Why A Self-Concept Based Model of Work Motivation is Needed by Rogelio Dela Cruz, Ph. D. (April, 2004)

There have been a number of attempts at developing models of self concept-based motivation, but none as yet has been integrated into the mainstream of organizational research and teaching. Most organizational behavior textbooks provide only a cursory overview of self-based constructs. What is missing is a model of the self concept that clearly defines these constructs and explains how they can be integrated with traditional work motivation models. After reviewing the literature on motivation, I have determined that there are four major reasons why we need the addition of self concept-based constructs to more completely understand and predict organizational behavior. Specifically, these four reasons are:

The need to explain non-calculative-based work behavior;


The need to better account for internal sources of motivation;


The need to integrate dispositional and situational explanations of behavior; and<


The need to integrate existing self-based theories in the literature.
The Need to Explain Non-Calculative-Based Work Behavior

Most of our currently popular theories of work motivation assume that individuals are "rational maximizers of personal utility" (Shamir, 1990, p. 39). For example, expectancy theory assumes that motivation is a result of calculatively determined probabilities associated with different levels or types of behavior and the valences of the outcomes associated with these behaviors. Equity theory may be considered calculative insofar as it assumes that people cognitively assess their own attitudes and job performance by comparing their input/outcome ratio to that of a referent other. If this ratio indicates an imbalance between inputs and rewards as compared to the referent, then inequity is produced. This inequity causes cognitive dissonance that the individual is motivated to reduce. These cognitive choice or calculative models assume that behaviors are the result of hedonistic processes (i.e., people will behave in ways that maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative outcomes).

Although research over the past twenty years in decision-making, occupational choice, and achievement motivation (Kanfer, 1990) has provided strong support for these calculative models, they cannot account for the full range of motivated behavior. For example, these models do not explain changes in behavior across situations when expectancies and valences remain constant. In addition, individuals may differ in the use of expectancy and instrumentality information. Self theory supplements calculative models by suggesting the concept of self as a basis for non-calculative explanations of behavior.

Need to Account for Internal Sources of Motivation

There are a number of theories that attempt to capture types or sources of motivation affecting organizational members. For instance, in discussing internal and external causes of behavior, De Charms (1968) suggested the dichotomy of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation to characterize the different loci of causality. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are said to represent internal causality, whereas behaviors that are induced by external forces are said to represent external causality. Deci (1975) explored the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation and in doing so, tried to shed some light on the meaning of intrinsic motivation. He suggested that intrinsically motivated behaviors fall into two categories. The first category includes behaviors that individuals engage in to seek out challenging situations. These challenges represent incongruities between stimuli and comparison standards. The second category includes behaviors aimed at reducing these incongruities (i.e., overcoming challenges). Thus, intrinsically motivated behavior, according to Deci, is conceptualized as a continual process of seeking and overcoming challenges.

Another understanding of intrinsic motivation is offered by Katz and Kahn (1978). They argue that the bases of motivation can be categorized in terms of legal compliance, external rewards, and internalized motivation. Internalized motivation is further broken down into self-expression, derived directly from role performance and internalized values, resulting when group or organizational goals become incorporated into the value system of the individual. Etzioni (1975) takes a similar view when arguing that organizations induce involvement from their members by one of three means: alienative, calculative, or moral. Alienative and calculative involvement are explained by exchange processes. Moral involvement is more complex. According to Etzioni, there are two kinds of moral involvement, pure and social. Pure moral involvement is the result of internalization of norms, while social involvement results from sensitivity to pressures of primary groups and their members. Moral involvement is not based on expected satisfaction of needs and may even demand the denial of need satisfaction and the sacrifice of personal pleasure. For example, military personnel who serve in the armed forces demonstrate the value of serving one's country to the point of risking their lives, and the individual who works a double shift for a friend who needs the night off demonstrates the value of friendship. In these instances, the consequence of acting in line with one's internalized values is not a sense of pleasure or need fulfillment, but rather a sense of affirmation attained when the person abides by his or her moral commitments.

The above approaches are strikingly similar in that they allow for both an instrumental, or exchange basis of motivation, and an expressive basis of motivation, whether it is termed intrinsic motivation, intrinsically motivated behavior, moral involvement, or internalized motivation. This paper is concerned with clarifying our understanding of expressive motivation by integrating these different approaches in a model of the self concept.

Need to Integrate Dispositional and Situational Explanations of Behavior

Psychologists have long postulated that individual dispositions or personalities are significant determinants of behavior. The assumptions underlying this approach are that (1) there are individual differences in ways of behaving; (2) individual behavior is somewhat stable over time; and (3) individual behavior is somewhat consistent across situations. At the other extreme is the view that behavior is determined by situational factors and that similarity in behavior results from similarity of situational circumstances. Supporting this latter view, Mischel (1968) argued that personality traits have accounted for little variance in behavior across situations. Recently, some researchers have begun to provide new evidence for the dispositional view. For example, Staw and Ross (1985) found in a longitudinal study, that job attitudes were significantly stable over a five year period and that there was significant cross-situational consistency when individuals changed occupations and/or employers. Gerhardt (1987) replicated these findings using a younger sample of both men and women and a more sophisticated methodology that controlled for job complexity. Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, and Abraham (1989) have even provided evidence for a genetic disposition in the determination of job satisfaction.

Today, most researchers have taken an interactionist view that states that behavior is a function of both environment and personality. Specifically, these researchers are suggesting that a dynamic reciprocal interaction occurs between the person and the situation. Pervin challenges researchers to develop models that will explain how people are able to shift from situation to situation, often exhibiting different patterns of behavior, while still retaining a recognizable personality structure.

Need to Integrate Existing Self-Based Theories

In recent years, a plethora of self-based theories have been proposed (Markus & Wurf, 1987; Schlenker, 1985; Shamir, 1991; Snyder & Williams, 1982). All of these theories are based on the assumption that "human beings have a fundamental need to maintain or enhance the phenomenal self". Because of this fundamental need, individuals are motivated to behave in ways that are consistent with existing self-perceptions. Thus, these theories may be useful in expanding our notion of motivated behavior in the workplace.

Unfortunately, because of the different streams of research in this area, our knowledge of self theory is piecemeal in nature and highly disorganized. Furthermore, a proliferation of terms and concepts that often overlap in meaning has resulted. What is needed is an integrative model of the self-concept that will clarify the nature of self theory constructs and organize them in a nomological net that will guide empirical research.

If self theory is to be useful to organizational researchers, it must do a number of things. First, it must provide a detailed description of the structure and content of the self concept and an understanding of how it is developed. Second, it must address how the self concept influences behavior in organizations. Third, it must explain how the self concept affects employee reactions to organizational systems that are in place to induce specific behaviors (e.g., reward systems, cultural systems, etc.).