Understand the Changes in Motivation at Work: Empirical Studies Using Self-Determination Theory-Based Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managers often need to stay motivated and effectively motivate others. Therefore, they should rely on evidence-based interventions to effectively motivate and self-motivate. This research investigated how self-determination theory-based interventions affect employees' motivation dynamics and motivational consequences within short time frames (i.e., within an hour, within a few weeks or months) in two empirical studies. Study one focused on assessing the effectiveness of a one-day training workshop in helping to improve managers' work motivation, basic psychological needs satisfaction/frustration, subordinates' motivation, and perceptions of managers' needs-supportive/thwarting behaviors within a few weeks. Results support the effectiveness of the training, as managers were rated by their direct subordinates as having fewer needs-thwarting behaviors and reported self-improvement in needs satisfaction and frustration six weeks after completing the training program. Study two used the mean and covariance structure analysis and tested the impact of three types of basic psychological needs-supportive/thwarting and control conditions (3 × 2 × 1 factorial design) on participants' situational motivation, vitality, and general self-efficacy for playing online word games within 30 min. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed the scalar measurement invariance, then latent group mean comparison results show consistently lower controlled motivation across the experimental conditions. During a quick online working scenario, the theory-based momentary intervention effectively changed situational extrinsic self-regulation in participants. Supplementary structural equation modeling (SEM; cross-sectional) analyses using experience samples supported the indirect dual-path model from basic needs satisfaction to vitality and general efficacy via situational motivation. We discussed the theoretical implications of the temporal properties of work motivation, the practical implications for employee training, and the limitations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".