2
Abstract
This paper looks at the study of intrinsic motivation in the workplace. Four of the five study
findings agree that intrinsic motivation has a positive relationship to innovation, creativity, and
workplace engagement, with the fifth agreeing with prior research but disagreeing that intrinsic
motivation is purely positive.
3
Introduction to the concept
Intrinsic motivation is the “desire to expend effort based on an interest in and enjoyment
of the work itself.” (Xi, Liu, & Tang, 2022, p. 52) It is a key component to understanding how
and why employees perform at the level they do. This differs from extrinsic motivation, or being
motivated by external factors such as compensation, rewards, or punishment (Zhang & Liu,
2022). In the five studies examined, three areas are discussed as effects or effectors of intrinsic
motivation being, leadership (Kim et al., 2023; Zhang & Liu, 2022; Hartnell et al., 2023),
environment (Xu et al., 2022), morality (Kwon, Cunningham, & Jachimowicz, 2023). Intrinsic
motivation has been shown to increase worker productivity and performance (Kim et al., 2023;
Zhand & Liu, 2022; Hartnell et al., 2023, Xu et al., 2022; Kwon et al., 2023). Intrinsic
motivation is important for both employees and managers to understand to best utilize this
concept in how they lead and interact with their peers. Of the five studies three focused on
leadership (Kim et al., 2023; Zhang & Liu, 2022; Hartnell et al., 2023), one on the workplace
environment (Xu et al., 2022), and one on morality (Kwon et al., 2023). These differences in the
effects of and on an employee’s intrinsic motivation should point to how critical it is to
understand this concept and what truly motivates an employee.
What were the differences and similarities in the research done regarding the concept?
All five studies show or support that intrinsic motivation can increase productivity,
creativity, and innovation. Most studies were performed in East Asian countries such as China
(Kim et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Xu & Liu, 2022) and Korea (Hartnell et al., 2023) whereas
4
Kwon et al. (2023) performed theirs in Latin America. Kim et al. (2023) and Xu and Liu (2022)
used only one survey for their study but Kwon et al. (2023), Zhang (2022), and Hartnell (2023)
utilized three or more surveys to conduct their research and test multiple hypotheses.
The major difference between Zhang et al. (2022), Hartnell et al. (2023), and Kim et al.
(2023) was the leadership styles they used to study intrinsic motivation. Zhang et al. (2022)
focused on paradoxical leadership behavior, Kim et al. (2023) studied the effects of empowering
and directive leadership, and Hartnell et al. (2023) looked at servant leadership as a key driver of
intrinsic motivation. Xu and Liu (2022) focused more on the holistic environment of the
workplace rather than just leadership as the deciding factor. Kwon et al. (2023) was the sole
dissenting opinion of intrinsic motivation being purely positive as it relates to prosocial
behaviors between high intrinsic motivation versus low intrinsic motivation in employees.
What was unique in each article regarding the author’s or authors’ approach to the
concept?
Zhang et al. (2022) examination of how leaders must enforce standard practices through
extrinsic motivation and authority while at the same time encouraging creativity and innovation
through the intrinsic motivation of employees. Hartnell et al. (2023) focus on servant leadership
to create environments to encourage a more social environment utilizing intrinsic motivation to
encourage voice and performance of employees. Kim et al. (2023) understand empowering
leadership to best high motivate intrinsic employees and directive leadership to encourage low
intrinsically motivated employees. Xu et al. (2022) showed that the environment in the
workplace increases intrinsic motivation. Kwon et al. (2023) differing views that intrinsic
5
motivation might impede a social environment were interesting compared to the other four
studies.
What are the similarities in the research findings?
The four studies that focused on the positive relationships of intrinsic motivation in the
workplace (Kim et al., 2023; Zhand & Liu, 2022; Hartnell et al., 2023, Xu et al., 2022) all find
that intrinsic motivation is beneficial to both leaders and employees. Kwon et al. (2023) found a
negative relationship between intrinsic motivation and prosocial behavior however, they did not
disagree with previous studies on most of the positives of intrinsic motivation.
What are the differences in the research findings?
Zhang et al. (2022) found paradoxical leadership behavior as the best suited for leaders to
utilize both external forces through authority and encourage employees' autonomy through
intrinsic motivation. Hartnell et al. (2023) argue that servant leadership, through an interactional
justice climate and coworker support, positively affects intrinsic motivation which in turn
increases voice and performance. Kim et al. (2023) argue that empowering leadership should be
used to encourage highly intrinsically motivated employees and directive leadership is best used
to manage low intrinsically motivated employees. Xu and Liu (2022) believe that it is the holistic
environment through decent work that increases intrinsic motivation which leads to more work
engagement. Lastly, Kwon et al. (2023) as previously discussed the dissenting opinion that
intrinsic motivation has a negative relationship with prosocial behavior between high
intrinsically motivated employees and low intrinsically motivated employees.
6
Conclusion
Intrinsic motivation is a key factor in increasing workplace performance and creativity.
Leaders of organizations, whether in top management positions or team leads, need to
understand the effects of what encourages employees to take joy in their work. It has been shown
that different leadership styles can achieve this outcome, leaders must understand their team and
their abilities to decide the best course of action. These choices affect the environment which
also relates to an employee's level of intrinsic motivation. With this in mind, all leaders in any
workplace should take time to reflect on what motivates their employees.
7
References
Hartnell, C. A., Christensen-Salem, A., Walumbwa, F. O., Stotler, D. J., Chiang, F. F., & Birtch,
T. A. (2023). Manufacturing motivation in the mundane: Servant leadership’s influence on
employees’ intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 188(3),
533–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05330-2
Kim, S. L., Yun, S., & Cheong, M. (2023). Empowering and directive leadership and taking
charge: A moderating role of employee intrinsic motivation. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 38(6), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-10-2022-0518
Kwon, M., Cunningham, J. L., & Jachimowicz, J. M. (2023). Discerning saints: Moralization of
intrinsic motivation and selective prosociality at work. Academy of Management Journal,
66(6), 1625–1650. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1761
Xu, Y., Liu, D., & Tang, D. (2022). Decent work and innovative work behaviour: Mediating
roles of work engagement, intrinsic motivation and job self‐efficacy. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 31(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12480
Zhang, Y., & Liu, S.-M. (2022). Balancing employees’ extrinsic requirements and intrinsic
motivation: A paradoxical leader behaviour perspective. European Management Journal,
40(1), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.11.008
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
