 

WHEELS
I LIBRARY
mag Michigan State

University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

MANAGERIAL DOWNWARD INFLUENCE TACTICS:
CONSIDERING THE 'WHY' OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

presented by
AMBER N. W. RAILE

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Communication

 

 

W

7 Major Professor's Signature

July 15, 2008

 

Date

MSU is an afﬁnnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Prolecc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

MANAGERIAL DOWNWARD INFLUENCE TACTICS:
CONSIDERING THE “WHY” OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

By

Amber N. W. Raile

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2008

ABSTRACT

MANAGERIAL DOWNWARD TN F LUENCE TACTICS:
CONSIDERING THE “WHY” OF EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

By
Amber N. W. Raile

Research on managerial inﬂuence tactics has focused on three areas: identifying
tactics, quantifying their frequency, and linking tactics to outcomes. However, little
attention has been paid to why employers respond with commitment or lack thereof when
managers send particular inﬂuence messages. Research on employee motivation may
help to answer this question by informing the association between particular inﬂuence
tactics and employee commitment. Self-determination theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985a;
2000) emphasizes the importance of three basic needs — autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. Central to the theory is that particular social contexts and social interactions
offer different opportunities to satisfy these needs. The theory proposes a range of
motivation from amotivation to extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. Further,
extrinsic motivation ranges in quality from externally regulated to internally regulated.
This study tested whether SDT can explain why particular tactics are associated with
commitment. In other words, do autonomy, competence, relatedness, and regulation
mediate the relationship between inﬂuence tactics used by managers and subsequent
levels of employee commitment?

To answer this question, the study focused on two particular inﬂuence tactics —
inspirational appeals and pressure. The experimental model predicted that inspirational
appeals would be associated with higher levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and

relatedness, which would lead to identiﬁed regulation, which would be positively

associated with commitment; conversely, pressure tactics would be associated with lower
levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which would lead to external
regulation, which would be negatively associated with commitment. To test this
prediction, 300 participants were placed into one of three experimental conditions -
inspirational appeals, pressure, or direct request/control. Participants were given an
instruction embodying one of those tactics, completed a task, and evaluated their
autonomy, competence, relatedness, regulation, and commitment in completing the task.
Contrary to predictions, the results showed no signiﬁcant difference among experimental
conditions in levels of autonomy, competence, or relatedness. However, the data were
consistent with the rest of the proposed model. These results suggest multiple avenues for
further testing of the model. Though the data were not consistent with the proposed

model, modiﬁcations offer interesting future possibilities for this line of research.

This dissertation is dedicated to my family, especially Eric and Landon.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I wish to thank my adviser, Dr. Hee Sun Park, for her insights
and hard work on my dissertation and throughout my graduate education. I would also
like to thank my dissertation committee members — Dr. Daniel Ilgen, Dr. Kami Silk, and
Dr. Sandi Smith — for their contributions and support. I would be remiss if I did not
acknowledge Dr. Jennifer Butler Ellis, who shared my enthusiasm for this line of
research and was always there to provide insight and moral support. I am honored and
grateful to have ﬁve scholars of your caliber take an interest in my education. Also, I am
fortunate to have worked with three outstanding undergraduates — Victoria Morris,
Tiffany Rhoton, and Christine Rupas — who assisted me with data entry. My mom
(Nancy) and my husband (Eric) also provided invaluable assistance. Finally, thanks to my
son, Landon, for keeping me focused and reminding me of what is really important in

life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 2
Distinguishing “Inﬂuence” from “Power” ............................................................... 2
A History of Research on Downward Inﬂuence in Organizations .......................... 3
A Question Leﬁ Unanswered ................................................................................. 10
Self-Determination Theories of Motivation ........................................................... 11
Self-Determination, Motivation, and the Effects of Downward Inﬂuence ............ 22
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 26
PRESTUDY ....................................................................................................................... 30
Method ................................................................................................................... 30
Results .................................................................................................................... 31
MAIN STUDY METHOD ................................................................................................ 35
Participants ............................................................................................................. 35
Study Design .......................................................................................................... 35
Materials and Measures ......................................................................................... 37
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 42
Hypothesis Testing ................................................................................................. 42
Model Testing ........................................................................................................ 43
Post Hoc Model Testing ......................................................................................... 45
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 51
Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 51
Potential Areas to Explore ..................................................................................... 53
Areas for Future Research ..................................................................................... 58
Practical Implications ............................................................................................. 61
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 61
APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................... 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 81

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Downward Inﬂuence Strategies Identiﬁed by Researchers ........................ 5
Comparisons of Findings across Studies ............................................................................. 7
Descriptive Statistics for Prestudy Data ............................................................................ 31
Descriptive Statistics across Conditions ............................................................................ 42
ANOVA Results for Differences across Conditions ......................................................... 43
Correlations between Variables in Hypothesized Model ................................................... 46
Covariance Matrix for Hypothesized Model ..................................................................... 46
Correlations between Variables in “Feelings” Model ....................................................... 48
Covariance Matrix for “Feelings” Model .......................................................................... 48

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Proposed Theory-Based Model .......................................................................................... 28
Prestudy Evaluation of Tasks ............................................................................................. 33
Prestudy Evaluation of Tactics .......................................................................................... 34
Operationalized Path Diagram with Standardized Parameter Estimates ........................... 47
“Feelings” Path Model with Standardized Parameter Estimates ....................................... 49
Modiﬁed “Feelings” Path Model with Standardized Parameter Estimates ....................... 50

viii

Introduction

Managers’ attempts to inﬂuence their employees are uniquely tied to the success
of organizations, managers, and employees. Downward inﬂuence can be thought of as
creating, changing, or reinforcing the attitudes, beliefs, and/or behaviors of those persons
below one in the organizational hierarchy. Successful downward inﬂuence is
simultaneously vital and routine for managers. “A manager’s effectiveness depends on
success in inﬂuencing others to (a) modify their plans and schedules, (b) approve and
support the manager’s plans and proposals, (c) provide additional resources needed to
accomplish major tasks, ((1) accept and carry out new assignments, and (e) provide
relevant and timely information” (Yukl & Falbe, 1990, p. 134). One of any manager’s
core responsibilities is to inﬂuence his/her direct reports’ work behavior. Research on
downward inﬂuence has ranged from identifying tactics employed by managers to
identifying the outcomes associated with those tactics for organizations, managers, and
employees. However, the “why” of these associations is, thus far, unexplored.
Speciﬁcally, why are some inﬂuence tactics more effective than others? The concept of
motivation, which is also “of preeminent concern to those in roles such as manager. . .that
involve mobilizing others to act” (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, p. 69), may provide an
explanation as to why particular tactics often lead to certain outcomes. This paper
reviews the literature on downward inﬂuence, and then proposes the application of self-
deterrnination theory to better understand the connection between manager’s downward

inﬂuence tactics and their associated outcomes.

Literature Review
Distinguishing “Inﬂuence ”from ”Power ”

The terms “power” and “inﬂuence” are sometimes synonymous in lay usage, and,
certainly, the two are related in academic work as well. For example, Marwell and
Schmitt’s (1967) l6-category taxonomy, one of the most commonly used typologies of
inﬂuence tactics in communication research, was partially derived from French and
Raven’s (1959) inﬂuential typology of power bases. Lumping power and inﬂuence
together is particularly tempting when considering relationships in hierarchical
organizations. However, most organizational inﬂuence researchers carefully distinguish
between power and inﬂuence. “Inﬂuence is simply the process by which people
successfully persuade others to follow their advice, suggestion, or order. It can be
contrasted with power which is a personal or positional attribute that enables one to
inﬂuence others and which can be thought of as ‘continuing or sustained’ inﬂuence”
(Keys & Case, 1990, p. 38). Thus, power might be better conceptualized as inﬂuence
potential rather than as an actual inﬂuence tactic. “Power is exercised through inﬂuence
behavior, and different forms of inﬂuence behavior can be classiﬁed into behavior
categories” (Yukl, Lepsinger, & Lucia, 1991, p. 417). In addition to deﬁnitional
separation, there is also empirical evidence to suggest that the type of power one has
within an organizational hierarchy does not necessarily dictate the type of inﬂuence
tactics that person will use (Kipnis, Schmidt, & Wilkinson, 1980). For example, the
separate nature of power and inﬂuence was empirically supported by Yukl, Kim, and

Falbe (1996), who found that referent power (i.e., charisma), the inﬂuence tactic used,

and the nature of the task each independently affected the outcome of an inﬂuence
attempt, suggesting that power serves as an antecedent to inﬂuence.

Based on their relative positions within the organizational hierarchy, managers
have legitimate power over their subordinates but may also rely on other sources of
power. The idea of legitimate power requires buy-in to the social structure on the part of
the subordinate (French & Raven, 1959). Keys and Case (1990) noted that one’s ability to
exercise downward inﬂuence is increasingly important in the face of the diminishing
power of formal authority. Beginning in the late 19703, research on interpersonal
inﬂuence in organizations transitioned from a focus on power to one deﬁning and
identifying actual tactics employed by those in managerial positions to inﬂuence the
behavior of their employees. Kipnis, Schmidt, Swaﬁ'rn-Smith, and Wilkinson (1984)
asserted that French and Raven’s “theoretical approach does not help us identify all the
tactics actually used by managers — that is, managers use tactics not mentioned by French
and Raven” (p. 59).

A History of Research on Downward Inﬂuence in Organizations

Identiﬁcation of influence tactics. Across interpersonal contexts and relationship
types, researchers have identiﬁed 74 different inﬂuence classiﬁcation systems that
include 64 tactics (Kellerrnann & Cole, 1994). One of these classiﬁcation systems, the
line of research on organizational inﬂuence tactics originated by Kipnis et a1. (1980),
provides the starting point for this brief history of research on inﬂuence in organizations.
In this foundational research, Kipnis et a1. conducted two studies to explore how
managers attempt to inﬂuence others at work. In Study 1, Kipnis et al. content-analyzed

the self-reported inﬂuence attempts of lower-level managers toward their subordinates. In

Study 2, the researchers distributed a Likert-type questionnaire based on the tactics
identiﬁed in Study 1 to evening MBA students and found that managers engaged in
downward inﬂuence employed ingratiation, rationality, assertiveness, exchange, upward
appeals, sanctions, coalitions, and blocking (see Table 1). Because of its wide
availability, variations of this scale are still frequently used in inﬂuence research, though
the most tested versions focus on upward inﬂuence (e. g., Schriesheim & Hinkin, 1990).
Yukl and Falbe (1990) sought to replicate and extend the work of Kipnis et a1.
(1980) and created a new taxonomy and questionnaire (the Inﬂuence Behavior
Questionnaire or IBQ). Many inﬂuence tactics retained identical or similar labels (e.g.,
ingratiation/friendliness was labeled ingratiation); other tactics were comparable to
previously speciﬁed tactics, but renamed (e. g., assertiveness became pressure). One
notable change was the addition of two tactics — inspirational appeals and consultation —
that were not comparable to any strategy speciﬁed by Kipnis and colleagues. The eight
category system quickly became a nine category system, with the removal of the upward
appeals category and the addition of two new categories -— personal appeals and
legitimating, which were identiﬁed in manager and employee self-reports. The list of nine
categories was used in research through the I990S. In 2005, Yukl, Chavez, and Seifert
found support for the validity of two additional inductively developed inﬂuence tactics —
collaboration and apprising. Based on these ﬁndings, 11 tactics of downward inﬂuence
with different impacts have been identiﬁed. Table 1 lists the tactics identiﬁed by Yukl

and colleagues.

Table 1
Comparison of Downward Inﬂuence Strategies Identified by Researchers

Kipnis and colleagLes (1980; 1984) Yukl and colleagggs Q992; 1996; 2005)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assertiveness Pressure
(demanding, ordering) (demands, orders, threats, intimidation)
Legitimating
(relies on orgainizational structures and rules)
Ingratiation or F riendliness Ingratiation
(making subordinate feel important) (puts other in good mood, manages other’s face)
Rationality or Reason Rational Persuasion
(explaining, using logic) (logical arguments and factual evidence)
Coalitions Coalition
(assistance from others) (geeks aid of others)
Bargaining Exchange
(negiation, exchage of beneﬁts) (exchange of favors)
Sanctions
(punishments and rewards for behavior)
Higher Authority
(support fromﬂgher-ups to back requests)
Personal Appeals
(emphasizes personal relationship)
Inspirational Appeals
(appeal to values, ideals)
Consultation
(seeks participation)
Collaboration“

(offer of resources to assist with action
completion)

Apprising“
(explain how compliance will beneﬁt targe_tL__

* Added in 2005

Inﬂuence strategy ﬁequency. In addition to identifying tactics, the prevalence of
their use has also been examined (see Table 2). This line of study originated with Kipnis
et al.’s (1980) research, which found that managers were likely to rely on assertiveness as
a downward inﬂuence strategy across situations. Kipnis et a1. (1984) stated that managers
were most likely to use rationality/reason, followed by assertiveness, ingratiation/
friendliness, coalitions, bargaining, higher authority, and were least likely to use

sanctions. This early research led to some tentative conclusions about downward

inﬂuence strategy use. Both studies provide some consensus about which tactics are

preferred or more inﬂuential. One assertion that can be arrived at is that ingratiation,
rationality/reason, and assertiveness are likely to be preferred inﬂuence tactics. However,
evidence of which of the three is preferred was not conclusive. Though the same three
tactics were in the top three for both Kipnis et al. studies (ingratiation, rationality/reason,
and assertiveness), they were not in the same preference-based order across both studies.
The work of Keys and Case (1990) and, to some extent, of Barry and Bateman (1992)
further supports the idea that rationality/reason and assertiveness are important tactics but
does little to add certainty as to which strategy, if any, is most used.

Moving forward in this line of research, Yukl and Falbe (1990) tested their
proposed inﬂuence tactics in two studies. Study 1 tested only the agent’s self-reported
inﬂuence attempts, much as Kipnis et al. (1980) had done. The results of Study 1
suggested that those engaged in downward inﬂuence employed all eight tactics, though
they most frequently relied on consultation, rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and
ingratiating and least ﬁ'equently relied on exchange. Their results somewhat replicated
those of Kipnis et al., especially as rational persuasion was shown to be frequently used.
However, the additional categories of consultation and inspirational appeals also
appeared to be preferred tactics for downward inﬂuence. Unlike Kipnis et al.’s ﬁndings,
pressure (likened to assertiveness) was not favored by managers. One issue Yukl and
Falbe highlighted with the research of Kipnis et al. was the lack of conﬁrmation of
preferred tactics from targets of inﬂuence. In Study 2, subordinates reported that their
managers were most likely to employ consultation, rational persuasion, inspirational

appeals, and ingratiating and least likely to rely on exchange. The target reports matched

the agent reports and further established the viability of the category system proposed by
Yukl and Falbe.

Table 2
Comparisons of Findings across Studies

 

Kipnis et al. Kipnis et al. Yukl & Fable Yukl &

 

(1980) (1984) (1990) Tracey (1992)
ingratiation rationality/reason consultation consultation
rationality/reason assertiveness rational persuasion rational persuasion
Inﬂuence , , , inspirational appeals
TaCtiCS Ranked assertiveness :graélittlon/ inspirational appeals
ﬁom Most to 18" mess ingratiating
Lea“ exchange coalitions ingratiating legitimating
P refe r r “d/ upward appeals bargaining coalition/pressure“ pressure
Inﬂuential sanctions higher authority pressure/coalition* personal appeals
coalitions sanctions upward appeals coalition
blocking exchange exchan e

 

* Coalition was ranked 5th by managers (or inﬂuence agents), while pressure was ranked 5th by
subordinates (or inﬂuence targets). Other than this difference, the rankings provided were identical.

Outcomes of downward inﬂuence and their associations with particular tactics. A
third area of work by Yukl and colleagues looked at the consequences and outcomes of
their proposed tactics. F albe and Yukl (1992) considered three potential outcomes for
inﬂuence attempts — commitment, compliance, and resistance. Commitment is when the
employee “agrees internally with an action or decision, is enthusiastic about it, and is
likely to exercise initiative and demonstrate unusual effort and persistence in order to
carry out the request successfully” (Falbe & Yukl, p. 639). “Compliance occurs when the
[employee] carries out the requested action but is apathetic about it rather than
enthusiastic, makes only a minimal or average effort, and does not show any initiative”
(Falbe & Yukl, p. 639—640). Finally, an employee is resisting when s/he “is opposed to
the requested action and tries to avoid doing it by refusing, arguing, delaying, or seeking
to have the request nulliﬁed” (Falbe & Yukl, p. 640). This range of outcomes extends this

line of research beyond simple compliance, which appeared to be the unstated focus of

the studies of Kipnis and colleagues, to commitment outcomes similar to persuasion
effects.

Most studies in this line of research equate commitment with successful inﬂuence.
Studies varied in how the outcomes of particular inﬂuence attempts were measured, but
generally used one of two methods. Some (e.g., Yukl et al., 2005: Study 2; Yukl et al.,
1996) used the measurement originated by F albe and Yukl (1992), which requires
participants to identify the result of the inﬂuence attempt using the three outcomes
described above. These three outcomes were treated both as categorical and as “an
underlying scale of increasing effectiveness” in analysis (with resistance equal to 1,
compliance equal to 2, and commitment equal to 3). Others (e.g., Yukl et al., 2005: Study
1 and Study 3; Yukl, Kim, & Chavez, 1999) used Likert-type items to measure
commitment. Yukl and Tracey (1992) originated the most frequently-used item (rated
from 1 -— none to 7 — all), which asks how many inﬂuence attempts by a manager result in
complete commitment by the employee. In summary, though three outcomes have been
distinguished deﬁnitionnally, commitment level was frequently the outcome of focus in
research, with resistance and compliance treated as low to moderate levels of
commitment respectively.

These three outcomes and their association with particular downward inﬂuence
tactics were examined across multiple studies. In the ﬁrst study in this line of research,
Falbe and Yukl (1992) collected descriptions of inﬂuence attempts from MBA students.
These recalled inﬂuence attempts were coded and the number of cases associated with
each outcome was examined. Inspirational appeals led to commitment 90% of the time

when used, while consultation and personal appeals both led to commitment more than

40% of the time. Legitimating, coalition, pressure, and exchange each led to compliance
more than 40% of the time when employed. Legitimating, pressure, coalition were
signiﬁcantly more likely to be associated with resistance. Pressure, coalition, rational
persuasion, legitimating, and ingratiation each resulted in resistance more than 40% of
the time when they were used. Thus, of the tactics typically used by managers,
inspirational appeals were associated with commitment and pressure tactics were
associated with resistance and/or compliance.

Yukl and Tracey (1992) somewhat replicated these results using a different
methodology. By completing the IBQ, participants rated the frequency with which
particular tactics were used and this tactic frequency rating was correlated with the
previously mentioned commitment item. In their study, inspirational appeals were found
to be most highly and positively correlated with target task commitment, followed by
consultation, rational persuasion, ingratiation, exchange, and personal appeals. Yukl et al.
(1996) also replicated previous ﬁndings (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl & Tracey);
commitment was found to be associated with inspirational appeals, consultation, and
strong rational persuasion tactics but not with pressure. Yukl et al. (1999) also found that
strong rational persuasion was associated with commitment. The use of pressure was
signiﬁcantly negatively correlated with target task commitment. Yukl et al. (2005) found
that, as they predicted, collaboration correlated with commitment and apprising was
associated with compliance.

In summary, inspirational appeals were consistently positively associated with
employee commitment —- the outcome that appears to be most desirable for a downward

inﬂuence attempt (Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl et al., 1996; Yukl & Tracey, 1992). In

addition, Yukl and Tracey found that inspirational appeals were also related to higher
managerial effectiveness ratings. Consultation, strong rational persuasion, and
collaboration have also been associated with commitment (Yukl et al. 1996 and Yukl et
a1 2005, respectively). Pressure tactics should be avoided, as they are associated with
reduced commitment, lowered views of managerial effectiveness, and resistance.
Although many early ﬁndings suggested that assertiveness was a preferred strategy, more
recent ﬁndings suggest that such tactics should be avoided in order for downward
inﬂuence to be successful.
A Question Left Unanswered

The ﬁndings of previous research on downward inﬂuence offer some replicated
results that can inform further research. For example, results suggest that messages using
inspirational appeals, consultation, and strong rational persuasion tactics are most likely
to lead to employee commitment to an assigned work task. However, the area of
downward inﬂuence research faces some shortcomings that limit the extent to which it
can further explain why particular strategies are more “effective” (i.e., more likely to
result in commitment) than others. Perhaps one of the greatest shortcomings is the lack of
a theoretical framework driving the research. Organizational inﬂuence research generally
suffers from an admitted lack of theoretical guidance. Yukl, Guinan, and Sottolano
(1995) asserted that “the few available theories are more relevant for understanding
impression management tactics than for understanding proactive inﬂuence tactics” (p.
706). Kellermann and Cole (1994) noted that most strategy identiﬁcation-based
approaches to the study of inﬂuence are “atheoretical groupings of strategies rather than

theoretically derived classiﬁcation systems” and argued that study should be focused on

10

the features/dimensions underlying messages rather than on strategy identiﬁcation (p.
25). Fairhurst (2001) echoed this sentiment.

The studies outlined brieﬂy above provide a foundation for further research in this
area by showing consistent associations between tactics and outcomes. Though particular
behavioral outcomes have been shown to result consistently from particular inﬂuence
tactics, the focus of this line of research has not been on understanding why particular
inﬂuence tactics lead to particular outcomes. This atheoretical approach is not unique to
organizational inﬂuence research; Kellermann and Cole’s (1994) critique addresses
problems in the larger body of social inﬂuence research. Future research should move in
the direction of determining the mechanisms and theoretical explanations for why some
strategies are effective and others are not. Knowledge of the features of downward
inﬂuence messages that result in speciﬁc psychological responses and lead to
commitment, compliance, and resistance may eventually be extended to the entire area of
research on tactic identiﬁcation. A next step in this line of research is understanding the
connection between downward inﬂuence tactics and their outcomes. Yukl et al. (2005)
suggested in passing that motivation may affect the outcomes associated with different
inﬂuence tactics. However, this relationship has been neither formally hypothesized nor
tested. Further, though their paper references the work of Deci and Ryan (1985a), Yukl et
al.’s discussion of motivation is not necessarily consistent with the theory and research on
self-determination theories.

Self-Determination Theories of Motivation
An overview of central concepts. The missing link between a downward inﬂuence

message embodying a particular tactic and the employee’s reaction to that message (i.e.,

11

the outcome) could be motivation. “Motivation concerns energy, direction, persistence
and equiﬁnality — all aspects of activation and intention” (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, p. 69).
Multiple theories have applications in better understanding work motivation, including
goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) and job characteristics theory (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980). Many psychological theories of motivation, such as Maslow’s (1954)
hierarchy of needs, are based on the idea that humans are motivated by the drive to
satisfy certain needs. Some theories speciﬁcally address the role of work in satisfying
those basic needs (e.g., Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderrnan, 1959; Vroom, 1964; Weiss,
Dawis, Lofquist, & England, 1966). Self-determination theories of motivation focus both
on needs and on contextual factors and, though not originally formulated as a theory of
work motivation, are predicted to explain motivation across contexts including
organizations (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

Though multiple sub-theories of self-determination have been proposed (see Deci
& Ryan, 1985a), all share similarities that differentiate them from other theories of work
motivation. Speciﬁcally, a focus on three independent psychological needs — for
autonomy, for competence, and for relatedness — distinguishes these theories from other
approaches. Autonomy is deﬁned as volition or the need “to self-organize and regulate
one’s own behavior” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 252). “Autonomy concerns the extent to
which people authentically or genuinely concur with the forces that do inﬂuence their
behavior” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 330). Competence is effectance or the need “to
engage optimal challenges and experience mastery or effectance in the physical and
social worlds” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 252). Finally, relatedness is the desire to feel

connected to others, “to seek attachments and experience feelings of security,

12

belongingness, and intimacy with others” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 252). These needs are
predicted to be universal; the theory does not focus on individual differences in need
strength, rather, the focus is on degree of satisfaction of these needs in different social
contexts (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self-determination theory (SDT) characterizes individual
differences as “causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985a) at the broadest level of
generality, and as regulatory styles. . .at a more domain-speciﬁc level of generality” (Deci
& Ryan, 2000, p. 232). However, though there may be individual differences in the
degree to which individuals orient toward them, the needs for autonomy, control, and
relatedness are predicted to be universal.

As previously discussed, need theories are not uncommon; however, SDT is the
lone theory that prioritizes the need for autonomy. In fact, self-determination is often
equated with autonomy (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000a), so the theory’s name emphasizes the
centrality of the concept of autonomy to the theory. Much SDT research aims to
understand how autonomy can be affected by context and features of the context, such as
messages. In particular, research focuses “on the relative strength of autonomous versus
controlled motivation, rather than on the total amount of motivation” (Gagné & Deci,
2005, p. 340). The importance of the need for autonomy, though somewhat controversial,
has been supported in lab experiments, self-reports of autonomy across situations and
goals, and studies of conditions that facilitate autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2006). For
example, a meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) supported the key role of
perceived autonomy in intrinsic motivation. So, cues pertaining to autonomy are

predicted to be particularly important to intrinsic motivation.

13

Comparable to other motivation theories and research, a focus of self-
determination theories is understanding and predicting intrinsic motivation. In SDT, all
three needs are proposed to affect intrinsic motivation. Originally, Deci (1975) deﬁned
intrinsic motivation somewhat tautologically as behavior motivated by “need for
competence and self-determination” (p. 62). More recently, Deci and Ryan (2000)
characterized intrinsically motivated behaviors as behaviors in which people engage
because they enjoy them. Deci also identiﬁed two “classes” of behaviors as intrinsically
motivated — those that are sought out to provide challenges and those that involve
overcoming challenges. Central to self-determination theories is the claim that:

“Despite the fact that humans are liberally endowed with intrinsic motivational

tendencies. . .the maintenance and enhancement of this inherent propensity

requires supportive conditions, as it can be fairly readily disrupted by various
nonsupportive conditions. Thus, our theory of intrinsic motivation does not
concern what causes intrinsic motivation. . .rather, it examines the conditions that
elicit and sustain, versus subdue and diminish, this innate propensity.” (Ryan &

Deci, 2000b, p. 70)

Speciﬁcally, perceptions of cues regarding autonomy, competence, and, to a certain
extent, relatedness will affect an individual’s intrinsic motivation in a particular context.
Though the three basic needs do not inherently conﬂict, social situations sometimes place
accomplishment of the basic needs in opposition to one another. Self-determination
theory focuses not only on identifying three basic needs, but also on examining
environmental characteristics that facilitate or hinder their attainment (Ryan & Deci).

Speciﬁcally, the focus on needs for competence and autonomy allows for “prediction of

14

the social circumstances and task characteristics that enhance versus diminish intrinsic
motivation” (Deci & Ryan, p. 233).

Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET; Deci 1975;
1971), a sub-theory of self-determination, focuses very closely on the distinction between
autonomous versus controlled motivation. Research testing CET focuses on the effects of
external factors, typically Operationalized as rewards, on intrinsic motivation. In a meta—
analysis of over 20 years of CET research including over 125 studies, Deci et a]. (1999)
detailed theoretical advances made since the original inception of CET. The central tenet
of the theory states that intrinsic motivation is related to needs for autonomy and
competence. The theory predicts that the presence of rewards can trigger feelings of
autonomy, competence, control, or incompetence. In general, triggering feelings of
autonomy or competence is predicted to increase intrinsic motivation, while triggering
feelings of control or incompetence is predicted to decrease intrinsic motivation.

Reward types and their proposed relationship to intrinsic motivation have been
modiﬁed and better speciﬁed as new reward types have been theorized in the literature
(Deci et al., 1999). Rewards are classiﬁed as task-noncontingent, performance-
contingent, and task-contingent. Task-noncontingent rewards do not require that a person
complete a particular task and are thus predicted not to affect intrinsic motivation.
Performance-contingent rewards are given for doing a task well, a determination often
based on baseline- or other- comparisons. Performance-contingent rewards are predicted
to reduce intrinsic motivation, unless they emphasize feelings of competence. If they
trigger feelings of competence, they are predicted to increase intrinsic motivation.

Finally, task-contingent rewards are divided into two subtypes. Completion-contingent

15

rewards are rewards that require completion of a task and are predicted to reduce intrinsic
motivation in a way similar to engagement-contingent rewards. Engagement-contingent
rewards require participation in an activity, but not its completion, and are predicted to
reduce intrinsic motivation. In summary, positive feedback is predicted to increase
intrinsic motivation in most situations. If, however, control is emphasized in a feedback
message, then, feedback will be predicted to decrease intrinsic motivation.

The ﬁndings of the Deci et al. (1999) meta-analysis show empirical support for
the tenets of CET. Results showed that task-noncontingent rewards do not affect intrinsic
motivation. Performance contingent rewards were found to reduce intrinsic motivation,
but the meta-analysis uncovered some inconsistencies in the research, so this support
should be seen as more tentative. Both types of task-contingent rewards — engagement-
contingent and completion-contingent rewards — were found to reduce intrinsic
motivation. Finally, positive feedback was found to increase intrinsic motivation in
college students, but positive feedback administered to emphasize control was found to
reduce intrinsic motivation. An important moderator emerged. As the inherent
attractiveness of the task varied, so did intrinsic motivation. Namely, rewards did not
undermine intrinsic motivation for interesting activities. To summarize, CET states, and
research that tests the theory supports, that rewards can inﬂuence intrinsic motivation.

Several ﬁndings and predictions from this body of research are of interest to the
research being proposed in this paper. First, CET research focuses on substantiating the
idea that certain environmental factors will affect intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000b). For example, feedback that emphasizes feelings of autonomy and control has

been found to increase intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). Second, CET research

16

bolsters the claim of the centrality of perceived autonomy to intrinsic motivation because
competence without autonomy does not increase intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci). In
short, these ﬁndings are relevant because they suggest that messages (e. g., feedback or
inﬂuence tactics) can affect motivation.

Self-Determination Theory and work motivation. Despite these insights, Gagné
and Deci (2005) acknowledged that CET is ill-suited to understanding work motivation
for several reasons. First, the nature of work contradicts many of the parameters speciﬁed
in CET experiments. Most of those experiments measured time devoted to an intrinsically
interesting puzzle task during a free period after receiving a particular feedback message.
Though in an ideal world all work assignments and tasks would be attractive and
engaging, work activities are not always intrinsically interesting. Further, most
employees are engaged in work to earn money; in CET terms, most work results in the
extrinsic reward of money and that “rewar ” is almost always task contingent. Second,
and perhaps most problematic, most CET research focuses on externally regulated
behaviors and contrasts them with intrinsic motivation. In terms of implications for
organizations:

“CET seemed to imply that managers and management theorists would have to

focus. . .either on promoting intrinsic motivation through participation and

empowerment while minimizing the use of extrinsic factors, or, alternatively, on
using rewards and other extrinsic contingencies to maximize extrinsic motivation

while ignoring the importance of intrinsic motivation.” (Gagné & Deci, p. 333)

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci 2000b), of

which CET is a sub-theory, offers better opportunity for application to organizations

17

because it addresses varied levels of extrinsic motivation. Typically, motivation is labeled
as either intrinsic or extrinsic. For example, Krivonos (1978) distinguishes clearly
between the two. “Motivation is intrinsic when the rewards for performing a task come
from within the individual performing the task” (p. 53). To paraphrase, the drive is
internal, rather than external. On the other hand, “extrinsic motivation. . .is exempliﬁed by
work that is done in order to accomplish some nontask goal. . .Extrinsic motivation refers
to the performance of an activity because that activity leads to some external rewards”
(Krivonos, p. 54). Obviously, these deﬁnitions contrast behavior that is intrinsically
motivating with behavior that is extrinsically motivated. Often, intrinsic motivation is
considered an ideal form of motivation; for example, CET research focuses on
understanding how to increase intrinsic motivation.

However, as noted by Gagné and Deci (2005), intrinsic motivation, though
perhaps ideal, conﬂicts with settings like organizations in which many contextual, or
external, factors may also be extrinsically motivating to individuals. In particular, many
work tasks are non-intrinsically motivating. “The real question concerning
nonintrinsically motivated practices is how individuals acquire the motivation to carry
them out” (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, p. 71). An underlying assumption of some research on
motivation is that it can be affected by external factors. Pinder’s (1998) deﬁnition of
motivation speaks to this view. “Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that
originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related
behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (p. 11).

Rather than dichotomizing motivation as either intrinsic or extrinsic, SDT predicts

a continuum, which allows for extrinsic motivation to range from purely external to

18

internalized. These varied outcomes reﬂect the degree of internalization or the degree to
which an individual has taken in “a value or regulation, and integration refers to the
further transformation of that regulation into their own so that, subsequently, it will
emanate from their sense of self” (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, p. 71). Rather than discussing
motivation in terms of amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation, SDT
proposes a continuum of internalization. In particular, the continuum distinguishes a
range of extrinsic motivation, proposing that “extrinsically motivated behaviors may
range from being determined largely by controls to being determined more by choices
based on one’s own values and desires” (Deci & Ryan, 1985a, p. 35).

The degree of internalization is related to different types of regulation (Deci &
Ryan, 1985a; 2000). Non-regulation leads to amotivation, when people lack both
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and have no intention to behave. There are four types of
regulation that result in different degrees of extrinsic motivation. First, external
regulation results in what is typically (e.g., in CET research) identiﬁed as extrinsic
motivation or compliance in inﬂuence research. Here, behavior is entirely based on
external pressures. Second, introjection is somewhat similar to external regulation, but
the pressure to perform a behavior comes from the individual (Deci Eghrari, Patrick, &
Leone, 1994; Koestner & Losier, 2002). However, the behavior is not integrated into
concept of self. Third, identiﬁcation, though still instrumental, represents greater
internalization because the individual recognizes the value of behavior. “Identiﬁed
regulation occurs when a behavior is valued and perceived as being chosen by oneself”
(Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000, p., 177). Identiﬁed regulation leads “people [to]

feel greater freedom and volition because their behavior is more congruent with their

19

personal goals and identities” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p. 334). Fourth, integration is the
most internalized form of extrinsic motivation. Integration results in a level of motivation
that is comparable to intrinsic motivation. However, because the individual engages in
the task due to its instrumental importance rather than due to simple interest and because
the origin of the behavior is external, SDT does not classify this behavior as intrinsically
motivated (Koestrrer & Losier). Both identiﬁed and integrated regulation can be
considered forms of self-regulated extrinsic motivation because the individual is
engaging in the behavior to obtain an external outcome but does so by his or her own
choice (Baard, 2002). Though both can be compared to intrinsic regulation, which leads
to intrinsically motivated behaviors, this type of regulation is distinct from all four forms
of extrinsic motivation and from amotivation.

Recall that SDT asserts that people have three innate needs — for autonomy, for
competence, and for relatedness. The theory further speciﬁes that people are more likely
to continue to pursue behaviors if they satisfy basic needs for autonomy and competence,
with relatedness predicted to be a less central, more distally-satisﬁed need. The type of
regulation is related to the sense of autonomy and competence that an individual has in a
given context. Thus, amotivation is proposed to occur when there is no sense of
autonomy or competence related to behavior. Ultimately, “social environments that block
satisfaction of the need for autonomy promote controlled motivation” (Deci & Ryan,
2000, p. 250-251). Conversely, contexts that foster feelings of autonomy and competence
will lead to greater integration; additionally, the individual’s relationship with the

external agent (such as a manager) also inﬂuences internalization (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

20

Because of these distinctions, SDT is more readily applied to understanding
organizational experiences than is CET. Based on previous SDT research, Gagne' and
Deci (2005) argued “that work climates that promote satisfaction of the three basic
psychological needs will enhance employees’ intrinsic motivation and promote full
internalization of extrinsic motivation” (p. 337). SDT research in organizations has
already considered diverse topics including the relationship between manager and
employee ratings of motivation (e. g., Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Kasser,
Davey, & Ryan, 1992; Pelletier & Vallerand, 1996), SDT and job search behavior (e.g.,
Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De Witte, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte,
& Feather, 2005), and SDT and work values (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Though
SDT research in organizations is relatively new compared with the longer history of SDT
research in educational settings, some preliminary evidence suggests that SDT provides a
theoretical framework with predictive power in organizational contexts. SDT has
informed models that predict organizational outcomes, including burnout (Femet, Guay,
& Seneca], 2004), acceptance of organizational change (Gagné, Koestner, & Zuckerman,
2000), turnover (Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002), and feelings of empowerment
coming from job characteristics (Gagné, Seneca], & Koestner, 1997).

The most relevant line of research to this study looks at the impact of managerial
autonomy support on various outcomes. Managerial autonomy support is deﬁned as
“manager’s acknowledging their subordinates’ perspectives, providing relevant
information in a non-controlling way, offering choice, and encouraging self-initiation
rather than pressuring subordinates to behave in speciﬁed ways” (Gagné & Deci, 2005, p.

345). Several studies have found that the relationship between managerial autonomy

21

support and positive workplace outcomes is mediated by the three needs outlined in SDT.
Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) found managerial autonomy support to be related to
positive attitudes toward work. Baard, Deci, and Ryan (2000; as cited by Deci et al.,
2001) found that need satisfaction mediates the relationship between autonomy support
and work performance. This result was replicated by Deci et al., 2001), who found that
need satisfaction mediates the relationship between autonomy support and engagement.
Baard, Deci, & Ryan (2004) found that “opportunities for intrinsic need satisfaction are
inﬂuenced by managers being perceived as autonomy-supportive and by subordinates’
autonomous causality orientation” (p. 2061 ). However, this line of research has not
progressed to the exploration of manager behaviors that led to employee perceptions of
autonomy support (Gagné & Deci, 2005). In sum, the application of SDT to workplace
issues has garnered support in initial studies, but many opportunities remain in this area.
Self-Determination, Motivation, and the Eﬂects of Downward Influence

Thus far, two separate bodies of literature have been summarized. Downward
inﬂuence researchers have identiﬁed tactics used by mangers when communicating job-
related tasks to employees. Several of these tactics have been consistently associated with
behavioral outcomes. Inspirational appeals, consultation, and strong rational persuasion
have been consistently associated with commitment. Conversely, pressure tactics have
been consistently associated with compliance and/or resistance and lower levels of
commitment. Self-determination theorists have found support for their assertions that
individuals have needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The theory pays

special attention to the role that particular social interactions and contexts play in

22

fostering feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In this focus on the role of
interactions with others, the connection between the two areas of research can be made.

As mentioned previously, Yukl et al. (2005) stated that motivation affects the
relationship between downward inﬂuence tactics and behavioral outcomes. However, this
relationship was imprecisely described and also assumed but untested. Precedent for such
a claim certainly exists. Indeed, that motivation is a natural goal of manager-employee
communication seems to be a general assumption in the work motivation literature. “The
degree of . . .motivation derived from a job may be contingent upon how much
information is communicated to the employees” (Hanser & Muchinsky, 1980, p. 69).
Additionally, the propositions and research of Cusella (1980; 1982; 1984) predicted that
message content can evoke feelings of autonomy and provide information about
competence.

Though SDT provides an opportunity to expand research on downward inﬂuence,
downward inﬂuence research also provides an opportunity to expand research on SDT in
organizations. Gagné and Deci (2005) make several propositions for the study of SDT in
organizations. The ﬁfth proposition is directly relevant here. This proposition asserts that
“concrete managerial behaviors that support subordinates’ autonomy in the workplace
can be identiﬁed empirically” (Gagne' & Deci, p. 350). SDT predicts that motivation
comes not just from needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness but also that
particular contexts offer different opportunities to realize those needs. For example,
research on autonomy-supportive managerial style (e. g., Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al.,
2001; Deci et al., 1989; Richer & Vallerand, 1995) begs the question of which

communicative behaviors inﬂuence perceptions of managerial autonomy support. “Little

23

work has been done in work settings to isolate concrete managerial behaviors that
represent autonomy support. . .considerably more organization research exploring this
issue needs to be done. (Gagné & Deci, p. 350). Following Gagné and Deci’s thinking,
messages from managers would certainly qualify as contextual factors. However,
downward inﬂuence tactics are more than merely context. When used by managers,
downward inﬂuence messages might act as a more direct source of motivation for
employees by conveying information about the supportiveness of the situation.
Downward inﬂuence tactics represent a set of important concrete managerial
communicative behaviors that may support (or not support) employee needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Several connections between the two can be made that further justify the
application of SDT to downward inﬂuence research. Perhaps the most obvious
connection is the similarity between the three outcomes identiﬁed by Falbe and Yukl
(1992) and the motivation continuum proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985a; 2000). Falbe
and Yukl identify commitment as the most desirable outcome, followed by compliance
and then resistance. Across studies, these three outcomes are measured in different ways.
Sometimes the employee’s level of commitment is measured on a scale, without directly
measuring compliance or resistance (e.g., Yukl et al., 2005: Study 1; Yukl et al. 1999). In
other instances, the participants were asked to identify which of the three outcomes was
associated with the inﬂuence attempt (e.g., Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl et al., 2005: Study
2, Yukl et al., 1996). These outcomes are positioned as both behavioral and cognitive.
Recalling the deﬁnitions provided by F albe and Yukl, both commitment and compliance

include task completion on the part of the employee. However, a committed employee

24

demonstrates greater persistence and effort, whereas a compliant employee demonstrates
minimal effort. The deﬁnitions of both outcomes specify different levels of buy-in and
enthusiasm toward the task. A resistant employee attempts to avoid completing the
behavior. Compare these outcomes to SDT, which proposes a continuum ranging from
amotivation; to four types of extrinsic motivation — external regulation, introjection,
identiﬁcation, and integration; to intrinsic motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000b) also
identiﬁed a range of the “quality of behavior” associated with the types of motivation and
regulation varying along the continuum. Behavior quality ranges from non-self-
deterrnined to self-determined. This study aims, in part, to link this behavioral quality
range to the downward inﬂuence range of commitment outcomes.

How comparable are the outcomes of downward inﬂuence messages and the SDT
continuum? Ryan and Deci (2000b) make a connection by stating that “behavior can
range from. . .unwillingness, to passive compliance, to active personal commitment” (p.
71). This statement suggests a conceptual overlay of downward inﬂuence behavior
outcomes onto the SDT continuum. To start with the less desirable end of the continuum,
both methodologies used for measuring responses to inﬂuence attempts (i.e., categorizing
the outcome or rating level of commitment) make it difﬁcult to ascertain how active an
employee is in resisting an inﬂuence attempt. Thus, resistance here is equated with
unwillingness, as did Ryan and Deci. External regulation maps closely to compliance as
deﬁned by Falbe and Yukl — an assertion reinforced by Ryan and Deci’s assertion. In
other words, compliance is likely to result when one feels externally regulated. Because
downward inﬂuence is an external factor and an antecedent of a particular behavior,

commitment maps to identiﬁcation or integration rather than to intrinsic motivation. In

25

other words, commitment is likely to result when one experiences identiﬁed or integrated
regulation. Though internalization may occur over time, Ryan and Deci also assert that
any level of integration is possible at any time. This assertion complements the idea that
identiﬁed regulation and perhaps even integrated regulation could occur as the result of a
communication exchange with a manager if the characteristics of the inﬂuence message
lead to feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the employee.

Hypotheses

Overall, the similarities between these two areas warrant consideration of
motivation — and, more speciﬁcally, the continuum of motivation inﬂuenced by
autonomy, competence, and relatedness as proposed by SDT - as a factor in the
relationship between downward inﬂuence tactics and behavioral outcomes. Though a
variety of downward inﬂuence tactics could be considered, for practical and theory-based
reasons, this study will focus on only two — inspirational appeals and pressure tactics.
Inspirational appeals “make a request or proposal that arouses enthusiasm by appealing to
your values, ideals, and aspirations or by increasing your conﬁdence that you can do it”
(Y ukl & Tracey, 1992, p. 526). Conversely, pressure tactics include demands, threats,
warnings, and surveillance (Yukl & Tracey).

Out of the eleven tactics identiﬁed by Yukl and colleagues, inspirational appeals
and pressure were selected as the focus of this study for several reasons. First, these two
tactics share some conceptual connections with SDT, making them logical candidates for
an initial inquiry. Research on CET has shown that “threats, deadlines, directives,
pressured evaluations, and imposed goals diminish intrinsic motivation” (Ryan & Deci,

2000b, p. 70). The downward inﬂuence tactic of pressure is deﬁned, in part, as the use of

26

threats and deadlines. Messages that display characteristics of inspirational appeals
tactics may represent the “concrete managerial behaviors that represent autonomy
support” discussed by Gagné and Deci (2005, p. 350). In particular, inspirational appeals
suggest that employees can choose to contribute their skills to a larger vision, connecting
with employees’ internalized values. Also, in comparison with other downward inﬂuence
tactics, inspirational appeals emphasize an idea of relatedness or connection.

Previous research ﬁndings also informed the focus on inspirational appeals and
pressure tactics. Inspirational appeals and pressure have shown consistent associations
with opposite outcomes — commitment and resistance. (Or, depending on the
measurement, inspirational appeals are positively associated with commitment and
pressure is negatively associated with commitment). As previously summarized, no other
tactics have shown such consistent associations with those outcomes. Finally, the
prevalence of their use suggests that a better understanding of why these tactics are
associated with the previously discussed outcomes would be beneﬁcial. As summarized
in Table 2, inspirational appeals are one of managers’ preferred tactics (as reported by
both managers and their direct reports). Though Yukl and colleagues have not found
pressure to be reported as a preferred tactic, these ﬁndings directly contradict the ﬁndings
of Kipnis and colleagues, who found that assertiveness (which Yukl & Fable [1990]
relabeled as pressure) was, in fact, a preferred tactic as reported by managers. In sum,
consideration of theoretical reasons, associations with different levels of commitment,
and manager- and employee-reported occurrence all informed the decision to focus on

inspirational appeals and pressure tactics.

27

Based on the literature reviewed here, speciﬁc predictions can be made about how
the relationships between the variables of interest will be affected by each of these two
downward inﬂuence tactics. First, differences between measured outcomes are predicted
based on which tactic is used. Speciﬁcally,

Hypothesis: Participants in the inspirational appeals condition will report higher

levels of (I a) autonomy, (1 b) competence, and (1c) relatedness than participants

in the pressure condition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autonomy
Inﬂuence : Competence Regulation +7 Commitment
Message Type

Relatedness

 

 

Figure 1. Proposed Theory-Based Model

Second, the theoretical model depicted in Figure 1 will be tested. This model proposes
that the relationship between downward inﬂuence tactics (speciﬁcally inspirational
appeals and pressure) and commitment is mediated by perceived autonomy, competence,
and relatedness and perceived regulation. In other words, participants in the inspirational
appeals condition would experience higher levels of perceived autonomy, competence,
and relatedness, which would lead to identiﬁed regulation, which would be positively

associated with commitment. Conversely, participants in the pressure condition would

28

experience lower levels of perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which
would lead to external regulation, which would be negatively associated with

commitment.

29

Prestudy
Method

This study pretested versions of materials for potential use in the main study.
Participants were 19 students enrolled in upper level communication classes who earned
course credit for their participation. Twelve were female and 7 were male. Participants
signed up for an individual study time. The procedure took less than one hour.
Participants were told that they would complete two tasks, then complete measures
evaluating those tasks, and then discuss the measures and the tasks with the experimenter.
After providing consent, participants completed the two tasks presented in Appendix A.
The ﬁrst task was a résumé activity. Participants compared a résurné to a list of
information gathered about a hypothetical job candidate and looked for potential
inaccuracies in the resume. Participants then evaluated the task in terms of task
enjoyment. In the second task, participants were given an article to read and asked to
summarize that information into a brief written presentation of the key information from
the article. Participants then evaluated the task in terms of task enjoyment.

Aﬁer completing both activities, participants evaluated their level of commitment to the
tasks. This data was used to evaluate the commitment measures.

The next step was for the experimenter to provide a list of instructions to the
participants. These instructions were developed by the researcher based on the
descriptions of inspirational appeals, pressure, and consultation provided by Yukl and
colleagues. Two versions of each tactic were tested for a total of six instructions. After
each of the six instructions, participants evaluated the instruction in terms of perceived

implications for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This data was used to evaluate

30

these instructions and the measures for potential use in the main study. After evaluating
the instructions, participants discussed their impressions of the materials with the
researcher. A complete version of the questionnaires used in the prestudy is included in
Appendix A.
Results

The prestudy results informed which task and instructions would be proposed for

the main study and pretested measures.

 

 

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Prestudy Data
M SD Cronbach's a
Resume Enjoyment 5.02 0.93 .893
Summary Enjoyment 3.67 1.11 .936
Consultation 1 Autonomy 5.75 1.00 .814
Consultation 1 Competence 5.31 0.69 .662
Consultation 1 Relatedness 5.55 0.60 .77
Consultation 2 Autonomy 5.49 1.39 .952
Consultation 2 Competence 5.32 0.99 .886
Consultation 2 Relatedness 5.02 0.92 .87
Pressure 1 Autonomy 1.64 0.83 .876
Pressure 1 Competence 3.91 0.88 .841
Pressure 1 Relatedness 2.34 0.88 .879
Pressure 2 Autonomy 1.97 1.07 .876
Pressure 2 Competence 3.82 1.03 .913
Pressure 2 Relatedness 2.68 1.16 .936
Inspirational Appeals 1 Autonomy 5.43 1.25 .782
Inspirational Appeals 1 Competence 5.49 0.72 .847
Inspirational Appeals 1 Relatedness 5.46 0.81 .882
Inspirational Appeals 2 Autonomy 5.92 1.13 .938
Inspirational Appeals 2 Competence 5.39 0.85 .899
Inspirational Appeals 2 Relatedness 5.12 1.04 .918

 

The ﬁrst goal of the prestudy was to determine which task participants enjoyed
more. After completing each task, participants evaluated how much they enjoyed it by
responding to the interest/enjoyment questions from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory

(IMI; 2007), which consisted of seven Likert-type items on a scale ranging from 1 (not at

31

all true) to 7 (very true). Two reverse-coded items were removed to increase the scale’s
reliability; Cronbach’s a was .89 for the résumé evaluation and .93 for the summarizing
information activity. Results are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 2. The mean enjoyment
rating for the résumé activity (M = 5.02, SD = .93) was higher than the mean rating for
the summarizing information activity (M = 3.67, SD = 1.11). In addition, when
interviewed at the end of the experiment, 17 of the 19 participants reported a preference
for the resume activity.

The second goal of the prestudy was to determine how to best measure self-
reported task commitment. Participants completed three types of commitment measures:
a simple categorization (as used by Falbe & Yukl, 1992; Yukl et al., 2005: Study 2, Yukl
et al., 1996), ﬁve semantic differential items, and six Likert-type items. Participants were
asked in the interview which measure they felt best captured their level of commitment.
Of 19 total participants, four preferred the resistance, compliance, and commitment
categorization. However, several participants expressed a need for some choice between
compliance and commitment to best reﬂect their commitment level. Seven participants
liked the semantic differential best, but other participants found the format to be
confusing. Eight participants thought that the Likert-type items best captured their
comnritrnent level. Because this format is most familiar and was preferred by 8 of 19
participants, this format will be used in the main study. In addition, two participants
suggested that the three categories be converted to a Likert-type item to better capture the

range between compliance and commitment. This recommendation is reﬂected in the

main study measures.

32

 

5 T
4‘ "
3: I
. i
2‘ I
1* i
07* ... ...... .

ResEnj (5) ResEﬁ" (5) SumEnj (5) SumEff (5)

 

 

Finally, several potential versions of the instructions were tested in the prestudy.
Participants read six instructions — two inspirational appeal instructions, two consultation
instructions, and two pressure instructions. Strong rational persuasion could also be
examined, but previous studies have focused on messages similar to strong rational
persuasion (e.g., Deci et al., 1994; Reeve, Jang, Hardre, & Omura, 2002). After reading
each of the six instructions, participants completed autonomy, competence, and
relatedness measures. Results are displayed in Table 3 and Figure 3. The goal of this
portion of the prestudy was to test instructions for use in the main study. As expected,
participants reported lower levels of anticipated autonomy, competence, and relatedness
after reading pressure instructions than they did after reading inspirational appeal or
consultation instructions. Therefore, the two pressure instructions were combined and
modiﬁed for the main study based on participant feedback on the most salient aspects of
the messages and in order to be comparable in length to the inspirational appeal

instructions. The inspirational appeal and consultation instructions resulted in fairly

33

similar evaluations of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. However, during
interviews with the experimenter, participants expressed stronger preference for the
inspirational appeals and a few made negative comments about the consultation
instructions. Both tactics were tested because of their associations with commitment
outcomes, but inspirational appeals make more theoretical sense to test (based on the
reasons detailed previously) and are more consistently associated with commitment
outcomes. Therefore, the two inspirational appeal instructions were combined and
modiﬁed for the main study based on participant feedback on the most salient aspects of

the messages and in order to be comparable in length to the pressure instructions.

7 , I I Autonomy

I I
I I IlCompetenceI I
. 6 Cl Relatedness I |
I 5 J I
I 4 ;
I 3 I
I 2 —V

 

 

 

 

   

I Corsultation Consultation Pressure] Pressurez Inspirational Inspirational
I l 2 Appeabl AppealsZ

 

Figure 3. Prestudy Evaluation of Tactics

34

Main Study Method

Participants

The study had 300 total participants: 115 males (38.3%), 183 females (61.0%),
and 2 (0.7%) who declined to identify their sex. The mean age of the participants was
20.96 with SD = 2.11, ranging from 18 to 39; most (77.7%) were juniors or seniors. The
majority of participants were Caucasian (79%). Nearly all (92.7%) had previous work
experience. The mean total work experience reported for those participants was 56.04
months with SD = 35.79, ranging from 2 to 306 months. The majority of participants
(62.0%) were currently employed and reported working in their current position for a
mean of 20.74 months with SD = 20.34, ranging from 1 to 102 months. Currently
employed participants reported working an average of 18.98 hours per week with SD =
10.07, ranging from 1 to 50 hours per week. All participants were students enrolled in
communication or political science courses at a large Midwestern university who
received credit for their participation. The inspirational appeals condition had 101
participants; the pressure condition had 99 participants; the direct request/control
condition had 100 participants.
Study Design

Participants signed up for a data-collection time. Each collection time was
assigned to one of three experimental conditions. After providing consent, participants
received one version of the instructions. The instructions constituted the experimental
induction because they were modeled after downward inﬂuence tactics used to assign

work. Speciﬁcally, participants received an inspirational appeals instruction, a pressure

35

instruction, or a direct request/control instruction. The inspirational appeals instructions

read:
“Your participation in this study is important to this area of research. Your work
on this task will contribute not only to my research but will also help to advance
theorizing in this area. By working on this task, you are participating in
knowledge creation. To complete the task, read the article on the following page.
Prepare a brief summary that you could use to share the article’s main ideas with
someone who does not have time to read it. Focus on identifying the techniques
employers are using to reduce workloads. The summary should be written on the
blank page following the article.”

The pressure instructions read:
“This task is what is required of you as a participant in this study, so you have to
work on this task. I will be observing you to make sure you are doing what you
are instructed to do and I will check to make sure you are working on the task
while you are here. To complete the task, read the article on the following page.
Prepare a brief summary that you could use to share the article’s main ideas with
someone who does not have time to read it. Focus on identifying the techniques
employers are using to reduce workloads. The summary should be written on the
blank page following the article.”

The direct request/control instructions read:
“To complete the task, read the article on the following page. Prepare a brief
summary that you could use to share the article’s main ideas with someone who

does not have time to read it. Focus on identifying the techniques employers are

36

using to reduce workloads. The summary should be written on the blank page

following the article.”
Based on feedback gathered in the prestudy, the instructions were read by the
experimenter (who was the same across all data collection times), projected onto a screen
in the room, and also provided with the study materials for the participants to read
themselves. To make sure the instructions (the experimental induction) were understood,
each participant checked a box indicating that s/he understood the directions prior to
beginning the task. The participants then worked on the task, completed measures
evaluating the task, and provided demographic information.
Materials and Measures

Please see Appendix B for a complete set of the materials used in the main study.

Task. Based on the prestudy results, the information summary task was used in
the main study. This task was chosen because prestudy participants reported lower levels
of enjoyment for this task, which should more closely approximate standard work tasks
and allow for a certain degree of mundane realism. One prestudy participant commented
that the task reminded her of “the kind of thing [she]’d have to do at work.” In addition,
the task output (i.e., the list of information) showed a greater range of output. The article
was slightly abbreviated from the version used in the prestudy to ensure that participants
would have enough time to read it, summarize it, and complete the questionnaire.

Induction check. In order to measure whether participants felt pressured or
inspired by the instructions, two induction check items were included in the survey
materials. In response to the question “Why did you engage in this activity?,” all 300

participants completed both a pressure and inspirational appeals induction check item.

37

The pressure item read, “Because I felt pressured by the experimenter’s instructions.”
The inspirational appeals item read, “Because I felt inspired by the experimenter’s
instructions.” There was no signiﬁcant difference in perceived pressure across all three
experimental conditions, F (2, 297) = 0.36, p = .70. Participants in the inspirational
appeals and direct request/control conditions were signiﬁcantly more “inspired” by the
instructions than were those in the pressure condition, F (1, 199) = 4.55, p < .05.

SDT needs. The IMI used in the prestudy was also used in the main study. The
IMI includes measures of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and was speciﬁcally
designed for use in experimental research and has been developed across multiple studies
over time. The version used in this study was obtained from the most complete version of
the scale, which is available on the University of Rochester’s Department of Psychology
Self-Determination Theory website (2007).

Conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog & Sdrbom,
2006) with covariance matrices and reliability analysis were conducted using each
individual’s (N = 300) responses for both a three-dimensional solution and a
unidirnensional solution. The autonomy scale consisted of seven items; the competence
scale consisted of six items; the relatedness scale originally consisted of eight items. CFA
and reliability analysis with all 21 original items (NF 1 [Normed Fit Index] = .87, CFI
[Comparative Fit Index] = .91, IF] [Incremental Fit Index] = .91, GFI [Goodness of Fit
Index] = .81, AGFI [Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index] = .76, x2 [186, N = 300] = 753.57)
suggested that two relatedness items, which measured trust for the experimenter, should

be removed. Therefore, a CPA predicting a three-factor solution with the remaining 19

items was conducted (NFI = .89, CF I = .92, IFI = .92, GFI = .83, AGFI = .79, 12 [149, N

38

= 300] = 569.32). The ﬁt of the three-dimensional l9-item solution was compared to that
of a unidimensional 19-item solution (NFI = .64, CFI = .66, IFI = .66, GFI = .54, AGFI =
.42, x2 [152, N = 300] = 2427.80). The ﬁt of the three-dimensional solution showed a
signiﬁcant improvement, Ax2(3, N = 300) = 1858.48, p < .001 , over the unidimensional
solution and suggested that use of the three-dimensional solution was appropriate.
Cronbach’s a for the seven-item autonomy scale was .89. Cronbach’s a for the six-item
competence scale was .87. Cronbach’s a for the six-item relatedness scale was .76.
Extrinsic motivation type. Participants completed the Situational Motivation Scale
(SIMS), which was developed and validated by Guay et al. (2000). The SIMS consists of
four scales designed to measure intrinsic motivation, identiﬁed regulation, external
regulation, and amotivation in. experimental research. CFA and reliability analysis were
conducted using each individual’s (N = 300) responses for all four scales, testing both a
four-factor and unidimensional solution. The ﬁt of the four-dimensional solution (N Fl =
.89, CFI = .92, IFI = .92, GFI = .87, AGFI = .82, x2 [98, N = 300] = 354.97) showed a
signiﬁcant improvement, Ax2(6, N = 300) = 1669.10, p < .001, over the unidimensional
solution (NFI = .62, CFI = .64, IFI = .64, GFI = .54, AGFI = .40, x2 [104, N = 300] =
2024.07) and suggested use of the four-dimensional solution was acceptable. Cronbach’s
c. for the four-item intrinsic motivation scale was .88. Cronbach’s u for the four-item
identiﬁed regulation scale was .67. Cronbach’s a for the four-item external regulation
scale was .87. Cronbach’s a for the four-item amotivation scale was .69. Though all four
scales was used in data collection to better understand the validity of the SIMS, only the

scores for external and identiﬁed regulation were included in subsequent model testing

39

because SDT predicts that only those two types of regulation will be affected by external
factors.

Commitment. Multiple methods were used to measure commitment. Based on the
prestudy results, a Likert-type measure of commitment was used. Participants completed
seven items to evaluate their level of commitment to the task. Most of these items were
included in the prestudy; however, three of them were modiﬁed from the prestudy
version in order to address some feedback gathered from prestudy participants. CFA and
reliability analysis were conducted on the seven-item commitment scale. The CF A results
suggest the scale showed acceptable ﬁt for unidirnensionality (N FI = .97, CFI = .98, IFI =
.98, GFI = .96, AGFI = .93, x2 [14, N = 300] = 39.96). Cronbach’s a for the seven-item
commitment scale was .85. Two alternative measures of commitment were also collected.

The time to complete the task (including reading the article and summarizing its
content) was an additional indicator of commitment. On page 3 of the study materials,
participants summarized the content of the article. Text at the bottom of the page read:
“Before moving on to the next page, write the time shown on the clock at the front of the
room here.” Questionnaires were originally grouped by data collection time, and the time
recorded by participants at the bottom of this page was converted into minutes spent on
the task. For example, a time of 11:01 in a session that began at 10:45 was entered as 16
minutes. Across conditions, the mean amount of time spent on the task was M = 11.53
minutes with SD = 3.41 and a range of 4 to 23 minutes.

The content of the summary completed by participants provided a third indicator
of task commitment. Evaluation of the summary itself provides a behavioral indicator in

keeping with the deﬁnition of commitment speciﬁed previously. After training, two naive

4o

coders independently evaluated each summary. Because the article focused on how
employers are trying to improve work-life balance for employees, all participants were
instructed to “write the techniques employers are using to reduce workloa ” on page 3.
The coders counted the number of unique techniques identiﬁed by each participant. This
count provided an indicator of task commitment in the form of quantity. Inter-coder
reliability was calculated by using Krippendorﬂ’s Reliability for Windows v. 3.0. For the
count of the unique number of techniques identiﬁed, Krippendorff’s a = .93. Therefore,
the mean number of techniques identiﬁed across both coders was used as a third measure
of commitment. Across conditions, the mean number of techniques identiﬁed was M =

5.05, SD = 2.12, with a range of0 to 11.

41

Results
Hypothesis Testing

Descriptive statistics for each variable in the model are shown in Table 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table4
Descriptive Statistics across Conditions
Inspirational Pressure Direct Across
Appeals Request Conditions
M 5.26 5.13 5.18 5.19
Ammomy so 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.51
M 4.81 4.97 4.82 4.87
“mam“ SD 1.14 0.96 1.03 1.05
M 4.37 4.24 4.35 4.32
Relatedness SD 1.09 1.13 1.02 1.08
M 2.73 2.34 2.61 2.57
Intrinsic
Motivation SD 1.25 1.11 1.23 1.20
Identiﬁed M 4.31 4.14 4.31 4.25
Regulation SD 1.34 1.42 1.32 1.36
External M 3.26 3.27 3.12 3.22
Regulation SD 1.69 1.65 1.70 1.67
M 2.40 2.46 2.40 2.42
Am°""a“°“ so 1.13 1.15 1.13 1.13
Commitment M 4.68 4.72 4.77 4.72
Scale SD 1.07 1.01 0.88 0.99
TaskTime M 11.15 11.55 11.90 11.53
SD 3.54 3.43 3.23 3.41
Numberof M 5.16 4.85 5.15 5.05
Techniques SD 2.11 2.17 2.08 2.12
Identiﬁed
Inspired M 2.26 1.86 2.26 2.13
Induction Check SD 1.46 1.16 1.43 1.37
Pressured M 1.56 1.52 1.43 1.51
Induction Check SD 1.20 1.12 0.94 1.09

 

 

To test the hypothesis, one-way analyses of variance (omnibus ANOVA) testing the
differences across experimental conditions was conducted for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness. Results are shown in Table 5. The results did not show a signiﬁcant main

42

effect for experimental condition on any of the three predicted variables, indicating that
the experimental conditions did not affect ratings differently. Thus, the data were not
consistent with the hypothesis. Further ANOVA analysis revealed no main effects for
experimental condition across any of the variables speciﬁed in the Operationalized

statistical model (shown in Figure 4).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5
ANOVA Results for Diﬂerences across Conditions
F df Sig.
Autonomy 0.192 2, 297 .83
Competence 0.74 2, 297 .48
Relatedness 0.44 2, 297 .65
Intrinsic Motivation 3.13 2, 297 .05
Identiﬁed Regulation 0.53 2, 297 .59
External Regulation 0.24 2, 297 .78
Amotivation .08 2, 297 .92
Commitment Scale 0.23 2, 297 .79
Task Time 1.67 2, 291 .31
Number of Techniques Identiﬁed 0.66 2, 295 .52
Model Testing

Though no signiﬁcant difference among conditions emerged, the proposed model
was tested to better understand the results. The theory-based model presented in Figure 1
was Operationalized to include the variables measured in the study. Figure 4 depicts the
statistical model that was tested. In order to model the effects of the categorical
independent variable (i.e., type of inﬂuence tactic), dummy variables were used. One
(labeled “IA”) compared the inspirational appeals condition to the pressure and direct
request/control conditions and the other (labeled “P”) compared the pressure condition to
the inspirational appeals and direct request/control condition. The use of these two
dummy variables in the model established the direct request/control condition as the

reference group. Through use of dummy coding, the categorical experimental conditions

43

are captured quantitatively and can be further tested (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken,
2003)

Next, a correlation analysis was performed. Results are shown in Table 6. As
suggested by the ANOVA results, the experimental condition dummy variables were not
signiﬁcantly correlated with any of the other variables. However, the other variables did
show signiﬁcant correlations consistent with what would be predicted by the rest of the
model if experimental condition is disregarded. For example, perceived autonomy (r =
.34, p < .01), competence (r = .29, p < .01), and relatedness (r = .22, p < .01) are all
positively correlated with reported identiﬁed regulation. Conversely, perceptions of
autonomy (r = -.78, p < .01) and of competence (r = -.14, p < .05) are negatively
associated with feelings of external regulation. Identiﬁed regulation and external
regulation are negatively associated with one another (r = -.29, p < .01 ). Finally,
identiﬁed regulation (r = .41, p < .01) is positively associated with but external regulation
(r = -.23, p < .01) is negatively associated with commitment measured using the Likert-
style scale. Identiﬁed regulation is signiﬁcantly correlated with the other number of
techniques identiﬁed; external regulation is correlated with neither task time nor the
number of techniques identiﬁed. Because task time was not associated with any of the
variables in the Operationalized model and the number of techniques identiﬁed was
related only to competence and identiﬁed regulation, the commitment scale was used in
subsequent model testing as the sole indicator of commitment.

Finally, LISREL 8.80 was used to evaluate the ﬁt of the predicted statistical
model (see path diagram presented in Figure 4). The covariance matrix used in the

analysis is presented in Table 7. Standardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates

44

are shown in Figure 4. Overall, the model does not appear to ﬁt the data well (NFI = .76,
CFI = .77, IFI = .78, GFI = .88, AGFI = .67, x2 [13, N = 300] = 160.50). These ﬁt indices
failed to meet the standard rule of thumb of .90 (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). Duplicating the
AN OVA and correlation analysis results, none of the paths from experimental condition
(Operationalized here as dummy codes) to autonomy, competence, and relatedness were
signiﬁcant. The paths from autonomy and competence to identiﬁed regulation were
signiﬁcant and the path from autonomy to external regulation was signiﬁcant. Finally, the
paths from both identiﬁed regulation and external regulation to commitment were
signiﬁcant.
Post Hoc Model Testing

Because the induction check items suggested that feeling inspired or pressured
was not associated with experimental condition, a post hoc model using the two induction
check items as the exogenous variables was tested. The endogenous variables and the
predicted relationships among them remained identical across both the original model
and this exploratory model. Correlations between the variables in the model are shown in
Table 8. LISREL 8.80 was again used to evaluate the ﬁt of this alternative model; the
covariance matrix used in the analysis is shown in Table 9. Standardized maximum
likelihood parameter estimates are shown in Figure 5. With this model, the ﬁt indices
again failed to meet the standard rule of thumb of .90 (NFI = .79, CF I = .80, IFI = .80,
GFI = .89, AGFI = .70, x2 [13, N = 300] = 143.52). Further modiﬁcation of the model
(see Figure 6) with direct paths added from autonomy, competence, and relatedness to

commitment results in acceptable ﬁt (NFI = .93, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, GFI = .96, AGFI =

.84, x2 [10, N= 300] = 55.54).

45

“weaved 825 98 ﬂaming anmuﬁmnmﬁ .m> 2385 n Hmong-m 885 was 2:3on -m> 239?. Ecouﬁﬁmﬁ a

 

 

 

mmd m m
_ _.o1 mud e S
cod Ed- nod 28m EES_EEoO

 

 

 

 

 

v—icxir'iévixci t\' 06

 

 

85 Se eno- ;.~ eeeeewem easem—
vod- mod $6 86.. SW.— cozﬂswom “Couscou—
mod- Nod de omd- mmd 0 ﬂ ._ Because—om
86 mod- m m .o vmd- med vmd o _ 4 8222580
mod- mod wmd wag- cod ovd omd wNN mEocoS/x
w A. o n v m N _
Eco: new-Emﬁomam Examine: muse-ISAC
\- 0331
may-VAN... _o.VQ**

.83—com 385 can mascara Ecomﬁhmmﬁ ..e-> 8:205 a mos—com 825 EB 8385 .m> ﬂmomm< Ecosmcﬁmﬁ a

 

 

1 Bean: al.9282- ue see-=22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8. 1 eau. as. e
rem. :2. 1 enemaeaeaeeu .w
:5.- B.- 1.8.. 1 eeeeemefeeeexm s
in. :. :3. ram.- 1 eeeeewem BEE-.2 e
we. No. :3. 2.. :2. 1 engaged .m
ram. 8. ram. 4:.- tem. is. 1 eeeaeeaeu .4
S. 2. 35m. aswhr Slum. 3mm. .ImN. haocouzlﬂ .m
8.- 3o. 48.. 8. 8.- 8.- 8. 1 an .m
3. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 3.- 1%.- 1 es ._
2 e w e e m e N s

 

36o: pmnmnmSoQA-E 5 $33.23; «$953 atouSm-tob
o 0551

modwﬁumm Bagged dondecﬁm .33 gamma 5mm dud—«5:830 .V 32mg

mo.VQ* _o.vm~**

        

   

2.1%
8.. immocdodﬂom .-
ewoe mod-
end coca—swam 2d
a;- eeeam w......... :3 ....... ....H.. e .12:
. ........ mdd 8d .. .-
8 oldcoEdEEoU V8; 118539200 ¢./. dmd
.Ibmd / 5d zeta—swam -. *LN-o #661 . A\
35:52 . 1 Toe.
.32. so 3 _
nix-Nd mod

./.r 8.. lmﬁoaodsee .

47

 

a;

$03305 d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

one a: Nee-Ems N
Ed. 93 5o enemaeeeaaeo e
as Ed. eme- 5N eeeeawem .eeaxm .m
2.0- :3 42 8.? a: eeeeewem Bane: .e
8.? 93 N2 85. N2 e2 sequence .m
as. mNe m2 Ne- Nee Ne o: 8:28an .N
eve- eN.o who was- $5 93 and ”N 5823. .2
m N e m e m N _
33: 1.353%: aetxdhexx doze-2980
ense-
mov}. 5v}...
.- geese-moi d
toNe 1 scene: N
1.2.? the 1 28385550 e
tea-Ne Se- tmNe- 1 eeaewefeeeexm .m
.26. tNNe :35 remo- 1 eeeeemem 85,52 .4
mo.o1 *qude .Ibmd :61 *emNd l mmvcﬁou-BOM .m
:6. :25 £3 1.2.0- .33 {Na 1 85.858 .N
twee- Ed tend tamo- teme tmNd rem-Ne 1 €823 ._
m N e m e N N a

 

Eco: 2358K: 5 335.8; asmsced “SEEK-Cob

w ezee

48

maﬁaumm “Seaman coNEBvQSm 53> Eco—z 5mm :me—oom: .w 3:ka

     

  

21%
cad J. 305.833“
.de
. 5:53de *Zd
*m—d1 ......... Roi 35me— W. . W..... 2525.85 TB: 4/
......... mod 1.2.01 ..
mm olEocEEEoU V3.oloo:80qﬁou o/ and
Ihmd / £5 corn—53m *imd 5.26 -\
35:83 .......ow.o- 1&0? gohmmﬁ T2:
:35 . :25

49

8385mm 5.255 BNaaqum a? .232 5“; E53»? 8582 6 23m:

3.1:. Eva:
cod 1. $2683wa

2 1%

 

:N—d

        

. *de .

 

 

 

        

 

L 3 Ed-
.135 l cows—swam F 1mm o $0.33on .112:
«Ev? . . . . .
. ....... Ed _ m .. mo o .1261 4/
8 oi anzsasu I :3 . V123 18:32:50 0/
Iomd I 3o 1 :23:qu .... .thd 3.26
3:552
. .Ibwd-
SEN o
.1.de

owd

%8_%:_ +12: .\
**©—.o

 

and l»Eo=S=<

Discussion

Summary of Findings

The central prediction of this study — that the relationship between downward
inﬂuence tactics and commitment is mediated by the need for autonomy, competence,
and relatedness and the associated type of regulation — was not consistent with the
ﬁndings of ANOVA, correlation, or path model analyses. No difference in reported levels
of autonomy, competence, or relatedness was associated with the type of inﬂuence
message delivered by the experimenter. Further, the inﬂuence message did not appear to
affect any of the variables speciﬁed in the proposed model. However, the variables
showed relationships consistent with the rest of the theoretical model. Perceived
autonomy was positively related to identiﬁed regulation but negatively related to external
regulation. SDT suggests that autonomy is particularly important in determining
perceived regulation and the data were consistent with that prediction. Identiﬁed
regulation was positively associated with commitment, and external regulation was
negatively associated with commitment. Though the ﬁndings do not directly connect
downward inﬂuence tactics to SDT concepts, commitment — the outcome of interest in
downward inﬂuence research — is linked to SDT concepts by these ﬁndings. To the
researcher’s knowledge, this study is the ﬁrst that connects these two areas of research in
this manner.

Though autonomy, competence, and relatedness were not affected by the
inﬂuence tactic used, ratings of intrinsic motivation did show a statistically signiﬁcant
main effect for experimental condition (see Table 5). Speciﬁcally, participants in the

inspirational appeals and direct request/control conditions reported signiﬁcantly higher

51

levels of intrinsic motivation than did those in the pressure conditions. Though AN OVA
analysis suggested that experimental treatment affected intrinsic motivation ratings, this
ﬁnding does not necessarily warrant further exploration. Differences in intrinsic
motivation across conditions are not consistent with previous research or theory. As
detailed in the literature review, only external and identiﬁed regulation should be directly
inﬂuenced by externally motivated activities, such as participating in this study. Intrinsic
motivation is not supposed to be directly affected by external factors, according to SDT.
As previously discussed, CET focuses on how rewards can affect feelings of
autonomy/control and competence/incompetence, which subsequently inﬂuences how
intrinsically motivated one feels. In CET terms, the reward (i.e., course credit) offered
was task-noncontingent, meaning that participants did not have to complete the task to
receive the reward. Meta-analysis results suggest that task-noncontingent rewards do not
affect intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). However, if participants perceived the
reward as task-contingent (i.e., that receiving credit was contingent upon engaging in or
completing the task), the meta-analysis results suggest this may reduce their intrinsic
motivation. The only theoretically consistent explanation for the ﬁnding would be that,
for some reason, participants in the pressure condition were more likely to view their
participation as task-contingent and their intrinsic motivation was subsequently reduced.
However, CET predicts that intrinsic motivation is reduced as a result of individuals’
decreased feelings of autonomy when rewards are task-contingent — a prediction that is
inconsistent with the data in this study because the groups did not differ in perceived
autonomy. In short, this particular statistically signiﬁcant result does not really do much

to inform the central aim of the study - to better understand the “why” of employee

52

 

commitment.

So, how do these results inform the questions brought up in the introduction? The
central aim of this study was to understand why employees respond with higher levels of
commitment to some inﬂuence tactics. Contrary to previous research on downward
inﬂuence, in this study the inﬂuence messages were not associated with commitment.
However, commitment was associated with the SDT variables introduced as mediators
between the messages and commitment. So, while commitment was associated with
autonomy, competence, relatedness, and regulation as predicted, its relationship with the
downward inﬂuence messages was not present as predicted and the messages were
unrelated to all of the SDT variables. If these results are viewed as deﬁnitive, SDT does
not inform the “why” of employee commitment. However, several issues with the present
study should be addressed before dismissing SDT as a possible answer to this question. A
secondary aim of the study was to understand how downward inﬂuence tactics might
inform SDT research. In particular, Gagné and Deci (2005) called for the identiﬁcation of
concrete managerial behaviors that contribute to employees’ perceived autonomy. Again,
the results of this study cannot directly contribute to Gagné and Deci’s goal. However,
some further explorations of downward inﬂuence may be able to answer this question.
Potential Areas to Explore

Ultimately, understanding why the different inﬂuence messages did not affect
SDT-identiﬁed needs in this study is vital to moving forward with this area of research.
Several possible explanations should be explored, including ﬂaws in the study’s
methodology or in the conceptualization prior to the study. Three potential ﬂaws in the

study’s design offer potential explanations for the results. First, the lack of signiﬁcant

53

difference across conditions could be due to weak inductions. The inductions were tested
in a prestudy, but the prestudy design may have affected those results in several ways.
First, the sample size of the prestudy was rather small (1 9 students). The apparent effects
of the different inductions could have been exaggerated by the small sample rather than
due to the inductions themselves. Second, the order of the instructions was not varied
across the 19 prestudy participants, which may have resulted in order effects. The
participants ﬁrst read consultation instructions, then pressure instructions, and ﬁnally
inspirational appeals, which may have resulted in a more pronounced effect for both the
pressure and inspirational appeals instructions. However, the induction check items
suggest that, though there was no signiﬁcant difference in perceived pressure across all
three experimental conditions, participants in the inspirational appeals condition were
signiﬁcantly more “inspired” by the instructions than were those in the pressure
condition. This result suggests that the inductions did not entirely fail.

The sample might offer a second methodological explanation for the lack of
difference across experimental conditions. The majority of downward inﬂuence studies
have been conducted with working adult samples reporting on their own managers’ use
of particular tactics. Because multiple factors may affect the relationships among the
variables in an organizational setting, this study aimed to provide a context-free setting in
which the effects of the inﬂuence messages using inspirational appeals and pressure
tactics on the variables of interest could be measured. In addition to a greater level of
control over the variables, this design did share some characteristics with many
organizations that provided a level of mundane realism. First, participants participated in

the study to earn course credit just as employees participate in work to earn a salary.

54

Second, the task in which participants engaged was not necessarily intrinsically
interesting, comparable to work tasks. Finally, there is evidence (e.g., Milgrarn, 1974) to
suggest that an experimenter is perceived to have a certain level of legitimate power, just
as a manager in an organizational setting does.

However, a focus on the beneﬁts of experimental control may have resulted in a
lack of consideration given to the characteristics of a student sample that may have
directly affected how they would respond to the use of the induction messages. Namely,
students interacting with an experimenter differ in some important ways from employees
interacting with their managers. Perhaps most importantly, student participants receive
compensation (in the form of course credit) regardless of the quality of their participation
and may withdraw at any time and still receive that compensation. This situation does not
mirror that of employees, for whom performance is typically a factor in receiving
compensation. Participating students may have been much more focused on receiving
credit and the need to put in their “time” than on reacting to or even noticing the content
of the messages the experimenter sent directing their participation. In short, perhaps the
manager-employee relationship, despite its interference with experimental control, is a
necessary context for gaining understanding of why particular manager inﬂuence tactics
are positively associated with commitment.

A third methodological issue might be the task completed by participants, which
may also have inﬂuenced the results in two ways. First, the article focused on work-life
balance because it is a topic of interest to most young adults. Participants were asked to
identify techniques employers were using to reduce workloads. However, the article’s

topic and the task focus on summarizing methods used to reduce workloads may have

55

inadvertently primed participants to put less work into the task itself. Across conditions,
the participants may have been less motivated to participate as a result of the article’s
focus. Second, the information summary task was deliberately chosen because prestudy
results suggested that it was not intrinsically motivating. Though work-life balance may
be topical, the information summary task itself was not designed to be interesting.
Choosing the less enjoyable task may have inﬂuenced participant responses to
questionnaire items. Ultimately, how much inspiration or motivation can be induced to
complete the information summary task? Selecting a less enjoyable task for the study was
intended to contribute to its mundane realism but may have inadvertently affected how
inspired, pressured, or motivated participants felt. Perhaps no matter how inspiring or
pressure-inducing the inﬂuence messages were the uninteresting and mundane nature of
the task would neutralize the inductions.

The reasoning that informed the study and the induction check items may also
have been ﬂawed. Downward inﬂuence tactic labels (i.e., “inspirational appeals” and
“pressure”) were used to generate the induction check items. Though the induction check
was admittedly limited to one item for each tactic, the results suggest that some
rethinking of a basic assumption of downward inﬂuence research might be fruitful.
Speciﬁcally, the assumption that particular tactics make people feel inspired or pressured
because researchers have labeled particular inﬂuence behaviors as “inspirational appeals”
and “pressure tactics” may be ﬂawed. In none of the three conditions did participants
report feeling very pressured (M = 1.51, SD = 1.09) or very inspired (M = 2.13, SD =
1.67). Admittedly, this result may be due to a weak induction or to invalid induction

check items. However, the inductions were derived directly from IBQ items measuring

56

both tactics and on the deﬁnitions of both tactics offered in previous downward inﬂuence
research. Objectively, the experimental messages used the downward inﬂuence tactics of
inspirational appeals and pressure. What if the tactics labeled by researchers as
“inspirational” are not always inspiring to employees? What if the tactics labeled as
“pressure” are not perceived as such by employees? Consideration of message effects
may come uniquely from a communication perspective. By viewing inﬂuence behaviors
as messages rather than as tactics, communication researchers could greatly inform
downward inﬂuence research and, perhaps, help explain why particular tactics are linked
to commitment.

Two post hoc models based on the idea that inspirational appeals and pressure
tactics are not necessarily associated with feeling inspired or pressured were tested and
‘ presented in Figures 5 and 6. The idea behind these models is that feeling inspired should
be associated with higher feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and that
feeling pressured should lead to lower feelings of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness; those feelings, however, were not necessarily associated with experimental
condition in the study. Though exploratory in nature, the post hoc models do suggest
potential for additional research. Whereas being in the pressure condition did not
necessarily result in feeling more pressure, feelings of pressure were signiﬁcantly
negatively associated with autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Conversely, feeling
inspired was signiﬁcantly positively associated with autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. The addition of paths directly from each of the SDT needs to commitment in
the model depicted in Figure 6 is not inconsistent with the idea that particular tactics’

associations with commitment are mediated by perceptions of autonomy, competence,

57

1

, an.
a

and relatedness. This modiﬁcation simply suggests that, perhaps, the relationship
between the SDT needs and commitment is not ﬁrlly mediated by perceived regulation —
an idea that can be tested in the future. Overall, these exploratory results are in keeping
with the theoretical thinking that led to the original model and have interesting
implications for further research.

Areas for Future Research

Of course, one additional possibility is that SDT is not a viable theory to
understand why particular managerial inﬂuence tactics are associated with commitment.
However, the lack of difference in autonomy, competence, and relatedness in response to
different inﬂuence messages in one study should not automatically result in the
assumption that inﬂuence messages have no effect on motivation deﬁned as autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. As discussed previously, the data were consistent with
particular aspects of the model. Several avenues of future research applying SDT to
downward inﬂuence research are available to better understand the “why” of employee
commitment. In keeping with the weaknesses previously discussed, future research
should address the issues of induction strength, sample, and message effects.

The issue of induction strength suggests multiple avenues for future research.
Though the messages used in this study were pretested, certain characteristics of the
prestudy may have inﬂated the effects seen in the prestudy. Additional instructions
should be tested to determine whether a different (“stronger”) induction would lead to the
predicted experimental effects. In addition, understanding what inspires students to
participate in research or what makes them feel pressure might aid in creating more

effective messages embodying those two tactics. The difference in setting between the

58

prestudy and the main study may have also affected how the messages were perceived.
Perhaps the inductions used in this study would have been effective if delivered in
individual settings as they were in the prestudy and typically are at work. Testing other
messages using some of the nine other tactics identiﬁed by Yukl and colleagues would
also be important before wholly discounting the application of SDT to downward
inﬂuence research.

Future research should also be conducted outside of the lab with a sample
reﬂecting directly on their employment experiences. Participants would complete
versions of the IBQ, IMI, a modiﬁed SIMS, and the Likert-type comrrritrnent scale so that
the model depicted in Figure 1 could be retested. This data collection would focus on
real-life interactions with managers and how they affect employees’ perceived autonomy,
competence, relatedness, regulation, and commitment. Such a design would avoid some
of the issues with student samples discussed above. Use of the IBQ would also provide
opportunity to explore whether associations exist among other tactics and SDT concepts.

Future research conducted with student samples should vary the task in several
ways. In order to determine whether participants were primed by the article’s content, a 3
x 2 design could be used with two different articles varied across three message
conditions. Another possibility would be to discard the information summary task and
use a task that would be more enjoyable to participants. If the effects of the induction
messages were moderated by the task itself, changing the task to a more interesting one
could solve this issue. In the prestudy, participants enjoyed the re'sumé activity and this

activity would provide a work-like task for participants. CET research typically employs

59

intrinsically interesting puzzle games, and comparable tasks could be used in this line of
research as well.

Potential also exists to move away from the application of SDT research in order
to better understand downward inﬂuence tactics from a communication perspective. For
example, communication research on persuasion reveals that receiver characteristics
(e.g., personality traits) and sender characteristics (e. g., source credibility) can affect the
impact of inﬂuence messages. Future research should measure these variables to check
for direct or moderating effects. Revising the view of communication implicit in previous
studies of downward inﬂuence might also provide a fruitful avenue of future research.
Downward inﬂuence scholars appear to view manager-employee interactions using a
linear model of communication, in which meaning is transferred from a sender to a
receiver. Communication scholars view interactions as just that — interactive. Each
participant will have a different understanding and perceive different meaning in the
conversation. Applying this perspective to downward inﬂuence research in the manner
discussed previously could result in a more nuanced understanding of the tactics and how
they are viewed. For example, is consultation viewed as genuinely solicitive or as
patronizing? What factors inﬂuence how these tactics are perceived by employees? How
can the same tactic be interpreted differently by two different employees and result in
drastically different responses? The post hoc models tested in this study begin to address
this idea and should be tested in future research. Though not directly related to the
application of SDT to downward inﬂuence research, these questions are an interesting

corollary of the ﬁndings.

60

Practical Implications

Managers can take several ideas away from the ﬁndings of this study. If taken at
face value, the results appear to suggest that inﬂuence messages do not affect autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. However, the ﬁndings of one study are not deﬁnitive and
assuming that managerial inﬂuence messages do not affect employee motivation would
be premature. Further, motivation is affected by factors other than autonomy,
competence, and relatedness; SDT is just one theory of motivation. In this study,
participants receiving both inspirational appeals and direct requests were more inspired
than those who received pressure tactics. If managers are aiming to inspire their
employees, use of either approach appears preferable to the use of pressure. Interestingly,
no statistically signiﬁcant difference between inspirational appeals and direct requests
was found for feeling inspired. This result may suggest that simply asking will have the
same impact as attempting to inspire employees. Given the previous discussion of
message effects, direct requests may provide a “safe” way to inﬂuence employees.
Conclusion

Though the study data are inconsistent with the proposed model, the results of this
study are more nuanced than that simple statement. Overall, many of the predicted
relationships in the model held. The results suggest that exploring the relationships
between inﬂuence tactics and commitment in a more nuanced fashion can contribute to
an understanding not only of why particular tactics are associated with particular
outcomes, but also how those messages may be perceived differently in different
situations and by different people. The lack of support for the proposed model exposes

interesting questions about whether managers’ inﬂuence messages are perceived by

61

employees in the same way that they are perceived by researchers and, further, why
employees may interpret the same types of inﬂuence message in very different ways.
This study exposes some underexplored complexities of manager’s inﬂuence attempts
and demonstrates how a communication-focused lens might tease out those complexities.
In the overall pursuit to facilitate employee motivation, better understanding different
interpretations of inﬂuence attempts may help to improve many manager-employee
relationships. The possibilities for future research outlined here demonstrate the potential

in this area.

62

 

APPENDICES

63

APPENDIX A

Prestudy Materials

Task 1: Résume' Activity

Below is a list of information gathered about a job candidate ﬁom references,
former employers, and other research. Compare the information below to the
candidate ’s résume'. Identiﬁ) potential inaccuracies and mark them on the résumé.

Information

Education:

Earned B.A. in business from Michigan State University
Graduated in top 25% of class

In assistant job:

Made sure the ofﬁce ran smoothly every day by answering phones and taking
about 25 messages

Helped manager with the coordination of costs for a project that brought in
more than $4,000 net revenue.

Managed a portion of a database for two months for one of the sales
departments in the company while the manager was away on maternity leave
Assisted with the company’s ﬁnancial bookkeeping with software like Excel

In manager job:

Promoted after only ten months to managerial positions

Was responsible for supervision of two associates and allocated the daily tasks
Participated in team to develop the strategic plan of the purchasing department
to help the organization’s objective of reducing costs

Designed and created a system that improved the day-to-day operating
procedures

Other activities:

- Went to Spanish classes to improve speaking and writing of Spanish
0 Volunteered for an after-school tutoring program where tutored a group of
12 boys and girls

64

PAT SPARTAN
100 Anson RD.
EAST LANSING, MI 48824

Educaﬁgn

. Bachelor of the Arts Degree in Business from Michigan State
University
. Graduated at top of class

Work Experience
Manager, Start-Up Company

Promoted to managerial position within six months

- Supervised/allocated tasks for four associates daily

. Created system to improve daily operations and save company
thousands of dollars

. Led Purchasing Department's analysis/strategic plan to reduce
costs

Assistant, Start-Up Company -
. Answered phones and took 50+ messages daily to create
efﬁcient ofﬁce
- Performed bookkeeping tasks using Excel
. Managed sales database while manager took three-month leave
. Coordinated costs for project that netted 355,000+

Skills
. Fluent in spoken and written Spanish

. Proﬁcient in spoken Greek
. Experienced in Excel

Agivities
. Tutored 10+ children for after-school program
. Awarded “Top Volunteer” honors

65

Task 2: Information Summm Activig;

Read the following article. Prepare a brief summary that you could use to share the
article ’s main ideas with someone who does not have time to read it. Focus on identifying
the techniques employers are using to reduce workloads.

Taking Back the Weekend: Companies Help Employees Cut Back on Overwork
Sue Shellenbarger. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 18,
2006. pg. D]

THE LAST PLACE most people would look to for help reducing their workload is their
employer.

But that's exactly where John L. Williams got help last year cutting back his workday to a
manageable length. Overloaded with unplanned phone calls and reports, Mr. Williams, an
account executive at Cummins Inc., an engine manufacturer, had been taking work home
and toiling as late as 2 am. on his laptop.

Luckily for him, Cummins had embarked on a pilot project to eliminate unnecessary
work. Now Mr. Williams is getting more core job duties done at the ofﬁce -- and getting
to bed earlier.

At a time when most employers are piling on more work, a small but growing number of
companies, including Alcan, Cummins, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Texas Instruments and
International Business Machines, are actually taking steps to reduce workloads. While
corporate efforts to streamline work aren't new, the latest moves are different in two
ways. They are driven by employee dissatisfaction, not budget-cutting. And they have
two purposes - not only increasing productivity, but improving work-life balance.

"Overwork has become the big issue right now," says Brad Han'ington, executive director
of the nonproﬁt Boston College Center for Work and Family. Solving the problem forces
companies to go deeper than setting up new policies. "You can't create a policy that says,
'No more overwork.‘ It's too deeply embedded" in how companies operate, Mr.
Harrington says. Tackling it requires deeper change.

At Cummins, based in Columbus, Ind., an annual survey of 6,700 employees in 2004
showed a drop in employee satisfaction with workloads, says Janet Dunn, Cummins's
director of diversity development. So two Tennessee work teams met last year with WFD
Consulting, Newton, Mass-based consultants, to ﬁgure out how to jettison low-value
tasks.

Team members began meeting biweekly to identify and cut out redundant work, Ms.
Dunn says. They reduced unplanned phone calls and the number of sales-history and
analysis reports they had to generate for salespeople, by referring requests to online
resources. Customer- help teams also organized to back each other up on service calls, to
avoid any one employee's getting backed up with complex jobs. Such changes helped

66

enable Mr. Williams, who works in a pricing unit, and more than 30 others to get more
done during the workday, he says. Cummins plans to expand the pilot to other teams.

Similarly, at Alcan, based in Montreal, a 2005 survey of 55,000 employees revealed
dissatisfaction with heavy workloads and long hours, says Steven Price, a human-
resources director. In a series of steps, a half-dozen top executives got coaching on how
to be better role models, partly by speaking up about their own challenges managing
workload. Executives began encouraging employees "to push back and say, 'I'm not
working on weekends as much,’ " Mr. Price says. In Alcan's ﬁnance unit, employees were
discouraged from working Sundays. The mandate was one of many improvements in
processes that saved thousands of hours of work annually.

Elsewhere, some CEOs are calling on employees to speak up about scut work. At auto
retailer CarMax, Richmond, Va., CEO Austin Ligon begins some monthly meetings by
asking, "What are we doing that is stupid, unnecessary or doesn't make sense?" The
question draws a laugh and gets employees engaged in improving their workplace, he
says. A Naperville, 111., general manager, for example, created a new time- saving process
for parking cars.

Boston Consulting Group logs consultants' total hours on a weekly "Red Zone Report";
any employee who works too long falls into the Red Zone, raising questions among
managers, says Jeanie Duck, a senior vice president: "Are they working more than they
should? Is it something they're choosing to do, or is it being forced on them?" In some
cases, consultants get help prioritizing work. Also, managers who burn out their teams
hurt their chances of promotion, Ms. Duck says.

After a 2004 survey of 42,000 IBM employees revealed that four in 10 thought 15% of
their job duties were unnecessary, IBM developed a Web- based tool for managers to use
in routing out low-value work. The goal: to eke out "more time for customers and, as a
byproduct, more time for our families and our personal life," says J.T. Childs, IBM's vice
president, global diversity.

Vincent Cozzolino, an IBM vice president in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., knew he had a
problem because overtime costs were rising and people in his 600-employee unit had
begun to "push back" when asked to do new projects. The intranet program surveyed
employees about low-value work, asked why they did it, then presented managers with
the data. When employees said on the survey, "'I'm doing it because Vinnie wants me to
do it,’ . . . I'd have to ask myself, 'Do I really want this or don't I?’ " Mr. Cozzolino says.

He and his managers trimmed meeting requirements, bought new equipment to reduce
time spent quality-checking computer parts, and consolidated two labs, saving hundreds
of work hours, he says. IBM has expanded the program in the US. and six other
countries.

IBM technician Lou Colomban has beneﬁted. In the past, he routinely told his wife he
wouldn't be home until after dinner or much later on days he had to send out server

67

updates for corporate customers. The tedious process consumed much of his workday,
while his regular tasks backed up. As part of the work-reduction program, Mr. Colomban
suggested automating the process. The updates now run faster and smoother. "It's been a
stress-reducer," he says.

Mums of Task Eniovment (items 1-7) Qd Task Effort (items 8-12) (completed for
each task)
Please indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using this scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
I enjoyed doing this activity very much
This activity was fun to do.
I thought this was a boring activity.
This activity did not hold my attention at all.
I would describe this activity as very interesting.
I thought this activity was quite enjoyable.
While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
I put a lot of effort into this.
I didn’t try very hard to do well at this activity.
10. I tried very hard on this activity.
11. It was important to me to do well at this task.
12. I didn’t put much energy into this task.

PPSQMPPPE

Commitment Measures
Which of the following best describes your response to being asked to complete these
tasks?
CIRCLE ONE
- Resistance — I felt opposed to doing the tasks.
0 Compliance — I felt like I had to complete the tasks, but I did not want to do it.
- Commitment — I felt motivated to do the tasks.

Which word best captures your response to being asked to complete these activities?
Place an “ ” on the line you select.

 

 

 

Opposed Motivated
Resistance Compliance
Interested Uninterested
Compliance

Commitment
Obligated Excited
Please indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using this scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true

9999395“

I felt motivated to complete these tasks.
I felt like I had to complete these tasks.
I did not want to complete these tasks.

I was engaged in the tasks.

I felt committed to completing the tasks.
I did not feel committed to completing these tasks.

69

Participants were given these six sample instructions. After each instruction, the
participant completed the items listed below the instructions.

Qstructions Tested

Inspirational Appeals

“Your participation in this task is very important to the research I am doing. Your
work on this task will help me understand how to present information in a way that’s
easy to understand. Your work on this task will really contribute to my research. By
working on this task, you will help me and other scholars to better understand how to
present information in a way that’s easy to understand.”

“Working on this task is an opportunity to do something worthwhile. Your work
could help me and other scholars better understand how to present information in a
way that’s easy to understand. Your participation can really add to our understanding
of how to present information in a way that’s easy to understand.”

Consultation

“This task is something I’m pre-testing right now. I would like your feedback on the
task before I do a larger study. I hope you’ll share any problems you see with this task
while you complete it. While you complete this task, please note any suggestions that
you feel would make it easier to complete. I really want to hear your opinions on the
task so I please share any suggestions or comments you have.”

“I would like you to suggest things and share your ideas about the task you are going
to complete. I want to encourage you to express any concerns you have about this
activity. Right now, I am pre-testing this task. I hope you will help me to improve it.”

Pressure

“This task is what is required of you as a participant in this study. You must work on
the task. I will check to be sure you are doing the task. When I come in, you need to
be working on the task.”

“You need to work on this task. I will be observing you to make sure you are doing
what you are instructed to do. You must work on the activity while you are here.”

70

For each of the six instructions, participants responded to the following questions.

Items to Meaﬂe Effects of Instructions
For each of the following statements, please indicate how true it is for you, using the
following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
Perceived Competence

I think I would be pretty good at this activity.

I think I would do pretty well at this activity, compared to other students.
After working at this activity for awhile, I would feel pretty competent.

I would be satisﬁed with my performance at this task.

I will be pretty skilled at this activity.

This is an activity that I couldn’t do very well. (R)

Perceived A utonomy

I believe I have some choice about doing this activity.

I feel like it is not my own choice to do this task. (R)
I do not really have a choice about doing this task. (R)
I feel like I have to do this. (R)

I will do this activity because I have no choice. (R)
I will do this activity because I want to.

I will do this activity because I have to. (R)

Relatedness

I feel really distant to the person giving me these instructions. (R)

I really doubt that this person and I would ever be ﬁiends. (R)

I feel like I could really trust this person.

I’d like a chance to interact with this person more often.

I’d really prefer not to interact with this person in the future. (R)

I don’t feel like I could really trust this person. (R)

It is likely that this person and I could become friends if we interacted a lot.
I feel close to this person.

71

The experimenter took notes while discussing these questions with the participant.

Interview Items

1.

Which task did you prefer?
El Resume activity

El Summarizing information
Why?

How much time should be allotted for each task?

Resume activity Summarizing information

. Of the items you completed measuring your commitment to the task, which do you

feel best captured how committed you were?

What did you think of the instructions the experimenter read to you?

- Easy to follow?

0 Easy to understand?

Do you think these instructions should be spoken, written, or both?

Did you feel you were able to respond to the questions evaluating the instructions?

0 If no, why not?

0 What would make it easier for you to respond to the questions evaluating the
instructions?

Anything else you’d like to comment on regarding any of the materials?

72

APPENDIX B
Main Study Materials
_1n_struction_§ to Tes_t

Note: These instructions were read by the experimenter, projected on a screen in the
room, and also presented as the ﬁrst page of the study packet received by each
participant.

Participants in the inspirational appeals condition received the following instruction:
“Your participation in this study is important to this area of research. Your work on this
task will contribute not only to my research but will also help to advance theorizing in
this area. By working on this task, you are participating in knowledge creation.

“To complete the task, read the article on the following page. Prepare a brief summary
that you could use to share the article’s main ideas with someone who does not have time
to read it. Focus on identifying the techniques employers are using to reduce workloads.
The summary should be written on the blank page following the article.”

El <— Check to indicate that you understand these instructions; then, turn the page to start
the task.

Participants in the pressure condition received the following instruction:

“This task is what is required of you as a participant in this study, so you have to work on
this task. I will be observing you to make sure you are doing what you are instructed to
do and I will check to make sure you are working on the task while you are here.

“To complete the task, read the article on the following page. Prepare a brief summary
that you could use to share the article’s main ideas with someone who does not have time
to read it. Focus on identifying the techniques employers are using to reduce workloads.
The summary should be written on the blank page following the article.”

El «— Check to indicate that you understand these instructions; then, turn the page to start
the task.

Participants in the direct request/control condition received the following instruction:
“To complete the task, read the article on the following page. Prepare a brief summary
that you could use to share the article’s main ideas with someone who does not have time
to read it. Focus on identifying the techniques employers are using to reduce workloads.
The summary should be written on the blank page following the article.”

El <— Check to indicate that you understand these instructions; then, turn the page to start
the task.

73

Information Summm Task

The last place most people would look to for help reducing their workload is their
employer. At a time when most employers are piling on more work, a small but growing
number of companies, including Alcan, Cummins, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Texas
Instruments and International Business Machines, are actually taking steps to reduce
workloads. While corporate efforts to streamline work aren’t new, the latest moves are
different in two ways. They are driven by employee dissatisfaction, not budget-cutting.
And they have two purposes -- not only increasing productivity, but improving work-life
balance.

“Overwork has become the big issue right now,” says Brad Harrington, executive director
of the nonproﬁt Boston College Center for Work and Family. Solving the problem forces
companies to go deeper than setting up new policies. “You can’t create a policy that says,
‘No more overwork.’ It’s too deeply embedded” in how companies operate, Mr.
Han'ington says. Tackling it requires deeper change.

At Cummins, based in Columbus, Ind., an annual survey of 6,700 employees in 2004
showed a drop in employee satisfaction with workloads, says Janet Dunn, Cummins’s
director of diversity development. So two Tennessee work teams met last year with WFD
Consulting, Newton, Mass-based consultants, to ﬁgure out how to jettison low-value
tasks. Team members began meeting biweekly to identify and cut out redundant work,
Ms. Dunn says. Cumnrins plans to expand the pilot to other teams.

At Montreal-based Alcan, a 2005 survey of 55,000 employees revealed dissatisfaction
with heavy workloads and long hours, says Steven Price, a human-resources director. In a
series of steps, a half-dozen top executives got coaching on how to be better role models,
partly by speaking up about their own challenges managing workload. Executives began
encouraging employees “to push back and say, ‘I’m not working on weekends as much,”’
Mr. Price says. In Alcan’s ﬁnance unit, employees were discouraged from working
Sundays. The mandate was one of many process improvements in processes that saved
thousands of hours of work annually.

Elsewhere, some CEOs are calling on employees to speak up about scut work. At auto
retailer CarMax, Richmond, Va., CEO Austin Ligon begins some monthly meetings by
asking, “What are we doing that is stupid, unnecessary or doesn’t make sense?” The
question draws a laugh and gets employees engaged in improving their workplace, he
says. A Naperville, 111., general manager, for example, created a new time- saving process
for parking cars.

Boston Consulting Group logs consultants’ total hours on a weekly “Red Zone Report;”
any employee who works too long falls into the Red Zone, raising questions among
managers, says Jeanie Duck, a senior vice president: “Are they working more than they
should? Is it something they’re choosing to do, or is it being forced on them?” In some
cases, consultants get help prioritizing work. Also, managers who burn out their teams
hurt their chances of promotion, Ms. Duck says.

74

After a 2004 survey of 42,000 IBM employees revealed that four in 10 thought 15% of
their job duties were unnecessary, IBM developed a Web- based tool for managers to use
in routing out low-value work. The goal: to eke out “more time for customers and, as a
byproduct, more time for our families and our personal life,” says J .T. Childs, IBM’s vice
president, global diversity.

Vincent Cozzolino, an IBM vice president in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., knew he had a
problem because overtime costs were rising and people in his 600-employee unit had
begun to “push back” when asked to do new projects. The intranet program surveyed
employees about low—value work, asked why they did it, then presented managers with
the data. When employees said on the survey, “‘I’m doing it because Vinnie wants me to
do it,’ . . . I’d have to ask myself, ‘Do I really want this or don’t I?’” Mr. Cozzolino says.

He and his managers trimmed meeting requirements, bought new equipment to reduce
time spent quality-checking computer parts, and consolidated two labs, saving hundreds
of work hours, he says. IBM has expanded the program in the US and six other
countries.

Adapted from: Taking Back the Weekend: Companies Help Employees Cut Back on
Overwork. Sue Shellenbarger. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.:
May 18, 2006. pg. D]

75

Commitment Measures
Please indicate how true each of the following statements is for you using this scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true

I felt motivated to complete this task.

I did mt want to complete this task.

I was engaged in this task.

I felt committed to completing this task.
I felt excited about completing this task.

Which of the following best describes your response to being asked to complete these
tasks?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
resistance compliance commitment

Which of the following best describes how you felt about being asked to complete these
tasks?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
opposed required motivated

76

The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

Directions: Read each item carefully. For each statement, please indicate how true it is
for you, using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true

I think I was pretty good at this activity.

After working at this activity for awhile, I felt pretty competent.
I am satisﬁed with my performance at this task.

I believe I had some choice about doing this activity.

I did this activity because I wanted to.

I did this activity because I had no choice. (R)

I felt like I could really trust the experimenter.

I’d like a chance to interact with the experimenter more often.

PWNQMPPN?‘

It is likely that the experimenter and I could become ﬁ'iends if we interacted a lot.
10. I feel close to the experimenter.

ll. 1 think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other students.

12. I was pretty skilled at this activity.

13. This was an activity that I couldn’t do very well. (R)

14. I felt like it was not my own choice to do this task. (R)

15. I didn’t really have a choice about doing this task. (R)

16. I felt like I had to do this task. (R)

17. I did this activity because I had to. (R)

18. I felt really distant to the experimenter. (R)

19. I really doubt that the experimenter and I would ever be friends. (R)
20. I’d really prefer not to interact with the experimenter in the future. (R)
21. I don’t feel like I could really trust the experimenter. (R)

Autonomy: Items 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, l6, l7
Competence: Items 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13
Relatedness: Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21

77

The Situational Motivation ScaleiSIMS; Guay. Vallegnd. & Blanchard, 2000)

Directions: Read each item carefully. Using the scale below, please circle the number
that best describes the reason why you engaged in this activity. Answer each item
according to the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true

Why did you engage in this activity?

Because I think that this activity is interesting

Because I am doing it for my own good

Because I am supposed to do it

There may be good reasons to do this activity, but personally I don’t see any
Because I think that this activity is pleasant

Because I think that this activity is good for me

Because it is something that I have to do

I did this activity but I am not sure if it is worth it

Because this activity is fun

990.“???ri

10. By personal decision

11. Because I don’t have any choice

12. I don’t know; I don’t see what this activity brings me

13. Because I feel good when doing this activity

14. Because I believe that this activity is important for me

15. Because I feel that I have to do it

16. I did this activity, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue it
17. Because I felt pressured by the experimenter’s instructions

18. Because I felt inspired by the experimenter’s instructions

Intrinsic motivation: Items 1, 5, 9, l3
Identiﬁed regulation: Items 2, 6, 10, 14
External regulation: Items 3, 7, 11, 15
Amotivation: Items 4, 8, 12, 16
Induction check: Items 17, 18

78

Demoggphic Information

How old are you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
LEI Male I D Female
Ethnici
El Caucasian El Aﬁican American
El Native American Cl Asian American
El Hispanic E] Paciﬁc Islander
El Mixed El Other
Education Level (Please indicate your current academic standing.)
El freshman El sophomore
El junior El senior
Cl jraduate El other
Do you have any employment eyerience?
I [I Yes I El No

 

How much work experience do you have? Years

and Months

Industry Experience (Please indicate the industry in which the majority of your work
experience took place.) CHECK ONLY ONE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

El admin/support D consulting
El education El factory/assembly line
El ﬁnance [:1 food service/restaurant
[:1 healthcare El management
[:1 marketing El media
El non-proﬁt CI physical labor
professional/ofﬁce environment Cl public service
13 public relations El retail/sales
El technology El other
Experience Level (Please indicate the level at which you spent most of your work
experience.) CHECK ONLY ONE.
U line/entry level 1:] mid-management level
El senior-management level E] self-employed
D other
Are you currently employed?
I El Yes I El No

 

79

 

 

 

 

Please indicate the category that best describes your current job. CHECK ONLY
ONE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

D admin/support Cl consulting

El education CI factory/assembly line
Cl ﬁnance Cl food service/restaurant
[:1 healthcare [:1 management

CI marketirg 1:] media

El non-proﬁt 13 physical labor

Cl professional/ofﬁce environment C] public service

CI public relations CI retail/sales

El technology Cl other

 

 

How long have you been in your current job?
Years and Months

How many hours do you work per week on average in your current job?

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baard, P. P. (2002). Intrinsic need satisfaction in organizations: A motivational basis of
success in for-proﬁt and not-for—proﬁt settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101-121). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.

Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, RM. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational
basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.

Barry, B., & Bateman, T. S. (1992). Perceptions of inﬂuence in managerial dyads: The
role of hierarchy, media, and tactics. Human Relations, 45, 555-574.

Cohen, J., Cohen, R, West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Cusella, L. P. (1980). The effects of feedback on intrinsic motivation: A propositional
extension of cognitive evaluation theory from an organizational communication
perspective. Communication Yearbook, 4, 367-387.

Cusella, L. P. (1982). The effects of source expertise and feedback valence on intrinsic
motivation. Human Communication Research, 9, 17-32.

Cusella, L. P. (1984). The effects of feedback source, message and receiver
characteristics on intrinsic motivation. Communication Quarterly, 32, 211-221.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-1 15.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, E. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,
62, 119-142. ‘

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, RM. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, I 9, 109-134.

81

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R. Usunov, J ., & Komazheva, B. P.
(2001) Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of

a former Eastern Bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 7, 93 0-942.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2001). Dualism in leadership research. In F .M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam
(Eds), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory,
research, and methods (pp. 379-439). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Falbe, C. M., & Yukl, G. (1992). Consequences for managers of using single inﬂuence
tactics and combinations of tactics. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 63 8-
652.

Femet, C., Guay, F., & Seneca], C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work
self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 39-56.

Franklin, J. L. (1975). Down the organization: Inﬂuence processes across levels of
hierarchy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 153-164.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed),
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of
organizational change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30, 1843-1852.

Gagné, M., Seneca], C. B., & Koestner, R. (1997). Proximal job characteristics, feelings
of empowerment, and intrinsic motivation: A multidimensional model. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1222-1240.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS).
Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175-213.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

82

Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1980). Performance feedback information and
organizational communication: Evidence of conceptual convergence. Human
Communication Research, 7, 68-73.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, BB. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Houlfort, N., Koestner, R., Joussemet, M., Nantel-Vivier, A., & Lekes, N. (2002). The
impact of performance-contingent rewards on perceived autonomy and
competence. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 279-295.

Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.) Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp.
158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor
ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job
satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 1789-1805.

Intrinsic motivation inventory. (2007). Retrieved February 6, 2008 from the University of
Rochester’s Department of Psychology Self-Determination Theory website:
http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/intrins.html.

Jdreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8. 80 for Windows. Scientiﬁc Software
International.

Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation, dependability, and employee-
supervisor discrepancies in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation settings.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 3 7, 175-187.

Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages:
Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4, 3-60.

Keys, B., & Case, T. (1990). How to become an inﬂuential manager. Academy of
Management Executive, 4, 38-51.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffm-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, 1. (1984). Patterns of
managerial inﬂuence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders.
Organizational Dynamics, Winter, 58-67.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, 1. (1980). Intraorganizational inﬂuence tactics:
Explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440-452.

83

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being internally
motivated: A closer look at introjection, identiﬁcation, and intrinsic motivation. In

E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp.
101-121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Krivonos, P. D. (1978). The relationship of intrinsic-extrinsic motivation and
communication climate in organizations. The Journal of Business
Communication, 15, 53—65.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An
empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.

Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J ., (1996). Supervisors’ beliefs and subordinates’
intrinsic motivation: A behavioral conﬁrmation analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 331-340.

Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002) Providing a rationale in an
autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting
activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 183-207.

Richer, S. F ., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work
turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089-2113.

Richer, S. F ., & Vallerand, R. J. (1995). Supervisors’ interactional styles and
subordinates’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Social Psychology,
135, 707-722.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). The darker and brighter sides of human existence:
Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 1 I, 319-
338.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of

intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68-78.

84

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy:
Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of
Personality, 74, 1557-1586.

Schriesheim, C. A., and Hinkin, T. R. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics used by subordinates: A
theoretical and empirical analysis and reﬁnement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and
Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, S., De Witte, H., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The ‘why’
and ‘why not’ of job search behaviour: Their relation to searching, unemployment
experience, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 345-363.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Feather, N. T (2005). Understanding
unemployed people's search behavior, unemployment experience and well-being:
A comparison of expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 1-20.

Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., 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.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Weiss, D. J ., Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & England, G. W. (1966). Minnesota studies
in vocational rehabilitation, Vol. 21: Instrumentation for the theory of work
adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: Industrial Relations Center, University of
Minnesota.

Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. (2005). Assessing the construct validity and utility
of two new inﬂuence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 705—725.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics and objectives in upward, downward,
and lateral inﬂuence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 , 132-140.

Yukl, G., Guinan, P. J., & Sottolano, D. (1995). Inﬂuence tactics used for different
objectives with subordinates, peers, and superiors. Group & Organization
Management, 20, 272-296.

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Falbe, C. M. (1996). Antecedents of inﬂuence outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 309-317.

Yukl, G., Kim, H., & Chavez, C. (1999). Task importance, feasibility, and agent

inﬂuence behavior as determinants of target commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 137-143.

85

Yukl, G., Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, T. (1991). Preliminary report on development and
validation of the inﬂuence behavior questionnaire. In K. Clark, M. B. Clark, & D.
P. Campbell (Eds), Impact of leadership (pp. 417-427). Greensboro, NC: Center
for Creative Leadership.

Yukl, G., & Tracey, J. B. (1992). Consequences of inﬂuence tactics used with
subordinates, peers, and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.

86