In this context, "cross-domain" means that these causality orientations are not limited to a single area of life; they can apply across different situations, environments, or contexts.
For example, a person’s causality orientation (like being more autonomous or controlled) can influence how they behave not just at work, but also in personal relationships, school, or social settings. However, even though these orientations are generally stable across domains, they can still be influenced or "activated" by specific social or environmental factors in different contexts.
Causality orientations and their consequences at work
Research on individual differences in causality orientations in work contexts has tended to focus on the autonomy orientation. In one of the first studies on this topic, Lam and Gurland (2008) found that an autonomy causality orientation was associated with autonomous work motivation, which in turn influenced job satisfaction and job commitment.
Other research has indicated that autonomy causality orientations are positively associated with need satisfaction and adaptive functioning, such as job performance and psychological adjustment (Baard, Deci and Ryan, 2004) and job interview success among business school students (Tay, Ang and Van Dyne, 2006).
In a series of studies, Liu and colleagues have shown that autonomy orientation was positively associated with personal learning, job involvement, and organizational citizenship behavior (Liu and Fu, 2011), harmonious passion, job creativity, and psychological empowerment (Liu, Chen and Yao, 2011; Liu et al., 2011), as well as negatively related to voluntary turnover (Liu et al., 2011).
A more recent study has linked autonomy orientation to work engagement (Malinowska and Tokarz, 2020). Finally, an intervention study that taught teachers to be more need supportive and less controlling found that an autonomy orientation predicted positive changes over a semester in need supportive teaching, whereas a control orientation predicted positive changes in a controlling teaching style (Reeve et al., 2018).
A controlled causality orientation has also been associated with more extrinsic work motivation (Lam and Gurland, 2008), but it has not been significantly associated with work engagement (Malinowska and Tokarz, 2020).
The only study of impersonal orientation in the work setting found a negative relation between an impersonal orientation and work engagement (Malinowska and Tokarz, 2020).
In sum, this limited body of research shows that holding a predominantly autonomy orientation is associated with positive indicators of behavior, attitudes, and wellness in the work domain, whereas research focused on controlled and impersonal orientations is seldom reported.
The present study
Causality orientations are part of the basic SDT model in the work domain (Deci et al., 2017), and they can contribute insights into employees’ motivation, work functioning, and wellness. However, as seen in the literature reviewed above, the autonomy causality orientation has been examined in most of the studies of work settings, whereas studies of the control and impersonal orientations are very rarely reported. If we assume a dimensional view of personality, it is important to study all three orientations simultaneously (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
> autonomy causality 가 많이 연구 되고, 나머지 causality 는 연구 되지 않음. 따라서 모든 orientations 연구하는 것도 필요함.
For instance, research on the relation between autonomy and control orientations indicates the need for multivariate studies, as near zero correlations between these orientations suggest that they are orthogonal (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Rose et al., 2001). That is, people with a strong autonomy orientation may have either a strong or a weak control orientation, suggesting quite different functional implications as a higher control orientation has been associated with a more controlled motivation (Lam and Gurland, 2008).
Thus, context specific measures of causality orientations in the work domain are important, as the three causality orientations can differ in strength in different life contexts. Hence, a measure of causality orientations at work would be expected to yield more valid and accurate predictions of work-related behavior (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Rose et al., 2001; Vallerand, 2000).
Halvari, H., & Olafsen, A. H. (2020). Causality orientations in the work setting: Scale development and validation.
Abstract
but what predicts self-determined work motivation is less fully understood. We tested general causality orientation—specifically autonomy and control orientation—as a predictor of self-determined work motivation, which in turn was expected to predict job satisfaction and identification commitment as job outcomes.
> 2008 논문에서 2개 orientation 을 가지고 와서 봤지만, Deci & Ryan 은 3개 orientation을 다 보아야 한다고 주장 (1985)
Substantial evidence supports the role of the social environment in predicting self-determination at work (Baard et al., 2004), but the role of individual differences has received considerably less attention, despite evidence and theory suggesting their importance (Black & Deci, 2000). Thus, our purpose in the current study was specifically to view the individual as an important selector and filter of surrounding environments, and therefore to focus on within-individual processes that might affect job outcomes. Following Gagne´ and Deci’s (2005) call for examination of general causality orientation as a particularly key individual difference, we test its role in predicting self-determination and ultimately job outcomes.
General causality orientation (GCO; Deci & Ryan, 1985b) is an individual difference variable that refers to people’s tendency to orient toward particular kinds of social or environmental inputs, and particular interpretations of those inputs.
Causality orientation is a stable disposition over time and across domains. It thus differs from self-determination, which is domain-specific and can be influenced by both individual differences and contextual factors. Two types of causality orientations are relevant in the workplace: autonomy orientation and control orientation.
Autonomously-oriented individuals tend to look for opportunities that provide self-determination, to interpret events as autonomy-supportive, and to organize their behaviors based on intrinsic interest. By contrast, control-oriented individuals tend to organize their behaviors based on deadlines, rewards, and surveillance; to interpret events as controlling; and to be motivated by extrinsic rewards.
Although individuals’ causality orientation and their domain-specific levels of self-determination are conceptually distinct (i.e., autonomously oriented individuals can engage in particular activities for non-self-determined reasons; control oriented individuals can engage in particular activities for self-determined reasons), we hypothesize that in the work domain, autonomy orientation will predict more self-determined reasons for engaging in work, while control orientation will predict less self-determined reasons.
> 위에 논문에서 말했던거랑 비슷 cross-domain 이지만 다를 수 있다 라고 언급한 부분 Although individuals’ causality orientation and their domain-specific levels of self-determination are conceptually distinct (i.e., autonomously oriented individuals can engage in particular activities for non-self-determined reasons; control oriented individuals can engage in particular activities for self-determined reasons)
Lam, C. F., & Gurland, S. T. (2008). Self-determined work motivation predicts job outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation?. Journal of research in personality, 42(4), 1109-1115.
Research suggests that individual differences in personality traits have profound effects on the quality of social relationships (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006)
Narrative identity is a person's internalized and evolving life story, integrating the reconstructed past and imagined future to provide life with some degree of unity and purpose. (...) Narrative identity reconstructs the autobiographical past and imagines the future in such a way as to provide a person's life with some degree of unity, purpose, and meaning.
McAdams, D. P. (2018). Narrative identity: What is it? What does it do? How do you measure it?. Imagination, cognition and personality, 37(3), 359-372.
“The mind is a narrative machine,” writes the evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson, and those narratives that “prove most innately satisfying spread and become culture” (Wilson 2005, ix). In the words of the American essayist Joan Didion (1979, 11), “We tell ourselves stories in order to live.”
McAdams, D. P. (2019). “First we invented stories, then they changed us”: The evolution of narrative identity. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 3(1), 1-18.
Comments
Post a Comment