A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines how the different forms of behavioural regulation proposed by self‐determination theory combine within different profiles of workers and the extent to which these configurations are replicated among four samples of workers from distinct occupational groups (managers, nurses, physiotherapists, and hospital employees). In addition, this research investigates the role of workload (as a job demand), as well as perceived organizational, supervisor, and colleagues support (as job resources) in the prediction of profile membership. Finally, this research also documents the relation between motivation profiles and a series of adaptive (work performance) and maladaptive (presenteeism, turnover intentions, and absenteeism) work outcomes. Latent profile analyses revealed six similar motivation profiles among the four samples (n = 291 managers, 249 hospital employees, 237 nurses, and 373 physiotherapists). The results also showed the highest levels of presenteeism and turnover intentions, and the lowest levels of work performance to be associated with the Externally Driven profile. Moreover, workload predicted a higher likelihood of membership into the Self‐Driven Introjected and Externally Driven profiles relative to the Moderately Intrinsically Motivated , Highly Intrinsically Motivated , and Self‐Driven Hedonist profiles. Finally, perceived colleagues support predicted a decreased likelihood of membership into the Externally Driven profile relative to the five other profiles, whereas higher levels of perceived organizational support predicted an increased likelihood of membership into the Self‐Driven Introjected , Highly Intrinsically Motivated , and Value‐Reward Self‐Driven profiles relative to the Externally Driven and Self‐Driven Hedonist ones. Practitioner points Employees’ profiles characterized by low levels of self‐determined work motivation were associated with the worst outcomes. By decreasing employees’ workload or by helping to make it more manageable, organizations may increase employees’ likelihood of displaying more desirable, and self‐determined, motivational profiles. By improving colleagues support, organizations may also be able to increase employees’ likelihood of displaying more desirable, and self‐determined, motivational profiles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".