three needs yielded greater hedonic
+and eudaimonic well-being, whereas frustration of the three needs led to lower levels of each type
+of well-being. A large study of Flemish employees showed further that frustration of the basic
+needs predicted poorer work-related well-being, as indexed by greater exhaustion (Vander Elst
+et al. 2012).
+
+With the various studies confirming that either autonomous motivation or basic psychological
+need satisfaction was a reliable predictor of positive work-related outcomes, it became essential to
+explore the antecedents of these types of motivational experiences to understand how to promote
+wellness and high-quality performance in organizations.
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+25
+<!-- PageBreak [8] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Work contexts, motivations, needs, and outcomes. In many of the studies on situational fac-
+tors in workplaces that might affect motivation variables, the focus has been on the atmosphere
+of work groups assessed by employees' perceptions of their managers being autonomy support-
+ive or need supportive. These variables comprise such managerial behaviors as acknowledging
+the employees' perspectives, offering choices, providing meaningful feedback, encouraging initi-
+ation, making assignments optimally challenging, and giving a rationale when requesting that an
+employee do a particular task.
+
+One study of the work experiences of police officers (Otis & Pelletier 2005) indicated that
+when the officers perceived their supervisors to be high in autonomy support, the officers were
+more autonomously motivated for work. They also reported stronger intentions not to leave
+their jobs, fewer hassles during their workdays, and fewer physical symptoms. Moreau & Mageau
+(2012) investigated health professionals and found that when the professionals received autonomy
+support from their supervisors, they reported more work satisfaction and better psychological
+health, but the researchers also found that autonomy support from their healthcare-professional
+colleagues added to the positive outcomes. Studies of teachers from China (Nie et al. 2015) and
+Gambia (Levesque et al. 2004) showed that when teachers perceived their supervisors to be more
+supportive of their basic needs, the teachers reported higher levels of autonomous motivation and
+were more satisfied with their jobs and their lives. In contrast, when teachers in Canada (Fernet
+et al. 2012b) felt coerced and controlled by their supervisors, they had lower levels of autonomous
+motivation and displayed more symptoms of burnout.
+
+In conducting research on hotel employees, Hon (2012) found that when managers were
+empowering (i.e., supportive of autonomy) and coworkers were supportive of relatedness, the em-
+ployees were more autonomously motivated and more creative in their work, but if the managers
+were pressuring and coercive, the employees were less motivated and creative. In Norway, re-
+search on employees showed that managers' support for the employees' basic psychological needs
+prompted more autonomous motivation among the employees as well as fewer psychosomatic
+symptoms and less emotional exhaustion, turnover intentions, and absenteeism (Williams et al.
+2014).
+
+During a period when a Canadian telecommunications company was undergoing a substantial
+change, investigators assessed the degree to which managers were autonomy supportive at two
+points in time (just as the change was beginning and 13 months later). Autonomy support was
+indicated by employees' perceiving that the managers acknowledge the employees' perspectives,
+offer choices, and provide rationales when asking the employees to do various behaviors. As well,
+these employees reported their attitudes toward the change at the same two points in time. Results
+of the research indicated that the more the managers were perceived to be autonomy supportive
+at Time 1, the more accepting their employees became of the changes over the 13-month period
+(Gagné et al. 2000).
+
+Baard et al. (2004) explored motivational dynamics in employees of two banking companies in
+the New York area. They assessed the degree to which the employees experienced their super-
+visors to be autonomy supportive and found that those who viewed their managers as higher on
+autonomy support experienced greater satisfaction of their competence, autonomy, and related-
+ness needs. Furthermore, they also assessed the level of the employees' individual differences in
+the autonomous causality orientation and found that being high on the global level of autonomy
+contributed significant additional variance to the bankers' basic need satisfaction, although auto-
+nomy support from the managers explained considerably more variance in need satisfaction than
+did the employees' autonomous orientation. In turn, employees' basic need satisfaction predicted
+their performance as assessed with the standard performance evaluations in the companies, and
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+26
+<!-- PageBreak [9] -->
+
+also predicted greater well-being of those employees. In short, psychological need satisfaction
+predicted both of the important categories of work outcomes-wellness and productivity-and
+managers' autonomy support was the major contributor to employees' need satisfaction.
+
+Liu et al.'s (2011) research on an American manufacturing company found somewhat similar
+results to those of Baard et al. (2004) for bankers. Liu et al. found support for their hypotheses
+that autonomy support from both managers and peers, as well as employees' autonomous causal-
+ity orientation, would lead to more work engagement and less voluntary withdrawing from the
+company. On the other side of the coin, in an investigation of nurses, Trépanier et al. (2013b)
+found that need-thwarting behaviors such as bullying on the job led to less work engagement and
+more work burnout as mediated by frustration of the basic psychological needs.
+
+Together the primary findings of these studies indicate that autonomy support from man-
+agers in a variety of work settings enhanced both satisfaction of the basic psychological needs and
+autonomous motivation, and in turn yielded a range of positive work outcomes, including greater
+engagement; enhanced work performance; higher psychological well-being; and lesser amounts
+of exhaustion, ill-being, and turnover. Additionally, the individual difference of the autonomous
+causality orientation explained additional variance in work outcomes from that explained by man-
+agers' autonomy support. In addition, less autonomy support and more need thwarting from
+abusive manager behaviors related to a variety of negative consequences.
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Employee aspirations. In addition to general causality orientations, which are the primary indi-
+vidual differences in SDT, life goals or aspirations are also used as general individual differences
+for predicting outcomes in various domains (Ryan et al. 1996). SDT most often considers seven
+aspirations that people may be pursuing as important over their lifetimes: financial wealth, recog-
+nition or fame, attractive image, personal development, meaningful relationships, community
+contributions, and physical fitness. Empirically, these aspirations load on two factors referred to
+as extrinsic aspirations (the first three goals) and intrinsic aspirations (the last four). Research has
+also shown that when people place relatively strong importance on the extrinsic aspirations, and
+also when they attain the extrinsic aspirations they desire, they tend to show signs of psychological
+ill-being, such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem, whereas when they pursue and attain
+intrinsic aspirations, they tend to show indications of psychological well-being, such as high self-
+actualization and self-esteem (Kasser & Ryan 1996). Subsequent research (Sheldon et al. 2004)
+found that the prediction of well-being from intrinsic versus extrinsic aspirations was independent
+of its prediction by autonomous versus controlled motivation, even though intrinsic aspiration and
+autonomous motivation tend to be correlated, and extrinsic aspiration and controlled motivation
+also tend to be correlated.
+
+A few studies have examined the value workers place on these goals in their workplaces, exam-
+ining the relations of the valued goals to various workplace outcomes. In multiple Belgian studies,
+researchers explored these goals, which they referred to as work values, to enhance our under-
+standing of the role played by people's personal goals on their work outcomes. In two studies with
+many hundreds of employee participants, Vansteenkiste et al. (2007) found that the participants
+who held stronger extrinsic goals relative to intrinsic goals were less satisfied with their jobs and
+their lives. In a follow up study, the same researchers found the additional displeasing outcomes
+of emotional exhaustion, higher turnover intentions, and more work-family conflict among those
+employees who were relatively higher on extrinsic than intrinsic work values. Subsequently, Van
+den Broeck et al. (2010) found that those with more intrinsic work goals were more flexible in
+their work than those with extrinsic goals, and Van den Broeck et al. (2011) found that individuals
+with relatively high intrinsic work aspirations who engaged in learning opportunities were less
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+27
+<!-- PageBreak [10] -->
+
+<!-- pages 11-20 -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+emotionally exhausted than those with relatively higher extrinsic aspirations. Additionally, in a
+New Zealand study, Roche & Haar (2013) found that employees higher in intrinsic goals en-
+gaged in more organizational citizenship behaviors, and Schreurs et al. (2014) found that when
+employees found their workplace to be supportive of more intrinsic work values the employees
+experienced more basic psychological need satisfaction and were more engaged in their work. In
+sum, it is clear from these various studies that when employees hold intrinsic work values and
+goals more strongly they will be more effective employees and when the workgroup supports the
+intrinsic values and goals, there will be further advantages.
+
+Another study, which was focused specifically on the aspiration for money (Landry et al. 2016),
+found that the outcomes associated with aspiring to accumulate money depended on one's mo-
+tive for doing so. More specifically, if people's motives for pursuing wealth were more integrated
+and thus were more need-satisfying and less need-frustrating, the aspiration was positively associ-
+ated with well-being and negatively with ill-being. However, if the motives were less integrated and
+thus were less need-satisfying and more need-frustrating, the aspiration was positively associated
+with ill-being and negatively associated with well-being.
+
+Sheldon & Krieger (2014) identified large samples of private-firm lawyers who had high-
+paying jobs within money-focused firms (e.g., doing securities-related work) and public-service
+lawyers who had jobs focused on serving the public (e.g., doing sustainability-related work for
+nonprofit organizations). As one would expect, those lawyers in the money-focused jobs had
+greater extrinsic aspirations relative to the public service group. They also had much larger annual
+incomes, suggesting they were getting what they valued. Nonetheless this money-focused group
+reported greater negative affect, lower well-being, and more alcohol consumption compared to
+a group of public service attorneys. Here, evidence shows that even a successful focus on the
+attainment of extrinsic goals does not reliably yield more happiness or well-being.
+
+Needs across cultures. One of the criticisms of SDT has been that it is a Western theory
+because it emphasizes autonomy, which cultural relativists claim is pertinent to individualistic
+cultures but not to collectivistic cultures such as those in East Asia (e.g., Markus & Kitayama 1991).
+However, that criticism was based more on a definition of autonomy as independence, detachment,
+and individualism than on autonomy as volition, choice, and concurrence. Accordingly, Chirkov
+et al.'s (2003) research in South Korea, Russia, Turkey, and the United States indicated that in all
+of the cultures, when people were more autonomous (i.e., volitional) in enacting behaviors-both
+behaviors consistent with the values of their own cultures and behaviors consistent with the values
+of other cultures-the individuals were psychologically healthier, indicating that satisfaction of the
+autonomy need is necessary for greater personal well-being, even in cultures for which collectivism
+is a central value.
+
+In the domain of work, research has also confirmed that autonomy is important for positive
+work outcomes in nonindividualistic cultures. Deci et al. (2001) examined the basic psychological
+needs of employees in both Bulgarian and American companies. At the time Bulgaria was mov-
+ing only very slowly from a central-planning economy with the large companies still owned by
+the government toward a somewhat more capitalist economy; as such, the economic system and
+the culture were still very different from those in the United States. The investigators assessed
+employees' perceptions of the managers' autonomy supportiveness in several national companies,
+as well as the employees' experiences of need satisfaction, engagement, and well-being at work.
+Comparable data were obtained from the American employees. Results indicated that, in both
+cultures, managers' autonomy support predicted satisfaction of the employees' autonomy, com-
+petence, and relatedness needs, which in turn predicted their work engagement and well-being.
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+28
+<!-- PageBreak [1] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Clearly, employees' autonomy was important not only within America's capitalist economy but
+also in the more socialist economy of an emerging Bulgaria.
+
+Studies of organizations in varied nations and economies from Europe to Asia (e.g., Nie et al.
+2015, Van den Broeck et al. 2010) have fruitfully applied SDT to an understanding of employee
+engagement and well-being. These studies have made clear that, across cultures and industries,
+it is important to differentiate types of motivation into autonomous and controlled motivations,
+and sometimes into their subtypes, and also to attend to the degree to which the basic psycho-
+logical needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satisfied versus frustrated, to predict
+important workplace outcomes. Simply stated, managers' supports for the basic psychological
+needs as well as both the basic need satisfactions and autonomous motivation of employees ap-
+pear to have universal importance for achieving the desired work outcomes related to effective
+performance and employees' wellness. We now turn to studies that have examined interventions
+done in work organizations focused on the same types of variables used in field studies thus far
+reviewed.
+
+
+# Intervention Studies
+
+In the first of the SDT intervention studies in work organizations, Deci et al. (1989) performed
+an intervention in a Fortune 500 Company that was going through a difficult competitive period
+causing a significant decrease in profitability. The company was interested in improving its orga-
+nization's interpersonal context throughout, and the researchers worked in one national division
+with branches around the country. Each branch had a manager, with approximately 8 to 10 middle
+managers who supervised teams of 15 to 18 employees. The core of the intervention was to train
+managers in the branches to be more autonomy supportive. The primary concepts that guided
+the intervention were ones that had been shown to promote autonomous motivation, basic need
+satisfaction, and positive work outcomes. The first was taking the employees' perspective, which
+involves really listening to and understanding their ideas, asking for their viewpoints, thinking
+about how you might understand the situation if you were in their position, and allowing them to
+express their emotions in difficult situations. The second concept was to facilitate the employees'
+taking more initiative by allowing more group participation in decision making, and encouraging
+individuals to make choices about how to do aspects of their own jobs. The third concept was
+providing informational feedback rather than controlling and demeaning feedback. It was clear
+from the change agent's interviews and observations that there was more negative feedback than
+positive feedback being given in the organization, and that the negative feedback was quite amoti-
+vating. So, managers learned to give more positive feedback that was specific to the behaviors their
+peers and employees had done well and that was not formulated in terms of the recipients' worth
+as individuals. They also learned to formulate "negative feedback" in terms of a problem to be
+solved and one that the employees could be actively engaged in solving. The intervention included
+a total of three days offsite with the managerial team in each branch, and one team meeting that
+each manager held with his or her team that the change agent observed and discussed with the
+manager afterward. At all times, the change agent was modeling autonomy support.
+
+Managerial autonomy support, as well as employees' attitudes and satisfactions, were assessed
+before and after the intervention in the experimental group and at the same times in the control
+group. Analyses revealed that the managers became more autonomy supportive as a result of the
+intervention and that this positive effect radiated to their employees who reported greater job
+satisfaction and expressed greater trust in the top corporate management. It is very interesting
+to find that when an employees' immediate manager became more autonomy supportive, the
+employees developed more positive and trusting attitudes toward the top management who would
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+29
+<!-- PageBreak [2] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+have been many levels above these employees in the organizational hierarchy and with whom
+these employees would not have had any contact.
+
+Forest et al. (2014) reexamined this Deci et al. (1989) intervention to do an economic utility
+analysis. They calculated its cost to the organization in current dollars and then the mental health
+savings likely to accrue to the organization. Through this analysis, Forest et al. concluded that the
+return on investment for the organization from such an intervention, which yielded a meaningful
+impact on autonomy support and autonomous motivation, would be more than 3 to 1.
+
+In another intervention study within a Fortune 500 company, Hardré & Reeve (2009) randomly
+assigned managers to either a training-intervention group or a nonintervention group. Those in
+the experimental group were trained in the principles of SDT and in how to put them into
+practice in a corporate organization, whereas those in the control group received no training.
+Before the intervention, and then again five weeks after, the autonomy support of managers
+from both groups was assessed by having them write a story about a problem they had recently
+encountered with employees and about how they handled the situation. Trained research-team
+members then rated the stories for the degree of autonomy support displayed by the managers.
+As in the Deci et al. (1989) study, the trained managers evidenced more autonomy support at the
+post-training assessment than did the nontrained managers. Importantly, at the five-week follow-
+up, the employees of the trained managers were more autonomously motivated and more engaged
+in their work than the employees of the managers who did not receive the training. Together,
+these two intervention studies indicate that it is possible to train managers to be more autonomy
+supportive and that when successfully done, one can expect the training not only to affect the
+managers' behaviors but also to have a positive impact on the motivation, behavior, and affective
+experiences of their employees.
+
+Lynch et al. (2005) researched an intervention with employees of a residential psychiatric
+hospital for youth. Employees in such settings often feel unsafe because the youth do not regulate
+their emotions effectively, leading the workers to have low job satisfaction, motivation, and well-
+being and to aggressively restrain the youth, which can do physical harm to both staff and patients.
+The investigators in this study worked with the top management of the facility, who developed
+an intervention focused on making this workplace more supportive of the needs for competence,
+autonomy, and relatedness for the employees as well as the patients. They began by involving
+the staff in very active discussions with regard to this major change, which was intended in part
+to leave the staff feeling greater need satisfaction and commitment to treatments that are more
+positively oriented and more effective. One of the aims was to use less physical restraints as part
+of the treatment and more generally to make treatment more need satisfying for the youth as well
+as making work more need satisfying for the staff. By beginning with staff need support through
+involvement with the planning, the change agents were attempting to facilitate internalization of
+the value and regulation of a more need-supportive and less restrictive treatment approach, thus
+feeling more ownership over the new methods being employed.
+
+Results of an evaluation study indeed showed that, as staff experienced more satisfaction for
+their basic needs, they more fully internalized the regulation of changes and thus were more
+autonomous in carrying out this new treatment approach. The staff also reported more job sat-
+isfaction and greater well-being at work. Perhaps the most gratifying finding was that, as the
+staff became less restrictive, the patients experienced more satisfaction of their basic psychological
+needs, which manifest as more autonomous motivation for their own treatment. This study thus
+adds an important supplement to the studies done in Fortune 500 companies because it testifies to
+the generalizability of these effective approaches to intervening in work organizations to promote
+more need satisfaction of employees and, perhaps, their clientele.
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+30
+<!-- PageBreak [3] -->
+
+
+## Characteristics of Jobs
+
+Although SDT has not devoted a great deal of attention to specific characteristics of jobs or tasks,
+the concept of managerial need support includes several concepts that are often addressed in the
+job design or job characteristics literature as aspects of employees' jobs. Early work by Hackman &
+Oldham (1980) emphasized autonomy and task identity as important aspects of jobs that promote
+high performance, whereas we view them as supports for the autonomy need provided by managers'
+orientations and behaviors. Similarly, we view feedback as a support for the competence need and
+task significance as a support for both the autonomy and relatedness needs. In line with this view,
+several studies have shown that facilitative job characteristics promoted basic need satisfaction,
+autonomous motivation, and positive work outcomes, including job satisfaction and performance
+(e.g., Gagné et al. 1997, Millette & Gagné 2008).
+
+More recent work by Morgeson and colleagues (e.g., Morgeson & Campion 2003, Morgeson
+& Humphrey 2006) has expanded the list of job characteristics and introduced social aspects of
+jobs as well as the specific task characteristics. They have also found that various job charac-
+teristics relate to satisfaction of one or more of SDT's basic psychological needs for autonomy,
+competence, and relatedness (Humphrey et al. 2007). Work by Grant (2007) and Parker (2014)
+has further focused on the importance of relatedness in the workplace, with Grant emphasizing
+the importance of having jobs in which the employees understand how their work benefits others
+and Parker focusing more on the employee outcomes of learning and development, health and
+well-being, and flexibility, all of which have been found to result when employees are more au-
+tonomously motivated and experience greater satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy,
+and relatedness (e.g., Baard et al. 2004).
+
+
+## Leadership in the Workplace
+
+During the past quarter of the twentieth century leadership scholars introduced and advocated a
+type of leadership that focused on charismatic individuals leading through inspiring, encouraging,
+stimulating, and empowering (Avolio & Bass 1995, Bass 1985, Bass & Avolio 1995, Burns 1978).
+Referred to as transformational leadership, such leaders would set an example of being engaged
+with work and of solving problems with enthusiasm and open mindedness. A transformational
+leader would have transformative ideas that rise above what others are thinking, along with the
+enthusiasm to communicate the ideas and to support employees in ways that will vitalize them and
+instill a sense of meaning associated with the transformative ideas. This is done through individ-
+ualized consideration, which from an SDT perspective is likely to support the basic psychological
+needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. For the leader to support these needs, through
+acknowledging the employees' perspectives in their discussions, offering choice about how to en-
+act the ideas, and refraining from pressuring behaviors and language, the leaders will be more
+successful in facilitating the employees' autonomous motivation.
+
+In contrast to transformational leadership is transactional leadership, which is a more con-
+ventional approach that includes using contingent rewards, emphasizing norms, and monitoring
+employees' behaviors. Recent research has shown that perceived transformational leadership does
+promote employees' basic need satisfaction (e.g., Hetland et al. 2011) and autonomous work mo-
+tivation (Conchie 2013, Graves et al. 2013, Wang & Gagné 2013). Furthermore, research has
+shown that the relations of transformational leadership to work engagement, commitment, and
+job satisfaction is mediated by satisfaction of basic needs (Gözükara & Simsek 2015, Kovjanic
+et al. 2012). Moreover, Bono & Judge (2003) found that when leaders were more transformational
+their employees were more committed to the organization, tended to adopt more autonomous
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory 31
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+<!-- PageBreak [4] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+work goals, and displayed higher job satisfaction. Transactional leadership, however, had nega-
+tive relations to basic need satisfaction (e.g., Hetland et al. 2011) thus prompting less effective
+motivational processes and outcomes. Other research has shown that the transformational leaders
+themselves require basic need satisfaction, such that those leaders who are getting their own needs
+satisfied are more likely to be transformational in their approach (Trépanier et al. 2012).
+
+
+## The Role of Pay in the Workplace
+
+There is little doubt that most people would not continue to do their jobs if their pay were to
+stop. That is, relatively few people find their jobs interesting and important enough that they
+would continue on if they were unpaid. Accordingly, it is essential that rewards or incentives be
+considered when thinking about motivation in the workplace.
+
+Perhaps the most controversial sets of findings within the umbrella of SDT is directly related to
+pay-namely, the findings concerning reward effects on intrinsic motivation and related concepts.
+A few psychologists have argued that the laboratory research examining reward effects on intrinsic
+motivation is not valid (Eisenberger & Cameron 1996), an argument that has been shown to be
+incorrect by the definitive meta-analysis by Deci et al. (1999) of 128 reward-effects experiments.
+A few other psychologists have argued that the rewards research is not relevant to the workplace
+(Gerhart & Fang 2015), which is a conclusion that misinterprets aspects of SDT and misses some of
+the main points of the reward research itself. So we now turn to a discussion of that reward-effects
+research before moving on to a consideration of pay studies in work organizations.
+
+The first studies of reward effects on intrinsic motivation for an activity revealed that tangible
+rewards undermined intrinsic motivation for the activity, whereas positive feedback (referred to by
+some as verbal rewards) enhanced intrinsic motivation (Deci 1971). Furthermore, if the tangible
+rewards were not contingent on actually doing the task they were not undermining of intrinsic
+motivation (Deci 1972). We interpreted this set of findings in terms of whether the functional
+significance of the rewards was informational or controlling (Deci & Ryan 1980). When the inter-
+pretation of rewards is informational they convey positive competence information thus satisfying
+the recipient's basic psychological need for competence and enhancing intrinsic motivation. Pos-
+itive feedback on average has this functional significance. In contrast, when the interpretation of
+rewards is controlling, people feel pressured to think, feel, or behave in particular ways, so the
+rewards frustrate people's basic need for autonomy, thus undermining intrinsic motivation. Often
+tangible rewards have this functional significance (Deci et al. 1999), although when they are not
+contingent on doing the task they are neither informational nor controlling so they tend not to
+affect intrinsic motivation.
+
+Contingent rewards have been differentiated into three types: engagement-contingent, which
+means receiving rewards simply for working on the task; completion-contingent, which means
+receiving rewards for each task trial completed; and performance-contingent, which means re-
+ceiving rewards for meeting some standard of excellence on the task. All three types of tangible
+rewards have been shown on average to significantly decrease intrinsic motivation, although the
+performance-contingent rewards have had a somewhat smaller negative effect than the other two
+contingencies. The performance-contingent rewards were somewhat controlling because partic-
+ipants had to do very well to get the rewards, and they were somewhat informational because
+getting the rewards confirmed the recipients' competence. The meta-analysis showed that, on
+average, the controlling aspect was stronger, so that, although the informational functional sig-
+nificance offset some of the controlling functional significance of the rewards, the controlling
+aspect was still strong enough to significantly decrease intrinsic motivation. An additional study
+made clear that rewards are most likely to undermine intrinsic motivation when the rewards were
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+32
+<!-- PageBreak [5] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+not only contingent-whether engagement-, completion-, or performance-contingent-but were
+also salient (Ross 1975).
+
+As we have said, even though in general people "like" getting rewards, on average the rewards
+yield these negative effects on intrinsic motivation because, when rewards are made contingent,
+it becomes salient that the experimenter is controlling the rewardees' behavior. In a company
+setting, it is typically the supervisor who is experienced by subordinates as doing the controlling.
+Using controlling rewards in a workplace may not only diminish employees' autonomy; it can
+also lead them to focus on aspects of their jobs to which the rewards are most clearly linked and
+to give less attention to aspects of the jobs that are not incentivized (e.g., knowledge sharing,
+team contributions, organizational citizenship behaviors) but that are nonetheless valuable to the
+organizations. In contexts where some behaviors are experienced as being contingently rewarded,
+others are thereby implicitly experienced as not being important because there is no reward focused
+on them, thus leading to employees disengaging from the aspects of work they see as devalued.
+
+That such collateral damage occurs was documented by Gubler et al. (2016) in a recent study of
+an intervention that used monetary awards to improve attendance in industrial laundry plants. The
+researchers found that, although the awards had a positive effect on the attendance of employees
+who had had a poor record, it also prompted strategic gaming of the system. Furthermore, the
+award-changed behaviors that were observed in eligible employees were not maintained over time.
+Also and notably, the awards undermined the internal motivation of employees who, prior to the
+awards program, had had excellent attendance, leading them to exhibit poorer attendance than
+they had previously shown. Finally, the award effect spilled over to other tasks in the plants, with
+employees reporting decreased motivation for tasks that had not been awarded. Seen here is evi-
+dence that incentives can affect employees' autonomy and responsibility, sometimes in unintended
+negative ways.
+
+Reward contingencies and types of pay. Pay-for-performance (PFP), which is often advocated
+for work organizations, would be closely related to both the completion-contingent rewards (e.g.,
+sales commissions and piece-rate payments) and performance-contingent rewards (e.g., higher
+pay and larger bonuses for meeting performance standards), whereas hourly pay would most
+closely compare to engagement-contingent rewards, and salaries would relate to noncontingent
+rewards, although higher-level executives are likely to have some PFP as well as their salaries.
+The vigorous controversy surrounding rewards in the workplace is focused primarily on PFP,
+which, many researchers have argued, will motivate employees to perform better (e.g., Komaki
+et al. 1978). We now examine the relations of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives to
+performance.
+
+Considering the relations of motivations to performance. From an SDT perspective, there
+are several important factors that must be considered to make a meaningful evaluation of ap-
+proaches to compensation (e.g., PFP). First, it is important to differentiate types of performance
+that one might use as the dependent variables in evaluating the effects on performance of incen-
+tives, pay, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Nearly 40 years ago, McGraw (1978) noted the
+difference between algorithmic and heuristic tasks and reviewed evidence showing that rewards
+tended to enhance performance on algorithmic tasks and diminish performance on heuristic tasks
+(see, also, Deci & Ryan 1985a). More recently, a meta-analytic study by Cerasoli et al. (2014) em-
+phasized the importance of distinguishing between quantity and quality of performance, whereas
+Weibel et al. (2010) distinguished between performance on simple tasks and complex tasks. Al-
+gorithmic tasks are relatively simple whereas heuristic ones are more complex, and the focus of
+algorithmic tasks tends to be on quantity whereas the focus of heuristic tasks is often on quality.
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+33
+<!-- PageBreak [6] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Thus, these three distinctions are reasonably well aligned. In short, performance is a broad con-
+cept, and it is important to understand that there are different types of tasks and, accordingly,
+different types of performance. We use the quantity-quality distinction to encompass the three
+distinctions just presented.
+
+Second, just as it is imperative to consider reward or incentive contingencies when exam-
+ining reward effects on intrinsic motivation, it is similarly so when considering reward effects
+on performance. As with Cerasoli et al. (2014), we use the distinction of directly and indirectly
+performance-salient incentives because completion-contingent and performance-contingent re-
+wards are both directly performance salient.
+
+Third, as we argued in the Introduction, considering the effects of pay or rewards on psy-
+chological health and well-being, in addition to their effects on performance, is essential for any
+meaningful evaluation of compensation approaches.
+
+Having specified these three considerations, we now discuss the effects of both intrinsic moti-
+vation and extrinsic incentives on the quantity and quality of performance. Earlier in this article
+we made clear that PFP (i.e., completion-contingent and performance-contingent rewards) does,
+on average, reliably undermine intrinsic motivation (see, also, Deci et al. 1999). The most perti-
+nent questions then concern the relations of both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives to
+high-quality performance and wellness.
+
+A performance meta-analysis. Cerasoli et al. (2014) performed a meta-analysis with a total
+of 183 effects that examined relations from both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives to
+performance and examined the important moderators of types of performance (i.e., quantity and
+quality) and types of incentive contingencies (i.e., directly and indirectly performance salient).
+Some of the studies were in the workplace, some in physical activity settings, some in schools, and
+some in psychology laboratories.
+
+The first important finding in the meta-analysis by Cerasoli et al. (2014) showed that intrinsic
+motivation had a moderate to strong relation to performance across all studies and all types of
+performance, whether or not incentives were also being used. Accordingly, this indicates that
+intrinsic motivation is extremely important for the workplace. Furthermore, in line with the un-
+dermining effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation, Cerasoli et al. found that intrinsic motivation
+had a weaker effect on performance when incentives were directly salient, and a stronger relation
+to performance when the incentives were not directly salient.
+
+In more nuanced analyses, Cerasoli et al. (2014) found that intrinsic motivation was a stronger
+predictor of performance quality, whereas extrinsic incentives were a stronger predictor of perfor-
+mance quantity. In a similar vein, Weibel et al. (2010) in their meta-analysis found that extrinsic
+incentives led to better performance on simple tasks but to poorer performance on more complex
+tasks. In short, PFP appears to be effective for motivating performance as quantity of simple,
+algorithmic tasks, but not performance as quality of complex heuristic tasks. Furthermore, PFP
+seems to interfere with the relation of intrinsic motivation to high-quality performance.
+
+Finally, Cerasoli et al. (2014) did not report research relating intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
+incentives to well-being or ill-being, and there has been relatively little research relating PFP
+to indicators of well-being or ill-being. In contrast, substantial research has shown consistently
+across life's domains that autonomous motivation, consisting of intrinsic motivation and fully
+internalized extrinsic motivation, is related strongly positively to human wellness (see, e.g., Ryan &
+Deci 2017 for a review in multiple domains). There has been somewhat less research on controlled
+motivation and wellness, but still clear relations have been found between controlled motivation
+and ill-being. In so far as controlled motivation is prompted by PFP, which is implied by the
+undermining effect and was shown to be true by Kuvaas et al. (2016) in a work organization, this
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+34
+<!-- PageBreak [7] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+would suggest that PFP might be related to less wellness, although further research is needed to
+draw conclusions on this. Still, without meaningful evidence on the relation of PFP to well-being,
+or at least to basic psychological need satisfaction, which is invariantly related to well-being, it
+would be inappropriate to argue for PFP as an effective compensation system, even though it has
+been found to relate positively to quantity of performance.
+
+Research on pay in work organizations. Because the relations between rewards and intrinsic
+motivation had been examined primarily in laboratory experiments, Olafsen et al. (2015) conducted
+a study of Norwegian bankers to examine the relation of amount of pay to intrinsic motivation
+in an ongoing work organization. Also, because SDT research has consistently found the con-
+cepts of basic psychological need satisfaction and contextual (i.e., managerial) need supports to
+be important for positive work outcomes including performance and well-being, Olafsen et al.
+included those two concepts in their research. In addition, because equity or justice has long been
+shown to be an important consideration concerning pay (e.g., Adams 1963, Greenberg 1987) the
+researchers included Colquitt's (2001) measure of distributive and procedural justice. The primary
+outcome variable in the study was intrinsic motivation, and satisfaction of the basic psychological
+needs was considered a potential mediator.
+
+Analyses of the data revealed that amount of pay was positively related to distributive justice,
+indicating that the more pay employees received, the more just they believed the payments to
+be. That is, greater pay does lead to employees feeling more fairly treated and valued. More
+important, however, is that the amount of pay employees received did not predict psychological
+need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, nor did distributive justice. In contrast, managerial
+need support predicted procedural justice, need satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation, with need
+satisfaction being a mediator.
+
+In research mentioned previously, Kuvaas et al. (2016) explored whether there would be dif-
+ferences between the outcomes associated with pay that was stable-that is, base salary-and
+pay that was variable because it was directly performance contingent. Insurance companies pro-
+vided data about employees' performance under PFP plans, which involved employees receiving
+sales-performance bonuses either at the end of each quarter or at the end of the year. The per-
+formance under these two PFP approaches was compared to performance associated with the
+base salaries. Results of the study showed that base salaries, which, as noted, are not directly
+performance-contingent, related positively to autonomous motivation and were unrelated to con-
+trolled motivation, whereas for those who received the bonus incentives in accord with their sales,
+their PFP was negatively related to autonomous motivation and positively related to controlled
+motivation. Thus, as we saw in the laboratory experiments, performance-contingent rewards (aka
+PFP) were experienced as controlling and decreased autonomous motivation. Base salaries, which
+are more related to noncontingent rewards, were shown in the Deci et al. (1999) meta-analysis
+and the Olafsen et al. (2015) field study to not affect autonomous motivation, although they were
+found in the Kuvaas et al. (2016) study to correlate with autonomous motivation, suggesting that
+further research is needed in workplaces to clarify the relation of salaries (i.e., noncontingent pay)
+or hourly compensation (i.e., engagement-contingent pay) to autonomous motivation. In general,
+however, it is likely that higher base salaries (i.e., noncontingent pay) have a positive influence, as
+they may well convey valuing by the organization.
+
+The Kuvaas et al. (2016) field study further showed that autonomous motivation was a strong
+predictor of the effort salespeople devoted to their jobs, whereas controlled motivation was a weak
+predictor. Additionally, autonomous motivation was a strong negative predictor of employees'
+turnover intentions, whereas controlled motivation was a positive predictor of those intentions.
+To summarize, PFP tends to result in controlled, rather than autonomous, motivation, leading
+employees to exert less work effort and have greater desire to leave their jobs.
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+35
+<!-- PageBreak [8] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Another study, also in the realm of sales, showed even more negative outcomes resulting from a
+PFP program (Harrison et al. 1996). Done in the telecommunications industry, employees worked
+entirely on commissions after a two-month orientation to their jobs, so their pay was wholly, and
+in a very direct way, dependent on their performance. Results of the study showed that three-
+quarters of the salespeople had left the company within a year, which obviously would have been
+very costly for the company.
+
+The three studies just reviewed, when combined with the results of laboratory experiments,
+other field studies, and meta-analyses, indicate that PFP approaches to compensation, in spite of
+being strongly endorsed by writers such as Gerhart & Fang (2015), promote quantity of perfor-
+mance largely for simple, algorithmic tasks, but do not enhance high-quality performance. Fur-
+thermore, although these studies did not examine well-being outcomes, they did examine intrinsic
+and autonomous motivation and basic psychological need satisfaction, which are strongly related to
+well-being, and one of the studies examined turnover, which is strongly related to ill-being. In sum,
+for high-quality performance and well-being, providing equitable pay that is not directly contin-
+gent on performance along with an autonomy-supportive context, appears to be an optimal route.
+
+Critiques of SDT. There have been various critiques of SDT in the organization literature
+through the years, largely with respect to issues surrounding rewards or pay. Recently, Gerhart &
+Fang (2015) provided an extensive review and critique of CET. Throughout, they argued strongly
+for a PFP approach to compensation in the workplace, yet Cerasoli et al. (2014) and Jenkins et al.
+(1998) showed that PFP promoted only quantity of performance, not quality. Our view is that,
+although quantity of performance is important in some situations, high-quality outcomes are,
+in general, the more important. Furthermore, Gerhart & Fang argued that free-choice intrinsic
+motivation was not relevant to the workplace, but Cerasoli et al. also provided strong evidence
+that intrinsic motivation positively predicted both overall performance and quality of performance.
+Moreover, Gerhart & Fang missed the major point of the intrinsic-motivation experiments, which
+is that pay contingencies influence perceived autonomy and perceived competence, which are
+important elements in all workplace motivation, not just intrinsic motivation.
+
+In terms of rewards and pay, SDT research has consistently shown that whether rewards have a
+positive effect, no effect, or a negative effect on intrinsic motivation and internalization depends on
+their functional significance, which is influenced by the type of rewards (positive feedback versus
+tangible rewards), the type of reward contingency, which we have discussed in detail, and the in-
+terpersonal context within which they are administered (autonomy-supportive versus controlling).
+
+Concerning the importance of autonomy-supportive contexts, Ryan et al. (1983) showed that
+when performance-contingent monetary rewards were given in an autonomy-supportive con-
+text, participants showed more intrinsic motivation than those in a control group in which
+the rewards were engagement contingent without positive feedback, thus suggesting that the
+autonomy-supportive context highlighted the informational aspect of performance-contingent
+rewards. Other research using many paradigms has consistently related autonomy-supportive
+contexts to better performance and greater well-being (e.g., Baard et al. 2004), and research by
+Olafsen et al. (2015) showed that pay did not relate to employees' basic psychological need sat-
+isfaction or intrinsic motivation, but managerial autonomy support was a positive predictor of
+both, thus suggesting that the work context being autonomy supportive is more important than
+the amount of pay for motivating performance and wellness.
+
+As we said in the Introduction, evaluating payment approaches and other factors in the work-
+place requires examining their relations to both performance and well-being outcomes. However,
+Gerhart & Fang (2015) did not address the relation of PFP to well-being. In contrast, a plethora of
+research has shown that autonomous motivation and satisfaction of the basic psychological needs
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+36
+<!-- PageBreak [9] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+did predict both of these work outcomes. This indicates that creating autonomy-supportive con-
+texts within the workplace and providing pay that is relatively nondirectly contingent within those
+settings are the more effective means for attaining optimal work outcomes, rather than falling back
+on PFP, which does not have strong empirical support as a predictor of high-quality performance
+and well-being.
+
+One form of PFP that is particularly problematic is outcome-contingent rewards. Outcome-
+contingent rewards are those in which contingent pay is given for attaining specific outcomes.
+Examples include bonuses to top managers when stock prices increase; salary increases for teachers
+based on improved student test scores; or rewards for outproducing others within the company
+on some sales or service metric. We have argued that outcome-focused rewards are the most
+likely among all reward types to yield collateral damage-that is, to lead to gaming the system
+(Ryan & Deci 2017). As Ryan & Brown (2005) discussed, unlike traditional operant techniques
+that reinforce specific behaviors, outcome-focused rewards can reinforce any behaviors that lead
+to the outcome, whether or not it is best practice. Such PFP structures can thus lead to short-term
+routes to outcome attainment at the cost of more strategic ones. For example, high-stakes tests
+in schools foster "teaching to the tests," and in organizations quarterly bonuses lead to short-
+term "profit taking," often irrespective of longer-term goals. Finally, outcome-focused PFP often
+requires persistent monitoring and evaluating, which can be demoralizing.
+
+
+# Future Research
+
+As an empirically based approach to human motivation, SDT has, from the start, evolved with a
+keen interest and desire to test, expand, and refine its propositions and integrate important new
+contributions into the framework. In this spirit, many questions remain. However, as we have
+moved forward, that refinement has been increasingly in the hands of an extensive international
+community of scholars doing cutting-edge research on SDT, always challenging its formulations
+and refining its implementations. Next, we discuss some important future research topics to be
+explored on SDT concepts in the workplace. We provide a list below:
+
+Assess both workplace thwarts of basic needs and the frustration of employees' needs for
+predicting negative work outcomes.
+
+Examine how tangible rewards and pay affect internalization of regulations for work behav-
+iors.
+
+Improve psychometric properties of measures of autonomous and controlled motivations
+and satisfactions and frustrations of the basic psychological needs.
+
+Relate the functional significance of various pay contingencies to motivations and work
+outcomes.
+
+Examine concrete workplace tasks, characteristics, and managerial behaviors in relation to
+motivation and work outcomes.
+
+Study the impacts of advanced technologies, in interaction with work climates.
+
+Use more longitudinal designs and more objective measures.
+
+Nonetheless, advances in the empirical basis of SDT have often been unexpected by us, such as
+the recent use of SDT to organize research on human space travel (Goemaere et al. 2016). Thus,
+the topics raised in the above list and following discussion are undoubtedly merely a taste of what
+will come.
+
+Clearly one area of particular importance is that of compensation. More research is needed
+that focuses on the functional significance of various aspects of compensation, including the effects
+of absolute and relative pay levels, perceived distribution and fairness, and PFP contingencies. In
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+37
+<!-- PageBreak [10] -->
+
+<!-- pages 21-28 -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+particular, the manner in which distributive justice within organizations, and more generally the
+perceived corporate support for all stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, upper management,
+and stockholders), appears likely to affect psychological need satisfactions and to moderate the
+relations of compensation to performance and well-being. Finally, there has been relatively little
+research on how payment systems affect the internalization of work values and behaviors.
+
+Relatedly, given the strong evidence that satisfaction versus frustration of the basic psycholog-
+ical needs predict well-being and performance, it would be important to examine how factors in
+the workplace influence basic need frustration. Included in this would be examining the various
+conceptions of job characteristics as they represent thwarts to and thus frustration of the basic
+psychological needs. Many factors such as job characteristics can potentially affect whether work
+contexts are need supportive or need thwarting, and research clarifying this would help specify
+optimal conditions for workplace engagement.
+
+In much of the SDT research to date the focus has been on the degree to which a social context
+(e.g., the interpersonal atmosphere of a workplace) is high versus low in autonomy support. As we
+pointed out in the section on Work Contexts, Motivations, Needs, and Outcomes, recent work has
+emphasized that the active thwarting of autonomy (or basic needs more generally) appears to be
+much more effective in predicting negative outcomes such as ill-being, so future research should
+examine both need supports and need thwarts, and do it longitudinally with objective measures.
+
+
+# IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
+
+The concept of basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness provides
+the framework for understanding the implications of SDT for the workplace. Every policy and
+practice implemented within a work organization is likely to either support or thwart the basic
+psychological needs. Anyone interested in improving the work context within an organization and
+thus the performance and wellness of its employees could evaluate any policy or practice being
+considered in terms of whether it is likely to (a) allow the employees to gain competencies and/or
+feel confident, (b) experience the freedom to experiment and initiate their own behaviors and not
+feel pressured and coerced to behave as directed, and (c) feel respect and belonging in relation
+to both supervisors and peers. Policies or practices that are likely to support the employees in
+each of these three ways are likely to facilitate autonomous motivation, well-being, and high-
+quality performance. Those that thwart any of these employee experiences are likely to promote
+controlled motivation or amotivation, along with ill-being and, at best, quantity but not quality
+of performance.
+
+For example, work settings, in which supervisors acknowledge employees' perspectives, en-
+courage self-initiation, offer choices for individuals and groups, provide meaningful feedback,
+assign tasks that are optimally challenging, and give a rationale when requesting a behavior are
+likely to lead to both high-quality performance and wellness, as mediated by basic psychological
+need satisfaction and autonomous motivation. At the level of immediate supervisors, the evidence
+is abundant that when the supervisors are more autonomy supportive there are a range of positive
+consequences for the employees, including trust of managers higher in the organization.
+
+
+# CONCLUSION
+
+SDT as a theory of work motivation has been unique in that, through differentiating motiva-
+tion into autonomous and controlled types, it has been able to show that autonomous motiva-
+tion but not controlled motivation of employees promotes both high-quality performance and
+employee wellness. Thus, the theory has been able to attain the traditional goal of organizational
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+38
+<!-- PageBreak [1] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+psychologists-namely, facilitate profitability-and at the same time support the well-being of
+the employees. SDT has long been concerned with specifying empirically the social-contextual
+conditions that promote autonomous motivation. The key to that evolves from the proposition
+that all human beings have three fundamental psychological needs-for competence, autonomy,
+and relatedness-which when satisfied promote autonomous motivation, wellness, and effective
+performance. Thus, SDT has been centrally concerned with promoting the need-supportive con-
+ditions across domains that facilitate people motivating themselves autonomously and in turn
+working well and feeling good. Because work contexts that support the basic psychological needs
+have superior outcomes, research on the job characteristics, types of justice, managerial styles, and
+types of leadership has burgeoned. We have also found that compensation systems that reward peo-
+ple equitably without pressuring them with PFP contingencies can add to the basic need supports.
+Understanding the functional significance of managerial tools such as compensation, deadlines,
+monitoring, goal setting, and work design is essential within today's effective organizations.
+
+
+# DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
+
+The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
+might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
+
+
+# LITERATURE CITED
+
+Adams JS. 1963. Towards an understanding of inequity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 67(5):422-36
+
+Ambrose ML, Kulik CT. 1999. Old friends, new faces: motivation in the 1990s. J. Manag. 23(3):231-93
+
+Andreassen CS, Hetland J, Pallesen S. 2010. The relationship between "workaholism", basic needs satisfaction
+at work and personality. Eur. J. Pers. 24(1):3-17
+
+Avolio BJ, Bass BM. 1995. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: a multi-level frame-
+work for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadersh. Q. 6(2):199-218
+
+Baard PP, Deci EL, Ryan RM. 2004. Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational basis of performance and
+well-being in two work settings. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34(10):2045-68
+
+Bass BM. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press
+
+Bass BM, Avolio BJ. 1995. Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership
+Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press
+
+Baumeister RF, Leary MR. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
+human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117(3):497-529
+
+Bono JE, Judge TA. 2003. Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational effects of trans-
+formational leaders. Acad. Manag. 7. 46(5):554-71
+
+Burns JM. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row
+
+Cerasoli CP, Nicklin JM, Ford MT. 2014. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict perfor-
+mance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140(4):980-1008
+
+Chemolli E, Gagné M. 2014. Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation measures
+derived from self-determination theory. Psychol. Assess. 26(2):575-85
+
+Chirkov V, Ryan RM, Kim Y, Kaplan U. 2003. Differentiating autonomy from individualism and indepen-
+dence: a self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being.
+J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84(1):97-110
+
+Colquitt JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. 7. Appl.
+Psychol. 86(3):386-400
+
+Conchie SM. 2013. Transformational leadership, intrinsic motivation, and trust: a moderated-mediated model
+of workplace safety. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 18(2):198-210
+
+de Charms R. 1968. Personal Causation. New York: Academic
+
+Deci EL. 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. 7. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 18(1):105-15
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+39
+<!-- PageBreak [2] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Deci EL. 1972. The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation.
+Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 8(2):217-29
+
+Deci EL, Connell JP, Ryan RM. 1989. Self-determination in a work organization. J. Appl. Psychol. 74(4):580-90
+Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic
+rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 125(6):627-68
+
+Deci EL, Ryan RM. 1980. The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational Processes. New York: Academic
+Deci EL, Ryan RM. 1985a. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum
+Press
+
+Deci EL, Ryan RM. 1985b. The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. 7. Res.
+Pers. 19(2):109-34
+
+Deci EL, Ryan RM. 2000. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination
+of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11(4):227-68
+
+Deci EL, Ryan RM, Gagné M, Leone DR, Usunov J, Kornazheva BP. 2001. Need satisfaction, motivation,
+and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: a cross-cultural study of
+self-determination. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 27(8):930-42
+
+De Cooman R, Stynen D, Van Den Broeck A, Sels L, De Witte H. 2013. How job characteristics relate to need
+satisfaction and autonomous motivation: implications for work effort. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 43(6):1342-52
+Doshi N, McGregor L. 2015. Primed to Perform: How to Build the Highest Performing Cultures Through the
+Science of Total Motivation. New York: Harper Collins
+
+Eisenberger R, Cameron J. 1996. Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? Am. Psychol. 51(11):1153-166
+Fernet C, Austin S, Vallerand RJ. 2012a. The effects of work motivation on employee exhaustion and com-
+mitment: an extension of the JD-R model. Work Stress. 26(3):213-29
+
+Fernet C, Gagné M, Austin S. 2010. When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict burnout over
+time? The moderating role of work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 31(8):1163-80
+
+Fernet C, Guay F, Senécal C, Austin S. 2012b. Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: the role
+of perceived school environment and motivational factors. Teach. Teach. Educ. 28(4):514-25
+
+Forest J, Gilbert M-H, Beaulieu G, Le Brock P, Gagné M. 2014. Translating research results in economic
+terms: an application of economic utility analysis using SDT-based interventions. In The Oxford Handbook
+of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, ed. M Gagné, pp. 335-46. New York:
+Oxford Univ. Press
+
+Foss NJ, Minbaeva DB, Pedersen T, Reinholt M. 2009. Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees:
+how job design matters. Hum. Resour. Manag. 48(6):871-93
+
+Gagné M, Deci EL. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26(4):331-62
+
+Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, Van Den Broeck A, et al. 2015. The multidimensional
+work motivation scale: validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. Eur. J. Work Org.
+Psychol. 24(2):178-96
+
+Gagné M, Koestner R, Zuckerman M. 2000. Facilitating acceptance of organizational change: the importance
+of self-determination. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30(9):1843-52
+
+Gagné M, Senècal CB, Koestner R. 1997. Proximal job characteristics, feelings of empowerment, and intrinsic
+motivation: a multidimentional model. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 27(14):1222-40
+
+Gerhart B, Fang M. 2015. Pay, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, performance, and creativity in the
+workplace: revisiting long-held beliefs. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2(1):489-521
+
+Gillet N, Fouquereau E, Forest J, Brunault P, Colombat P. 2012. The impact of organizational factors on
+psychological needs and their relations with well-being. }. Bus. Psychol. 27(4):437-50
+
+Goemaere S, Vansteenkiste M, Van Petegem S. 2016. Gaining deeper insight into the psychological challenges
+of human spaceflight: the role of motivational dynamics. Acta Astronaut. 121:130-43
+
+Grant AM. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Acad. Manag. Rev.
+32 (2):393-417
+
+Grant AM, Nurmohamed S, Ashford SJ, Dekas K. 2011. The performance implications of ambivalent initiative:
+the interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116(2):241-51
+
+Graves LM, Sarkis J, Zhu Q. 2013. How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to
+predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. J. Environ. Psychol. 35:81-91
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+40
+<!-- PageBreak [3] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Greenberg J. 1987. A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Acad. Manag. Rev. 12(1):9-22
+
+Gubler T, Larkin I, Pierce L. 2016. Motivational spillovers from awards: crowding out in a multitasking
+environment. Organ. Sci. 27(2):286-303
+
+Gözükara İ, Simsek OF. 2015. Linking transformational leadership to work engagement and the mediator effect
+of job autonomy: a study in a Turkish private non-profit university. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 195(3):963-71
+
+Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1980. Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
+
+Hardré PL, Reeve J. 2009. Training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-supportive motivating
+style toward employees: an intervention study. Int. J. Train. Dev. 13(3):165-84
+
+Harrison DA, Virick M, Williams S. 1996. Working without a net: time, performance, and turnover under
+maximally contingent rewards. 7. Appl. Psychol. 81(4):331-45
+
+Hetland H, Hetland J, Andreassen CS, Pallesen S, Notelaers G. 2011. Leadership and fulfillment of the three
+basic psychological needs at work. Career. Dev. Int. 16(5):507-23
+
+Hon AHY. 2012. Shaping environments conductive to creativity: the role of intrinsic motivation. Cornell Hosp.
+Q. 53(1):53-64
+
+Howard JL, Gagné M, Morin AJS, Wang ZN, Forest J. 2016. Using bifactor-exploratory struc-
+tural equation modeling to test for a continuum structure of motivation. }. Manag. https://doi.
+org/10.1177/0149206316645653
+
+Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
+design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl.
+Psychol. 92(5):1332-56
+
+Jenkins GD, Mitra A, Gupta N, Shaw JD. 1998. Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-
+analytic review of empirical research. J. Appl. Psychol. 83(5):777-87
+
+Kasser T, Ryan RM. 1996. Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and
+extrinsic goals. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 22(3):280-87
+
+Komaki J, Barwick KD, Scott LR. 1978. A behavioral approach to occupational safety: pinpointing and rein-
+forcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. J. Appl. Psychol. 63(4):434
+
+Kovjanic S, Schuh SC, Jonas K, Quaquebeke NV, Van Dick R. 2012. How do transformational leaders foster
+positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees' needs as mediating links.
+J. Organ. Behav. 33(8):1031-52
+
+Kuvaas B. 2009. A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination theory among public sector employees.
+Empl. Relat. 31(1):39-56
+
+Kuvaas B, Buch R, Gagné M, Dysvik A, Forest J. 2016. Do you get what you pay for? Sales incentives,
+motivation, and employee outcomes. Motiv. Emotion. 40:667-80
+
+Landry AT, Kindlein J, Trépanier SG, Forest J, Zigarmi D, et al. 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. Motiv. Emotion. 40(2):226-42
+
+Levesque M, Blais MR, Hess U. 2004. Motivation, discretionary organisational attitudes and well-being in an
+African environment: When does duty call? Can. J. Behav. Sci. 36(4):321-32
+
+Lian H, Lance Ferris D, Brown DJ. 2012. Does taking the good with the bad make things worse? How
+abusive supervision and leader-member exchange interact to impact need satisfaction and organizational
+deviance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117(1):41-52
+
+Liu D, Zhang S, Wang L, Lee TW. 2011. The effects of autonomy and empowerment on employee turnover:
+test of a multilevel model in teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 96(6):1305-316
+
+Lynch MF, Plant RW, Ryan RM. 2005. Psychological needs and threat to safety: implications for staff and
+patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pr. 36(4):415-25
+
+Mackey J, Sisodia R. 2014. Conscious Capitalism. Brighton, MA: Harvard Bus. Rev. Press
+
+Markus HR, Kitayama S. 1991. Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
+Psychol. Rev. 98(2):224-53
+
+McGraw KO. 1978. The detrimental effects of reward on performance: a literature review and a prediction
+model. In The Hidden Costs of Reward: A New Perspective on Human Motivation, ed. MR Lepper, D Green,
+pp. 33-60. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
+
+Millette V, Gagné M. 2008. Designing volunteers' tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance:
+the impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motiv. Emotion. 32(1):11-22
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory 41
+<!-- PageBreak [4] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Moreau E, Mageau G. 2012. The importance of perceived autonomy support for the psychological health
+and work satisfaction of health professionals: Not only supervisors count, colleagues too! Motiv. Emotion.
+36(3):268-86
+
+Morgeson FP, Campion MA. 2003. Work design. In Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational
+Psychology, Vol. 12, ed. WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ Klimoski, pp. 423-52. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
+
+Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a
+comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. }. Appl. Psychol. 91(6):1321-39
+
+Nie Y, Chua BL, Yeung AS, Ryan RM, Chan WY. 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. Int. J. Psychol. 50(4):245-55
+
+Olafsen AH, Halvari H, Forest J, Deci EL. 2015. Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need
+support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scand. J. Psychol.
+56(4):447-57
+
+Otis N, Pelletier LG. 2005. A motivational model of daily hassles, physical symptoms, and future work
+intentions among police officers. 7. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35(10):2193-214
+
+Parker SK. 2014. Beyond motivation: job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more.
+Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65(1):661-91
+
+Pink D. 2009. Drive. New York: Riverhead Books
+
+Preenen PTY, Oeij PRA, Dhondt S, Kraan KO, Jansen E. 2016. Why job autonomy matters for young compa-
+nies' performance: company maturity as a moderator between job autonomy and company performance.
+World Rev. Enterp. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 12(1):74-100
+
+Richer SF, Blanchard C, Vallerand RJ. 2002. A motivational model of work turnover. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
+32(10):2089-113
+
+Roche M, Haar JM. 2013. A metamodel approach towards self-determination theory: a study of New Zealand
+managers' organisational citizenship behaviours. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 24(18):3397-417
+
+Ross M. 1975. Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32(2):245-54
+
+Roth G, Assor A, Kanat-Maymon Y, Kaplan H. 2006. Assessing the experience of autonomy in new cultures
+and contexts. Motiv. Emotion. 30(4):365-76
+
+Ryan RM. 1995. Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J. Pers. 63(3):397-427
+
+Ryan RM, Bernstein JH, Brown KW. 2010. Weekends, work, and well-being: psychological need satisfactions
+and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. }. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 29(1):95-122
+Ryan RM, Brown KW. 2005. Legislating competence: the motivational impact of high stakes testing as an
+educational reform. In Handbook of Competence, ed. AJ Elliot, CS Dweck, pp. 354-74. New York: Guilford
+Press
+
+Ryan RM, Connell JP. 1989. Perceived locus of causality and internalization-examining reasons for acting
+in two domains. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 57(5):749-61
+
+Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social devel-
+opment, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55(1):68-78
+
+Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2017. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and
+Wellness. New York: Guilford
+
+Ryan RM, Mims V, Koestner R. 1983. Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic
+motivation: a review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45(4):736-50
+
+Ryan RM, Sheldon KM, Kasser T, Deci EL. 1996. All goals are not created equal: an organismic perspective
+on the nature of goals and their regulation. In The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to
+Behavior, ed. PM Gollwitzer, JA Bargh, pp. 7-26. New York: Guilford Press
+
+Schreurs B, Van Emmerik IJH, Van Den Broeck A, Guenter H. 2014. Work values and work engagement
+within teams: the mediating role of need satisfaction. Group Dyn. 18(4):267-81
+
+Sheldon KM, Krieger LS. 2014. Service job lawyers are happier than money job lawyers, despite their lower
+income. J. Posit. Psychol. 90(3):219-26
+
+Sheldon KM, Ryan RM, Deci EL, Kasser T. 2004. The independent effects of goal contents and motives on
+well-being: It's both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 30(4):475-86
+
+Trépanier SG, Fernet C, Austin S. 2012. Social and motivational antecedents of perceptions of transformational
+leadership: a self-determination theory perspective. Can. J. Behav. Sci. 44(4):272-77
+
+Deci . Olafsen . Ryan
+42
+<!-- PageBreak [5] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+Trépanier SG, Fernet C, Austin S. 2013a. The moderating role of autonomous motivation in the job demands-
+strain relation: a two sample study. Motiv. Emotion. 37(1):93-105
+
+Trépanier SG, Fernet C, Austin S. 2013b. Workplace bullying and psychological health at work: the mediating
+role of satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Work Stress. 27(2):123-40
+
+Van Den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang C-H, Rosen CC. 2016. A review of self-determination theory's basic
+psychological needs at work. 7. Manag. 42:1195-229
+
+Van Den Broeck A, Van Ruysseveldt J, Smulders P, De Witte H. 2011. Does an intrinsic work value orientation
+strengthen the impact of job resources? A perspective from the job demands-resources model. Eur. J.
+Work Org. Psychol. 20(5):581-609
+
+Van Den Broeck A, Vansteenkiste M, De Witte H, Lens W. 2008. Explaining the relationships between job
+characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work Stress.
+22(3):277-94
+
+Van Den Broeck A, Vansteenkiste M, Lens W, De Witte H. 2010. Unemployed individuals' work values and
+job flexibility: an explanation from expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. Appl. Psychol.
+Crim. Justice 59(2):296-317
+
+Vander Elst T, Van Den Broeck A, De Witte H, De Cuyper N. 2012. The mediating role of frustration of
+psychological needs in the relationship between job insecurity and work-related well-being. Work Stress.
+26(3):252-71
+
+Vansteenkiste M, Neyrinck B, Niemiec CP, Soenens B, De Witte H, Van Den Broeck A. 2007. On the relations
+among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: a self-determination
+theory approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 80(2):251-77
+
+Wang Z, Gagné M. 2013. A Chinese-Canadian cross-cultural investigation of transformational leadership,
+autonomous motivation, and collectivistic value. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 20:134-42
+
+Weibel A, Rost K, Osterloh M. 2010. Pay for performance in the public sector-benefits and (hidden) costs.
+J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 20(2):387-412
+
+Weinstein N, Hodgins HS, Ryan RM. 2010. Autonomy and control in dyads: effects on interaction quality
+and joint creative performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 36(12):1603-17
+
+White RW. 1959. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol. Rev. 66(5):297-333
+
+Williams GC, Halvari H, Niemiec CP, Sørebø Ø, Olafsen AH, Westbye C. 2014. Managerial support for
+basic psychological needs, somatic symptom burden and work-related correlates: A self-determination
+theory perspective. Work Stress. 28(4):404-19
+
+Williams GC, McGregor HA, Zeldman A, Freedman ZR, Deci EL. 2004. Testing a self-determination
+theory process model for promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management. Health Psychol.
+23(1):58-66
+
+www.annualreviews.org . Self-Determination Theory
+43
+<!-- PageBreak [6] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+R
+
+
+# Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
+
+Volume 4, 2017
+
+
+## Contents
+
+
+<table>
+<tr>
+<td>Perspective Construction in Organizational Behavior</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Karl E. Weick</td>
+<td>1</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>of a Science</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Edward L. Deci, Anja H. Olafsen, and Richard M. Ryan</td>
+<td>19</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>A Road Well Traveled: The Past, Present, and Future Journey of</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Strategic Human Resource Management</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Patrick M. Wright and Michael D. Ulrich</td>
+<td>45</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Emotions in the Workplace</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Neal M. Ashkanasy and Alana D. Dorris</td>
+<td>67</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Field Experiments in Organizations</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Dov Eden</td>
+<td>91</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Abusive Supervision</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Bennett J. Tepper, Lauren Simon, and Hee Man Park</td>
+<td>123</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Recruitment and Retention Across Cultures</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>David G. Allen and James M. Vardaman</td>
+<td>153</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Multilevel Modeling: Research-Based Lessons</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>for Substantive Researchers</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Vicente González-Romá and Ana Hernández</td>
+<td>183</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Team Innovation</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Daan van Knippenberg</td>
+<td>211</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Evidence-Based Management: Foundations, Development, Controversies and Future</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Sara L. Rynes and Jean M. Bartunek</td>
+<td>235</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Transition Processes: A Review and Synthesis Integrating Methods and Theory Paul D. Bliese, Amy B. Adler, and Patrick J. Flynn</td>
+<td>263</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+vi
+<!-- PageBreak [7] -->
+
+Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017.4:19-43. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
+
+Access provided by University of Rochester Library on 03/27/17. For personal use only.
+
+
+<table>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Trust Repair Roy J. Lewicki and Chad Brinsfield</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>287</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Comparing and Contrasting Workplace Ostracism and Incivility D. Lance Ferris, Meng Chen, and Sandy Lim</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>315</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Psychological Capital: An Evidence-Based Positive Approach Fred Luthans and Carolyn M. Youssef-Morgan</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>339</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Construal Level Theory in Organizational Research Batia M. Wiesenfeld, Jean-Nicolas Reyt, Joel Brockner, and Yaacov Trope</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>367</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Dynamic Self-Regulation and Multiple-Goal Pursuit Andrew Neal, Timothy Ballard, and Jeffrey B. Vancouver</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>401</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Neuroscience in Organizational Behavior David A. Waldman, M.K. Ward, and William J. Becker</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>425</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td rowspan="2">Retaking Employment Tests: What We Know and What We Still Need to Know</td>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td></td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Chad H. Van Iddekinge and John D. Arnold</td>
+<td>445</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Alternative Work Arrangements: Two Images of the New World of Work Gretchen M. Spreitzer, Lindsey Cameron, and Lyndon Garrett</td>
+<td>473</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Communication in Organizations Joann Keyton</td>
+<td>501</td>
+</tr>
+<tr>
+<td>Collective Turnover John P. Hausknecht</td>
+<td>527</td>
+</tr>
+</table>
+
+
+### Errata
+
+An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
+Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/
+orgpsych
+
+Contents
+vii
+<!-- PageBreak [8] -->