It’s there on your to do list. That task. The one you know you have to do, but you really don’t want to. You put it off and suddenly its urgent, but you still don’t want to do it. You need to find the motivation somehow. But how…?
Beyond intrinsic motivation
Work which is more interesting or enjoyable is inherently better for employees and organisations. When individuals are intrinsically motivated at work they experience better wellbeing, performance, and are more likely to stay and thrive. But work tasks aren’t always fun or interesting – whether it’s grading papers, writing a boring report, or repeatedly assembling a component.
Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that individuals can still experience positive outcomes for uninteresting tasks if they have internalised their motivation for the task. Internalisation occurs when individuals “take into themselves” the value or importance of the task so that they believe in what they are doing or find it important. Despite this important theory (and consistent evidence that this form of motivation is valuable; Van de Broeck et al., 2021), we know very little about why individuals internalise their motivation for some tasks and not others, and how this internalisation happens.
In my research, published in the Journal of Management Studies, I explore how individuals internalise their motivation for tasks which are not intrinsically motivating via narrative interviews with 40 employees in two organisations. Interviewees recalled episodes in which their motivation for a work task changed.
Why do people internalise their motivation?
I found that individuals internalised their motivation to alleviate the negative feeling of “conflicting action tendencies”; mixed messages arising from a sense of pressure to do a task that they didn’t want to do.
The first of these conflicting action tendencies is motivational inconsistency. This happens when individuals are generally motivated in their job because, find their work important or care about what they do, but must do a task that they don’t want to. Take Bethania*, who told me that she felt under pressure to write a report which she felt was “pointless” and lacked confidence to write, but she still loved her job (“[the] organization I know at heart is brilliant. The people are brilliant…I mean, I do a three-hour commute. I wouldn’t stay here if I didn’t want to get up at half-past-four every morning”).
The second conflicting action tendency comes from a sense of guilt arising from the internal pressure that individuals place on themselves to help people around them – their colleagues, customers, or work friends. Like, Kristin*, who decided to take on leadership of a team even though she didn’t want to; “It’s not a job that excites me, but I recognize that for the team, it was important that they had leadership. I felt bad because I knew I could help”.
These conflicting action tendencies resulted in negative emotions, stress, or sometimes physical pain. Individuals then internalise their motivation to reduce these negative experiences.
How do people internalise their motivation?
Motivation internalisation occurs in two main stages:
- Reflection: thinking about the reasons that they didn’t want to do the task, how they might benefit if they did it, or how they could help others.
- Cognitive reframing: a shift in thinking about the outcomes, changing the reason that they are doing the task.
Reflection and reframing are different depending on why the task was un-intrinsically motivating in the first place. When faced with a difficult task, individuals reflected on their lack of perceived competence to get the task done and reframed this as a challenge from which they could learn (e.g., overcoming a fear of presenting by reframing this as a chance to become a better public speaker). When faced with a frustrating task, individuals reflected on the frustration and reframed it as an opportunity to create positive change to their work (e.g., making improvements or career progression). Finally, when individuals experienced guilt, it was because the task wasn’t personally important but was valuable for someone else, so they reflected on this and reframed it as a chance to help.
When individuals successfully internalised their motivation for doing the initially difficult, frustrating, or unimportant task they sought opportunities for feedback and learning, were more creative or proactive in their performance, or put in extra effort and experienced higher levels of personal satisfaction. When they didn’t – when they continued to experience the personal conflict – they put in lower effort, experienced poorer wellbeing, or experienced unresolved guilt.
What does this mean for theory on work motivation?
There are many theories of work motivation, several of which make conflicting predictions about how people respond to external pressures. While SDT has highlighted the importance of enhancing intrinsic motivation, some management scholars have criticised a lack of consideration for the inevitable uninteresting or unimportant tasks which need to be done at work. My research highlights the importance of the motivation internalisation process for positive experiences at work and provides an opportunity to bring together theories on external inducements (such as goals and incentives) with those such as SDT which emphasise internal motivators. This also shifts the focus from proactively as an outcome of motivation, to motivation as a proactive process in itself.
How can this be put into action?
Reflection and reframing are techniques which can be developed to help people to internalise their motivation for uninteresting tasks at work. Intrinsically interesting and important work in general is important; managers, colleagues, and organisations have an important part to play in creating an environment where people are intrinsically motivated by their work – this baseline is needed to trigger the process of motivation internalisation for uninteresting tasks.
*All names have been changed
References
Van den Broeck, A., Howard, J. L., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H., & Gagné, M. (2021). Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organizational Psychology Review, 20413866211006172.
Interesting and in a sense also refreshing for me.
I will definitely try this approach at the job when performing “dull” tasks (reflection and reframing). I just wonder how this approach works with tasks being automated more and more, hence ‘jumping’ from one tool to the other to get a task completed.