Testing the Developmental Nature of Work Motivation Using Kegan's

Testing the Developmental Nature of Work Motivation Using Kegan's

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Agricultural Leadership, Education & Education & Communication Department Communication Department 2012 Testing the Developmental Nature of Work Motivation Using Kegan’s Constructive-Development Theory Marilyn J. Bugenhagen Marian University, [email protected] John E. Barbuto Jr. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub Part of the Other Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons Bugenhagen, Marilyn J. and Barbuto, John E. Jr., "Testing the Developmental Nature of Work Motivation Using Kegan’s Constructive-Development Theory" (2012). Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department. 56. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/aglecfacpub/56 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications: Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19:1 (2012), pp. 35–45; doi: 10.1177/1548051811404896 Copyright © 2012 Baker College; published by Sage Publications. Used by permission. http://jlos.sagepub.com Testing the Developmental Nature of Work Motivation Using Kegan’s Constructive-Development Theory Marilyn J. Bugenhagen Marian University, Fond du Lac, WI, USA John E. Barbuto Jr. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA Corresponding author — Marilyn J. Bugenhagen, Marian University, 45 S. National Avenue, Stayer Center 42, Fond du Lac, WI 54935, USA; email: [email protected] Abstract This article reports a field study testing the relationship between individuals’ constructive-development level and their sources of work motivation. Constructive development was assessed using the Subject–Object Interview for 53 community and education- al leaders. Motivation was assessed using the Motivation Sources Inventory. Results indicated that constructive-development pro- gression was significantly related to instrumental motivation. No other significant relationships were found, indicating that the other four sources of work motivation exist independent of individuals’ constructive development. Implications for research and practice are addressed. Keywords: cognition, development, work motivation Introduction development (CD) theory (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Recent work has tested the relationship between personality The psychological context that precedes content- and CD, labeled as leader development level (Strange based work motivation has received minimal atten- & Kuhnert, 2009), and between leadership performance tion in the applied psychology and organizational be- and CD (Amey, 1991; Bartone, Snook, Forsythe, Lew- havior fields. Considerable research has tested the is, & Bullis, 2007; Eigel, 1998). Yet most efforts have fo- impact of work motivation (Guzzo, Jette, & Katzell, cused on unit-level performance rather than on under- 1985; Pritchard, Paquin, DeCuir, McCormick, & Bly, standing the context of work motivation. The linkages 2002; Sawyer, Latham, Pritchard, & Bennett, 1999), and between CD theory and content-based work motivation work motivation has been used to understand other be- have been assumed in descriptions by CD scholars (Ke- havioral frameworks (Bandura, 1986; Barbuto, Fritz, & gan, 1994; Kegan & Lahey, 1994, 2009). Although these Marx, 2000; Lu, 1999). However, contexts that produce assumptions are intuitively appealing, they have not the content of work motivation have been limited to been subjected to empirical inquiry. Barbuto and Scholl just a few works, which have examined adult develop- (1998) provided rationale for linkages between CD theo- ment and aging (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004), affective ry and work motivation, which have not been empirical- experiences (Seo, Barrett, & Bartunek, 2004), compensa- ly tested. These assumptions need to be tested prior to tion (Kehr, 2004), and self-concept (Leonard, Beauvais, any further generalizations regarding CD and content- & Scholl, 1999). There is a need to provide a richer em- based work motivation. This study tests the role that pirical examination of the psychological context of work CD theory plays in work motivation by sampling from a motivation. group of community and education leaders. Developmental theorists have described motivation implications of their developmental frameworks that re- Work Motivation flect the psychological context for content-based human motivation (youth/adolescents, Loevinger, 1976; Piaget, Leonard et al. (1999) proposed a new typology 1972; and moral development, Kohlberg, 1976). Perhaps of motivation sources, which was later operational- the most current thinking is reflected in constructive- ized with scales to measure the taxonomy (Barbuto & 35 36 BUGENHAGEN & BARBUTO IN JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP & ORGANIZATIONAL STUDIES 19 (2012) Scholl, 1998). This taxonomy was further developed (Kegan, 1982), and opportunistic (Loevinger, 1976). Sim- and tested to predict leaders’ behaviors (Barbuto et al., ilar instrumental motives have been described by need 2000; Barbuto & Scholl, 1999). In two independent re- theorists as a need for power (McClelland, 1961; Mur- search studies examining antecedents of leaders’ be- ray, 1964), a need for safety (Maslow, 1954), and a need haviors (using these two motivation taxonomies), the for later existence (Alderfer, 1969). five sources of motivation (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998; Instrumental motivation is different from the clas- Leonard et al., 1999) were better able to predict behav- sic extrinsic or external motivation (Deci, 1975; Katz & ior than McClelland’s (1985) three-need model (Barbu- Kahn, 1978; Staw, 1976) in that this motive derives from to et al., 2000, Barbuto, Fritz, & Marx, 2002). These five tangible external rewards, whereas the classic defini- sources of motivation include intrinsic process, instru- tion includes social rewards and interpersonal exchang- mental, self-concept external, self-concept internal, and es (in this typology, motivation that derives from these goal internalization. rewards is termed self-concept external). Extrinsic motiva- tion is further divided in this meta-theory into two cat- Five Sources of Work Motivation egories of motives: tangible (instrumental) and social (self-concept external). This motivation is characterized Intrinsic process motivation. If people are motivated by optimizing self-interests but with the recognition to perform certain kinds of work or to engage in cer- that everything or want has its tangible price. tain types of behavior for the sheer fun of it, then in- Self-concept external motivation. This source of motiva- trinsic process motivation is occurring. For this source tion tends to be externally based when individuals are of motivation, the work itself acts as the incentive be- other directed and seek affirmation of traits, compe- cause workers enjoy what they are doing. Similar con- tencies, and values from external perceptions. The ide- structs to intrinsic process motivation can be found ex- al self is adopted from the role expectations of reference tensively in the literature. Developmental theorists have groups, explaining why individuals high in self-concept described a similar motive using the terms heteronymous external motivation behave in ways that satisfy refer- morality (Kohlberg, 1976), impulsive (Kegan, 1982; Loev- ence group members, first to gain acceptance and, after inger, 1976), and, to a lesser extent, preoperational (Piag- achieving that, to gain status. et, 1972). Other need-based descriptors similar to intrin- This source of motivation is similar to Etzioni’s (1961) sic process include early existence needs (Alderfer, 1969), social moral involvement, extrinsic interpersonal mo- intrinsic pleasure needs (Murray, 1964) and physiological tivation described by Deci (1975) and Staw (1976), and needs (Maslow, 1954). Bandura (1986) describes sensory Barnard’s (1938) social inducements, conformity to intrinsic motivation and physiological intrinsic motiva- group attitudes, and communion. This source of motiva- tion in terms similar to those used to describe intrinsic tion also resembles social identity theory, in which the process motivation. This motive also has been articulat- focus is on establishing and maintaining social reference ed as intrinsic motivation to obtain task pleasure (Deci, and standing (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Developmental 1975) and intrinsic task motivation devoid of external theorists have described a similar motivational stage as controls or rewards (Staw, 1976). interpersonal (Kegan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1976), early for- Past researchers (Deci, 1975; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Staw, mal operational (Piaget, 1972), and conformist (Loev- 1976) have used the term intrinsic motivation to represent inger, 1976). Other researchers have described similar personal satisfaction derived from achievement of goals motivation as a need for affiliation (McClelland, 1961; or tasks. Intrinsic process motivation is distinct from the Murray, 1964); as a need for love, affection, and belong- classical interpretation of intrinsic motivation because ing (Maslow, 1954); and as relatedness needs (Alderfer, the

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    12 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us