Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Validation evidence in ten languages for the Revised Motivation at Work Scale
Author Note
The first five authors are listed in order of contribution, the other authors are listed in
Preparation of this article was facilitated through two grants from the Fonds Québécois
de la Recherche sur la Société et la Culture to the first and second authors and a grant from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first and second authors.
Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montréal,
Abstract
Results of a cross-cultural validation study of the Revised Motivation at Work Scale are
presented. This scale is based on self-determination theory and comprises subscales for
motivation. It attempts to improve over previous scales by fixing problems with validity and
subscale reliability. Data was obtained from 4783 participants and shows evidence for the
reliability and structural invariance of the scale in ten different languages (i.e., French, English,
Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Norwegian, Greek, German, Chinese, and Indonesian). Evidence for the
scale’s convergent and discriminant validity was found, as the subscales were predictably related
to theoretically relevant antecedents and consequences of work motivation. The results also
validate the relevance of self-determination theory as a work motivation theory. Implications for
motivation; validation
Motivation at Work Scale 4
Validation Evidence in Ten Languages for the Revised Motivation at Work Scale
Despite the fact that work motivation is seen as a major mediating variable between
organizational practices and organizational outcomes, only a few work motivation scales exist.
Exceptions include a scale that assesses stable individual difference in work motivation by
Amabile, Hill, Hennessey and Tighe (1994) and a measure of stable goal orientations by
VandeWalle (1997). As work motivation is not only determined by individual attributes, but is
also affected by work conditions, there is a need for a measure that focuses on the state or
domain level of work motivation (Vallerand, 1997). There is also a need to evaluate work
motivation more precisely, not only by looking at how much people are motivated to do their
work, but also looking at how they are motivated. Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci &
Ryan, 1985a) offers an approach to the study of motivation that conceptualizes motivation as
being multidimensional, which not only allows for the assessment of the level of motivation, but
also of the type of motivation. Across psychology fields, SDT has yielded over 500 empirical
publications since the early 1980’s. It is a dominant theory of motivation in social, education,
health and sport psychology, and is quickly emerging as a mainstream theory of work motivation
(Gagné & Deci, 2005). We are therefore in need of a good scale to assess work motivation as
conceptualized by SDT.
We revised a previously validated scale, the Motivation at Work Scale (Gagné, Forest,
Gilbert, Aube, Morin & Malorni, 2010), which was developed on the basis of self-determination
theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985a, 2000). The Motivation at Work Scale follows the SDT
tradition of asking people why they do what they do, by asking them to rate reasons that reflect
different types of behavioral regulations (Ryan & Connell, 1989). SDT-based scales already
exist in other domains, such as academics and sports (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Guay,
Motivation at Work Scale 5
Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000; Pelletier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995; Ryan &
Connell, 1989; Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989; Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Briere,
We explain why we revised the Motivation at Work Scale below, and present validation
evidence in ten languages using a sample of over 4500 employees located in different countries
around the world. We took great care in seeking evidence that the conceptualization of
motivation based on SDT is relevant to the study of work and organizational issues, and in
gathering evidence that SDT yields knowledge on work motivation that goes beyond the
knowledge obtained when using other work motivation theories. We also tested, through this
validation, some of the propositions elaborated by Gagné and Deci regarding hypothesized
SDT proposes three overarching types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
and amotivation. Amotivation is defined as the absence of motivation toward an activity. For
his work. Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing an activity for its own sake, because it is
interesting and enjoyable. For example, an employee would be intrinsically motivated if she
works hard because she enjoys doing her work tasks. Extrinsic motivation is defined as doing
something for instrumental reasons, which vary depending on how internalized the motivation is.
regulated by external factors, such as rewards or punishments that were administered by others,
so that it becomes internally regulated (Ryan, 1995). Internalization can vary in terms of how
well it is assimilated with a person’s existing self-regulations, such as values and interests that
Motivation at Work Scale 6
this person already holds. The degree to which a regulation is internalized determines which
refers to doing an activity in order to obtain rewards or avoid punishments. For example, an
employee would be externally regulated if she works hard to get a sale in order to get her
becomes internally pressuring, and thus implies incomplete or imperfect internalization that
activity out of guilt or compulsion, or to preserve their self-worth (Koestner & Losier, 2002).
order to increase or maintain his self-worth. Identified regulation refers to doing an activity
because one identifies with its value or meaning, and accepts it as one’s own, which means that it
commit to an activity based on its perceived meaning or its relation to personal goals (Kelman,
XXXX; Koestner & Losier, 2002). For example, a physician would be identified if she puts
effort into her job because she wants to make a difference in the lives of her patients. Integrated
regulation refers to identifying with the value of an activity to the point where it becomes part of
a person’s habitual functioning and part of the person’s sense of self. This is the form of
extrinsic motivation that is most internalized. For example, a nurse would be integrated if he
considers his work not only to be important but to be a life goal or a vocation. Integration and
identification differ from intrinsic motivation in that the activity is done not for its own sake
Motivation at Work Scale 7
(because it is interesting and fun), but for the instrumental value it represents. Identification and
integration are driven by values and goals, whereas intrinsic motivation is driven by the positive
Research in different domains, such as education (Williams & Deci, 1996), sports (Li &
Harmer, 1996; Vallerand & Fortier, 1998), work (Blais, Brière, Lachance, Riddle, & Vallerand,
1993), and health care (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996), has shown that the
types of motivation demonstrate a typical pattern of correlations that reflect these degrees of
internalization, whereby each subscale correlates most positively with adjacent subscales (e.g.,
intrinsic and identified regulation) and less positively or more negatively with non-adjacent
subscales (e.g., intrinsic and external regulation). We also typically find that autonomous forms
of motivation are related to more positive outcomes than non-autonomous forms of motivation.
Separating amotivation from the rest, many researchers have merged external and introjected
regulations into what is labelled non-self-determined or controlled motivation, and have merged
autonomous motivation (e.g., Kim, Deci & Zuckerman, 2002; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De
Witte & Deci, 2004). However, we know of no formal factorial test that has been done to
validate this categorization. We therefore not only tried to validate the first-order factorial
structure, comprising all types of regulations, but also tested a second-order structure reflecting
these mergers.
Research has also shown that the consequences of these three overarching forms of
motivation differ meaningfully. In general, we find that autonomous motivation yields the best
behavioral, attitudinal and affective outcomes, while controlled motivation and amotivation yield
the poorest outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Still, depending on the research question of interest,
Motivation at Work Scale 8
it is sometimes better to use the second-order factors, and sometimes it is better to use the first-
order factors as variables of interest. Koestner and Losier (2002) have shown in a research
review that we do find different behavioral and attitudinal differences between introjection,
identification and intrinsic motivation in certain domains, like environmental behavior (Pelletier,
Tuson, Greene-Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998) and political behavior (Koestner, Losier,
Vallerand, & Carducci, 1996). For example, Koestner and colleagues (1996) found that intrinsic
motivation predicted involvement in political activities, but did not predict voting behavior,
whereas identified regulation predicted voting behavior, but did not predict involvement. In
The aim of the present research was to revise and validate the Motivation at Work Scale
in ten different languages. This aim reflects current needs to conduct cross-cultural studies to
test our theories, as a response to globalization. In the area of work motivation, there have been
calls for such research, as many work motivation theories have not been carefully validated
cross-culturally (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999; Grant, Fried & Juillerat, 2010; Steers, Mowday &
Shapiro, 2004; Zhang, Song, Hackett & Bycio, 2006). Luckily, there is a good amount of cross-
cultural research validating SDT (Bao & Lam, 2008; Chirkov & Ryan, 2001; Chirkov, Ryan,
Kim & Kaplan, 2003; Chirkov, Ryan & Willness, 2005; Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov &
Kornazheva, 2001; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim & Kasser, 2001; Sheldon, Elliot, Ryan, Chirkov, Kim,
Like the MAWS, the R-MAWS aims to assess work motivation at the domain level of
analysis (Vallerand, 1997), that is, the work domain within a person’s life, which differs from
other scales that measure work motivation at the task level (e.g., Fernet, Senécal, Guay, Marsh &
Dowson, 2008). Five phases were required in order to validate the scale. Phase 1 involved
Motivation at Work Scale 9
developing new items. Phase 2 involved selecting the best items based on exploratory factor
analysis, criterion validity and reliability analysis. Phase 3 involved validating its factorial
structure through confirmatory factor analysis. Phase 4 involved assessing the invariance of the
structure of the scale across the different languages. Phase 5 involved assessing the criterion-
related and discriminant validity of the new scale with different antecedents and consequences.
Table 1 shows an overview of the different phases and the different samples that were
We revised the Motivation at Work Scale (MAWS) in order to solve the following issues
with its previous version and with other domain scales based on SDT. The previous version of
the MAWS tried to solve some issues with existing measures of work motivation that were
obvious at the time. Blais and colleagues (1993) published the first SDT-based work motivation
measure in French. In this first generation measure, there were consistent internal reliability
problems with the external regulation subscale (Cronbach’s alphas in the .50’s), and face validity
problems on some of the items (see Gagné et al., 2010). The MAWS tried to resolve these issues
and was simultaneously developed and validated in French and English. It still, however, had
some problems.
First, it only contained four of the subscales theorized in SDT (external, introjected,
identified and intrinsic motivation). The revised version adds a subscale to measure amotivation,
but does not contain a subscale to measure integrated regulation, though in our initial list of
items for the R-MAWS, we tested 9 items that purportedly represented integrated regulation.
None of them yielded satisfactory results in terms of factor loadings. Our first round of data
analysis revealed that the five first integrated items we tested were indistinguishable from
Motivation at Work Scale 10
identified and intrinsic motivation items. We tested four more items in the second round with
similar results. We discuss possible conceptual reasons for this in the discussion.
Second, most SDT-based measures of motivation across domains ask people why they do
an activity (a sport, pursuing an education, or doing a job). In the work domain, this stem creates
problems when attempting to capture external regulation, which are theorized to reflect strong
contingencies between external or internal rewards and punishments and engagement in the
activity. As work inherently involves receiving money (except for the case of voluntary work,
which is not considered in the present study), it is obvious that people do work for money. For
example, in the Blais et al. (1993) scale, one of the responses to the question “why do you do this
job?”, which measures external regulation, is “for the pay check” (and more recently in
Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier and Villeneuve, [2009]: “For the income it provides
me”). What we need are items that reflect the contingency between the effort that people put in
their daily work and the money and other rewards they receive. We think that this issue may be
the cause of low reliabilities for external regulation subscales in work motivation scales. We
therefore revised the stem of the MAWS to reflect the amount of effort that people put into their
job (which we think also better represents the core elements of motivation, namely, intensity,
duration, and direction). The new stem now reads “Why do you or would you put efforts into
your current job?” Notice that we also focus on actual (“do”) and intended (“would”) efforts,
because of possible lack of punctual opportunities people may experience in their job. This way,
we can fully capture people’s motives (both actual and latent) to do the job they do.
Third, we revised the items in the external and introjected regulation subscales to balance
out approach and avoidance motives. This was done to address previous criticisms concerning
motivation (Assor, Vansteenkiste & Kaplan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 1999). External regulation
items in previous scales were mostly approach-oriented, focusing on the obtention of rewards
and praise, whereas introjected items were mostly avoidance-oriented, focusing on the avoidance
of guilt and shame. The new items therefore reflect both approach and avoidance in both
subscales. Fourth, we created external regulation items that focus on both material (e.g., money)
and social rewards (e.g., praise), which are both important in the work context (Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1997). Fifth, we created amotivation items, which were absent from the MAWS.
Sixth, we made sure that no items measured other constructs that may be related, or that
may be antecedents or consequences of these motives, such as the satisfaction of the needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, intrinsic and extrinsic values, and harmonious and
obsessive passion (Vallerand, Blanchard, Mageau, Koestner, Ratelle, Léonard, Gagné, &
Marsolais, 2003; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010;
Vansteenkiste, Neyrinck, Niemec, Soenens, De Witte, & Lens, 2007). For example, previous
scales contain amotivation items that resemble low satisfaction of the need for competence (e.g.,
“I don't know anymore; I have the impression of being incapable of succeeding in this sport”;
Pelletier, et al., 1995; “I ask myself this question, I don’t seem to be able to manage the
important tasks related to this work”; Tremblay et al., 2009), and items to measure identification
that resemble intrinsic values (e.g., “Because, in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet
al., 1995).
Finally, we called on the help of several researchers around the world to translate and test
the Revised-MAWS in order to show its validity across languages. We tried to obtain data in
countries and languages that would provide a wide range of cultural values to examine the cross-
Motivation at Work Scale 12
cultural validity of the R-MAWS as a measurement tool, but also to provide evidence of the
create items that would be acceptable in most cultures. For example, previous work motivation
scales (Blais et al., 1993; Tremblay et al., 2009), including the MAWS, had an item to measure
introjected regulation that read “Because I have to be a ‘winner’ in life”, which was poorly
endorsed in collectivistic and high power-distance cultures. We therefore tried to avoid such
culture-specific items. We did not go as far as assessing relations between the R-MAWS scales
and individual cultural values, though this would be interesting for future studies to examine.
With all of these issues in mind, we kept three of the items from the MAWS and created
55 new items (simultaneously created in French, English and Dutch) to measure the subscales
described above (9 for amotivation, 4 for general external regulation, 4 for external regulation-
We collected data from about 500 employees in Canada (in French and English) and in
Belgium (in Dutch) who were working a variety of jobs in a variety of organizations. Based on
the data obtained in this first round, we conducted exploratory factor analyses and examined
relations between each item and feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; a full explanation for this is given in Phase 5). We retained items that adequately
loaded on their respective factor across the three languages (i.e., loadings > .50), and that did not
cross-load on other subscales (i.e., loadings < .20). Based on these analyses, we kept 32 items,
Motivation at Work Scale 13
comprising 5 for amotivation, 2 for general external regulation, 3 for external regulation-
We conducted a second round of data collection to reduce the scale as much as possible,
while conserving its factorial structure and reliability. We administered the R-MAWS along
with other scales described below to various samples of workers around the world. Table 1
describes these samples and the languages that were used in each. Participants completed the
work-time or outside work-time. Anonymity or confidentiality was ensured for all participants
and consent forms were administered for each sample. Exploratory factor analysis on some of
these samples led us to reduce the scale to a final group of 19 items, with 3 to 6 items per factor
(see Appendix A). The analyses described below are based on these samples and these 19 items.
Our goal was to obtain a succinct measure with internally consistent subscales for
social/material, all loading onto one factor), introjected regulation (which would represent both
therefore aiming for a 5-factor structure, hoping to also validate a 3-factor, second-order
the scales to correlate with each other in a particular way as is most often found with similar
scales, and based on theorizing by Ryan and Connell (1989). Subscales that are theoretically
Motivation at Work Scale 14
contiguous in terms of level of self-determination should correlate positively, while scales that
are non-adjacent should not correlate. Finally amotivation and intrinsic motivation should be
Results
A few univariate and multivariate outliers were found and were deleted from the datasets
(less than 5% of the sample). Missing values were replaced using a regression imputation
procedure. Table 2 presents which samples were used at each phase of the validation.
method on each of the samples’ covariance matrices because the normalized Mardia coefficients
for multivariate kurtosis were between 44.52 and 126.41 in the different samples. To assess the
fit of the model to the data, goodness-of-fit indices were used in combination with the Satorra-
Bentler χ2 statistic. We used the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), the RMSEA 90% confidence interval (Cheung
& Rensvold, 2002), and, finally, the Akaike information criterion (AIC) for model comparison.
Values between .90 and .94 for the CFI indicate adequate fit, whereas values of .95 and higher
indicate excellent fit. Values smaller than .10 for the RMSEA indicate acceptable fit while values
smaller than .08 indicates good fit, and values lower than .05 indicate excellent fit. RMSEA 90%
confidence interval (CI) was also used to assess hypotheses of very close fit (RMSEA < .05) and
The factorial structure of the R-MAWS was assessed through CFA. For each of the three
initial languages (i.e. French, English, and Dutch), an initial model with five factors was
postulated. These factors correspond to the five subscales and were made up of the three to six
Motivation at Work Scale 15
corresponding items for each subscale (amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation,
identified regulation and intrinsic motivation). No cross-loadings were hypothesized and the
covariance between the intrinsic motivation latent factor and the external regulation latent factor
was fixed at 0 since SDT postulates that their correlation should be close to zero or non-
significant (Gagné et al., 2010). The fit of the 5-factor model was within acceptable range in the
Three alternative models were also tested in each of the three languages. The first
alternative model is made of seven factors where a second order factor was created for two
external regulation sub-factors (i.e. material and social dimensions). The second alternative
model replicates the hypothesized five-factor model but adds second order factors for
factor, and introjected and external regulations loading on a second-order controlled motivation
factor. The third alternative model is a combination of the first two alternative models, with 9
factors (6 first order, 2 second order for external regulation, and autonomous motivation, and one
The fit of the first alternative model was within acceptable range in the three languages
(see Table 3). This model was also preferred because its Akaike’s information criterion (AIC)
statistic was lower (Kline, 2005). We therefore chose this model as our configural model for the
conduct of invariance analyses with the other languages (Byrne, 2006). It is also worth noting
that the results for the third alternative model support a third-order model in French and English,
though support is weaker for Dutch. As can be seen in Table 4, results from the first alternative
model show that the Revised-Motivation at Work Scale is well represented through five latent
Motivation at Work Scale 16
approach orientation and avoidance orientation combined in one first order factor), external
one first-order factor and material-approach and material-avoidance are combined in another
first-order factor) and amotivation. Standardized pattern coefficients ranged from 0.48 to 0.96
across the three languages. Correlations between the latent variables ranged from -0.45 to 0.82 in
the French sample, from -0.53 to 0.80 in the English sample, and from -0.38 to 0.75 in the Dutch
sample.
As a last step to test the factor structure of the R-MAWS, we conducted an invariance
analysis to compare the structure of the scale across languages. Items were translated in the
different languages by groups of experts in motivation, who are the other authors of this paper,
using a back-translation method, and in some cases suing cognitive interviews. Translations
were done from one of the three original languages in which the R-MAWS was simultaneously
created (French, English, or Dutch). We tested and compared models with increasingly more
stringent criteria (Byrne, 2006; Cheung & Rensvold, 1999, 2002; Steenkamp & Baumgartner,
1998; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). We tested whether the pattern coefficients (metric
invariance), and then whether the factor structure (i.e., correlations between latent factors, or
structural invariance) were invariant across the different languages under examination. We did
not test whether the latent factor means were invariant across languages because we consider it
normal for means to vary within and across groups, as variation would depend on the nature of
the job tasks, leadership styles, job design, and other work-related factors.
Results
Motivation at Work Scale 17
When using data from each of the seven different languages to test the configural model,
the model fit the data acceptably well in all of them (see Table 4). We tested the metric
invariance of the R-MAWS using the procedure outlined in Byrne (2006). We first tested the
invariance of the factorial structure with the three base languages, namely English, French and
Dutch. Results showed that the R-MAWS had invariant factor loadings (i.e., metric invariance,
see Table 3) and had invariant correlations between the latent factors (i.e., structure invariance).
Because the fit of the structually invariant model was borderline, we chose to test metric
invariance between the three base languages with each of the other language one by one (testing
We first tested the configural model for each combination of four languages, and in all
cases, obtained a good fit, except for the Greek language where the CFI was .896, while having
an acceptable RMSEA value (.078) and 90% CI (.075, .081). In order to verify metric
invariance, we then compared the configural and measurement models in the different
combinations of four languages, (see the right-hand side column of table 4). We considered a
language to be invariant when the change in CFI between the configural and measurement model
did not decrease by more than .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Four out of the seven languages
where metrically invariant (Norwegian, German, Chinese, and Indonesian). Our results therefore
show configural invariance for 9 of the 10 languages and metric invariance for 7 of the 10
languages.
Reliabilities and Correlation Patterns. Alpha coefficients for the R-MAWS subscales
are provided in Table 5. Out of 50 alpha coefficients (five subscales in 10 languages), only 4
(identified and introjected regulation in Italian and German) were below .70, and a majority were
above .80. Table 5 presents the correlations between the different motivation subscales (based
Motivation at Work Scale 18
on observed scores) in all the different languages and with all the languages combined. These
correlations between the factors generally followed the hypothesized correlational patterns
whereby adjacent scales are positively related, while non-adjacent subscales are less strongly
related (Ryan & Connell, 1989). We can also observe that in all samples, amotivation and
In order to assess the criterion validity of the R-MAWS, we thought about which
antecedents and outcomes the different types of motivation should be related to. To determine
which antecedents and outcomes to use, we followed the model depicted in Gagné and Deci
(2005), whereby managers, job design and rewards affect the satisfaction of three basic
psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which in turn influence
autonomous motivation. Some of these relations have been demonstrated in past research, while
others (e.g., performance) were tested in the current data for the first time.
SDT suggests that intrinsic motivation and the internalization of extrinsic motivation (i.e.,
identified) are determined by the degree to which people can satisfy three basic psychological
needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness in the environment in which the activity takes
place. The satisfaction of these needs can be affected by environmental pressures, such as
deadlines, surveillance and contingent rewards (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976; Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Fernet et al., 2008; Lepper & Greene, 1975). It can also be affected by
a manager (Deci, Ryan, Gagne, Leone, Usunov & Kornazheva., 2001; Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri,
& Holt, 1984; Lepper & Greene, 1975). Finally, it can be affected by the design of tasks and
jobs (Gagné, Sénécal, & Koestner, 1997). To test some of these premises, we included a
Motivation at Work Scale 19
measure of need satisfaction (Van den Broeck et al., 2010) in five languages. We expected,
based on SDT, that autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction would be positively
related to intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, and that autonomy and relatedness need
satisfaction would be negatively related to introjected and external regulation, while competence
need satisfaction would be positively related to them, and that all three needs would be
negatively related to amotivation. Following the logic of locus of control theory (Rotter, 1954),
we expected that competence need satisfaction would be positively related to everything except
Based on past research (Baard, Deci & Ryan., 2004; Bono & Judge, 2003; Deci et al.,
managerial leadership behavior (Bass & Avolio, 1989). We expected that autonomy support
motivation and amotivation. With regards to leadership, we separated the subscales of the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire according to Avolio, Bass and Jung’s (1999) validation.
This yields four factors representing transformational leadership, contingent reward leadership,
active management by exception and passive leadership (which merges passive management by
positively related to autonomous motivation and negatively related to controlled motivation and
amotivation; that contingent reward leadership would be positively related to both controlled and
exception would be negatively related to autonomous motivation and amotivation, and positively
related to controlled motivation; and that passive leadership would be negatively related to
Finally, we used in one sample a measure of job design (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006)
to show, as theorized by most job design theories (Parker & Ohly, 2008) that an enriched job
We also examined links between the different types of motivation and some of the
outcomes that have been studied in other validations of similar SDT-based scales, as well as
some organizationally relevant outcomes: affective commitment (Gagné, Chemolli, Forest &
Gagné, & Austin, 2010), different types of performance (team, organizational, individual,
profiency, adaptivity, proactivity, positive performance; Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007), personal
initiative (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997), defined as self-starting, proactive and
persistent behavior, and finally, measures of job effort and turnover intentions (Gagné, 2003).
Consistent with past research on motivation and these outcomes, we expected that autonomous
motivation would be positively correlated to positive outcomes (i.e., affective commitment, well-
being, performance, personal initiative and job effort), and negatively to negative outcomes (i.e.,
turnover intentions and psychological distress), and that the opposite pattern would be found
with the controlled types of regulation and even more strongly for amotivation.
With regards to performance, we tested the first two propositions from Gagné and Deci
(2005), whereby identified motivation may be more strongly related to work performance than
intrinsic motivation if we assume that some job tasks are not very interesting or enjoyable, and
whereby autonomous motivation may be more important for the performance of more complex
or demanding tasks than for the performance of core or simple tasks. We thus expected that the
more “advanced” forms of performance, those that require more effort or information processing
Motivation at Work Scale 21
would be positively related to autonomous motivation and not to controlled motivation, while the
less “advanced” forms, those that require less effort or those that are more part of the core job
Measures
Table 1 presents the antecedents and outcomes that were measured in each sample.
Need Satisfaction. The Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale (W-BNS; Van den
Broeck et al., 2010) was used in the French, the English, the Dutch and the Norwegian samples.
This scale measured the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs identified by Self-
Determination Theory, namely autonomy (six items; sample item: “I feel like I can be myself at
my job”), competence (six items; sample item: ‘‘I feel competent at my job), and relatedness (six
items; sample item: “At work, I feel part of a group”). The Basic Need Satisfaction at Work
Scale (BNS-W; Deci et al., 2001) was used in the Italian sample. This scale also measured the
(seven items; sample item: “I feel like I can pretty much be myself at work”), competence (six
items; sample item: ‘‘I don’t feel very competent at work (reversed coded)), and relatedness
(eight items; sample item: “People at work care about me”). All items were answered on a 5-
point scale ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 5 (“totally agree”) for both version of the
scales. Cronbach’s α of the overall scale was .76, .80, .85, .70, and .82 for the French, English,
Autonomy support. Autonomy support was measured in one of the French subsamples
with the autonomy support subscale from the Perceived Autonomy Support Scale for employees
(Moreau & Mageau, 2011, adapted from the Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Scale;
Mageau, Ranger, Koestner, Moreau, & Forest, 2011; nine items; sample item: “My supervisor
Motivation at Work Scale 22
gives me many opportunities to make decisions in my work.”). Autonomy support was assessed
with the Work Climate Questionnaire in German and Norwegian (WCQ; Baard et al., 2004; six
items; sample item: “I feel that my manager provides me choices and options”). All items from
the different scales were answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7
(“strongly agree”). Cronbach’s α were .86, .92 and .94 for the French, German and the
Supervisor’s leadership style. Supervisor’s leadership was assessed in two of the French
and one of the English subsamples using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire1 (MLQ; Bass
& Avolio, 1989). This scale is composed of four different subscales: transformational leadership
(20 items; sample item: “My manager talks about his/her most important values and beliefs”),
contingent reward leadership (4 items; sample item: “ My manager makes clear what one can
expect to receive when performance goals are achieved”), active management by exception (4
items, sample item: “My manager focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards”), and passive leadership (8 items; sample item: “My manager avoids
getting involved when important issues arise”). All items were answered on a 5-point scale
ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“frequently, if not always”). Cronbach’s α were .94, .70, .33,
and .86 for the French sample, and .92, .55, .55, and .87 for the English sample.
Job design. Job characteristics were assessed in the business student English sample
(Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). The following subscales were rated on a 1 (“strongly disagree”)
to 5 (“strongly agree”) Likert scale, and combined in an overall score of job enrichment: job
autonomy (9 items), skill and task variety (6 items), task identity (4 items), task significance (3
items), feedback from the job and from others (6 items), all items were averaged to create a job
Vitality. Vitality was measured in some of the French and English subsamples using the
French version (Rousseau & Vallerand, 2003) and the original English version of the vitality
scale (Ryan & Frederick, 1997; 7 items; sample item: “I feel energized.”). Using the stem “In
general…” participants indicated their response using a 1 (“do not agree at all”) to 7 (“very
strongly agree”) response scale. Vitality was assessed in the Dutch sample using the vigor
subscale from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES; Schaufeli Salanova, Gonzalez-
Roma, & Bakker, 2002; 5 items; sample item “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”).
Cronbach’s α were .87, .88, and .90 for the French, the English and the Dutch samples
respectively.
Burnout. Burnout was measured using the emotional exhaustion subscale from the
Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach, Leiter, & Jackson, 1996). The validated French-
Canadian version (Dion & Tessier, 1994; 4 items; sample item: “I feel emotionally exhausted by
my work”) was used in three of the French subsamples and the original version was used in one
of the English subsamples. The Dutch version (Schaufeli & Van Dierendonck, 2000; five items;
sample item “I feel totally exhausted on my job”) was used with the Dutch sample. Participants
were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each item to assess how they felt in the past
year. Items were scored on 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (“never”) to 6 (“every day”).
Cronbach’s α were .90, .90 and .90 for the French, the English and the Dutch samples
respectively.
Affective Commitment. Affective commitment was measured using Meyer and Allen’s
(1997) measure of affective commitment in three French subsamples, in one of the English
subsamples, and in the Italian and the Greek samples (6 items; sample item “this organization
has a great deal of personal meaning for me”). Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale,
Motivation at Work Scale 24
ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Cronbach’s α were .85, .80, .86, and
.85 for the French, the Italian, the Norwegian, and the Greek samples respectively.
Job Performance. Job performance was self-reported using Griffin et al.’s (2007) scale
in one of the French subsamples (it was translated using the back translation method). This scale
is composed three different subscales, profiency (e.g., fulfilling the prescribed or predictable
requirements or role), adaptivity (e.g., coping with, responding to, and supporting change) and
proactivity (e.g., initiating change, being self-starting and future-directed). These individual
behaviors were measured at three different levels of analysis, the individual (i.e., contributing to
individual effectiveness), the team (i.e., contributing to team effectiveness), and the organization
(i.e., contributing to organization effectiveness). Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Cronbach’s α were .89, .90, .87, for
team performance, organization performance, individual performance, .82, .91, .93 for profiency,
adaptivity and proactivity subscales, and .95 for the overall positive performance construct.
Personal Initiative. Personal Initiative was measured in the Greek sample with five
items from Frese et al. (1997; sample items: “Whenever there is a chance to get actively
involved, I take it”). Items were scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to
Job Effort. Job effort was self-reported in the Norwegian sample with a five–item scale
(Kuvaas, 2006; sample item: “I often spend extra effort in carrying out my job”). Items were
scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).
Turnover Intentions. Turnover intentions were measured in the French MBA students
subsample with two items adapted from Hom and Griffeth (1991) and from Jaros (1997; sample
Motivation at Work Scale 25
item “I often think about quitting this organization”). In the Norwegian sample, it was assessed
with a total of six items, three future-oriented items (sample item: “I frequently think about
quitting my job”) taken from O’Driscoll and Beehr (1994) and three past-oriented items (sample
item “I have pretty regular thoughts of finding a new job”) taken from Luchak and Gellatly
(2007). Items were scored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7
(“strongly agree”). Cronbach’s α were .81, and .90 for the French and the Norwegian samples
respectively.
Results
Correlations with hypothesized antecedents and outcomes are presented in Table 6 and
antecedents and outcomes, such that correlations go from negative with amotivation to positive
with intrinsic. We must note that the size of the effect is more important than the statistical
significance since some of the samples used to measure the correlation coefficients were large
and likely to make them statistically significant even though the effect is small. As hypothesized,
needs for autonomy and relatedness were positively related to autonomous types of motivation in
all samples (but also to introjection in two samples, though with small effects), unrelated to
controlled types of motivation and negatively related to amotivation. Need for competence
correlations varied more across the different samples. In all but the Dutch sample, it was
negatively related to amotivation. It was unrelated to external regulation in all but two samples
(French and Italian), where it was negatively related. It was unrelated to introjection in two
(French and English) samples, and positively related in the others. It was positively related to
identification in all samples except in the English sample, and was positively related to intrinsic
in all samples (though also moderately related to introjection in two of them, with small effects),
samples (but also related to controlled motivation in the French sample), and negatively related
motivation, which was unexpected, and negatively related to amotivation. The relation of
contingent reward leadership to controlled motivation was positive in the French sample and
negative in the English sample. This may be due to a different interpretation of contingent
reward leadership across language (which has been shown to often correlate with
transformational leadership and to emphasize praise more than tangible rewards, with praise
having been related to intrinsic motivation; Ryan, 1982) rather than in a difference with the
controlled motivation subscales of the R-MAWS, or to differences in scale reliability across the
languages.
motivation in the French sample, but surprisingly positively related to autonomous motivation in
the English sample. Again, this may be due to the different meaning of this type of leadership
across languages, or to its low reliabity. Passive leadership was negatively related to
autonomous motivation and positively related to controlled motivation and amotivation in both
motivation and negatively related to amotivation, while the opposite pattern was found for
Motivation at Work Scale 27
motivation (though unrelated to identified motivation in the Italian sample) but was also
unexpectedly positively related to controlled motivation in three samples (though with small
effects), while negatively related to external regulation in the Italian and Greek samples. It was
motivation. Interestingly, for most of the measures, we found a stronger correlation with
identified regulation than with intrinsic motivation. This fits Proposition 1 from Gagné and Deci
(2005), which proposed that identified motivation is likely to be more strongly related to less
interesting work tasks than intrinsic motivation. Proficiency was also positively related to
controlled motivation, while adaptivity and proactivity were not. This fits Proposition 2 from
Gagné and Deci, which proposed that autonomous motivation yields better performance on
complex tasks, while both yield good performance on programmed tasks. All measures of
performance were negatively related to amotivation. Personal initiative and self-reported job
effort were also positively related to autonomous motivation, and also with introjected
regulation. They were unrelated to external regulation and negatively to amotivation. Finally,
Discussion
We revised the Motivation at Work Scale (Gagné et al., 2010) to resolve several issues
with previous SDT-based scales. Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) offers a
perspective on work motivation that is different from the perspectives offered by other work
meaningfully linked to important outcomes, including performance and well-being. It also offers
evidenced through an increase in the number of publications based on it (e.g., Grant & Berry,
2011; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2007; Judge, Bono, Erez & Locke, 2005; Liu & Fu, 2011), there
is a growing need for a scale like the R-MAWS that will allow researchers to rigorously and
accurately assess relations between the different types of motivation and organizationally
relevant variables. We tested the R-MAWS’ factorial structure and criterion validity in ten
languages in response to a need to conduct research globally and cross-culturally. We also took
advantage of this validation process to validate SDT-based premises in the work domain, and to
test some previously untested relations between motivation and individual performance.
The R-MAWS improves over the MAWS and other similar work motivation scales in
several ways. In addition to covering the majority of the motivational orientations proposed in
SDT, its factorial configuration was found to be invariant across the 10 languages. Factor
loadings were also invariant in seven of them, and factor correlations to be invariant in three of
them. The Greek version of the scale is the least invariant of all languages, but still shows a
good fit for the factor structure, and expected relations with outcomes. It is interesting to note
that the languages for which the factor loadings were found to vary were not necessarily
languages that were from different language families as those for which factor loadings were
invariant. Though it would be better if the R-MAWS were completely invariant across
languages, we know of few scales that meet this criterion across such a large number of
languages and for such a complex factor-structure as the R-MAWS (e.g., Gagné et al, 2010;
The R-MAWS also emphasizes the theorized contingency imbedded in the definition of
controlled motivation more strongly than previous scales by a change in the stem, which now
focuses on efforts at work. Finally, it balances out approach and avoidance motivation in order to
avoid confounding motivational constructs, and the external regulation subscale includes both
We found good convergent and discriminant validity for the R-MAWS. The subscales
were related in expected directions with known and hypothesized antecedents and outcomes that
are relevant to the domain of organizational behavior. Autonomous motivation was related to
hypothesized antecedents, such as the satisfaction of the psychological needs for competence,
relatedness and autonomy as well as with job design, autonomy-support and managerial
leadership. Controlled motivation was unrelated to need satisfaction, autonomy support and
transformational leadership, but was related to other less supportive or more controlling
leadership behaviors. Amotivation was negatively related to need satisfaction, autonomy support
turnover intentions. It is interesting to note that performance was slightly more highly correlated
to identified than to intrinsic motivation. This is not surprising in the work context, as many tasks
that must be done in jobs are not inherently interesting (take grading exams for example!; Fernet
et al., 2008; Koestner & Losier, 2002). In that case, it may be more important for the
organization to promote the internalization of the value of the task for the achievement of
organizational goals, thereby promoting identified motivation. The results also show that
controlled motivation is related to task proficiency but unrelated to task adaptability and
Motivation at Work Scale 30
proactivity, which supports Gagné and Deci’s (2005) proposition that autonomous motivation is
more important for complex and creative tasks, as well as for extra-role behavior (see also Bono
& Judge, 2003, for similar results). The results generally support SDT’s premise that
autonomous motivation yields more positive outcomes than controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan,
2008). Our results are similar to those found by other researchers (e.g., Assor et al., 2009; Deci
& Ryan, 2000; Koestner & Losier, 2002) in that they show the importance of assessing
The criterion validity of the R-MAWS appears to be superior to the criterion validity of
the MAWS. Looking at Table 4 in Gagné et al.’s (2010) validation of the MAWS, one can see
that external and introjected regulation were more highly related to satisfaction of the need for
autonomy (which should not be the case) than was the case with the R-MAWS subscales. One
can also see that turnover intentions were not positively related to external regulation, and not as
highly negatively related to autonomous forms of motivation, like they were with the R-MAWS
subscales. Finally, affective commitment was more highly related to introjected and identified
Reiterating the implications pointed out by Gagné et al. (2010), we point out once more
how controlled motivation does not seem to be affected by leadership and job design and does
not have much of an effect on outcomes that are valued by organizations. This is
counterintuitive, given the emphasis placed on human resources practices that would enhance
monitoring). More research on controlled motivation is needed to assess its impact on other
This validation has some interesting strengths, especially in terms of its cross-cultural
focus. The data gathered to validate the R-MAWS was obtained in twelve countries varying
widely in their cultural values, in ten languages, and across a wide variety of organizations and
jobs. This heterogeneity offers the confidence we need to claim that our results, which were
fairly consistent across cultures, offer support for the premise that self-determination theory
principles are universal. Offering researchers a cross-culturally validated scale will hopefully
This validation also has limitations. First, all data were collected cross-sectionally using
self-reports, which could lead to common method variance issues. However, by looking at Table
6, we can see that not all correlations are statistically significant (despite some large samples),
which indicates that the relationships we found are unlikely to be spurious (Spector, 2006).
Further validation work should test the R-MAWS in longitudinal designs and with multiple
reports (e.g., managers and colleagues) or with more behavioral and objective measures (e.g.,
performance appraisals, actual turnover). We did not test the social desirability of the R-MAWS,
but other similar scales, such as the Blais et al. (1993) scale found very low relationships
Second, the R-MAWS does not include an integrated regulation subscale. There are
multiple possible reasons for this. First, previously published scales that contain an integration
subscale typically show that it is highly correlated with both identified and intrinsic motivation,
and that it is often difficult to statistically separate them (Mallett, Kawabata, Newcombe, Otero-
Forero & Jackson, 2007; Tremblay et al., 2009; Vallerand et al, 1992). Our first round of data
analysis indeed revealed that none of our nine integrated items were distinguishable from
Motivation at Work Scale 32
identified and intrinsic motivation items. Second, little research to date has demonstrated that
integration ever yields outcomes that are different from outcomes related to identified or intrinsic
motivation, even when an adequate factor structure is found (Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz & Scime,
2006; see McLachlan, Spray & Hagger, 2011, for an exception). This brought us to question the
value of adding an integrated regulation subscale to the MAWS, since it would lengthen the
measure with no apparent predictive benefit. Many SDT-based scale do not include an
integration subscale (e.g., Guay et al., 2000; Pelletier et al., 1995; Vallerand et al., 1992). Third,
items that measure integrated motivation in other scales are questionable in terms of their face
value. They often resemble items that measure passion toward an activity (e.g., “Because it has
become a fundamental part of who I am”; Tremblay et al., 2009), which explicitly measures
simultaneously someone’s “social identity” to the activity and his or her motivation for it
(Vallerand et al., 2003), and is supposed to be a construct that differs from “mere” motivation. It
is possible that integration would be best represented through the concept of harmonious passion,
Third, further validation of the R-MAWS is desirable. We could, for example, enlarge the
test of its nomological network by including other dispositional influences on the development of
work motivation, such as the causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985b), which may color
people’s interpretations of, and reactions to, work-relevant events. We could also add other
situational factors, such as team cohesion and compensation systems (Gagné & Forest, 2008).
Finally, the R-MAWS offers the opportunity for future research to examine potential differential
antecedents and outcomes of social versus material external regulation items. As past research
has shown that tangible rewards may have more debilitating effects on intrinsic motivation than
Motivation at Work Scale 33
praise (a social reward; Deci, Koestner,& Ryan, 1999), it would be interesting to examine this
The different subscales of the R-MAWS can be used separately to examine their discrete
effects (Koestner & Losier, 2002), or they can be aggregated into autonomous and controlled
types to simplify analyses. These aggregates can also serve to test possible interaction effects.
We advise this technique and the use of person-level approaches, such as the use of cluster
analysis or latent profile analysis over using the self-determination index (Ryan & Connell,
1989), which consists of subtracting controlled motivation from autonomous motivation. The use
of difference scores has been heavily criticized in psychology and management (De Cooman, De
Gieter, Pepermans, & Jegers, 2010; Edwards, 2001; Johns, 1981; Judge et al., 2005; Zuckerman,
Gagné, Nafshi, Knee, & Kieffer, 2002) for masking the effects of their respective variables or
unduly attributing results to them. We hope the R-MAWS will help the proliferation of
organizational research that uses the self-determination theory framework, which has yielded
very useful results in other fields. As motivation is a major topic in organizational psychology,
and autonomous motivation is likely to be an important mediator that can explain a lot of
phenomena observed in organizations, we now have an instrument to test these ideas. It is likely
to be useful not only to researchers who wish to test SDT-based hypotheses in the work domain,
but also to practitioners to assess workplace motivation in order to develop interventions aimed
References
Motivation at Work Scale 35
Footnote
1
Used with permission, Mind Garden, Inc., 1690 Woodside Road #202, Redwood City,
Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio. Copyright 1995 by Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio.
Motivation at Work Scale 36
Appendix A
Table 1
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6 Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9 Sample 10
MBA- Students1,
students, workers in
Varied
workers in a high
sample (e.g.,
high technology
Nurses and HR Private-
technology company Insurance
Workers in a employees company, Government owned
Sector company (Canada) Teachers company Lecturers
hospital of the public production employees production
(Canada and and in employees
sector. plant, company
France), information
lawyers,
General technology
retail)
workers company
(Sénégal) (UK)
Language French English Spanish Italian Dutch Norwegian Greek German Chinese Indonesian
Canada, Canada,
Country France, United Spain Italy Belgium Norway Greece Switzerland China Indonesia
Senegal2 Kingdom
N 790 568 126 706 530 856 516 187 286 218
Age 38.4 (10.7) 25.5 (8.3) 37.1 (11.3) 41.1 (7.9) 40.9 (9.9) 46.9 (9.7) 36.1 (11.8) 42.4 (10.7) 30.6 (6.2) NA
Organizationa
l tenure 3.9 (4.5) 2.6 (4) 10.8 (9.3) 9.3 (7.4) 12.8 (10.2) 16.2 (9.4) NA NA 8.8 (6.7) NA
(years)
Gender
Male 42.1% 54.6% 38.1% 23.1% 44.0% 40.3% 37.8% 79.7% 45.9% NA
Female 35.4% 43.1% 57.1% 75.8% 54.5% 59.7% 61.6% 18.7% 54.1% NA
Unknown 22.5% 2.3% 4.8% 1.1% 1.5% 0.6% 1.6% NA
Education
College /
University 21% 87.1% 91.3% 34.8% 44.0% 28.9% 74.6% NA 68.8% 100%
degree
High School /
Technical 21% 9.7% 7.2% 63.1% 53.7% 71.1% 22.9% NA 31.2% 0%
training
Unknown 58% 3.2% 1.6 % 2.1% 2.3% 2.5% 0%
Note. N = 4783.
1
Undergraduate business students with part-time jobs.
2
Data collected in French in Sénégal mistakenly used a 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“completely / entirely”) scale. Therefore, we z-scored all
data for analyses.
Revised Motivation at Work Scale 38
Table 2
Frenc Englis Dutc Spanis Italia Norwegia Germa Gree Indonesia Chines
h h h h n n n k n e
Phase 1
Item development X X X
Phase 2
Item selection – X X X
EFA
Inter-correlations X X X X X X X X X X
Reliabilities X X X X X X X X X X
Phase 3
Factor structure – X X X
CFA
Phase 4
Criterion-related
and discriminant
validity
Antecedents
Need X X X X X
satisfaction
Autonomy- X X X
support
Leadership X X
Style
Job design X
Consequences
Vitality X X X
Emotional X X X X
exhaustion
Affective X X X X
commitment
Team X
performance
Organizationa X
l performance
Individual X
task
performance
Proficiency X
Adaptivity X
Proactivity X
Positive X
performance
Personal X
initiative
Job effort X
Turnover X X
intention
Phase 5
Invariance X X X X X X X X X X
Revised Motivation at Work Scale 39
Table 3
Alternative
French 790 463.936 141 .930 .054 .048, .059 181.94
model 1
English 568 509.956 141 .901 .068 .062, .074 227.96
Table 4
Fit Statistics for Each Language Separately, Languages Combined, and for Invariance Tests
Model Metric
N S-Bχ2 df CFI RMSEA RMSEA, 90% CI
Invariance
Spanish a 126 202.670 140 .922 .060 .040, .077 No
Table 5
Correlations between Factors Representing the R-MAWS Subscales, Alpha Coefficients and 95% Confidence Intervals
French English Spanish
1 2 3 4 5 95% CI 1 2 3 4 5 95% CI 1 2 3 4 5 95% CI
1. Intrinsic .88 .87, .90 .90 .89, .92 .85 .80, .89
2. Identified .70*** .78 .75, .80 .65*** .75 .71, .78 .61*** .80 .73, .85
3. Introjected .32*** .41*** .74 .71, .77 .36*** .54*** .70 .66, .74 .40*** .65*** .81 .75, .85
4. Extrinsic .06 .12*** .35*** .74 .72, .77 .13** .23*** .49*** .76 .73, .79 .09 .19* .33*** .83 .78, .87
5. Amotivation -.42*** -.37*** -.13*** .18*** .81 .78, .83 -.29*** -.40*** -.11** .10* .79 .76, .82 -.38*** -.31*** -.08 .19** .91 .88, .93
Table 6
Antecedents
Autonomy French 345 -.34*** .05 .15** .39*** .47***
English 62 -.29* -.13 -.08 .07 .37**
Italian 465 -.17*** -.04 -.04 .08 .19***
Dutch 530 -.32*** -.06 .18*** .34*** .57***
Norwegian 856 -.27*** -.11*** .06 .30*** .54***
Competence French 345 -.18*** -.20** .03 .23*** .26***
English 62 -.31* -.13 .09 .13 .29*
Italian 465 -.38*** -.13** .12* .34*** .39***
Dutch 530 -.04 .01 .16*** .23*** .27***
Norwegian 856 -.20*** -.02 .16*** .27*** .33***
Relatedness French 345 -.18*** .10 .10 .20*** .31***
English 62 -.12 -.15 -.08 .05 .35**
Italian 465 -.19*** -.03 .03 .15** .23***
Dutch 530 -.23*** .01 .18*** .28*** .38***
Norwegian 856 -.28*** -.04 .11*** .22*** .34***
Overall need French 345 -.34*** .08 .14** .35*** .44***
satisfaction English 62 -.29* -.17 -.04 .10 .43**
Italian 465 -.28*** -.07 .04 .20*** .31***
Dutch 530 -.27*** .01 .26*** .39*** .56***
Norwegian 856 -.35*** -.09* .14*** .37*** .57***
Autonomy- French 152 -.26** -.01 .18** .35*** .36***
support German 172 -.10 -.09 -.09 .17* .32***
Norwegian 856 -.25*** .04 .07* .21*** .39***
Transformational French 335 -.16** .17** .24*** .39*** .44***
Leadership English 62 -.33* -.01 .24 .43*** .50***
Contingent French 335 -.16 .19*** .24*** .32*** .40***
Reward English 62 -.20 -.02 -.01 .24 .28*
Leadership
Active French 335 .07 .13* -.02 -.06 -.10*
Management by English 62
Exception .02 .17 .25 .20 .21
Leadership
Passive French 335
.15** -.04 -.13* -.21*** -.31***
Leadership
English 62
.40** -.02 -.10 -.24 -.04
Job design English 94 -.44*** .20 .27** .41*** .37***
Motivation at Work Scale 2
Consequences
Vitality French 241 -.30*** -.01 .06 .35*** .46***
English 62 -.46*** -.05 .23 .60*** .65***
Dutch 530 -.16*** -.05 .19*** .35*** .46***
Emotional French 380 .22*** .10 .04 -.17** -.30***
exhaustion English 62 .32* -.02 -.01 -.16 -.40**
Dutch 530 .26*** .14*** -.09* -.19*** -.37***
Affective French 505 -.37*** .14** .26*** .49*** .51***
commitment Italian 241 -.16 -.23* .01 .05 .22*
Norwegian 856 -.04 .11** .12*** .28*** .35***
Greek 516 -.45*** -.07 .16*** .27*** .41***
Team French 139
-.13 .26*** .29*** .27*** .20*
performance
Organizational French 139
-.22** .24*** .26*** .31*** .18*
performance
Individual task French 139
-.15 .14 .23** .35*** .22**
performance
Proficiency French 139 -.26*** .37*** .29*** .33*** .26***
Adaptivity French 139 -.19* .07 .13 .31*** .17*
Proactivity French 139 -.19* .07 .13 .31*** .17*
Positive French 139 -.18* .24*** .29*** .32*** .21**
performance
Personal Greek 516 -.39*** .02 .23*** .31*** .41***
Initiative
Job effort Norwegian 856 -.34*** .02*** .34*** .48*** .45***
Turnover French 202 .37*** .17* -.12 -.38*** -.47***
intention Norwegian 856 .19*** .05 .05 -.09** -.23***
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001