Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

A prole approach to self-determination theory motivations at work

Christina M. Moran a,, James M. Diefendorff b, Tae-Yeol Kim c, Zhi-Qiang Liu d
a
PRADCO, 178 E. Washington St., Chagrin Falls, OH 44022, USA
b
University of Akron, Department of Psychology, Akron, OH 44325-4301, USA
c
Management Department, China Europe International Business School, 699 Hongfeng Road, Pudong, Shanghai 201206, China
d
Management School, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Self-determination theory (SDT) posits the existence of distinct types of motivation (i.e., external,
Received 17 April 2012 introjected, identified, integrated, and intrinsic). Research on these different types of motivation
Available online 27 September 2012 has typically adopted a variable-centered approach that seeks to understand how each motivation
in isolation relates to employee outcomes. We extend this work by adopting cluster analysis in a
Keywords: person-centered approach to understanding how different combinations or patterns of motivations
Cluster analysis relate to organizational factors. Results revealed five distinct clusters of motivation (i.e., low
Profile analysis introjection, moderately motivated, low autonomy, self-determined, and motivated) and that these
Self-determination theory
clusters were differentially related to need satisfaction, job performance, and work environment
Motivation
perceptions. Specifically, the self-determined (i.e., high autonomous motivation, low external
motivation) and motivated (i.e., high on all types of motivation) clusters had the most favorable
levels of correlates; whereas the low autonomy (i.e., least self-determined) cluster had the least
favorable levels of these variables.
Published by Elsevier Inc.

1. Introduction

Across the many theories of work motivation it is quite common to conceptualize motivation as varying primarily in quantity
rather than in quality or type (Gagn & Deci, 2005). As an exception, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000) suggests that there are two primary types of motivation that can guide individual behavior: extrinsic motivation (i.e., to attain a
reward or consequence separable from an activity itself) and intrinsic motivation (i.e., to do something because of an inherent
inclination or interest; Gagn & Deci, 2005). Further, extrinsic motivation can be divided into four types ranging from least to most
autonomous: external (i.e., for reward or praise), introjected (i.e., to avoid guilt or anxiety), identified (i.e., because the person sees
value in the activity), and integrated (i.e., because the person has internalized the reasons for engaging in the behavior; Gagn & Deci,
2005; Koestner & Losier, 2002; Ntoumanis, 2002; Wang & Biddle, 2001).
Research from a variety of domains has linked these distinct forms of motivation to situational characteristics (e.g., Bono &
Judge, 2003), well-being outcomes (e.g., Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995), and effective functioning (e.g., high effort expenditure,
better learning; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Ryan & Connell, 1989). However, most of this research has adopted a variable-centered
approach in which the focus is on testing the relationships of each type of motivation with other variables (cf. Aldenderfer &
Blashfield, 1984). Although such an approach provides valuable information about the direct and unique links of each motivation
with other variables, it ignores the possibility that (a) distinct constellations of motivational profiles exist in the population and
(b) these SDT motivation profiles may correspond to differences in other variables. This perspective is consistent with taking a
person-centered approach to conceptualizing SDT motivations, arguing that distinct motivational profiles might exist and that
investigating these motivation types might reveal unique insights into the ways in which SDT motivations tend to co-occur and
the effects of these profiles on other variables.

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: cms116@zips.uakron.edu (C.M. Moran), jdiefen@uakron.edu (J.M. Diefendorff), tykim@ceibs.edu (T.-Y. Kim), zqliu@mail.hust.edu.cn (Z.-Q. Liu).

0001-8791/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Inc.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.09.002

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2633056

 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363 355

Studies conducted in the educational and sport realms have made some progress in looking at motivation profiles (e.g., Ntoumanis,
2002; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Sencal, 2007; Wang & Biddle, 2001), but to our knowledge no organizational research has
examined this issue. The present study aims to bridge this gap in the literature by (a) assessing each of the primary motivations
described by SDT in an organizational setting, (b) identifying motivation profiles in our sample, and (c) linking the motivation profiles
to correlates at work.

2. Motivation from a self-determination theory perspective

Intrinsic motivation is present when individuals do something for pleasure or enjoyment, whereas extrinsic motivation occurs
when individuals do something because of external forces (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Although authors have long recognized a distinction
between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (e.g., Porter & Lawler, 1968), SDT is unique in that it further divides extrinsic motivation
into four types (i.e., external, introjected, identified, integrated) that vary in the degree to which motivation has been internalized
(Gagn & Deci, 2005). External regulation is the most extrinsic form of motivation as it represents motivation due to explicit external
control (Ntoumanis, 2002). Introjected motivation is the second-most extrinsic form of motivation, reflecting compulsion, avoidance
of guilt or anxiety, and a sense that one should or ought to complete the behavior (Koestner & Losier, 2002; Ntoumanis, 2002;
Wang & Biddle, 2001). These two types of extrinsic motivation are described as controlled forms of motivation because they place the
impetus for action solely with external factors (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998).
Identified motivation describes regulation of behavior for reasons more consistent with one's goals and identity, with
individuals seeing the actions as personally important (Koestner & Losier, 2002). People acting based on an identified motive do
so because they want to as opposed to feeling that they ought to, as in introjected motivation (Wang & Biddle, 2001). Finally,
integrated motivation is the most internalized form of extrinsic motivation (Gagn & Deci, 2005) in which the person values and
accepts the reasons for the behavior, though he/she may still not consider it to be inherently fun or interesting (Gagn & Deci,
2005). For instance, a nurse may fully identify with actions aimed at alleviating patient suffering, though he/she may not consider
the actions to be enjoyable. Identified and integrated extrinsic motivations, along with intrinsic motivation, are autonomous
forms of motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998).
Research has tended to examine the relationships of each motivation with other variables, either by itself or in the presence of
the other motivations. For example, Reeve (2002) noted the following correlates of autonomous (i.e., internalized) motivation in
students: academic achievement (Miserandino, 1996), perceived competence and self-worth (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986), positive
emotionality (Ryan & Connell, 1989), creativity (Amabile, 1985), and retention (Vallerand & Bissonette, 1992). Other authors
have suggested that intrinsic, integrated, and even identified motivation are related to increased achievement, positive affect,
persistence, effort, and well-being (e.g., Frederick-Recascino, 2002; Koestner & Losier, 2002).
Research on SDT in work contexts has generally found that autonomous motivations (e.g., intrinsic, integrated, identified) and
factors known to enhance autonomous motivation (e.g., autonomy-supportive environments) lead to better well-being and
effectiveness than controlled motivations (e.g., external, introjected; Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Bono & Judge, 2003; Deci et al.,
2001; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2010; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Kasser, Davey, & Ryan, 1992). However, there is some
debate about the prevalence and effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations at work (e.g., Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000). For
example, some authors suggest that intrinsic motivation is less likely to occur in the work context than in other realms
(e.g., hobby, sport) because of the inherent focus on compensation and recognition at work (e.g., Baard, 2002). However, other
authors note that extrinsic rewards issued independent of task engagement, as in the case of salaried positions, do not necessarily
undermine intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).

3. Person-oriented versus variable-oriented approaches

Person-centered research has been referred to as a holistic, interactionistic view in which the individual is seen as an
organized whole, functioning and developing as a totality (Bergman & Magnusson, 1997, p. 291). This approach is in contrast to
the variable-centered perspective, which aims to assess relations between variables across individuals (Aldenderfer & Blashfield,
1984). Thus, a point of distinction between the two approaches is that the person-centered perspective begins by identifying
individuals with common attributes and then aims to describe how groups of homogeneous individuals function, whereas the
variable-centered perspective starts by identifying variables of interest and then aims to describe how these variables function
across individuals (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). In addition to answering different research questions, the two approaches are
also associated with different analytic tools, with the variable-centered approach emphasizing correlation and regression
analyses and the person-centered approach relying on cluster analysis and related profiling techniques. In the case of SDT, most of
the research to date has been conducted from a variable-centered perspective (e.g., Baard et al., 2004; Ilardi et al., 1993; Kasser et
al., 1992; Ryan et al., 1995). Such research is useful for understanding how particular motivations uniquely relate to outcomes, but
it does not tell us much about how an individual's standing on multiple motivations might shape outcomes or whether some
constellations of SDT motivations are more common at work than others.

4. The present investigation

In the current investigation, we measured the five motivations from SDT in a sample of employees from China. We then
performed cluster analysis on the data to identify distinct motivation profiles in the sample. Cluster analysis is particularly

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2633056

356 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363

well-suited when taking an exploratory approach to identifying clusters, which is appropriate in this situation given the lack of
theory and research on SDT profiles at work (which is in contrast to other techniques, such as latent class analysis, that adopt a
confirmatory approach to supporting cluster solutions; Marsh, Ldtke, Trautwein, & Morin, 2009). Once motivation profiles were
identified, we examined whether these profiles were associated with different levels of work environment perceptions,
psychological need satisfaction, and job performance.
Generally, profiles may differ in terms of the quantity (i.e., all motivations are low, medium, or high) or quality (e.g., some
motivations are high and others are low; Marsh et al., 2009) of the variables upon which the profiles are derived. Although we
refrain from making formal hypotheses regarding which motivation profiles might emerge at work, a simplified matrix of possible
motivation profiles focusing on the more general autonomous and controlled motivations is presented in Table 1. This table
shows how the motivations might combine to produce profiles that differ in quantity and quality. Profile analyses with students
in academic contexts (i.e., Boich, Sarrazin, Grouzet, Pelletier, & Chanal, 2008; Hayenga & Corpus, 2010; Liu, Wang, Tan, Koh, & Ee,
2009; Ntoumanis, 2002; Ratelle et al., 2007) have typically found three- or four-cluster solutions, with the clusters corresponding
to the motivated, moderately motivated, amotivated, external, and internal profiles in Table 1. Further, these studies generally
report that internally-oriented profiles perform best. Examining motivation profiles of adolescents in sport contexts across two
studies, Gillet, Vallerand, and Rosnet (2009) supported a four-cluster solution (i.e., corresponding to motivated, moderate
internal, internal, and external in Table 1) in their first study, with the external profile having the lowest performance. In their
second study, Gillet et al. (2009) found a three-cluster solution (i.e., moderate internal, moderately motivated, and motivated in
Table 1) and showed that the motivated profile performed better than the moderately motivated profile. Finally, Wang and Biddle
(2001), in a study of junior college athletes identified five clusters in their data, roughly corresponding to internal, motivated,
poorly motivated, amotivated, and moderate external in Table 1.
Although these past studies show some consistency (e.g., identifying 35 clusters, linking internal clusters to better outcomes
than external clusters), there is almost no consistency across the studies in terms of the variables used as input to form clusters.
For example, Liu et al. (2009) and Ntoumanis (2002) included antecedents and outcomes (e.g., incremental and entity beliefs,
perceived sport competence, physical activity, well-being, need satisfaction, effort, enjoyment) along with the motivation
variables in forming clusters. Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984) advised against this procedure as it confounds cluster
membership with relationships to external criteria. Another limitation of past work is studies typically did not include the full set
of extrinsic motivations, with no study measuring integrated motivation. Finally, the profiles that have been identified in past
research focus on educational and sport contexts, which may not produce the same clusters that are important in a work context
(Baard, 2002). For instance, external pressure may be very salient in educational settings, whereas intrinsic pleasure may be
prominent in sport contexts. The work setting may differ from both of these by providing more of an equal emphasis on both ends
of the SDT motivation spectrum (e.g., Ratelle et al., 2007). As a result, we might expect that distinct clusters will emerge in the
work context. Further, it is possible that the clusters that do emerge will have different effects at work compared to at school or
sport contexts. A person-centered approach to SDT motivations in the workplace can shed light on these issues.

5. Method

5.1. Participants and procedure

We selected organizations to sample with the goal of obtaining a broad cross-section of employees who differ in the type of
work performed. To do this, we selected organizations located in different areas of the country and working in different
industries. This approach resulted in participants coming from 12 large organizations (1 hospital, 2 financial securities companies,
3 manufacturing companies, 1 service company, 2 real estate companies, 1 energy company, 2 government agencies) distributed
in three regions of China: Wuhan (a central city), Shanghai (an eastern city), and Guangzhou (a southern city). Further, each
company employed more than 400 individuals. Seventy-one of 87 managers contacted agreed to participate in the study under
the condition that they received copies of the results.
Managers were asked to complete the supervisor survey, then to give another survey to three or four of their immediate
subordinates for completion during work hours. All surveys were returned directly to the researchers in sealed envelopes.
Brislin's (1986) back-translation procedure, in which all translators were blind to the study's hypotheses, was used to translate

Table 1
Matrix of possible motivation profiles.

Autonomous motivation

Low Moderate High

Controlled motivation Low Amotivated Moderate internals Internals

Moderate Moderate externals Moderately motivated Motivated internals
High Externals Motivated Externals Motivated

Note. Controlled motivation encompasses external and introjected motivations, whereas autonomous motivation encompasses the three types of motivation that are
more internalizedidentified, integrated, and intrinsic motivations (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998). Because the matrix of possible profiles is actually five-dimensional in the
present studyin contrast to the two displayed in this tablethe number of possible profiles is much greater than suggested above. However, this table provides an idea
of the ways in which distinct types of motivation might combine to form profiles of motivation in a concise, two-dimensional format.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2633056

 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363 357

the surveys from English to Chinese. Two bilingual individuals independently translated the survey from English to Chinese and a
third bilingual individual translated the survey back to English. This procedure resulted in 15 words or phrases that did not retain
their meaning across translations, and these wordings were revised based on agreement among the translators.
A total of 226 employee questionnaires were returned and matched respectively with 62 supervisor questionnaires. Nine of 71
managers failed to distribute subordinate surveys (a response rate of 87.3%). Of the 226 subordinates, 56.8% were male.
Subordinates' average age was 31.44 years (SD = 7.83); their average job tenure was 9.84 years (SD = 7.81). Of the 62
supervisors, 79.4% were male, with an average age of 38.12 years (SD = 6.01) and average job tenure of 16.63 years (SD = 7.18).
One subordinate's data was excluded because of missing data. Thus, all measures used in the present study were completed by the
final sample of 225 subordinates, with the exception of in-role performance which was rated by supervisors (n = 62).

5.2. Measures

5.2.1. Social support

This measure contained three items (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). A sample item is, My team increases my
opportunities for positive social interaction. Responses were made on a 5-point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. All scale reliabilities (coefficient alpha) are presented in Table 2.

5.2.2. Job characteristics

The job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task significance, and feedback were measured using 12 items (Job
Diagnostic Survey; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Each construct was measured with three items; for example, a skill variety item
was, My job gives me the opportunity to use many new technologies. Job autonomy was measured with Morgeson and
Humphrey's (2006) nine-item scale assessing autonomy in work methods, work scheduling, and decision making. A sample item
is, My job allows me to plan how I do my work. Responses were made on a 5-point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree.

5.2.3. Motivation
A measure of the five motivations (three items each) was created based on the theoretical work of Deci and Ryan (2000; Ryan
& Deci, 2000), with specific items for the external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic scales adapted from one or more of the
following sources: Grant (2008), Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard (2000), Levesque, Sell, and Zimmerman (2006), and Ryan and
Connell (1989). Because none of these past studies assessed integrated motivation, items were written to tap this construct based
on the underlying conceptual definition. Prior to administering the items, they were reviewed for conceptual clarity by a team of
four experts trained in this area of study, with small revisions to item wordings made. Participants were asked to respond to the
question Why are you motivated to do your work? by indicating the extent to which they agreed with each of the 15 items
using a 5-point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Confirmatory factor analysis of these items was conducted
using Mplus version 6.11 (Muthn & Muthn, 19982011). The a priori, five-factor structure fit the data well ( 2 = 180.18, df =
80, root-mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .08, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .05, TuckerLewis
index [TLI] = .92, comparative fit index [CFI] = .94) according to established guides for acceptable fit (i.e., RMSEA b .08, SRMR b .10,
CFI > .90, TLI > .90; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Several alternative, more parsimonious models were tested, all of which fit the
data worse. The next best fitting model combined the identified and integrated motivations ( 2 = 259.57, df = 84, RMSEA = .10,
SRMR = .07, TLI = .86, CFI = .89), but it still fit worse than the a priori model ( 2 = 79.39, df = 4, p b .001). Factor loadings are
presented in Table 3.

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among study variables.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. External motivation 3.60 0.80 .63

2. Introjected motivation 3.96 0.86 .09 .86
3. Identified motivation 4.07 0.75 .12 .42 .72
4. Integrated motivation 3.87 0.90 .15 .25 .53 .86
5. Intrinsic motivation 3.62 0.95 .10 .30 .51 .65 .88
6. Social support 3.99 0.90 .01 .43 .50 .45 .46 .79
7. Job autonomy 3.26 1.01 .01 .22 .28 .28 .29 .33 .91
8. Skill variety 3.56 0.94 .03 .12 .39 .39 .27 .35 .35 .73
9. Task identity 3.32 1.07 .10 .09 .28 .30 .22 .31 .40 .34 .82
10. Task significance 3.59 1.00 .00 .22 .49 .30 .28 .38 .30 .43 .36 .76
11. Feedback 3.57 0.81 .10 .22 .26 .22 .16 .25 .22 .21 .37 .39 .70
12. Need satisfaction 5.12 0.81 .11 .42 .56 .50 .52 .61 .43 .36 .36 .37 .32 .91
13. In-role performance 3.82 0.55 .11 .14 .22 .26 .18 .12 .13 .22 .16 .13 .05 .23 .78

Note. SD = standard deviation. Internal consistency reliabilities are along the diagonal. N = 225.
p b .05.
p b .01.
358 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363

5.2.4. Psychological need satisfaction at work

The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 2001; Ilardi et al., 1993; Kasser et al., 1992) consists of
21 items to which participants responded on a 7-point scale from Not at all true to Very true. An example item is, I have been
able to learn interesting new skills on my job. In some cases (e.g., Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 2001), this scale has been broken
out into three subscales pertaining to the satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs. Results are presented for
one overarching need satisfaction construct and three individual subscales.

5.2.5. In-role performance

In-role performance was measured with seven items from Williams and Anderson (1991). Supervisors rated the degree to
which subordinates adequately complete assigned duties and meet formal performance requirements of the job, for example.
Responses were made on a 5-point scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.

6. Results

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among variables are in Table 2. One outlier was removed from the
analyses because it was more than three standard deviations from the mean (Liu et al., 2009). Cluster analysis was conducted in
two steps. The first step consisted of subjecting the five motivation variables (left unstandardized given that all responses were
made on the same 5-point scale and the belief that relative differences on the scale could be meaningful) to agglomerative
(i.e., hierarchical) cluster analysis using Ward's (1963) method and the squared Euclidean distance measure of similarity. Ward's
(1963) method was chosen to optimize the minimum variance within clusters (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). Inspection of the
dendogram, agglomeration schedule, and cluster means suggested that a five-cluster solution should be retained. The dendogram
indicated that two to five clusters could be meaningfully discerned from the data, but any more than five would result in some
cases being treated as their own clusters due to the very minute (i.e., indistinguishable) differences in clusters. Inspection of the
agglomeration scheduleby plotting changes in agglomeration values each time a larger cluster is separated into two smaller
clusters, similar to the use of the scree plot to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysesindicated
that between five and seven clusters should be retained, since changes in agglomeration values appeared to lessen after five
clusters, and after seven clusters changes appeared negligible. Since both methods of determining the appropriate amount of
clusters suggested that it would be appropriate to retain five clusters, cluster means were inspected to ensure that each profile
was distinct from (i.e., not redundant with) the others. All of this information converged to support a five-cluster solution.
The second step consisted of applying k-means cluster analysis to the same five motivation variables using the cluster centers
from the hierarchical analysis as initial seed points. This step has been recommended (e.g., Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984) on the
basis that hierarchical methods only go through the data one time, such that the initial data order can unduly influence the cluster
solution (Gower, 1967), in contrast to iterative methods such as k-means cluster analysis. Sixteen percent (n = 37) of participants
were categorized into the first cluster, which can be described as a low introjection cluster. Participants in this cluster had

Table 3
Items and standardized factor loadings resulting from confirmatory factor analysis of the motivation questionnaire.

Factors and items Factor loading

Why are you motivated to do your work?

External motivation
Because my boss wants me to do it. .77
Because the situation demands it. .60
Because I get paid to do it. .47

Introjected motivation
Because I would feel guilty if I did not do well. .89
Because I would feel ashamed if I did poorly. .79
Because I would feel bad about myself if I did not do a good job. .78

Identified motivation
Because I believe my work is valuable. .81
Because my work is important. .64
Because I value the work. .60

Integrated motivation
Because my work goals and personal goals are integrated. .82
Because my work is a big part of who I am. .84
Because my work helps to define me. .81

Intrinsic motivation
Because I find the work interesting. .85
Because the work is fun. .88
Because I find the work engaging. .80
 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363 359

moderate scores on all types of motivation (see Fig. 1) except introjected motivation for which they had particularly low scores. In
comparison to our a priori profile matrix in Table 1, this profile represents a particular subtype of the moderate internal profile,
though not one that could have been anticipated based on past SDT profile research. Cluster 2 (n = 68; 30.2% of participants)
scored moderately on all types of motivation, and thus corresponds to the moderately motivated profile in Table 1. Twelve
percent (n = 27) of participants were grouped into Cluster 3, a cluster that can be described as low autonomy due to its
particularly low means on integrated and intrinsic motivations. This cluster roughly corresponds to the moderate external profile
in Table 1, except that identified motivationan autonomous form of motivationis at a moderate level that is similar to the
controlled motivations. Cluster 4, containing 15.1% of participants (n = 34), could be described as self-determined as it is high
on all types of motivation except external. This motivation corresponds most closely to the internal profile in Table 1, except that
introjected motivation is high and at about the same level as the autonomous forms of motivation. Finally, Cluster 5 (n = 59;
26.2%) corresponds to the motivated cluster in Table 1 as individuals report high levels of all five motivations. Interestingly, we
did not observe profiles that corresponded to several a priori profiles in Table 1 (i.e., amotivated, external, motivated internal,
motivated external) and only two (i.e., moderately motivated, motivated) of the five observed profiles corresponded precisely to
the a priori profiles described in Table 1.

6.1. Validation of cluster solution: links to correlates

Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984) noted that the preferred method of validating a cluster solution is to conduct significance
tests on links to criteria of interest. Thus, we examined whether job characteristics (i.e., job autonomy, skill variety, task identity,
task significance, and feedback), social support, in-role performance, and need satisfaction relate to a person's motivational
profile. To test these links, we conducted several univariate ANOVAs with cluster membership as the independent variable and
the correlates listed above as dependent variables (we repeated these analyses using multilevel modeling to account for any
nesting effects associated with team membership and the substantive findings and interpretation did not change; these results
are available from the first author). We also examined whether the profiles differed in terms of gender composition, job tenure, or
age and did not find any differences. As shown in Table 4, the ANOVAs were significant for all of the correlates. To understand
which clusters differed from one another on the correlates, we performed follow-up post-hoc tests using Tukey's (1953) honestly
significant difference (HSD) correction for family-wise error.
As shown in Table 4, social support and job characteristic perceptions were generally highest for the self-determined and
motivated clusters (which did not differ from one another) and lowest for the low autonomy and low introjection clusters. For social
support, the self-determined (i.e., Cluster 4) and motivated (i.e., Cluster 5) clusters had the highest scores, followed by the moderate
cluster (i.e., Cluster 2), and both the low introjection (i.e., Cluster 1) and low autonomy (i.e., Cluster 3) clusters (see Table 4). The
self-determined and motivated clusters reported more job autonomy than the low introjection and low autonomy clusters, with the
self-determined cluster also being significantly different from the moderate cluster. The self-determined and motivated clusters
reported the most skill variety and task identity, followed by the low introjection and moderate clusters, with the low autonomy

4.5

4
Mean

3.5

2.5

2
Low introjection Moderate Low autonomy Self-determined Motivated
Profile

External Introjected Identified Integrated Intrinsic

Fig. 1. Final cluster solution resulting from k-means cluster analysis.

360 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363

Table 4
ANOVA results linking cluster membership to correlates.

DV Cluster means

1 2 3 4 5

Low introjection Moderate Low autonomy Self-determined Motivated

2,4,5 1,3,4,5 2,4,5 1,2,3
Social support 3.41 3.95 3.12 4.57 4.441,2,3
F4,220 = 24.67
R2 = .31
Job autonomy 2.974,5 3.223,4 2.612,4,5 3.691,2,3 3.531,3
F4,219 = 6.77
R2 = .11
Skill variety 3.403,4,5 3.513,4,5 2.701,2,4,5 3.951,2,3 3.881,2,3
F4,219 = 10.61
R2 = .16
Task identity 3.213,4,5 3.124,5 2.691,4,5 3.731,2,3 3.681,2,3
F4,219 = 6.41
R2 = .11
Task significance 3.303,4,5 3.593,5 2.821,2,4,5 3.981,3 3.921,2,3
F4,219 = 8.76
R2 = .14
Feedback 3.344,5 3.583 3.162,4,5 3.741,3 3.791,3
F4,219 = 4.04
R2 = .07
Need satisfaction 4.582,4,5 5.061,3,4,5 4.232,4,5 5.681,2,3 5.621,2,3
F4,220 = 35.82
R2 = .39
Autonomy NS 4.152,3,4,5 4.811,3,4,5 3.471,2,4,5 5.381,2,3 5.341,2,3
F4,220 = 23.89
R2 = .30
Relatedness NS 4.942,4,5 5.381,4,5 4.934,5 6.041,2,3 5.761,2,3
F4,220 = 15.33
R2 = .22
Competence NS 4.614,5 4.913,4,5 4.182,4,5 5.561,2,3 5.761,2,3
F4,220 = 22.36
R2 = .29
Performance 3.695 3.82 3.555 3.81 4.021,3
F4,220 = 4.39
R2 = .07
N 37 68 27 34 59
% of total N 16.4% 30.2% 12.0% 15.1% 26.2%

Note. Post-hoc tests are corrected for family-wise error using Tukey's Honestly Significantly Different correction. DV = dependent variable. NS = need
satisfaction. Total N = 225. Superscripts indicate means in a given row that are statistically different at p b .05 from the cluster identified by the superscript.
p b .01.
p b .001.

cluster reporting the lowest skill variety (and task identity on par with the moderate cluster). The self-determined and motivated
clusters reported the most task significance, followed by the low introjection and moderate clusters, and then the low autonomy
cluster. Finally, the self-determined, motivated, and moderate clusters reported the most feedback, followed by the low introjection
and low autonomy clusters. Thus, the self-determined and motivated clusters generally experienced more enriched jobs and social
support, whereas the low autonomy and low introjection clusters tended to perceive lower levels of these work characteristics.
Results for psychological need satisfaction (overall and for specific dimensions) followed a similar pattern. Specifically, the
self-determined and motivated clusters experienced the most need satisfaction, followed by the moderate cluster, and lastly by the
low introjection and low autonomy clusters (see Table 4). Results for in-role performance were somewhat different, as the motivated
cluster had the highest supervisor ratings of performance, followed by the moderate and self-determined clusters. Performance for
the motivated cluster was rated significantly higher than performance of the low introjection and low autonomy clusters. These
findings suggest that having high levels of the autonomous motivations is important for need satisfaction, irrespective of the level of
external motivation. In contrast, a profile with high levels of all motivations resulted in better supervisor ratings of performance than
did a profile with high motivation on all dimensions except external.
Comparison of the profile results to standard regression analyses (i.e., variable-centered approach with the SDT motivations as
predictors; see Table 5) is informative. Note that in each case, the variable-centered approach produced models that accounted for
more variance in the correlates than did the person-centered approach. This result is not surprising (Marsh et al., 2009) given that
the variance present in the continuously measured variables is necessarily reduced when forming groups. However, it is also
instructive to examine the specific coefficients in the regression models. Although for social support all five motivations uniquely
predicted the dependent variable, for job autonomy and feedback none of the motivations uniquely predicted the dependent
variable. One model had four significant coefficients (overall need satisfaction), two models had two significant coefficients (skill
variety, task identity), and two models had one significant coefficient (task significance, job performance). In almost every
 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363 361

comparison, the profile analysis approach yielded an interpretation that goes beyond the regression analysis approach (e.g., regression
analysis showed that integrated motivation uniquely predicted performance, but the comparison of profiles produced several
significant differences).

7. Discussion

Findings from cluster analysis and ANOVA suggest several conclusions. First, individual motivation on the job from an SDT
perspective can be described concisely as falling into one of five patterns: low introjection, moderately motivated, low autonomy,
self-determined, and motivated. Some of these patterns are distinct from patterns observed in sport and educational contexts and
do not directly correspond to what might be deduced from a priori theoretical predictions, suggesting that SDT motivations
combine in an interesting and unique way at work. Second, perceptions of social support and job characteristics, psychological
need satisfaction, and supervisor ratings of performance differed across profiles in ways that would not necessarily be predicted
by or readily observed with a variable-centered approach to SDT motivations. For instance, being high on the three autonomous
motivations (i.e., intrinsic, integrated, identified) and introjected motivation along with being low or high on external motivation
(i.e., the self-determined and motivated profiles) was associated with more favorable job characteristics and better psychological
need satisfaction. Ratings of job performance were highest when all five motivations were high. Further, the lowest levels of the
correlates were generally observed for two profiles: the low autonomy profile (low integrated and intrinsic, moderate identified,
introjected, and external) and the low introjection profile (low introjection, moderate on the other motivations). Finding that low
introjected or low intrinsic/integrated motivation (along with moderate levels of other motivations) was linked to similarly
unfavorable levels of correlates is not something that would be predicted by SDT research using a variable-centered approach.
Describing motivation at the person-level is a useful complement to variable-centered investigations (Hayenga & Corpus,
2010). Although it may be argued that interactions among variables might reveal motivation patterns, doing so in the current
study would require analyses containing five main effects, ten two-way interactions, numerous three-way and four-way
interactions, and a five-way interaction. Since each interaction term introduces non-normality and potential collinearity into the
analyses (Moosbrugger, Schermelleh-Engel, & Klein, 1997), the person-centered investigation of the present data provides a more
interpretable and concise way of understanding of how various motivations tend to co-occur and the impact of these
combinations on other variables.

7.1. Implications for self-determination theory

The finding that employees high on all motivations (i.e., the motivated cluster [Cluster 5]) tend to perform well is consistent with
investigations showing high-performing athletes tend to exhibit high levels of both types of motivation (e.g., Chantal, Guay,
Dobreva-Martinova, & Vallerand, 1996). Compared with past profile analyses of SDT motivation, the only other known study to
identify a five-cluster solution was Wang and Biddle (2001). Though we replicated two profiles from their study (i.e., self-determined
and motivated), three of our profiles were different from what they found (i.e., low introjection, moderately motivated, and low
autonomy in the present study vs. poorly motivated, amotivated, and moderate external in Wang and Biddle (2001)). Comparison of
the distinct profiles suggests that the unique profiles in our study exhibit overall higher levels of motivation than the unique profiles
in Wang and Biddle (2001). This difference suggests that the motivation levels of employees may generally be higher across the board
than the motivation of athletes, suggesting that the reasons why employees work may be higher and more diverse than the reasons
athletes engage in sport.
Additionally, the finding that self-determination is associated with favorable workplace correlates echoes a large body of work
showing positive associations between autonomous motivation and beneficial outcomes (e.g., Ryan et al., 1995). Although
autonomous and controlled motivations are typically pitted against one another, our results show that they can co-occur and that

Table 5
Variable-centered results using regression.

Predictors Dependent variable

Social support Job autonomy Skill variety Task identity Task significance Feedback Need satisfaction Performance

Extrinsic motivation .11 .07 .04 .05 .06 .06 .01 .06
Introjected motivation .26 .11 .06 .04 .02 .14 .20 .05
Identified motivation .23 .11 .30 .19 .45 .15 .27 .09
Integrated motivation .17 .12 .27 .20 .05 .13 .17 .20
Intrinsic motivation .17 .13 .03 .01 .02 .05 .21 .02
(Variable-centered) .62 .36 .45 .34 .50 .31 .66 .29
Regression R2
(Person-centered) .31 .11 .16 .11 .14 .07 .39 .07
ANOVA R2

Note. Regression coefficients are standardized betas ().

p b .05.
p b .01.
p b .001.
362 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363

the existence of controlled motivations may not undermine self-determination. Thus, as long as an employee is autonomously
motivated, it does not appear that controlled motivation is harmful for psychological need satisfaction. For example, if a person
identifies with his/her work or truly enjoys the job, it may not matter for need satisfaction that he/she is also motivated because of
pay. However, for job performance it seems that having both autonomous and controlled motivation is linked to better supervisor
evaluations. This finding is particularly interesting given that researchers have been somewhat split as to whether controlled
motivation will have favorable or detrimental effects in the workplace (e.g., Gagn & Deci, 2005).

7.2. Limitations, future research, and conclusion

A limitation of the present study was that one of our motivation subscales was newly constructed and the other subscales
were derived from past works. However, given the setting and sample of the present study (i.e., employees at work) and the fact
that a measure of all five motivations did not exist, creating a new, theory-based measure was appropriate. Secondly, our data
were cross-sectional thereby limiting inferences of causality. Given that this was the first attempt to link SDT profiles with
organizational variables, we believe the cross-sectional results are of value. Nonetheless, future research should employ
experimental and longitudinal designs aimed at better isolating the causal direction. Lastly, we cannot be certain that our results
would generalize to all work settings and cultural contexts, as the present participants were sampled from twelve companies in
seven industries in one country. Though we attempted to increase the generalizability of our results by sampling employees from
multiple organizations in a variety of industries, we cannot be certain that the present results would replicate to other work
settings in other countries. Further, culture may have played a role in shaping the motivation profiles observed in this study. For
instance, it may be that the cultural context of China could have produced distinct profiles (e.g., the low introjection profile) that
would not be observed in other countries, or that the observed effects of the profiles on other variables would not replicate in a
Western cultural context (e.g., performance being highest when all motivations were high). Future work in which cultural
variables are measured and participants are sampled from different countries could be useful for untangling the role of culture in
the development of SDT profiles.
Future research might also examine the antecedents that allow a person to be simultaneously high in autonomous and
controlled motivations, as well as the temporal stability of the different motivation profiles (Ntoumanis, 2002). Only Hayenga and
Corpus (2010) have examined SDT motivation using a person-centered approach in a longitudinal design. Though the academic
sample used in Hayenga and Corpus's (2010) study may not be representative of the profiles at work, their results showed that
43% of participants changed cluster membership from fall to spring semesters. Thus, future research might also examine the
factors that contribute to changes in motivational profile over time.
The person-centered analyses presented above indicate that in an organizational setting, being more motivated and more
self-determined is associated with favorable workplace perceptions and correlates, such as perceiving an enriched job and more
social support, performing better, and experiencing greater need satisfaction. These results suggest that the different types of
motivation posited by SDT are independent, and thus can occur in different amounts within each person (Ntoumanis, 2002). They
also suggest that autonomous motivation is most important for the workplace, and that high levels of controlled motivation in the
presence of high autonomous motivation do not negatively impact perceptions of job characteristics, social support, need
satisfaction, or effectiveness on the job. Therefore, organizations should not fear having extrinsically motivated employees, so
long as they are also autonomously motivated.

References

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motivational orientation on creative writers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(2),
393399.
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. 255275). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis for performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 34, 20452068.
Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9(2),
291319.
Boich, J. C. S., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. M. E., Pelletier, L. G., & Chanal, J. P. (2008). Students' motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical
education: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 688701.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(5), 554571.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research
(pp. 137164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work
groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823850.
Chantal, Y., Guay, F., Dobreva-Martinova, T., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Motivation and elite performance: An exploratory investigation with Bulgarian athletes.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27(2), 173182.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627668.
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),
227268.
 C.M. Moran et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 81 (2012) 354363 363

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagn, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, 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, 27, 930942.
Frederick-Recascino, C. M. (2002). Self-determination theory and participation motivation research in the sport and exercise domain. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 277294). Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331362.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Rosnet, E. (2009). Motivational clusters and performance in a real-life setting. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 4962.
Gower, J. C. (1967). A comparison of some methods of cluster analysis. Biometrics, 23, 623637.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(1), 4858.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the
mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63, 539560.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 890898.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. M. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS).
Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175213.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159170.
Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school.
Motivation and Emotion, 34, 371383.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, T., & 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, 17891905.
Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation and employeesupervisor discrepancies in a psychiatric volitional rehabilitation setting. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 37, 175188.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivated: A closer look at introjections, identification, and intrinsic motivation.
In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Levesque, C., Sell, G. R., & Zimmerman, J. A. (2006). A theory-based integrative model for learning and motivation in higher education. In S. Chadwick-Blossey
(Ed.), To improve the academy, Vol. 24. (pp. 86103)Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., Tan, O. S., Koh, C., & Ee, J. (2009). A self-determination approach to understanding students' motivation in project work. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 139145.
Marsh, H. W., Ldtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person- and
variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(2), 191225.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 203214.
Moosbrugger, H., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Klein, A. (1997). Methodological problems of estimating latent interaction effects. Methods of Psychological Research,
2(2), 95111.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design
and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 13211339.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (19982011). Mplus v. 6.11. Los Angeles: Muthn & Muthn.
Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Motivational clusters in a sample of British physical education classes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 177194.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Sencal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734746.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research
(pp. 184203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 6878.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J.
Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology. Theory and methods, Vol. 1. (pp. 618655) Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: A self-report and projective assessment of children's perceptions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 550558.
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (Eds.). (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and
attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546557.
Tukey, J. W. (1953). The problem of multiple comparisons. In H. I. Braun (Ed.), The collected works of John W. Tukey: Vol. VII: Multiple comparisons: 19481983
(pp. 1300). New York: Chapman & Hall.
Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonette, R. (1992). On the predictive effect of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles on behavior: A prospective study. Journal of
Personality, 60, 599620.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 469.
Wang, C. K. J., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). Young people's motivational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 122.
Ward, J. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236244.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal
of Management, 17(3), 601617.