Abstract
The study of performance is an endeavor of how a person thinks, what increases a person’s self-efficacy, and motivates the person to focus attention on the task being measured. There are two types of motivation which affect a person’s self-efficacy and performance on a particular task. The debate of which type of motivation is superior is ongoing, however, it is likely the answer is not one or the other but a combination of both contributing to a person’s performance. Intrinsic motivation or internal motivation is motivation caused by a desire to positively influence the world, influence an objective or an internal enjoyment related to the task at hand. In other words, intrinsic motivation is motivation which leads to an internal reward (Ng, 2018). Extrinsic motivation is motivation from an external source such as money, food, or influence. In other words, extrinsic motivation is motivation which leads to an external or physical reward (Woolley & Fishbach, 2018). These two forms of motivation are what comprise a person’s desire to focus attention on a particular task. At this time, the work related to understanding self-efficacy and performance through intrinsic motivation is more developed than work related to extrinsic motivational factors. As a result, this article will focus on intrinsic motivational theories.
Theoretical Approaches
There are several theoretical approaches working towards the understanding of self-efficacy, motivation and performance. A few of these include; self-determination theory as the parent theory, cognitive evaluation theory, organismic integration theory, and basic psychological needs theory. These approaches present a rounded understanding of current thought related to self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. No current theory seems to be a complete solution, however, the current work related to self-efficacy, motivation, and performance does present a working understanding of a person’s self-efficacy and performance.
Self-determination theory is the theory which a person is able to function within their own decision making and has a need to be able to make one’s own choices (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This theory focuses on intrinsic motivation as the person receives something internal from the task. Deci and Ryan (2000) believed one’s ability to decide along with intrinsic motivational factors leads to a higher level of competence. This leads to a reciprocal effect where a person’s intrinsic motivation leads to improvement in self-efficacy leading to more intrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory is the cornerstone of current thought on intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy with multiple sub theories stemming from its root belief in self decision making and intrinsic motivation.
Cognitive evaluation theory a sub theory of self-determination theory details how variables such as context, events and ego affect a person’s motivation. Spence and Oades (2011) suggests cognitive evaluation theory denotes the effects and enhancements social-culture has on a person’s motivation while emphasizing the possibility of cognitive evaluation theory causing persons to not consider themselves the initiator of their actions. While cognitive evaluation theory focuses on factors which affect self-efficacy and performance these factors have not been shown to be consistent or have a consistent effect from one person to another. The same scenario could cause an opposite response in two different persons potentially making this theory difficult to apply.
Organismic integration theory a sub theory of self-determination theory denotes the possibility of controlling extrinsic motivators moving them towards intrinsic motivations. Spence and Oades (2011) believe within this theory there is a natural progression of one’s motivational factors overtime. Organismic integration theory has become a staple within modern businesses who have a cultural focus on their workers where organizations believe a worker’s motivations can be transitioned from externally motivated to internally motivated. Organization’s such as; Apple Inc., Facebook, Amazon and many more openly discuss the organization’s culture and the assumption of employee and often customer buy-in to the culture. This might be a major movement in modern day organizations. However, the theory ignores the negative effects of removing extrinsic motivational factors which the person may desires. For example, providing an employee with a bonus each time a sale is made to removing the bonus in an attempt to move employees to internal desire to make the sale for the organization may cause a negative response. This is understandable in light that most persons work in order to be able to support one’s needs and lifestyle.
Basic psychological needs theory a sub theory of self-determination theory which connects the basic needs of good mental and physical health. Sjöblom et al., (2016) described the concepts that a person’s environment directly relates to a person’s motivation through the person’s health. This theory is important to note as it is a sub theory of self-determination theory focused on intrinsic motivation this sub theory sets the ground work for basic extrinsic needs. Much of the work related to performance denotes intrinsic motivation greatly out weights extrinsic motivation while neglecting the basic extrinsic motivational factors which must be met before intrinsic motivational factors can be effective (Watkins & Fusch, 2021).
Current Leading Theory
Basic psychological needs theory is the current approach which presents itself with the highest likelihood of being accurate. Each approach brings significant insight into the understanding of motivation, but all other theories lack in the understanding of the need for the basic needs of each person to be met in order to be able to function (Ryan & La Guardia, 2000). Once a person is at base level or above of the person’s basic needs the person can perform and therefore performance theories can be applied and evaluated. As a sub theory of self-determination theory, basic psychological needs theory takes into account intrinsic motivational factors but adds the realization there are extrinsic motivational factors which must be met for the intrinsic factors to be effective (Sarı, 2015). Often overlooked Deci and Ryan (2000) in their work discussing intrinsic motivational factors stated the need to further understand basic extrinsic needs and for those needs to be met. Deci and Ryan’s works have been viewed as promote intrinsic motivational factors while promoting the damaging effects of extrinsic motivational factors. While Deci and Ryan may have failed to discuss the details Deci and Ryan’s work operates with the assumption of the need for basic extrinsic needs to be met.
Conclusion
In conclusion, intrinsic motivational factors lead a person to a more significant level of performance while at the same time there are certain extrinsic factors which must be met. Once certain extrinsic factors such as the person’s health, housing, food, and clothing are met intrinsic motivational factors affect the level of a person’s focus and performance on a task. Self-efficacy cannot be strong if a person if failing to provide for their basic needs or their family’s basic needs. Basic psychological needs theory appropriately represents the benefits of intrinsic motivational factors while respecting the need for fulfilment of basic extrinsic motivational factors.
References
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(4), 227-268.
Ng, B. (2018). The neuroscience of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Brain sciences, 8(2), 20.
Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized?: Self-determination theory and basic psychological needs.
Sari, I. (2015). Satisfaction of basic psychological needs and goal orientation in young athletes: A test of basic psychological needs theory. Kinesiology, 47(2.), 159-168.
Sjöblom, K., Mälkki, K., Sandström, N., & Lonka, K. (2016). Does Physical Environment Contribute to Basic Psychological Needs? A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Learning in the Chemistry Laboratory. Frontline Learning Research, 4(1), 17-39.
Spence, G. B., & Oades, L. G. (2011). Coaching with self-determination theory in mind: Using theory to advance evidence-based coaching practice.
Watkins, R., & Fusch, P. (2021). Employee Monetary Compensation and Employee Job Satisfaction.
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2018). It’s about time: Earlier rewards increase intrinsic motivation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 114(6), 877.