The predictive power of approach and autonomous goal motivation for work engagement among public sector employees
Oxford Brookes University, UK
This paper compares the relative predictive power of approach goal motivation and autonomous goal motivation for work engagement among public sector employees. To do so, it employs the goal-striving reasons framework within which people’s approach goal motivation is measured as well as the self-concordance theory which measures people’s autonomous goal motivation. Findings are based on cross-sectional and longitudinal data of 132 public service employees at time 1 and 78 employees at time 2. Overall, the results show, using multiple regression analysis, that approach goal motivation significantly predicts work engagement whereas autonomous goal motivation is not a significant predictor of work engagement. On an individual goal-reason level, a similar picture emerges. Pleasure and altruism, the two approaching goal-striving reasons, are descriptively more strongly correlated with work engagement than their comparable self-concordance reason of intrinsic and identified goal motivation. When testing the predictive power of pleasure and altruism with intrinsic and identified goal motivation simultaneously, using multiple regression analysis, pleasure remains the only significant predictor of work engagement at time one and time two. The findings suggest that approach motivation is a stronger predictor of work engagement than autonomous goal motivation for public sector employees. Additionally, the findings also indicate that pleasure is more important for the work engagement of public sector employees than their altruistic goal motivation on an individual goal-reason level.
Keywords: goal-striving reasons framework, self-concordance, work engagement, public sector employees.
How to cite this article:
Christian Ehrlich. The predictive power of approach and autonomous goal motivation for work engagement among public sector employees . International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, 2021, 4:49. DOI: 10.28933/ijprr-2021-03-3105
1. Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. B. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the public sector. American Review of Public Administration, 31, 363–380.
2. Austin, J.T., & Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
3. Bakker, A.B. (2015). A Job Demands-Resources Approach to Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review, 75, 723–732.
4. Clark, D. A., Steer, R. A., Beck, A. T., & Ross, L. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of revised sociotropy and autonomy scales in college students. Behaviour Research Therapy, 33, 325-334.
5. Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97-110.
6. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
7. Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivation, beliefs, values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
8. Ehrlich, C. (2012). Be careful what you wish for but also why you wish for it: Goal-striving reasons and affective subjective well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7, 493-503.
9. Ehrlich, C., & Bipp, T. (2016). Goals and subjective well-being: Further evidence for goal-striving reasons as an additional level of goal analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 92-99.
10. Ehrlich, C. (2018). The development of an extended goal-striving reasons framework: Evidence for its relevance in the workplace, for its theoretical difference to self-concordance and for its buffering effect on work intensity. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 2, 1-23.
11. Ehrlich, C. (2019). The goal-striving reasons framework: Further evidence for its predictive power for subjective well-being on a sub-dimensional level and on an individual goal-striving reasons level as well as evidence for its theoretical difference to self-concordance. Current Psychology, Online First, 1-14.
12. Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 915-927.
13. Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C.W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible applications. In M.E. Ford & D.H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 289–311). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Fraley R. C., Vazire, S. (2014) The N-Pact Factor: Evaluating the Quality of Empirical Journals with Respect to Sample Size and Statistical Power. PLoS ONE, 9, e109019.
16. Grant, A.M. (2008), “Employees without a cause: the motivational effects of prosocial impact in public service”, International Public Management Journal , 11, 48-66.
17. Judge, T. A., Bone, J.E., Erez, A., & Locke, E.A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257-268.
18. Light, P. (2002). The Content of Their Character: The State of the Nonprofit Workforce, Nonprofit and Voluntary Quarterly, 9 (3), 6-16.
19. Rainey, H.G., and Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping Elephants: Developing Elements of a Theory of Effective Government Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1–32.
20. Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self in psychological development. In J. E. Jacobs (Vol. Ed.) & R. Dienstbier (Series Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 40. Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 1–56). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
21. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). Test manual. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Department of Social & Organizational Psychology.
22. Sheldon, K.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482-497.
23. Sheldon, K.M.,& Hoon, T.H. (2007). The multiple determination of well-being: Independent effects of positive traits, needs, goals, selves, social supports, and cultural contexts. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 565-592.
24. Sheldon, K.M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152-165.
25. Tetlow, G., & Stojanovic, A. (2018). Understanding the economic impact of Brexit. Institute for Government. London.
26. Word, J, & Carpenter, H. (2013). The new public service? Applying the public service motivation model to nonprofit employees. Public Personnel Management, 42 (3), 315-336.
CC BY 4.0
This work and its PDF file(s) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.