thesis about extrinsic motivation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cambridge Open

On what motivates us: a detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation

Laurel s. morris.

1 Department of Psychiatry, Depression and Anxiety Center for Discovery and Treatment, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029 USA

Mora M. Grehl

2 Department of Psychology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122 USA

Sarah B. Rutter

Marishka mehta, margaret l. westwater.

3 Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510 USA

Motivational processes underlie behaviors that enrich the human experience, and impairments in motivation are commonly observed in psychiatric illness. While motivated behavior is often examined with respect to extrinsic reinforcers, not all actions are driven by reactions to external stimuli; some are driven by ‘intrinsic’ motivation. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are computationally similar to extrinsically motivated behaviors, in that they strive to maximize reward value and minimize punishment. However, our understanding of the neurocognitive mechanisms that underlie intrinsically motivated behavior remains limited. Dysfunction in intrinsic motivation represents an important trans-diagnostic facet of psychiatric symptomology, but due to a lack of clear consensus, the contribution of intrinsic motivation to psychopathology remains poorly understood. This review aims to provide an overview of the conceptualization, measurement, and neurobiology of intrinsic motivation, providing a framework for understanding its potential contributions to psychopathology and its treatment. Distinctions between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are discussed, including divergence in the types of associated rewards or outcomes that drive behavioral action and choice. A useful framework for understanding intrinsic motivation, and thus separating it from extrinsic motivation, is developed and suggestions for optimization of paradigms to measure intrinsic motivation are proposed.

Introduction

Motivation is an integral component of human experience. Children spontaneously explore novel items, and adults autonomously engage in new hobbies, even in the absence of clear extrinsic reinforcers. Thus, not all actions are driven by tangible external stimuli or outcomes, known as ‘extrinsic’ motivation, but are driven by more internal drivers, known as ‘intrinsic’ motivation, where the activity is perceived as its own outcome.

Intrinsically motivated behaviors are computationally similar to extrinsically motivated behaviors, in that they strive to maximize goal attainment and minimize punishment, represented mathematically as value and effort cost functions, respectively (Gottlieb, Lopes, & Oudeyer, 2016 ). However, subjective internal value functions are difficult to characterize, and our understanding of how they are computed and integrated is limited (Gottlieb et al., 2016 ).

Dysfunction in intrinsic motivation represents an important transdiagnostic facet of psychiatric symptomology, which is often classified as distinct psychological constructs, such as apathy in neurological disorders, anhedonia in depression, and negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Each of these symptom domains may be underpinned by a shared dysfunction of intrinsic motivation, and interventions targeting intrinsic motivation have the potential to improve treatment outcomes for affected individuals.

However, due to a lack of clear consensus, the contribution of intrinsic motivation to psychiatric disorders remains poorly understood. This review aims to provide an overview of the conceptualization, measurement, and neurobiology of intrinsic motivation, providing a framework for understanding the potential contributions to psychopathology and its treatment.

Historical conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation

During the early 20th century, prominent descriptions of motivation were at odds with each other. Woodworth ( 1918 ) suggested that intrinsic motivation governed activities perpetuated by their own ‘native drive’, whereas Thorndike ( 1911 ) and Watson ( 1913 ) argued that external stimuli governed behavior. Also centered on internal drives, Hull's ( 1943 ) ‘drive theory’ posited that all behaviors were performed to seek or avoid primary biological states, including hunger or pain. However, the drive theory could not explain many behavioral anomalies, such as hungry rats withstanding painful electric shocks to explore a novel environment (Nissen, 1930 ), or rhesus monkeys performing a puzzle task for no biological reason or external reinforcer (Harlow, 1950 ). By narrowly presuming that biological states drive all behavior, drive theory failed to account for instances in which an organism prioritizes higher-order cognitive drives over physiological ones.

The shortcomings of drive theory led to the emergence of alternate theories of intrinsic motivation. Some argued that homeostatic maintenance of optimal biological or cognitive states (Hebb, 1955 ; McClelland & Clark, 1953 ; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1967 ), or mitigation of incongruency or uncertainty (Festinger, 1957 ; Kagan, 1972 ), drove behavior. However, these theories emphasized external stimuli or cognitive representations of external goal states as key drivers of behavior. In the mid-to-late 20th century, several models underscored the importance of novelty-seeking, interest, and autonomy in driving intrinsic motivation. Novelty-seeking was suggested to energize approach behavior via curiosity and exploration that leads to skill mastery, information attainment, or learning (Kaplan & Oudeyer, 2007 ). Interest and enjoyment in an activity might boost intrinsic motivation by engendering ‘flow’, a prolonged state of focus and enjoyment during task engagement that stretches one's skillset (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975 ; Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009 ). Finally, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1980 ) proposed that human needs for competence, achievement, and autonomy drive intrinsic motivation, aligning with observations that intrinsic motivation stems from an internal perceived autonomy during task engagement (DeCharms, 1968 ; Lamal, 2003 ). These models highlight the role of achievement and perceived autonomy (DeCharms, 1968 ) in driving intrinsic motivation, coinciding with current computational frameworks of intrinsic reward (Chew, Blain, Dolan, & Rutledge, 2021 ; Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma, & Matsumoto, 2010 ).

The introduction of external goals: a shift to extrinsic motivation

While intrinsic motivation has been proposed to be divorced from external reinforcers, our understanding of motivation has been led largely by using external reinforcers as conceptual and experimental tools. Here, we briefly review historical perspectives on external drivers of motivated behavior, outlining prominent goal- and action-focused models of extrinsic motivation.

Early psychological models of extrinsic motivation suggested that ‘will’ and ‘intention’ fostered goal achievement, emphasizing the influence of goal expectation on action and control (Lewin, 1951 ; Tolman, 1932 ). Within this framework, environmental features, as well as an individual's internal state or memory, determine their actions when pursuing a goal, or, more specifically, the cognitive representation of a goal (Kagan, 1972 ). This requires multiple cognitive representations to be developed, maintained, and updated, with a particular reliance on external stimuli and learning (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999 ; Kagan, 1972 ; Kagan & Moss, 1983 ).

Alongside psychological model development, economic models of motivation emerged. These models propose that extrinsic goals, or incentives, elicit motivated behavior via a cost-benefit analysis, where motivated choice occurs when benefits outweigh costs. More recently, behavioral economics has considered how individual personality traits, biases, and irrationalities influence motivated behavior (Strombach, Strang, Park, & Kenning, 2016 ). A recent model (Strombach et al., 2016 ) incorporates various factors into the classical cost-benefit analysis, including traditional intrinsic (e.g. satisfaction) and extrinsic drivers (e.g. money), with negative influences from costs (e.g. effort, pain), which are merged into a single dynamic, subjective and state-dependent factor that drives motivated behavior. Though this approach is powerful, the explicit focus on incentives provides limited explanatory power for various paradoxical behaviors, including rodents overcoming the high cost to self-stimulate certain brain regions (e.g. nucleus accumbens; Nac) or extrinsic reinforcers' dampening effect on intrinsic motivation.

In reinforcement learning models of decision-making, an organism, or agent, learns which actions maximize total reward. This process has been formalized within computational sciences and modern artificial intelligence systems (Sutton & Barto, 1981 ; Witten, 1977 ), where learning and decision-making depend on an extrinsic outcome. One theory suggests that motivated action is driven solely by a need to reduce reward prediction errors (RPEs; Kaplan and Oudeyer, 2007 ), or the mismatch between expectation and outcome (Montague, Dayan, & Sejnowski, 1996 ; Schultz et al., 1997 ). RPEs can also be conceptualized as valuation signals for novel outcomes or unexpected stimuli. RPE-based learning then drives motivated behavior, or action choice, but even if the agent displays intact encoding of action or outcome value, motivated behavior can be dampened by reduced novelty. This highlights the role of novelty, expectation and prediction in learning per se , rather than choice valuation.

In action-focused models of motivation, incentives can trigger approach or avoidance behavior by signaling a potential goal state (Berridge, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2009 ). Incentive motivation thus relies on expectancy, probability, and value of outcomes, which are thought to dictate behavioral choice and decision-making. While greater reliance on stimulus-outcome rather than stimulus-response contingencies has led some to describe incentive motivation as proactive (Beckmann & Heckhausen, 2018 ), others have characterized it as reactive due to the central role of learning from past experience (Bolles, 1972 ). Reliance on an expected outcome was central to behaviorism (Watson, 1913 , 1930 ) and operant conditioning (Skinner, 1938 ), which assume that actions are driven by a reinforcer, and instrumental value is assigned to the behavior itself. Stimulus-response pairs dominate behaviorism and modern theories of habitual behavior (Gläscher, Daw, Dayan, & O'Doherty, 2010 ), where the dependency on previously reinforced actions ultimately governs motivated choice (de Wit et al., 2011 ; Gillan, Robbins, Sahakian, van den Heuvel, & van Wingen, 2016 ; Voon et al., 2014 ). However, this renders behaviors as repetitive, insensitive to punishment and divorced from goals (Robbins, Gillan, Smith, de Wit, & Ersche, 2012 ). Therefore, these action-focused models of motivated behavior almost entirely discount intrinsic motivation since extrinsic motivators usurp control of behavior.

Several limitations of extrinsic motivation models must be considered when attempting to characterize intrinsic motivation. First, for cost-benefit analysis and reinforcement learning, an internal representation of the outcome must first be learned, which requires previous experience of the goal. However, intrinsic motivation can occur for novel outcomes, or behaviors that are uncertain or ambiguous. Second, motivation can occur for activities that may already be fully predictable, marking a significant limitation for reinforcement-learning models of motivation, which assume that reward prediction errors drive learning for motivated action. Third, these frameworks cannot fully explain spontaneous novelty seeking or exploratory behavior, in which no external reward is expected and no cost is overcome (Deci et al., 1999 ; Marsden, Ma, Deci, Ryan, & Chiu, 2014 ).

Separating and integrating intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

A key question is whether intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can, or should, be experimentally or theoretically separated. There is some evidence that they are dissociable constructs at the neural level. The most compelling support comes from case reports of patients with basal ganglia lesions who developed ‘psychic akinesia’, a syndrome characterized by difficulty with self-generated action initiation but no difficulty in performing complex cognitive or motor tasks when prompted (Laplane, Baulac, Widlocher, & Dubois, 1984 ; Lugaresi, Montagna, Morreale, & Gallassi, 1990 ). In patients with alien hand syndrome, medial prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) lesions lead to a loss of intentional motor control, whereas (pre)-supplementary motor area lesions lead to impairments in implementing motor intentions (Brugger, Galovic, Weder, & Kägi, 2015 ; Nachev, Kennard, & Husain, 2008 ). Preclinical findings further show that photostimulation of GABAergic amygdala projections modulates extrinsic motivation without affecting intrinsically motivated behavior (Seo et al., 2016 ). Together, these findings suggest that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation reflect different cortico-striatal-limbic circuits.

Behavioral research primarily supports the view that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are partially distinct, interacting processes. For example, if the motivation for intrinsic and extrinsic goals were independent constructs, they might demonstrate an additive or subtractive effect on each other (Woodworth, 1921 ). Indeed, the expectation (Liu & Hou, 2017 ) and experience (Badami, VaezMousavi, Wulf, & Namazizadeh, 2011 ) of an extrinsic reinforcer can increase intrinsic motivation. However, reports of the ‘undermining effect’, in which an external reinforcer reduces intrinsic motivation (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014 ; Deci, 1971 ; Deci, Benware, & Landy, 1974 ; Lepper & Greene, 1978 ; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973 ) have sparked debate over how extrinsic reinforcers affect internally-motived behaviors (Cameron & Pierce, 2002 ; Lamal, 2003 ; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996 ). One explanation for the undermining effect suggests that the presence of an external reinforcer shifts one's perception of the locus of control over the behavior from internal to external (Deci & Ryan, 1980 ). This implicates a key role of agency, or the belief of action ownership, in intrinsic motivation. While controversial, mounting evidence supports this account of the undermining effect, where various extrinsic motivators (e.g. food, social observation; Ryan, 1982 ) decrease intrinsic motivation when their delivery is contingent on task-performance.

A useful framework for parsing motivated action into intrinsic and extrinsic is the Rubicon model of action phases (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2018 ; Heckhausen, 1989 ). Within this framework, pre-decisional option deliberation occurs, which is followed by choice intention formation and planning, volitional action, outcome achievement, and evaluation ( Fig. 1 ). Husain and Roiser ( 2018 ) recently proposed a complementary model to deconstruct apathy and anhedonia into underlying cognitive processes, including option generation, anticipation, action initiation, prediction, consumption and learning. This parcellation broadly reflects the five main stages of the Rubicon model: (1) pre-decisional deliberation ( option generation ); (2) intention formation, planning, initiation ( anticipation ); (3) volitional action ( action initiation, prediction ), (4) outcome achievement ( consumption ); and (5) evaluation ( learning ; Figure 1 ). Within these overlapping frameworks, the initial pre-decisional deliberation/option generation phase represents the point at which intrinsic and extrinsic facets of motivation diverge, as early drivers of behavior can be intrinsic (e.g. enjoyment, interest, exploration) or extrinsic (e.g. social reward). The differences between these early drivers highlight a key distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, in which the former is a fundamentally proactive process and the latter reactive.

Schematic framework for parsing motivated action. Motivated decision-making and action is parsed into separate phases of choice, action and outcome valuation, combining and building upon separate frameworks including the Rubicon model of action phases, well-established computational mechanisms and a recent cognitive framework describing anhedonia and apathy. During choice valuation, pre-decisional deliberation includes option generation, a cost-benefit analysis and option selection. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation diverges during this early choice valuation phase. Once choice valuation has been computed and an option selected, planning and anticipation occurs. During action valuation, volitional action is initiated and action sustainment or acceleration is maintained. During outcome valuation, outcome achievement and consumption ensue, followed by evaluation based on learning via prediction error (PE) updating. Created with BioRender.com .

If a behavior were intrinsically motivated, the pre-decisional deliberation phase might be determined by biological drives, the need to restore homeostasis (Hebb, 1949 ; Hull, 1943 ), or a state of incongruency resolution (Festinger, 1957 ; Kagan, 1972 ) as described by early theories of intrinsic motivation. In contemporary frameworks, novelty-seeking, exploration, or interest in learning or achievement would render subsequent actions as intrinsically motivated. If a behavior were extrinsically motivated, this pre-decisional deliberation phase would represent the cost-benefit analysis in economic models, prediction-error minimization in reinforcement learning, or effort-reward trade-off computation. Under incentive motivation and behaviorist theories, the pre-decisional deliberation phase would be triggered by conditioned stimuli making conscious deliberation unnecessary and inefficient.

A combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors likely enters into the pre-decisional deliberation phase to guide motivated behavior ( Fig. 1 ). Although intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are conceptually distinct processes, attempts to formally define them have identified several mechanisms by which they interact, leading to questions about their dissociability. Since they can interact in an additive or subtractive fashion, they may indeed be separate, independent drivers of behavior that are amalgamated during a pre-decisional deliberation phase of behavioral choice.

Measuring intrinsic motivation

Human behavior.

Early attempts to quantify intrinsic motivation were largely based on behavioral observation, wherein intrinsic motivation was measured as free choice of an activity in the absence of an external stimulus or performance rating (Butler & Nisan, 1986 ; Daniel & Esser, 1980 ; Liu & Hou, 2017 ). These studies also implemented self-report measures of participants' interest or enjoyment in an activity. While such measures do capture intrinsic motivation as inherent task enjoyment, they are limited by their qualitative and indirect nature, as well as by variability in participant insight. However, more objective measures are difficult to develop due to the inherently unobservable nature of intrinsic motivation.

Since spontaneous novelty-seeking and exploratory behavior reflect intrinsic motivation, one candidate objective measure may be the explore-exploit paradigm (Gittins & Jones, 1979 ; Robbins, 1952 ). In explore-exploit foraging tasks, participants must choose among various options and either exploit a previously reinforced choice or explore a novel alternative option. An individual's tendency to either explore an environment or exploit their pre-existing knowledge is influenced by perseverance (Von Culin et al., 2014 ), which acts as an indicator of confidence in the absence of immediate reward. Healthy adults flexibly employ a mix of exploitative and exploratory choices, where striatal and prefrontal dopamine signaling is proposed to drive exploration and exploitation, respectively (Badre, Doll, Long,, & Frank,, 2012 ; Daw, O'Doherty, Dayan, Seymour, & Dolan, 2006 ; Mansouri, Koechlin, Rosa, & Buckley, 2017 ). While these tasks capture one's willingness to trade-off exploratory v. exploitative behaviors, they do not measure free-choice exploratory behavior in the absence of explicit reinforcers, which would be most consistent with intrinsic motivation.

Paradigms that allow an individual to choose to explore an environment without extrinsic reinforcers, or to engage in a previously enjoyable or interesting activity, would more closely index intrinsic motivation. Additionally, outcomes that relate to achievement or autonomy, without socially rewarding feedback or monetary outcomes, would also putatively engage intrinsic motivation. Task parameters related to exploration, enjoyment, achievement, and autonomy can each be modulated and computationally modeled to determine their effects on free choice or behavioral activation vigor.

Current computational approaches depend on modeling decision-making, outcome learning, or action-outcome associations to drive our understanding of motivation. Traditional decision-making models often rely on softmax functions to compute values of available actions (Wilson & Collins, 2019 ), where action selection is based on the ‘policy’ of the best outcome. Computationally, an action selection process computes the probability of an action occurring in any state and the expected reward. A policy is developed based on the assumption that motivated actions are performed to increase the probability of rewards and decrease the probability of punishment. Yet, in everyday life, our actions can be motivated by an arbitrary cue that may signal an internal rewarding state. For example, a standard algorithm solving for motivated action assumes that all actions have equal probability, yet this discounts the unknown drivers and evaluators of internal rewards. Hence, they act as limiting factors to the applicability of decision-making models in studies of intrinsic motivation.

Neuroimaging

Functional neuroimaging [e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG)] offers a measurement modality that may be particularly apt for the study of internally driven processes like intrinsic motivation. Research using fMRI has characterized the neural correlates of various internal processes that lack clear behavioral indicators (e.g. rumination, emotion regulation, pain perception; Zhou et al., 2020 ; Wagner, N'Diaye, Ethofer, and Vuilleumier, 2011 ), yet few studies have assessed the neural correlates of intrinsic motivation in humans, which likely reflects the limitations in its behavioral measurement. Studies have largely assessed intrinsic motivation via comparisons with neural responses to extrinsic reinforcers during fMRI, which can be correlated with self-reported intrinsic motivation (Bengtsson, Lau, & Passingham, 2009 ; Chew et al., 2021 ; Linke et al., 2010 ). Despite the relative paucity of neuroimaging studies that clearly separate intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation, existing work provides preliminary insight into the neural circuitry of intrinsic motivation.

First, extrinsic reinforcers have elicited amygdala, ACC, ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), and ventral striatal (VS) or Nac activity in healthy subjects that was associated with higher self-reported extrinsic motivation but lower self-reported intrinsic motivation (Linke et al., 2010 ). This could suggest that intrinsic motivation relates to a lower sensitivity of these regions to extrinsic reinforcers, general deactivation of these regions, or that the dampening impact of extrinsic reinforcers on intrinsic motivation is subserved by these regions. Others report that intrinsic motivation (operationalized as the amount of free-time spent on a puzzle-task, which did not relate to task enjoyment, interest, or accuracy), was associated with deactivation in the amygdala, dorsal ACC, dorsomedial striatum, and insula during puzzle-task onset (Marsden et al., 2014 ). This is another piece of evidence linking neural deactivation to intrinsic motivation; however, since these tasks were not related to traditional ‘intrinsic motivators’ like task enjoyment, findings may relate to boredom-reduction behavior that might be more related to punishment avoidance rather than intrinsic motivation per se .

Bengtsson et al. ( 2009 ) operationalized intrinsic motivation as task-performance with and without explicit experimental observation during fMRI scanning, which boosted self-reported intrinsic motivation. The authors found greater neural activation of ACC, OFC, and lateral prefrontal cortex during task-performance errors when participants were observed (Bengtsson et al., 2009 ). While implicating a similar network of brain regions as prior studies, these findings cannot be divorced from error-related neural activation modulated by task salience (e.g. observed v. not).

In contrast, Murayama et al . ( 2010 ) provide a more optimal operationalization of intrinsic motivation, in which participants performed a task that was previously rated as inherently interesting, and successful task performance served as the intrinsic reward. During fMRI scanning, feedback for both extrinsic (monetary feedback) and intrinsic (accuracy feedback) rewards elicited VS activation. Participants then had the option to perform the same task without feedback, and intrinsic motivation was operationalized as time spent on the second version of the task. During the second session, VS activation was only diminished for extrinsic rewards, which could reflect reduced VS habituation to intrinsic rewards (Murayama et al., 2010 , 2015 ). Additionally, greater reductions in neural responses to extrinsic reinforcers were related to lower intrinsic motivation (i.e. task engagement time outside of the scanner), suggesting that neural habituation to extrinsic reinforcers may relate to lower intrinsic motivation. A recent computational neuroimaging study modeled intrinsic rewards as successful spatial-motor task performance without experienced errors, which was divorced from learning (Chew et al., 2021 ). This modeling of intrinsic rewards was akin to the accuracy feedback operationalization of Murayama et al . ( 2010 ). Both extrinsic (monetary) reward and intrinsic performance-based rewards (successful task completion) recruited vmPFC activation, which related to subjective happiness (Chew et al., 2021 ). Although limited in their ability to dissociate activation from task performance per se and explicit feedback related to achievement, these studies are the closest examples of objective measures of intrinsic motivation, and they suggest that putative reward-processing regions (VS, vmPFC) encode intrinsic rewards.

Complementary studies have examined how curiosity, or the intrinsic motivation to learn, modulates neural responses and influences memory recall (Gruber, Gelman, & Ranganath, 2014 ; Kang et al., 2009 ). High-curiosity states augment midbrain and v. activity (Gruber et al., 2014 ), as well as bilateral caudate (Kang et al., 2009 ) and anterior insula (Lee & Reeve, 2017 ) responses, which may improve learning and memory. As these paradigms index intrinsic motivation independently from a rewarding outcome, they perhaps provide the strongest support for partially overlapping circuits of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.

The brain's dopamine system supports a range of appetitive and aversive motivational processes, including behavioral activation, exertion of effort, and sustained task engagement (Diederen & Fletcher, 2020 ; Salamone, Yohn, López-Cruz, San Miguel, & Correa, 2016 ). The mesolimbic pathway, projecting from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to limbic regions, including the Nac, amygdala, and hippocampus, facilitates reinforcement and associative learning by acting as a ‘Go’ signal for foraging or exploration (Huang, Lv, & Wu, 2016 ). Although it has long been known that dopamine transmission subserves motivational processes, some evidence suggests that it is particularly important for intrinsic motivation. For example, mesolimbic dopamine contributes to exploration for the sake of interest (DeYoung, 2013 ; Panksepp & Moskal, 2008 ), and novel and unexpected stimuli elicit phasic dopamine spikes in rodents (Fiorillo, 2003 ; Hooks & Kalivas, 1994 ; Schultz, 1998 ). In patients with depression, deep-brain stimulation of dopaminergic brain regions including the Nac (Schlaepfer et al., 2007 ) and the mesolimbic dopamine projections from the VTA (Fenoy et al., 2018 ) increased subjective interest in, and motivational energy for, previously enjoyable activities (Schlaepfer et al., 2007 ). Dopamine has also been associated with intrinsically motivated flow states (de Manzano et al., 2013 ; Gyurkovics et al., 2016 ).

However, since VTA dopamine spiking is reduced for expected events (Schultz, 1998 ), it may not be a strong candidate neural mechanism for intrinsic motivation, which can occur for predictable activities. Efforts to reconcile the role of dopamine in learning and motivation suggest that while phasic cell firing signals RPEs (Kim et al., 2020 ), phasic dopamine release and local modulation in key regions, such as the VS/NAc, relates to approach motivation (Berke, 2018 ; Mohebi et al., 2019 ). Indeed, while VTA dopamine cell firing occurs during reward prediction, only NAc dopamine release covaries with reward availability and ramps up during approach and consumption of reward (Mohebi et al., 2019 ). Moreover, increasing dopamine in rodents increases their willingness to exert effort, and this has since been replicated across species, including via pharmacological manipulation in humans (Salamone, Correa, Farrar, & Mingote, 2007 ; Treadway & Zald, 2011 ). This suggests that, while VTA dopamine spiking underpins reward prediction and learning, it is local NAc dopamine release that encodes motivational drive.

Opioids, norepinephrine, and related neurotransmitter systems

Though a comprehensive account of the neurotransmitter systems subserving motivated behavior is beyond the scope of this review, we note that endogenous opioid and cannabinoid systems may uniquely modulate intrinsically motivated behavior. For example, mu- and delta-opioid receptor activation underlies the pleasurable effects of opioid and non-opioid drugs of abuse (Berrendero, Robledo, Trigo, Martín-García, & Maldonado, 2010 ; Trigo, Martin-García, Berrendero, Robledo, & Maldonado, 2010 ), as well as primary reinforcers (Hsu et al., 2013 ; Kelley & Berridge, 2002 ). Activation of mu-opioid receptors has also been shown to mediate motivational states following delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) administration in rodents (Ghozland et al., 2002 ), likely via interactions with the mesolimbic dopamine system. Further evidence implicates antidepressant effects of endogenous opioids in both animals and humans (Peciña et al., 2018 ), which many partly reflect improved intrinsic motivation (e.g. time mice spent swimming during the forced swim test; Kastin, Scollan, Ehrensing, Schally, and Coy, 1978 ). Additionally, the endocannabinoid system interacts with both endogenous opioid and dopaminergic systems to influence intrinsic motivation, such as social play (Trezza et al., 2012 ; Trezza & Vanderschuren, 2008 ), and voluntary exercise, in rodents (Dubreucq, Koehl, Abrous, Marsicano, & Chaouloff, 2010 ). Since these systems have been primarily examined in animal models, pharmacological manipulation in humans would be an important next step in delineating the contribution of opioid and endocannabinoid systems to intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation.

Intrinsic motivation and psychiatry: focus on anhedonia

Problems with motivation are observed across many neuropsychiatric disorders, and these often correspond to distinct symptoms ( Table 1 ). This section focuses on anhedonia, a reduced ability to experience pleasure (Ribot, 1986 ), as a prevalent clinical manifestation of deficient intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Explicit studies of ‘intrinsic motivation’ in neuropsychiatric disorders

Note: Cohort abbreviations: AUD, alcohol use disorder; FEP, first-episode psychosis; MDD, major depressive disorder; PD, Parkinson's disease; SCZ, schizophrenia; SUDs, substance use disorders; SZA, schizoaffective disorder. Evidence abbreviations: EM, extrinsic motivation; IM, intrinsic motivation.

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Model of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM- 5 ), anhedonia serves as one of two cardinal symptoms of depressive disorders, where it is defined as the ‘loss of interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities’, (American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ). The second cardinal symptom relates to persistent depressed mood. Approximately one-third of individuals with depression report clinically significant anhedonia (Pelizza & Ferrari, 2009 ), and these individuals are at-risk for poorer treatment outcomes, including nonresponse, relapse, and increased suicidality, relative to their non-anhedonic peers (Morris, Bylsma, & Rottenberg, 2009 ; Nierenberg et al., 1999 ).

Anhedonia remains an important clinical target that, by definition, implicates perturbations in intrinsically-motivated behavior, yet most empirical studies of anhedonia and motivation have investigated their relationship using extrinsic reinforcers. Findings broadly support theories of reward dysfunction in depression (reviewed by Sescousse, Caldú, Segura, and Dreher, 2013 ; Roiser & Husain, 2018; Borsini, Wallis, Zunszain, Pariante, and Kempton, 2020 ), where anhedonia has been associated with a reduced bias toward a monetary reward in individuals with depression (Liu et al., 2011 ) and their first-degree relatives (Liu et al., 2016 ). Children who are at-risk for depression show reduced VS and anterior insula responses to monetary gains, implicating blunted reward sensitivity as an antecedent to anhedonia (Luking, Pagliaccio, Luby, & Barch, 2016 ). Moreover, vmPFC responses during unexpected reward receipt may indirectly relate to anhedonia in depressed patients by modulating task motivation (Segarra et al., 2016 ). Interestingly, reward sensitivity disturbances in depression might not extend to aberrant reward learning (Huys, Pizzagalli, Bogdan, & Dayan, 2013 ) where adults with moderate depression show intact VS RPE-signaling during probabilistic learning (Rutledge et al., 2017 ). Nevertheless, there have been suggestions that perturbations in domains more related to intrinsic motivation, such as model-based future planning or effort initiation and invigoration, may be key in underlying anhedonia (Berwian et al., 2020 ; Cooper, Arulpragasam, & Treadway, 2018 ; Rutledge et al., 2017 ). Finally, affect can also alter both the valence and evaluation of an activity, which can, in turn, modulate the likelihood of selecting a more inherently interesting task (Isen & Reeve, 2006 ). Anhedonic individuals have more pessimistic likelihood estimates and reduced positive affective forecasts relative to controls while also demonstrating greater reliance on negative emotion during future-oriented cognition (Marroquín & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2015 ).

While few studies have implemented objective measures of intrinsic motivation in studying anhedonia, recent work links this symptom with difficulties with representations of future states during early stages of motivated behavior (Moutoussis et al., 2018 ). Since intrinsic motivation is driven more by proactive factors as opposed to the more reactive domain of extrinsic motivation, parsing future-oriented decision-making might provide novel insights not only into mechanisms of intrinsic motivation but also anhedonia. When considering the pre-decisional deliberation phase of motivated action ( Fig. 1 ), the representation of a future state may be critical for distinguishing intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation. For example, disrupted representations of intrinsic reinforcers (e.g. autonomy, achievement, task enjoyment, novelty seeking), energy expenditure (Treadway, Cooper, & Miller, 2019 ; Winch, Moberly, & Dickson, 2014 ), or fatigue (Müller, Klein-Flügge, Manohar, Husain, & Apps, 2021 ) might disrupt choice deliberation and interrupt ensuing stages of motivation. This could critically determine the capacity for self-generated, intrinsically-motivated actions (Husain & Roiser, 2018 ). However, relatively few studies have examined this distinction. One study developed a cognitive task that aimed to capture separate measures of self-generated ( intrinsic ) v. externally generated ( extrinsic ) motivation during the option-generation phase (Morris et al., 2020 ). This distinction linked self-generated option generation (intrinsic motivation) to anhedonia symptoms in healthy adults (Morris et al., 2020 ). However, this task still relies on extrinsic rewards, and there is a need for improved tasks that index both behavioral and neural correlates of intrinsic drivers of motivated behavior.

Summary and future directions

In this review, we summarize how intrinsic motivation has been conceptualized, measured, and related to neural function to elucidate its role in psychopathology. In contrast to extrinsic motivation, which has been rapidly incorporated into prominent cognitive, computational, and neurobiological models of human behavior, knowledge of intrinsic motivation remains limited due to evolving conceptualizations, imprecise measurement, and incomplete characterization of its biological correlates. We identify three potential areas of interest for future research.

First, additional objective measures of intrinsically motivation should be developed. This remains challenging experimentally since even the closest approximations of intrinsic motivation (Murayama et al., 2010 ; Rutledge et al., 2017 ) define the construct relative to extrinsic motivation, and other paradigms (e.g. exploration/exploitation tasks) rely on the presence of extrinsic reinforcers. Rather than defining motivated behavior as intrinsic or extrinsic, a more tractable approach might be to consider separate drivers of behavior that can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Future paradigms could index intrinsic motivation by characterizing the effects of intrinsic v. extrinsic reinforcers on motivation for an activity that is enjoyable. Such a design would enable more complex modeling of the effects of distinct reinforcers, and interactions between them, on motivated behavior, which would resolve inconsistencies surrounding the impact of extrinsic reinforcers on intrinsic motivation. For example, monetary incentives might reduce motivation only when a perceived agency is low, or when task enjoyment is high. These interactions might explain paradoxical observations like the undermining effect.

Second, computational models are needed to characterize intrinsic motivation. Computational models of motivation have been successfully implemented in studies of extrinsic motivation, yet few are appropriate for intrinsic motivation due to a focus on action-outcome associations. However, if the intrinsic reward were operationalized as a measurable outcome (e.g. completion of an enjoyable task), reinforcement-learning models could estimate how intrinsic reward value is represented. Advancements in the computational area could significantly improve understanding of the latent processes underlying (ab)normal decision-making, thereby identifying novel therapeutic targets.

Third, although evidence supports the bifurcation of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation at the psychological level, findings at the neural level are more equivocal. Given the overarching role of the mesolimbic dopamine system in learning, reward value estimation, and exploratory behavior, it is perhaps unsurprising that current evidence supports largely overlapping neural circuits for intrinsically and extrinsically motivated behavior. One potential avenue involves targeted pharmacological manipulations or neuromodulation of cortico-limbic circuits to determine if intrinsically and extrinsically motivated behaviors can be systematically modulated in humans. By elucidating the neural circuits of distinct motivational processes and their associations with specific symptom profiles, this approach would improve targeted interventions for highly heterogenous and debilitating disorders like depression.

Financial support

All authors report no financial disclosures. This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (LSM, grant number K01MH120433) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (MLW, T32DA022975).

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The influence of intrinsic motivation and synergistic extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation.

• International School of Management, Dortmund, Germany

Despite the vast amount of research focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the effects of extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation have been scarcely investigated. Extrinsic factors can be seen as synergistic extrinsic motivators when they have a positive effect on the outcome. The present study investigates synergistic extrinsic motivators that organizations can use to foster creativity and innovation of their intrinsically motivated knowledge workers. The analysis is based on Amabile and Pratt’s dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations combined with elements from Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory. The quantitative data stemmed from 90 knowledge workers of an international consulting company who participated in an online self-assessment. In exploratory factor analyses, extrinsic motivation items consolidated two factors “relational rewards” and “transactional rewards”, while creativity and innovation items resulted in a one-factor solution, called “creativity/innovation performance”.

The results of hierarchical regression analyses confirmed the widely found positive effects of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative performance. Moreover, the results supported the hypothesis that the extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, moderated the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity/innovation performance significantly and positively. The findings showed the higher the perceived probability of receiving relational rewards and the higher the intrinsic motivation, the greater the positive effect on creative/innovative outcomes. At the same time, the results did not confirm the hypothesis, that the moderator transactional rewards had a statistically significant effect on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance. Finally, the empirical evidence provided practical implications on how to stimulate the creativity/innovation performance of knowledge workers within organizations.

Introduction

As work is becoming more and more dynamic and knowledge-based, organizations increasingly depend on creative ideas and innovative impulses from their employees. Knowledge workers’ creativity and innovation are critical for the organizational competitive advantage as they help to enhance a firm’s performance, product quality, and innovative power ( Anderson et al., 2014 ; Liu et al., 2016 ). Creativity is generally seen as the generation of useful and novel ideas while innovation implies the implementation of these ideas ( Anderson et al., 2014 ).

Research has shown that three factors increase creativity in particular: Motivation, skills, and creativity-relevant processes ( Hirst et al., 2009 ; Richter et al., 2012 ; Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). Generally speaking, motivation is seen as “the heart of organizational behavior” ( Gagné, 2014 , p. 414) because employees’ motivation has a substantial impact on their performance and productivity ( Cerasoli et al., 2014 ; Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). Motivation guides the direction, intensity, and persistence of performance behaviors and can be categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation ( Cerasoli et al., 2014 ; Deci et al., 2017 ). Extrinsic motivation leads to engagement when material or social considerations are expected ( Amabile et al., 1994 ). Contrarily, when intrinsically motivated, employees perform tasks out of interest and enjoyment for its own sake ( Deci et al., 1999 ; Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ).

Throughout the last three decades, the positive impact of intrinsic motivation on creativity and innovation was highlighted while extrinsic motivation was often seen as controversial and has been less investigated in this context ( Amabile et al., 1995 ; Anderson et al., 2014 ). Nevertheless, employers cannot assume that their employees are always intrinsically motivated as relatively few people find their jobs interesting enough to work without getting paid or receiving other rewards in return ( Deci et al., 2017 ). Consequently, in order to enhance creativity and innovation deliberately, extrinsic motivators must also be considered. Contextual factors, like HRM practices, are meant to influence employees’ motivation and thus, to impact outcomes like creative and innovative performance ( Byron and Khazanchi, 2012 ; Cerasoli et al., 2014 ; Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). Research evidence on what kind of external motivators foster and impede motivation and furthermore, creative and innovative performance still yields mixed results.

The best-known theory of creativity is Amabile’s model of creativity and innovation in organizations from 1988 ( Amabile, 1988 ; Liu et al., 2016 ). Based upon recent theoretical developments within the creativity and innovation field the model has been updated by Amabile and Pratt (2016) . Complemented with new research findings like synergistic extrinsic motivation and an emphasis on both constructs creativity and innovation, this model represents a promising conceptual framework for the current research scope. According to the concept of synergistic extrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivators can add positively to intrinsic motivation and other outcomes like creativity and innovation ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ).

Although Amabile and Pratt (2016) provide a general creativity and innovation framework, they do not elaborate on the different types of motivation and motivators in detail. In order to close this gap, the SDT by Ryan and Deci (2000) can be employed. The SDT distinguishes different motivation types while addressing the link between motivation and performance. Additionally, the theory reflects how multiple factors like pay contingent and managerial styles impact this relation ( Deci et al., 2017 ). So far, no empirical study was found that has already combined Ryan and Deci (2000) and Amabile and Pratt (2016) models in one research scope.

To summarize, the objective of this article is to clarify the open research question about the role of extrinsic motivators on creative and innovative performance as well as their interplay with intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivators in the form of specific HRM practices, transactional and relational rewards, are analyzed ( Grant and Berry, 2011 ; Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ; Deci et al., 2017 ).

Dynamic Componential Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations

The importance of creativity and innovation is reflected in a multitude of empirical studies, and the number of research efforts has grown significantly over the last 30 years ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ; Liu et al., 2016 ). However, the boundaries between the two concepts of creativity and innovation are still not clearly drawn today ( Anderson et al., 2014 ). Rationales are that focused research and clear, practical guidelines are hampered by the lack of convincing theoretical advances and valid models ( Anderson et al., 2014 ). Amabile and Pratt (2016) recognized this gap and responded by updating Amabile’s well-known model of creativity and innovation in organizations with the latest theoretical developments on motivational factors and their impact on personal and contextual multi-level approaches. New research findings, which are addressed in the 2016 version of the model, include meaningfulness of work, work progress, affect, work orientations, external influences, and synergistic extrinsic motivation ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). It is commonly argued that these factors influence creativity and innovation within organizations ( Davis, 2009 ; Grant and Berry, 2011 ; Baer, 2012 ). Their dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations is a complex, multivariate theory ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). The model (cf. Figure 1 for an adapted version) is broadly clustered into organizational innovation and individual creativity which are displayed as strongly interdependent ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). Both clusters are described with the same three basic multiplicative components that are required to produce something new: Motivation, resources, and processes. The three components of the individual creativity include taking actions due to the sake of enjoyment (intrinsic motivation), individual know-how and abilities (skills), and cognitive/perceptual styles and thinking skills (creativity relevant processes). The three organizational innovativeness components include the openness to take new risks (motivation to innovate), the provision of money, time, and workforce (resources), as well as relational and transactional rewards (HRM practices/processes). Whereas Montag et al. (2012) and Amabile and Pratt (2016) recognize organizational innovativeness and individual creativity as two distinct constructs, others view creativity and innovation as a single construct ( Yuan and Woodman, 2010 ; Soriano de Alencar, 2012 ).

Figure 1. Modified componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations adapted from Amabile and Pratt (2016) .

Self-Determination Theory

Similar to the theories of creativity and innovation, there is also a variety of motivational theories that partially overlap or contradict each other ( Maslow, 1943 ; Herzberg, 1966 ; McClelland, 1985 ; Ryan and Deci, 2000 , 2017 ; Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). The theories share the notion that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are considered as distinct motivational systems. However, depending on the theory, the effects of these motivational subsystems on creativity and innovation as well as on each other are perceived differently. Whereas some researchers like Herzberg (1966) argued that intrinsic motivation (motivators) and extrinsic motivation (hygiene factors) are orthogonal constructs, indicating their independence of each other, authors like Amabile (1993) assume that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can influence each other and even add up positively. This kind of positive effect is called a synergistic extrinsic motivation effect and is reflected in their latest published model ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). Thus, they argue that extrinsic motivation can also lead to synergistic outcomes. One theory that explains various internal and external motivation types and their dependencies in more detail is the SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). The theory suggests that human actions, such as creative and innovative performance, are strongly affected by the type of underlying motivation and are triggered by individual motives and needs. According to the SDT, motivation varies along a continuum between controlled and autonomous motivation( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). Autonomous motivation comprises the intrinsic motivation of an employee and the internalized extrinsic motivation. Internalization is defined “as the process of taking in values, beliefs, or behavioral regulations from external sources and transforming them into one’s own” ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 , p. 182). It is anticipated that internalization of extrinsic motives can also cause similar positive outcomes as intrinsic motivation because it enables self-determination. Ryan and Deci (2000) named these autonomous supporting motivation styles “identification, integration, and intrinsic regulation”. Controlled motivation – on the other side of the continuum – is characterized by non-self-determination which is caused by non-regulation, external regulations, or introjection ( Deci et al., 2017 ). See Figure 2 for visualization of the SDT. Consequently, it is argued that extrinsic motivation is not a one-dimensional construct, as it has often been considered in the past. Thus, previously controversial results of extrinsic motivation effects may have arisen from different views and research settings on extrinsic motivation ( Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996 ; Deci et al., 1999 ).

Figure 2. Self-determination theory adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000) .

The SDT does not only focus on the conceptualization of extrinsic motivation but also on need satisfaction. It consists of six sub-theories that have been tested for decades in numerous work-related studies ( Gong and Zhang, 2017 ; Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). The BPNT is one of these sub-theories. The BPNT indicates that the autonomous motivation of employees is expected to increase when their basic needs are satisfied in the workplace ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). In the case of dissatisfaction of the basic needs, the autonomous motivation decreases and a controlled motivation is anticipated ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). It is argued that such controlled motivation has a negative impact on the performance ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). Although everybody has needs that trigger motives when salient stimuli are present ( Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016 ), the level of need satisfaction may vary among individuals. Motives, thereupon, trigger the motivation to act ( Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016 ). Most need-based theories of motivation postulate very similar basic needs ( McClelland, 1985 ; Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). The SDT of Ryan and Deci (2000) has built on earlier need theories of Maslow (1943) and McClelland (1985) . According to the BPNT, as part of the SDT, there are three basic psychological needs – competence, relatedness, and autonomy – which can be satisfied through self-determination ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). The need for competence focuses on the satisfaction of proficiency as well as the feeling of effectiveness in one’s own work ( Ryan and Deci, 2002 ). McClelland (1985) labeled this need the need for achievement. Relatedness provides a feeling of belonging which is supported by cooperation and teamwork ( Ryan and Deci, 2002 ). This need was also mentioned by McClelland (1985) , labeled as the need for affiliation. Autonomy represents the choice to engage in an activity that is aligned with one’s values out of personal interest ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). Thus, the need for autonomy refers to a need for power over one’s own actions as well as the choice to engage in activities to enable self-fulfillment ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). However, the need for power can also be defined differently. McClelland (1985) for instance referred to the need for power as the need to have power over others.

Intrinsic Motivation and Creative and Innovative Performance

Intrinsic motivation is characterized by a strong valuation of personal investment and engagement ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). Several meta-analyses have shown that the effect between intrinsic motivation and creative performance is significantly positive ( De Jesus et al., 2013 ; Cerasoli et al., 2014 ; Liu et al., 2016 ). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations of Amabile and Pratt (2016) also underlines this strong relationship theoretically. Additionally, Grant and Berry (2011) found that this positive effect increases when work involves service to others. This study aims to replicate the widely found positive effects of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative performance, especially with regard to the group of knowledge workers (see Figure 3 ).

Figure 3. Hypothesized interaction of intrinsic motivation and rewards on creativity and innovation performance.

Hypothesis 1: Intrinsic motivation has a significant positive effect on the creative and innovative performance of knowledge workers.

Extrinsic Motivators and Creative and Innovative Performance

In earlier times, research on extrinsic motivation often supported a negative impact on intrinsic motivation and performance, commonly referred to as the crowding-out effect ( Deci et al., 1999 ; Kohn, 1999 ). Such crowding-out effects are becoming less dominant as extrinsic motivators receive more nuanced analyses ( Condly et al., 2003 ; Hammond et al., 2011 ; Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). Nevertheless, decades of research have not provided reliable guidelines and a common understanding of the impacts of rewards on motivation as well as creative and innovative performance. Therefore, scholars have called for further investigations ( Byron and Khazanchi, 2012 ; Cerasoli et al., 2014 ).

HRM practices are a commonly used way to improve motivation in work set-ups. Rewards, a specific HRM practice, are the most common form of extrinsic motivators in the work environment ( Cerasoli et al., 2014 ). In general, they are provided as a consequence of desired behaviors ( Rose, 2014 ). The most common distinction of rewards occurs in transactional and relational rewards ( Baer et al., 2003 ; Gagné and Forest, 2008 ; Armstrong, 2012 ; Joshi, 2016 ). In the following, empirical research findings of the main effects of each reward type on creative and innovative performance are laid out individually before the focus is set on the interaction effects between these rewards and intrinsic motivation on creativity and innovation.

Effects of the Extrinsic Motivator Transactional Rewards on Creative and Innovative Performance

Transactional rewards are tangible rewards and refer to any form of financial compensation (e.g., increase in base pay, bonus, monetary awards, and external training with certifications). Regarding transactional rewards, Condly et al. (2003) meta-analysis supported a significant positive main effect between monetary rewards and general performance. Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) found that expected monetary rewards can enhance creativity – a specific form of performance – when participants understand the necessity of performing creative actions, either through instructions or prior experience. These results are consistent with the findings by Deci and Ryan (2014) . They found that bonuses for acknowledging the work of individuals are very effective when these knowledge workers expect a bonus. Other researchers, like Malik et al. (2015) , found controversial results: Although rewards in general correlated significantly and positively with creativity, financial rewards showed no significant effect on creativity. Malik et al. (2015) explained this finding with the lack of salient transactional stimuli.

Effects of the Extrinsic Motivator Relational Rewards on Creative and Innovative Performance

Unlike transactional rewards, relational rewards are intangible. Thus, relational rewards go beyond financial considerations. They include praise, recognition, and performance feedback ( Armstrong, 2012 ), for example in the form of thank-you cards, hall of fame postings, announcements in newsletters ( Armstrong, 2012 ), or funding a successful team for a particular project that the team appreciates, to mention some ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). Such rewards require interpersonal skills and depend on managerial and collegial behavior in order to build valued relationships ( Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001 ; Armstrong, 2012 ). Therefore, due to the personal component, it is argued that relational rewards are harder to be imitated by competitors than transactional rewards ( Armstrong, 2012 ). Moreover, transactional rewards “only” require the definition and one-time implementation of the specific financial rewards, whereas relational rewards are continuously time-consuming for managers. Thus, from an organizational perspective, it is argued that both types of rewards differ strongly regarding efforts and competitive advantage. The meta-analyses by Hammond et al. (2011) and Byron and Khazanchi (2012) supported that relational rewards in a controlled motivational environment could have no impact or even negative ones on creative and innovative performance. However, in terms of autonomous motivational work set-ups, supportive feedback and the recognition of managers contribute significantly positive to creative outcomes ( Madjar et al., 2002 ; Amabile et al., 2004 ; Byron and Khazanchi, 2012 ; Zhang et al., 2017 ). Evidence for such a positive main effect explicitly for innovation is provided by Taggar (2002) .

Interaction Effects of Extrinsic Motivators and Intrinsic Motivation on Creative and Innovative Performance

Amabile (1993) stated that the above-mentioned positive boosting effects with extrinsic motivators are more likely when intrinsic motivation is high. In addition to the empirical investigations about the main effects in these contexts, the focus of the present study is therefore on the interaction effects with intrinsic motivation. Cerasoli et al. (2014) showed in their meta-analysis that the significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and general performance was stronger when rewards were granted. However, neither performance nor the type of reward was specified in more detail in their meta-analysis. Amabile and Pratt (2016) assumed a similar interaction effect between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivators especially in terms of creative and innovative performance. Therefore, the following is hypothesized (see also Figure 3 ):

Hypothesis 2a: Transactional rewards moderate the relationship between intrinsically motivated knowledge workers and their creative as well as innovative performance positively.

Hypothesis 2b: Relational rewards moderate the relationship between intrinsically motivated knowledge workers and their creative as well as innovative performance positively.

Materials and Methods

The data was collected through an online self-assessment. The English questionnaire (see Figure 4 ) was sent by e-mail to knowledge workers of a global business consulting firm working in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Participants were informed about the purpose of the survey, while anonymity and confidentiality of their data were assured. No incentives for participating in this survey were given. Additionally, the survey instructions emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions. One hundred and seventy-five consultants received the questionnaire whereby 120 returned it. Thirty of these were excluded because they had either chosen “I just want to look at all the questions” ( N = 2) or had not answered all questions completely ( N = 28). Participants who stated “I do not know” for the reward items were excluded listwise. Thus, for the hierarchical regression analyses, only 82 and 87 questionnaires were considered for transactional and relational rewards, respectively. The average age of the participants was 28.27 years ( SD = 5.62) with an average job tenure in their current organization of 2.20 years ( SD = 2.05). In the sample 42.2% were women. 95.6% of the participants were graduates. This result represents the intended sample of highly educated knowledge workers. Table 1 provides the sociodemographic characteristics of this sample.

Figure 4. Online self-evaluation questionnaire (Inquery).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the polled consultants.

In order to control for common method bias due to the self-assessment of a single source, the questionnaire was divided into three sections: Independent, dependent, and moderator variables ( Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). To measure the independent variable “intrinsic motivation”, the WPI by Amabile et al. (1995) was applied. The WPI is a widely used measure to assess (intrinsic and extrinsic) motivation at work ( Choi, 2004 ; Spada and Moneta, 2013 ). It has acceptable re-test reliabilities of more than 0.60 ( Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihalyi, 2009 ; Robinson et al., 2014 ). Its items have been applied in many experiments to better understand motivational behavior for creativity and innovation at work ( Prabhu et al., 2008 ; Chen et al., 2010 ; Stuhlfaut, 2010 ). Originally, the WPI consists of 30 items. However, due to the focus on intrinsic motivation within this research (originally 15 WPI items) and to avoid survey fatigue, the number of items was reduced to six intrinsic motivation items. Such WPI item reductions have been previously conducted by other authors such as Robinson et al. (2014) (IM Robinson α = 0.71) and O’Shea (2018) (IM O′Shea α = 0.58). These six items were chosen for their relevance to consultants in their work environment. Opportunities to increase their knowledge and skills (IM item 1: Challenge) as well as to solve complex problems (IM item 6: Challenge) are typical parts of knowledge workers’ business surroundings. Additionally, consultants often prefer to take responsibility early on ( Schlossbauer, 2017 ) which enables them to set goals themselves and work autonomously (IM item 5: Enjoyment). Excluded were items like “[w]hat matters most to me is enjoying what I do”. This item was removed, as consultants generally have to work on all issues the client provides them with, irrespective of whether they enjoy it, or not. This item is argued to be more relevant to self-employed people. Moreover, these six items were selected with the aim to cover a broader field of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, no similar worded items like “I enjoy trying to solve complex problems”/“The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it” were selected as Robinson et al. (2014) for instance did. The scale reliability of the intrinsic motivation items resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.54 (Guttman’s α = 0.58). This value represents the alpha after the scale was reduced from six to four items. Although this indicates a reliability index below standard according to Field (2017) , this value is not unacceptable. Guttman (1945) stated that alpha values are generally below the actual reliability ( Sijtsma, 2009 ). This indicates that the current intrinsic motivation alpha could be higher than 0.54. In addition to this mathematical inaccuracy of alpha, Kline (1999) supported psychological constructs with reliabilities even below 0.70. He considered them as still realistic and acceptable due to the diversity and complexity of constructs being measured. All items were written in the first person and participants were asked to state the extent to which each item describes them best on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never or almost never true of me” (1) to “always or almost always true of me” (4).

The research aimed to evaluate the creative and innovative performance at work. Consequently, for the dependent variable creativity and innovation, the focus was set on on-the-job creativity and innovation that arises during daily work. Due to the lack of consensus about the measurement of creativity and innovation among researchers, there is no commonly used measure for these constructs ( Nelson et al., 2014 ; Fisher, 2015 ). The questionnaire of Dorenbosch et al. (2005) was applied because they were among the first who measured idea generation and idea implementation without having strong correlations. The items with the highest factor loadings (between 0.674 and 0.842) were selected for the current research. All items were written in the first person and measured on the same 4-point Likert scale as the intrinsic motivation items (see Figure 4 ). In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.63 for the three creativity items, 0.58 for the three innovation items, and 0.79 for the combined creativity and innovation items. Consequently, scale reliability for the combined construct was given ( Field, 2017 ).

For measuring transactional and relational reward, no standard measurement exists ( Anderson et al., 2014 ). Transactional and relational reward items from Gagné and Forest (2008) as well as Armstrong (2012) were selected. A distinction between idea generation and implementation for each reward item was made to enable the differentiation between creativity and innovation. Perceptual measures were used in line with previous research to investigate the effects of rewards on creativity ( George and Zhou, 2007 ; Anderson et al., 2014 ). The relational rewards were divided into symbolic public recognition, individual praise/recognition from the manager, and performance management as suggested by Armstrong (2012) . The transactional rewards were divided into monetary rewards as well as training/personal development investments ( Armstrong, 2012 ). See Figure 4 for details. Participants rated the likelihood of receiving the specific rewards on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never or almost never likely” (1) to “always or almost always likely” (4). An additional category gave the participants the option to say “I do not know” (5) to increase validity.

In addition, age, gender, job tenure, and education of the participants were controlled. Other control variables were not defined due to the homogeneous sample of knowledge workers working in the same business consulting company and similar working conditions.

Preliminary Analyses

None of the sociodemographic variables (age, gender, job tenure, education) correlated significantly with intrinsic motivation or creativity or innovation (see Table 2 ). Creativity and innovation correlated moderately and significantly with intrinsic motivation ( r = 0.37, p = 0.000), relational rewards ( r = 0.34, p = 0.001) and transactional rewards ( r = 0.30 , p = 0.006). The two measures – creative and innovative performance – showed a significant correlation ( r = 0.75, p = 0.000). Generally, all independent and dependent variables were significantly correlated with each other except for intrinsic motivation with transactional rewards ( r = 0.14, p = 0.202). Univariate variance analyses with sociodemographic control variables demonstrated no significant differences between creative and innovative performance of males ( M = 2.89, SD = 0.53) and females ( M = 2.87, SD = 0.52) in this company. Moreover, no significant difference was found between creative and innovative outcomes and the level of education amongst graduates ( M = 2.89, SD = 0.52) and non-graduates ( M = 2.83, SD = 0.47). Similar findings applied to the different age groups as no significant effect was found. In addition, no significant difference was found between participants who worked 2–3 years in the company ( M = 3.00, SD = 0.41) and those who worked more than 5 years ( M = 2.50, SD = 0.17).

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelation among study variables.

The high correlation of 0.75 between creativity and innovation indicated a one-factor solution. This was supported by an EFA. The results showed a Barlett’s Test of Sphericity [chi-square (15) = 148.61, p = 0.000] and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) with sampling adequacy of 0.757. This represents a mediocre KMO value, indicating that the variables are suitable for doing an EFA ( Backhaus et al., 2016 ). A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation resulted into a one-factor solution. Overall, this factor explained 49.2% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.953, Cronbach’s α = 0.79). Therefore, both terminologies were treated as one variable called creativity/innovation performance. This result is in line with Baer (2012) whose findings also showed no significant difference between creativity and innovation. See Table 3 for details.

Table 3. Pattern and structure matrix of PCA with varimax rotation for a one-factor solution of creativity and innovation items.

To evaluate the transactional and relational reward items another EFA was conducted. The results indicated a Barlett’s Test of Sphericity [chi-square (45) = 566.94, p = 0.000] and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) with sampling adequacy of 0.684. This represents a mediocre KMO value indicating that the variables are suitable for performing an EFA ( Backhaus et al., 2016 ). A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was done. The EFA was conducted to find a parsimonious solution with a high data fit, meaning to select as little factors with the highest explanation of variance as possible ( Tabachnick and Fidell, 2014 ). Thus, two factors were extracted. Although when following the Kaiser-Kriterium strictly, three factors should have been extracted. This decision was based on three rationales. Firstly, the Kaiser-Kriterium overestimates the number of factors ( Field, 2009 ). Secondly, the third factor had an eigenvalue only slightly above one (eigenvalue = 1.098). Fabrigar et al. (1999) have advised to treat an eigenvalue of one only as a reference point not as a fixed criteria because “it is not really meaningful to claim that a common factor with an eigenvalue of 1.01 is a “major” factor whereas a common factor with an eigenvalue of 0.99 is not” (p. 278). Thirdly, the two-factor solution is in line with the common theoretical distinction between the two constructs transactional and relational rewards ( Gagné and Forest, 2008 ; Armstrong, 2012 ). The first factor, relational rewards, contained six items, accounting for 34.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 4.916, Cronbach’s α = 0.86). The factor reflects symbolic public recognition, individual praise from managers, and performance management. The second factor, transactional rewards, accounted for additional 32.8% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.822, Cronbach’s α = 0.84). It consisted of four items that reflect financial and training investment. Overall, these two factors accounted for 67.4% of the variance. Table 4 provides details about the rotated component matrix of rewards and shows that each creativity (idea generation) and innovation (idea implementation) “item pair” of the reward EFA belongs to the same factor. The high alpha values and factor loadings justified the internal reliability and construct validity ( Backhaus et al., 2016 ).

Table 4. Pattern and structure matrix of PCA with varimax rotation for a two-factor solution of reward-items.

Effects on Creativity/Innovation Performance

Since the sociodemographic control variables were neither significant nor did they influence the outcome of the regression models, they were not considered in further investigations.

The hypotheses were tested within two 3-step hierarchical linear regression analyses on creativity/innovation. In the first regression analysis on creativity and innovation performance, the independent variable intrinsic motivation was entered in the first step, followed by transactional rewards in the second step. Afterward, the interaction between transactional rewards and intrinsic motivation was added (intrinsic motivation × transactional rewards). This model [ F (3.78) = 8.44, p = 0.000] explained a total variance of 24.5% (see Table 5 ). Intrinsic motivation had a significant effect on creativity/innovation performance (β = 0.38, p = 0.000). Intrinsic motivation demonstrated the highest significant beta values of all measures and a strong effect size of d = 0.42 ( Cohen, 1992 ). Thus, Hypothesis 1 can be confirmed. Transactional rewards had a significant main effect on creativity/innovation (β = 0.23, p = 0.025). However, the interaction effect between intrinsic motivation and transactional reward was not significant (β = 0.17 , p = 0.089). Thus, Hypothesis 2a cannot be confirmed.

Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting creativity/innovation from intrinsic motivation and transactional rewards.

In the second regression analysis on creativity/innovation performance, the independent variable intrinsic motivation was entered in the first step followed by relational rewards in the second step. Then, the interaction of intrinsic motivation with relational rewards was added (intrinsic motivation × relational rewards). This model [ F (3.83) = 9.70, p = 0.000] explained overall 26.0% of the variance. Relational rewards had a significantly positive main effect on creativity/innovation (β = 0.27, p = 0.008) with a Cohen’s d of 0.52. Relational rewards and intrinsic motivation also had a significantly positive interaction effect on creativity/innovation (β = 0.23 , p = 0.024). The interaction had an effect size of d = 0.59. This represented a medium effect on creativity/innovation performance ( Backhaus et al., 2016 ). Thus, Hypothesis 2b can be confirmed. Figure 5 visualizes this ordinal interaction effect while the exact figures are presented in Table 6 .

Figure 5. Interaction effects of intrinsic motivation and relational rewards on creativity/innovation performance.

Table 6. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting creativity/innovation from intrinsic motivation and relational rewards.

This study was the first to analyze most common transactional and relational reward items as a moderator of the relationship between intrinsic motivation and the creativity/innovation performance of knowledge workers. The most important finding of this research demonstrates the significant, positive interaction effect of the extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, and intrinsic motivation on creativity/innovation performance. In addition to this significant interaction effect, the main effects between the dependent variable creativity/innovation performance and each of the three independent variables intrinsic motivation, relational, and transactional rewards showed significant positive results.

The results show a strong and highly significant correlation between on-the-job creativity and innovation. This study supports the view that knowledge workers of the international consulting business do not distinguish between idea generation (creativity) and idea implementation (innovation), unlike the two-construct approach of Amabile and Pratt (2016) . Apart from the statistical indication, practical circumstances of the consulting business also necessitate that creativity and innovation are handled as a single construct. This business is characterized by consulting services that generally require only a small amount of product design or technical testing. Once generated ideas are put directly into practice, and thus, idea generation and implementation often coincide in time. This finding is not entirely new and complements the existing literature from Yuan and Woodman (2010) , who do not strictly distinguish between creativity and innovation. However, the research question remains open as to whether creativity and innovation are considered as one or two constructs in other work environments. The perception of the two terminologies may vary depending on the mental (consulting business) and physical work environments. More research is needed to link the creative and innovative performance of employees with different organizational settings to foster a comprehensive understanding of their interplay ( Dorenbosch et al., 2005 ; Anderson et al., 2014 ).

Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity/Innovation Performance

An explicitly strong and significantly positive main effect is found between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance. This implies that the higher the intrinsic motivation, the higher the creative and innovative outcome. This finding confirms the results of earlier research ( Hammond et al., 2011 ; De Jesus et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2016 ) and supports Amabile and Pratt (2016) model that the individual component “intrinsic motivation” is a critical predictor for creativity. One reason for this significant effect could be that employees who work on perceived inherently interesting tasks enjoy their work, value their personal investment, and dedicate more time to their activities ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). Generally, more information is being processed while efforts to develop and implement new and useful ideas are being pursued more persistently ( Zhou and Shalley, 2008 ; Zhang and Bartol, 2010 ). An additional reason for the significant effect of intrinsic motivation and creativity and innovation performance could be that the work itself involves service to others. Grant and Berry (2011) found that service to others increases the positive effect of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative outputs. The item “I mobilize support from my supervisor and colleagues for implementing ideas and solutions” could serve as an indicator for supporting the effect stated by Grant and Berry (2011) . This item is the only creativity/innovation item that does not explicitly mention service to others. Compared to all other items, this item showed the lowest mean value ( M item6 = 2.76, SD item6 = 0.75). The highest values are found when improvements for and with the team are targeted ( M item4 = 3.01, SD item4 = 0.65 and M item1 = 2.98, SD item1 = 0.73). Consultants do not only provide service to clients but also help each other on project tasks. Because each project assignment typically has limited resources, success depends on the commitment of each team member. The provision of service to others is promoted by the need for relatedness ( Shiraki and Igarashi, 2018 ). Consequently, it is argued that such a prosocial behavior of consultants satisfies their feeling for relatedness. This, in turn, might increase their intrinsic motivation and so, their creative and innovative outcomes. In addition, Baer et al. (2003) , as well as Oldham and Cummings (1996) provided evidence that employees with complex and challenging tasks, such as consultants generally have ( Schlossbauer, 2017 ), show higher intrinsic motivation and thus, greater creative and innovative job performance. By being able to engage in complex and challenging tasks, it is argued that they can prove their competences and abilities which supports their basic need fulfillment. Further research should clarify the assumed role of the different needs in this context.

Relational Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity/Innovation Performance

The results showed a positive, significant main effect between relational rewards and creative/innovative performance. This result is in line with previous research findings on the relationship between supportive manager feedback/recognition and creative outcomes ( Madjar et al., 2002 ; Gong and Zhang, 2017 ; Zhang et al., 2017 ). The following argument can explain the main effect of this extrinsic motivator: Relational rewards initiate salient stimuli strong enough to be recognized by consultants. Without salient stimuli, no creative or innovative action would follow ( Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016 ). In addition to awareness of the rewards, it is argued that these employees value the relational rewards they receive. Without any appreciation of these HRM practices, less creative and innovative performance would occur ( Rose, 2014 ; Malik et al., 2015 ). Referring to the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations of Amabile and Pratt (2016) , the results showed that HRM practices, in the form of relational rewards, have an essential impact on creativity and innovation. Symbolic public recognition, individual praise, and performance feedback are argued to increase a feeling of competence through the evaluation and confirmation of one’s abilities ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). It is therefore expected that the satisfaction of the basic psychological need for competence will be met. It is assumed that this increases autonomous motivation and, in turn, leads to better performance ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ).

In addition to the significant main effect, the results support a significant, medium interaction effect between relational rewards and intrinsic motivation on creativity/innovative performance. The impact of relational rewards on creative and innovative outputs is notably greater when the intrinsic motivation of knowledge workers is high. This finding supports the assumed boosting effect on performance from Amabile (1993) . Additionally, no crowding-out effect occurred by using extrinsic motivators as defined by Kohn (1999) . Therefore, relational rewards, as a synergistic extrinsic motivator, can add positively to intrinsic motivation as suggested by Amabile and Pratt (2016) . Also, Herzberg (1966) orthogonal factor assumption differs from the current research findings which support dependencies between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivators. One reason for this significant positive interaction effect might be the perceived appreciation of creativity and innovation in the organization. Perception of an environment is subjective and influenced by what an individual sees, feels, and hears ( Atkinson, 1964 ). Perception might change based on past experiences ( Zhou and George, 2001 ; Dorenbosch et al., 2005 ). In order to respond to the perceived circumstances, a stimulus – strong enough to trigger motivation – must be present ( Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016 ). In this context, it is argued that the highly intrinsically motivated knowledge workers perceive that their organization values creativity and innovation. Applying recognition and performance feedback to communicate the appreciation of creative and innovative work is argued to increase employees’ perception and beliefs that creative and innovative efforts are valued within the company ( Armstrong, 2012 ). Therefore, the belief in the importance of creativity and innovation might have influenced employees’ behavior to be more creative and innovative. It is assumed that the likelihood to start new creative and innovative ventures and implement more ideas rises. More attention is given toward making improvements on the job and seeing aspects from different perspectives. This result supports the importance of Amabile and Pratt (2016) organizational component HRM practices.

The theoretical assumption of Amabile and Pratt (2016) on synergistic extrinsic motivators can also be supported with the SDT of Ryan and Deci (2017) . When self-determination is given, extrinsic motivators can add positively to the outcome. Self-determination can be reached through the satisfaction of the psychological needs. Several indicators support the need satisfaction of knowledge workers. The highly intrinsically motivated consultants feel most likely satisfied in their need for autonomy due to task ownership and their willingness to take responsibility early on ( Schlossbauer, 2017 ). Additionally, their feeling of competence is triggered by the usage of their know-how and is argued to rise further with verbal praise and feedback because it complements a confirmation of competence. Moreover, it is anticipated that project-oriented employees fulfill their need for relatedness in their project environment, by providing support to their colleagues and clients ( Shiraki and Igarashi, 2018 ). Since the three basic psychological needs have not been empirically tested, it is recommended that future research should specifically analyze their interplay with creative and innovative behavior. Additionally, an emphasis should be set on the different extrinsic motivation types of the SDT from Ryan and Deci (2000) . The exact and diversified understanding of work motivation with its subsystems should continue to evolve ( Kanfer et al., 2008 ).

Transactional Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity/Innovation Performance

The data indicated a significant positive main effect between transactional rewards and creative/innovative performance of knowledge workers. This means the higher the transactional rewards, which implied financial and training investments, the higher the creative and innovative outcome. This result is controversial to Malik et al. (2015) who found no significant main effect when analyzing financial rewards. This finding is aligned with previous research findings by Condly et al. (2003) on the positive, significant relation between monetary rewards and work performance. However, neither Condly et al. (2003) nor Malik et al. (2015) performed a cost-benefit analysis to validate the transactional reward program. A reason for the significant main effect might be that consultants generally expect a bonus as part of their annual salary for a job well done. According to Deci and Ryan (2014) , such usage of bonuses to acknowledge individual good work is very effective. However, it is argued that the valuation of bonuses is a pre-requisite for their effectiveness because, without any appreciation of these HRM practices, creative and innovative performance would not be likely to occur ( Rose, 2014 ; Malik et al., 2015 ). Thus, besides the relational rewards, transactional rewards as a HRM practice can also foster creativity and innovation.

No statistically significant interaction between transactional rewards and intrinsic motivation on creativity/innovation was supported. This indicates that transactional rewards do not have to imply a synergistic nor a crowding-out effect. The first rationale for this non-significant interaction effect might be that there is no formal creativity-/innovation-contingent rewards and recognition within the sampled consulting organization. The findings of Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) provide evidence that monetary rewards only increase creativity when employees are aware of the necessity as to why creative performance should happen. This finding is aligned with Malik et al. (2015) , who found that rewards need to be present and perceived as relevant to influence creative and innovative performance significantly. Based on current results, it can be argued that the link between these tangible rewards and the commitment to pursue more creative and innovative work may not be specific and clear enough. A second reason for the non-significant effect could be that the standard deviation of 0.85 is very high within a scale from 1 to 4. This number indicates that employees perceive the likelihood of receiving a reward very different among each other. On average, only about one-third of all employees in a company receive rewards ( CEB, 2014 ). Statistically, the remaining two-thirds of employees consider the likelihood of receiving transactional rewards to be low. Therefore, it is argued that the awareness, salience, and accessibility of the creativity-contingent transactional rewards, combined with strong intrinsic motivation, seem to be too little to cause a significant result.

In summary, the two extrinsic motivator effects support the assumption of Amabile et al. (1995) that “the motivational structure is probably more complex than the simple intrinsic-extrinsic distinction suggested by the literature” (p. 957). The results for relational and transactional rewards are also aligned with the SDT of Ryan and Deci (2000) which distinguishes between different types of extrinsic motivation with various effects. The results show that extrinsic motivators can have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance (relational rewards), however, can also have no effect (transactional rewards).

Limitations

When interpreting these results, four main limitations have to be considered. First, the research used self-measurements for all variables as the sole and primary data source. Therefore, the reliability of the data may have been compromised. Although self-evaluation is the most commonly used method of analysis at the individual level ( Anderson et al., 2014 ), it might be problematic if employees do not answer honestly. Instead of providing truthful information, they could indicate how they would like their motivation and creative and innovative performance to be perceived ( Bryman and Bell, 2015 ). Manager reports could resolve this limitation. However, managers have only limited insight into their subordinates’ behavior, thoughts, and informal performance contribution ( Organ et al., 2006 ). Since only the individuals themselves know best how to perceive their environment, the self-assessment approach seemed justified, as suggested by Organ et al. (2006) . In order to minimize distortion and falsification, the anonymity and confidentiality of employees’ data were ensured. For future studies, it is recommended to test the results of the research with longitudinal study designs and to select multi-level approaches that examine on an individual, team, and organizational level – and thus, enrich the database.

Second, this study might be considered limited in its scale reliability for the motivational sub-systems. Many academics only consider a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 or higher to show a satisfactory internal consistency ( Field, 2017 ). Not all alpha values measured in this study met this criterion. While the constructs creativity/innovation performance, as well as transactional and relational rewards, showed acceptable scale reliability of minimum 0.79, the corresponding value for intrinsic motivation did not fulfill this criterion (Guttman’s α = 0.58). Nevertheless, besides the fact that intrinsic motivation had such high importance for the investigated model that it could not be excluded from the analyses, 0.58 is still argued to be an acceptable reliability because the calculated alpha values are generally below the actual reliability ( Guttman, 1945 ). Moreover, intrinsic motivation presents a psychological construct. According to Kline (1999) , such constructs with reliabilities even below 0.70 are still considered as realistic and acceptable due to the diversity and complexity of constructs being measured.

Third, this research has explicitly analyzed intrinsic motivation and extrinsic reward motivators. Extrinsic motivators are directly related to concrete HRM practices, and thus, represent ways in which companies can influence creative and innovative performance. Hence, the focus has been on these constructs. Gerrig and Zimbardo (2016) assume that extrinsic motivators are a prerequisite of extrinsic motivation. Nevertheless, extrinsic motivation was not directly measured. Future research should empirically measure and compare a more sophisticated breakdown of different motivational systems in relation to creative and innovative performance. For example, Ryan and Deci (2000) four different types of extrinsic motivation that fall along a continuum between autonomous and controlled motivation can guide future research.

Fourth, these research results may be limited to the creativity and innovation performance of knowledge workers in a given consulting firm. Generalization issues might occur due to the purposely, non-random sampling of the survey participants as they were generated through the personal business network of one of the researchers. This method was used for reasons of accessibility and resource constraints, as it was the case in several other studies ( Choi et al., 2009 ). For future studies, however, it is recommended to apply different companies and industries. These would enable the analysis of causal inference related to the findings across various industries. Furthermore, future research should shed light on whether different ages of knowledge workers have an impact on their creative and innovative performance.

Practical Implications

The results supported the positive impact intrinsic motivation has on creativity and innovation. However, because not every employee has an inherently interesting job, employers cannot rely solely on the intrinsic motivation of their employees. In order to promote creativity and innovation in a targeted manner and to make use of this often untapped human potential, extrinsic motivators should also be considered. In particular, leaders are strongly advised to understand the needs of their employees, as well as to be familiar with the organizational targets in order to implement effective HRM practices ( Joshi, 2016 ). Thus, leaders should support the internalization of their employees’ goals with the organizational goals by fulfilling the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness ( Ryan and Deci, 2017 ). The research findings suggested that HRM practices in the form of individual praise, symbolic public recognition, and performance feedback along with intrinsic motivation foster the creative and innovative outcomes of knowledge workers. Specifically, leaders could enhance their employees’ creative and innovative performance by providing, for instance, constructive feedback or thank-you cards as well as by funding of a successful team in order to demonstrate leaders’ appreciation of their employees’ work. However, it should be noted that each company is characterized by specific values and circumstances with different perceptions and behaviors of its employees ( Malik et al., 2015 ). Country-specific and cultural differences may require local adjustments to some extent in order to achieve the intended outcomes. Most important, the reward tools have to be salient for the individuals in order to let creative and innovation actions occur. Additionally, knowledge workers need to appreciate the incentives offered and need to be aware of how rewards can be achieved. It is recommended that creative people are recognized for their creative and innovative efforts. Such an appreciation should be done even if the activity itself does not lead to an innovation of economic value ( Amabile and Pratt, 2016 ). In addition, it should be noted that providing a relational reward to one employee may be perceived as negative by another employee who does not receive a reward ( Joshi, 2016 ). Establishing an effective reward system requires time and perseverance. Overall, the aim should be to create a “win–win” situation by improving the innovative capacity of the organization in relation to the goals of the employees.

Academics are still at an early stage of understanding the relevance of environmental factors, their relationship to motivational subsystems, and their impact on creativity and innovation ( Soriano de Alencar, 2012 ; Anderson et al., 2014 ). This survey attempted to make a contribution to these research areas. Overall, these quantitative, cross-sectional research findings help to reduce the ambiguities regarding the synergistic effects of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation on the creative and innovative performance of knowledge workers. The specific external motivators, relational and transactional rewards, and their effects on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance of knowledge workers were tested. By applying the SDT and the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations, this research provides three contributions to the contradictory literature on motivation, creativity, and innovation:

First, the results confirm the widely found positive effect of intrinsic motivation on the creative/innovative performance of knowledge workers. This relationship remained significant regardless of whether other variables were added to the model. Second, the findings show that extrinsic motivators in the form of relational as well as transactional rewards can have a significant positive main effect on creative/innovative outcomes. Third, with respect to creative/innovative outputs, extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivation are not necessarily antagonistic and are best considered simultaneously. Particularly relational rewards were found to add a positive, significant effect to intrinsic motivation on creative/innovative output. Thus, relational rewards in the form of symbolic public recognition, individual praise, and performance management can be synergistic to intrinsic motivation in terms of creativity and innovation. Transactional rewards, however, had no significant effect with intrinsic motivation on creative/innovative performance. This indicates that extrinsic motivators are not per se synergistic, nor do they have per se crowding-out effects with intrinsic motivation as well as with creative and innovative performance.

It is recommended that organizations create a “win–win” situation by enhancing organizational innovativeness and considering their employees’ needs. As every company is characterized by specific values with different employees’ perception, it is of critical importance that employers carefully analyze the needs of their employees as well as the needs of their business to create an effective reward system. This research has shown that relational rewards in particular help organizations to enhance the creative and innovative performance of their knowledge workers, which in turn strengthens companies’ competitive advantages.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset is available on request. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

The study was conducted according to the ethical rules of the German Psychological Society (DGP – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychology) which is the equivalent to the APA. The main ethical principles of the DGP are: No intervention in the personal rights of the polled consultants, who did not belong to a special vulnerable group, happened. Pain, psychological stress, exhaustion, fear, or other negative effects can be excluded to be caused by this research set-up as the survey instructions emphasized that there is no right or wrong answer. Moreover, no drugs, placebos, or other substances were given to the participants. No covered participant observation and active deceptions took place while complete clarification about the research aim, procedure, and results were granted to the polled consultants. Every participant provided his/her informed consent with the first question of the survey. This question stated whether the participants wanted to fill in the full questionnaire or whether they just liked to look at the questions. Moreover, all data was anonymized. No names or initials, just four generic sociodemographic characteristics (job tenure, age, highest education level, and gender) were interrogated. Confidentiality of the polled consultants’ data was assured all the time. No incentives for participating in this voluntary survey were given. As these ethical DGP principals have been considered, no further ethical committee was consulted.

Author Contributions

Research design and survey execution were done by CF. The theoretical foundation, data evaluation, and discussion were a common work by CF and CM. CF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. The critical review was provided by CM and ES. CF and CM contributed to manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the submitted version. CM and ES have provided their written consent to the submission of the manuscript in this form. CF has assumed responsibility for keeping CM and ES informed of the progress through the editorial review process, the content of reviews, and any revision made.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to show our gratitude to all participants of this survey. We are also very grateful to Dr. Goetz Walter and Dr. Stefan Diestel for their feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript which was handed in the form of a thesis. A publication within Frontiers of Psychology is in line with the policy of the International School of Management. The thesis is the only form in which the data has appeared, and it is not archived online.

Abbreviations

BPNT, basic psychological need theory; EFA, exploratory factor analysis; HRM, human resource management; IM, Intrinsic Motivation; SDT, self-determination theory; WPI, work preference inventory.

Abuhamdeh, S., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the competitive context: an examination of person-situation interactions. J. Pers. 77, 1615–1635. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00594.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1988). “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations,” in Research in Organizational Behavior , Vol. 10, eds B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 123–167.

Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 3, 185–201. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 950–967. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., and Tighe, E. M. (1995). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: correction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68:580. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.68.4.580

Amabile, T. M., and Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 36, 157–183. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., and Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support. Leadersh. Q. 15, 5–32. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003

Anderson, N., Potoènik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations. J. Manag. 40, 1297–1333. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527128

Armstrong, M. (2012). Armstrong’s Handbook of Reward Management Practice: Improving Performance Through Reward , 4th Edn. London: Kogan Page.

Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand Company.

Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., and Weiber, R. (2016). Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine Anwendungsorientierte Einführung , 14th Edn. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-46076-4

CrossRef Full Text

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1102–1119. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0470

Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: when does it really matter? Leadersh. Q. 14, 569–586. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00052-3

Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods , 4th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Byron, K., and Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychol. Bull. 138, 809–830. doi: 10.1037/a0027652

CEB (2014). Total Rewards Integration. Available at: https://www.cebglobal.com/human-resources/total-rewards/integration.html?referrerTitle=Search&referrerContentType=systempage&referrerURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cebglobal.com%2Fsearch.html&referrerComponentName=Search%20Results&searchString=reward%20and%20recognition%20&screenContentId=200964437

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., and Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140, 980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661

Chen, S.-C., Wu, M.-C., and Chen, C.-H. (2010). Employee’s personality traits, work motivation and innovative behavior in marine tourism industry. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 3, 198–205. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2010.32024

Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of psychological processes. Creat. Res. J. 16, 187–199. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2004.9651452

Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., and Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: the insulating role of creative ability. Group Organ. Manag. 34, 330–357. doi: 10.1177/1059601108329811

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1, 98–101. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783

Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., and Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). “The effects of incentives on workplace performance: a meta-analytic review of research studies 1,” in Performance Improvement Quarterly , ed. J. Turner (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Researcher Academy), 46–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.2003.tb00287.x

Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108, 25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001

De Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., and Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: a meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creat. Res. J. 25, 80–84. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.752235

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., and Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 125, 627–668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., and Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4, 19–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2014). “The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace,” in Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory , ed. M. Gagné (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 13–32.

Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M. L., and Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job innovation: the impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14, 129–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x

Eisenberger, R., and Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? Am. Psychol. 51, 1153–1166. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.51.11.1153

Eisenberger, R., and Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: a case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creat. Res. J. 15, 121–130. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2003.9651404

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., and Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4, 272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Introducing Statistical Method Series , 3rd Edn. London: SAGE Publications.

Field, A. P. (2017). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics , 5th Edn. London: SAGE.

Fisher, J. E. (2015). Challenges in determining whether creativity and mental illness are associated. Front. Psychol. 6:163. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00163

Gagné, M. (ed.) (2014). Oxford Library of Psychology: The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, (Motivation), and Self-Determination Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gagné, M., and Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation systems through the lens of self-determination theory: reconciling 35 years of debate. Can. Psychol. 49, 225–232. doi: 10.1037/a0012757

George, J. M., and Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 605–622. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.25525934

Gerrig, R. J., and Zimbardo, P. G. (2016). Psychologie , 20th Edn. Munich: Pearson Studium.

Gong, Z., and Zhang, N. (2017). Using a feedback environment to improve creative performance: a dynamic affect perspective. Front. Psychol. 8:1398. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01398

Grant, A. M., and Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 73–96. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085

Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 10, 255–282. doi: 10.1007/BF02288892

Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., and Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 5, 90–105. doi: 10.1037/a0018556

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. New York, NY: Ty Crowell.

Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., and Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 280–293. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035

Joshi, P. (2016). Relational rewards: creating a fulfilling workplace environment. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. 6, 1–5.

Kanfer, R., Chen, G., and Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Work Motivation: Past, Present and Future. The Organizational Frontiers Series , Vol. 27. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kline, P. (1999). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., and Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137, 236–263. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., and Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 757–767. doi: 10.2307/3069309

Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., and Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative performance: moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. J. Organ. Behav. 36, 59–74. doi: 10.1002/job.1943

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346

McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. Am. Psychol. 40, 812–825. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812

Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., and Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. J. Manag. 38, 1362–1386. doi: 10.1177/0149206312441835

Nelson, A., Earle, A., Howard-Grenville, J., Haack, J., and Young, D. (2014). Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion. Res. Policy 43, 927–940. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.010

Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 607–634. doi: 10.5465/256657

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Foundations for Organizational Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

O’Shea, S. C. (2018). Characteristics and skills necessary in accountancy. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 13, 22–32. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v13n1p22

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., and Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creat. Res. J. 20, 53–66. doi: 10.1080/10400410701841955

Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., and Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-level interactions with team informational resources. J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 1282–1290. doi: 10.1037/a0029359

Robinson, G. F., Switzer, G. E., Cohen, E. D., Primack, B. A., Kapoor, W. N., Seltzer, D. L., et al. (2014). Shortening the work preference inventory for use with physician scientists: WPI-10. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7, 324–328. doi: 10.1111/cts.12132

Rose, M. (2014). Reward Management. London: Kogan Page.

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2002). “Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Determination Research , eds E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press).

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Schlossbauer, S. (2017). Successful DNA Decoded: The Top Skills Needed by Consultants. Available at: https://us.experteer.com/magazine/successful-dna-decoded-10-skills-needed-consultants/ .

Shiraki, Y., and Igarashi, T. (2018). “Paying it forward” via satisfying a basic human need: the need for relatedness satisfaction mediates gratitude and prosocial behavior. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 21, 107–113. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12211

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74, 107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0

Soriano de Alencar, E. (2012). “Chapter 5 - creativity in organizations: facilitators and inhibitors,” in Handbook of Organizational Creativity , ed. M. D. Mumford (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 87–111.

Spada, M. M., and Moneta, G. B. (2013). Metacognitive and motivational predictors of surface approach to studying and academic examination performance. Educ. Psychol. 34, 512–523. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.814196

Stajkovic, A. D., and Luthans, F. (2001). Differential effects of incentive motivators on work performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 580–590. doi: 10.5465/3069372

Stuhlfaut, M. W. (2010). Evaluating the work preference inventory and its measurement of motivation in creative advertising professionals. J. Curr. Issues Res. Adv. 32, 81–93. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2010.10505277

Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics. Always Learning , 6th Edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 315–330. doi: 10.2307/3069349

Yuan, F., and Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 323–342. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995

Zhang, J., Gong, Z., Zhang, S., and Zhao, Y. (2017). Impact of the supervisor feedback environment on creative performance: a moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 8:256. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00256

Zhang, X., and Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assessment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 862–873. doi: 10.1037/a0020173

Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 682–696. doi: 10.2307/3069410

Zhou, J., and Shalley, C. E. (eds) (2008). Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York, NY: Tylor and Francis.

Keywords: creativity, innovation, intrinsic motivation, synergistic extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, transactional rewards, recognition, performance feedback

Citation: Fischer C, Malycha CP and Schafmann E (2019) The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation. Front. Psychol. 10:137. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137

Received: 31 July 2018; Accepted: 15 January 2019; Published: 04 February 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Fischer, Malycha and Schafmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Carmen Fischer, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

The role of extrinsic motivation in learning English as a second language among international college students

• Masters Thesis
• Huo, Xiangqiu
• Gonzales, Rachael
• Durán, Elva
• Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
• California State University, Sacramento
• Education (Curriculum and Instruction)
• oai:alma.01CALS_USL:11232551270001671
• http://hdl.handle.net/10211.3/207715

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

What Is Extrinsic Motivation? (Incl. Types & Examples)

Other tasks can make you want to curl up in bed, procrastinate on Netflix, or avoid them at all costs, until you’re finally forced to get on with it.

The reality is, some activities will always feel like a chore. But sadly, we still need to motivate ourselves to do things that are boring, effortful, or lacking in pleasure. This is where extrinsic motivation comes in.

Although some forms of extrinsic motivation have a poor reputation, more autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation are valuable for energizing us to do things we don’t enjoy.

In this article, we delve into what extrinsic motivation is, discuss everyday examples, and suggest strategies to help you cultivate more autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains:

What is extrinsic motivation in psychology, self-determination theory & extrinsic motivation, 4 factors of extrinsic motivation, 3 real-life examples of extrinsic motivation, extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation: advantages & disadvantages, assessing extrinsic motivation: 3 questionnaires & scales, 6 helpful strategies and techniques, positivepsychology.com’s related resources, a take-home message.

Motivation is the drive to act; it propels us to be creative, learn new skills, and persevere with challenging tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Although motivation is essential for helping us achieve our goals, it’s not always easy to come by.

Some people are naturally more motivated than others, and the strength of our motivation can change from day to day (Ryan & Deci, 2020). We experience motivation from different sources and are compelled to do things for instrumental reasons and because we simply enjoy doing them (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Extrinsic motivation represents our drive to engage in an activity to gain rewards or avoid punishments. In other words, we are motivated by the instrumental value of an activity; it is a means to an end (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Some people are fundamentally more motivated by extrinsic rewards. People who have extrinsic aspirations see financial wealth, physical attractiveness, and recognition or fame as more important or worthy goals in their life (Deci, Olafsen, & Ryan, 2017).

Whereas, goals in the areas of personal development, community, and meaningful relationships fall into the category of intrinsic aspirations, which are more likely to predict positive outcomes such as job satisfaction and wellbeing (Deci et al., 2017).

At the heart of it, the SDT is an ‘organismic’ theory; a key premise being that people have a natural tendency toward growth and progression. To develop ourselves, we must seek out learning opportunities, competence, and relationships with others (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

But, that’s not all. The SDT assumes that the systems and organizations that people work and live within need to be supportive of their needs to allow motivation to thrive (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

Autonomous versus controlled

A critical point made in the SDT is the difference between autonomous extrinsic motivation and controlled extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

With controlled motivation, people are likely to feel pressured, controlled, or compelled into doing something. In contrast, with autonomous motivation, there is an element of self-endorsement or “getting on board” with the activity.

We perceive our actions to be voluntary and congruent with what we want or value (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Unsurprisingly, more autonomous forms of motivation lead to better wellbeing and performance outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

To facilitate more autonomous forms of motivation, the SDT proposes that three basic needs must be met (Ryan & Deci, 2020):

• Autonomy: to feel self-determined and have a sense of agency over our actions
• Competence: an ability to do things effectively – a sense of mastery
• Relatedness: our connections with others and a sense of belonging to a group, community, or organization

Blocking or squashing any of these basic needs is likely to create a motivational bottleneck. In support of the SDT, greater satisfaction of basic needs leads to more autonomous motivation and effort expenditure at work (De Cooman, Stynen, Van den Broeck, Sels, & De Witte, 2013), enhanced enjoyment of work (Andreassen, Hetland, & Pallesen, 2010) and less exhaustion at work (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008).

The SDT categorizes extrinsic motivation into four subtypes (Ryan & Deci, 2020):

• External regulation – seeing the cause of behavior as mostly external; the lowest level of autonomy; motivated to comply based on external rewards and punishments
• Introjection regulation – seeing the cause of behavior as somewhat external; there is some ego-involvement (e.g., self-esteem is affected by the outcome); an element of seeking validation from ourselves or others
• Identification – seeing the cause of behavior as somewhat internal; consciously assessing tasks or goals to carry personal value; feeling autonomy and volition
• Integration – the highest level of autonomy; seeing the cause of behavior as internal; consciously identifying and internalizing the value of tasks or goals; seeing tasks or goals as consistent with personal values and interests

The key differences between the subtypes are

i) How much we internalize the value of a task we don’t find intrinsically motivating ii) How much we feel we are in the driver’s seat when carrying out certain behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2020)

Even though autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation look similar to intrinsic motivation, there’s an important difference. Intrinsic motivation is fueled by genuine enjoyment or interest in the activity or goal; autonomous extrinsic motivation is driven by the value we give to an activity (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

We are complex creatures, and our motivational drives are not always limited to one type. The SDT acknowledges that people can be both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated, and may experience different subtypes of extrinsic motivation at the same time (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

We’re likely to view a task as more worthy of our time if we can identify and internalize its value (Ryan & Deci, 2020). The next few examples show the difference between controlled and autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation, and how they might play out in everyday scenarios.

Cleaning the bathroom

Your friends are visiting this weekend, and the bathroom seriously needs a clean. Your initial source of motivation may be the fear of judgment from your friends as they cast their eyes over your grubby facilities (if you possess intrinsic motivation for cleaning, you’ve hit the jackpot).

You can view the torturous act of cleaning as a burden you will forever despise (‘controlled’ extrinsic motivation). Or, you can change your attitude and see cleaning as an instrumentally valuable task. Creating a clean space to bathe is a form of self-care you value (‘autonomous’ motivation). Even though a clean bathroom may also be more pleasing to your friends, that’s just a bonus.

Work meetings

Work meetings can be a slog, especially if you’ve got deadlines and emails to respond to. If the sole value of attending a meeting is to avoid getting yelled at by your superior, you’re likely to feel like a victim, dragged to a tedious and time-consuming fate (‘controlled’ extrinsic motivation).

However, you may see instrumental value if you connect with your teammates during the meeting. If social connection is something you inherently value, you’ll feel your attendance is a choice (‘autonomous’ extrinsic motivation). The meeting itself is still not enjoyable, but it is a handy means to chat with your colleagues during work time.

Learning to drive

Learning to drive is a complex task with an overwhelming amount of information to take in right at the start. For some, the act of learning to drive is enjoyable, but for many, it is very stressful.

That said, being able to drive a car may be very important to you, as you can be more independent. If you’re able to internalize the value of this reward as meaningful to you, you’re more likely to feel like you’re actively choosing to learn. As you move closer to getting your license, the challenging elements of driving will be outweighed by the increases in positive emotions and wellbeing.

When we’re intrinsically motivated, we don’t need to be enticed by the dangling carrot or threatened by the discipline of the stick. We do something for the joy of the process itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Intrinsic motivation is the basis for curiosity, learning, and growth, which makes it pretty important for human development (Ryan & Deci, 2020). If we are only motivated by external rewards, we are less likely to explore new activities or acquire new knowledge or skills that serve no instrumental purpose (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

The problem is, we can’t always rely on intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is extremely personal and limited in most situations. Both at home and work, we often need to tap into extrinsic motivation to get the job done.

Extrinsic motivation becomes more relevant as we get older and have more social responsibilities that limit our ability to do things we find inherently enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Quality versus quantity

There is an undeniable quality versus quantity trade-off when it comes to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. A meta-analysis by Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) found that extrinsic incentives were a better predictor of quantitative measures of performance, whereas intrinsic motivation more strongly predicted quality of performance.

Where creativity is concerned, intrinsic motivation has the edge. Check out this insightful TED Talk from motivation expert Professor Beth Hennessey, speaking about why intrinsic motivation is critical for facilitating creativity in the classroom.

When to avoid extrinsic rewards

We also need to be careful about mixing extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. If you’re providing contingent rewards to encourage intrinsically motivated behaviors, this can backfire and harm intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).

A meta-analysis found extrinsic rewards at work (pay for performance) resulted in better performance on relatively uninteresting tasks, but weaker performance for more interesting tasks (Weibel, Rost, & Osterloh, 2010). This phenomenon is often referred to as the over-justification effect (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).

Contingent rewards are external or tangible rewards offered in exchange for:

• Carrying out a task
• Good performance
• Completing a task (Deci et al., 2017)

Offering a contingent reward to someone for an activity they already love doing gives the impression that the task is not inherently valuable in itself and may be perceived as an attack on their autonomy (Deci et al., 2017).

Prefer Uninterrupted Reading? Go Ad-free.

Get a premium reading experience on our blog and support our mission for $1.99 per month.

✓ Pure, Quality Content

✓ No Ads from Third Parties

✓ Support Our Mission

The following scales and questionnaires are based on the SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Two scales capture the different types of motivation, and one measures basic need satisfaction.

Self-Regulation Questionnaires

These questionnaires measure motivation (or self-regulation) in seven areas: academic, prosocial, healthcare, learning, exercise, religion, and friendship.

Sub-scales can be used in isolation, or scores for different sub-scales can be combined to create a Relative Autonomy Index. The questionnaires ask people why they do things and tap into all types of motivation identified by the SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

All sub-scales and scoring information can be downloaded by members (membership is free, as of the time of writing) from the Self-Determination Theory website .

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale – General

This 21-item scale measures the extent to which basic needs of autonomy, competency, and relatedness are met in someone’s life (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné, 2003).

In this scale, scores for autonomy, competency, and relatedness are calculated in a ‘General’ domain, but there are also scales available for ‘Relationship’ and ‘Work’ domains.

Scales and full scoring information (as well as other basic needs satisfaction scales) can be downloaded by members .

Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale

This 19-item scale asks people why they put effort into their job and differentiates between social and material extrinsic regulation, as well as all the other types.

You can calculate the different subtypes of motivation or get an overall score of autonomous versus controlled types of motivation (Gagné et al., 2015).

The scale items can be found in the appendix of Gagné et al.’s (2015) paper . The scale is also available in other languages by contacting the first or second author.

If needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, people are more able to internalize the value of an activity, even if the activity was initially motivated by external incentives (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Actively support autonomy

When people feel more autonomous, they are more likely to self-regulate and seek out ways to satisfy their basic needs (Deci et al., 2017).

In the workplace, developing an autonomy-supportive environment is achieved by asking questions; taking the perspective of your clients, teammates, or employees; allowing people to vent difficult emotions; and offering people a choice (Deci et al., 2017).

Cultivate a sense of belonging

Supporting people to feel part of a community , group, or family will encourage them to internalize the values and behaviors of that group (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

When people feel related to others in this way, they are going to see value in engaging in activities that are aligned with the group’s values and mission.

Nurture competency

If people feel like they are competent to carry out a certain activity, they are more likely to do it (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

Providing specific, positive, and informational feedback can help people reach competency (Deci et al., 2017). Understanding where or when people feel incompetent could help you uncover why extrinsic motivation may be falling short.

Give people a reason

Motivation research has shown that giving a rationale for doing an activity increases internalization (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994).

Providing people with a solid justification for the activity they’re doing empowers them to reassess the value of the activity for themselves.

Avoid reward systems based on approval

When praise or approval is the only source of reward on offer, people are likely to engage in extrinsically motivated behaviors that are purely ego driven, meaning they’re focused on achieving status or avoiding damage to self-esteem (Deci et al., 2017).

So, rather than highlighting reward systems that depend on the opinions of others, you could emphasize how activities are valuable on a deeper level (e.g., an opportunity to build relationships with a new team, increase work flexibility, or learn a new skill).

Encourage mindfulness

The SDT emphasizes the importance of self-awareness for facilitating more autonomous forms of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

Mindfulness can help people explore their needs, feelings, and values at a deeper level, which may empower them to sustain and seek opportunities that support their autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

If you’re keen to learn more about motivation, there’s an abundance of articles and activities on our site to explore.

These three articles offer a broader understanding of motivation in the areas of intrinsic motivation, educational interventions, and motivational interviewing:

• What Is Motivational Interviewing?  A Practical Theory of Change
• Motivation in Education : What It Takes to Motivate Our Kids
• How to Increase Intrinsic Motivation : 20 Foolproof Methods & Strategies

Here are two useful resources to help build your motivational interviewing skills using the principles of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2020):

• Need Questions
• Motivational Interviewing in Social Work

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others reach their goals, this collection contains 17 validated motivation & goals-achievement tools for practitioners . Use them to help others turn their dreams into reality by applying the latest science-based behavioral change techniques.

Let’s face it, intrinsic motivation doesn’t grow on trees.

Some tasks will forever be boring, effortful, or unpleasant, and we may need external incentives to get motivated.

Extrinsic motivation has picked up a poor reputation as intrinsic motivation’s less attractive cousin, but when intrinsic motivation is nonexistent, more autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation offer the next best thing.

If you want to boost extrinsic motivation, increasing tangible or contingent rewards like money, praise, or chocolate is not necessarily going to be an effective strategy.

Motivation is a complex psychological force that needs to be treated with respect.

Meeting people’s needs for autonomy, relatedness, and a sense of competency is important for people to feel like their actions are self-determined and motivate them to do things they don’t really want to do (Ryan & Deci, 2020).

The next time you glance down at your to-do list and feel a rising sense of dread, remind yourself you have a choice, give yourself a reason, and try to identify with the instrumental value of a task on a deeper level. If all else fails and you really can’t get going, a good old-fashioned reward could spark enough motivation to get the job done.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

• Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between ‘workaholism’, basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. European Journal of Personality , 24 (1), 3–17.
• Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin ,  140 (4), 980–1008.
• Covington, M. V., & Müeller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: An approach/avoidance reformulation. Educational Psychology Review , 13 (2), 157–176.
• Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality , 62 (1), 119–142.
• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin , 125 (6), 627–628.
• Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 4 , 19–43.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry , 11 , 227–268.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne , 49 (1), 14–23.
• De Cooman, R., Stynen, D., Van den Broeck, A., Sels, L., & De Witte, H. (2013). How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for work effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 43 , 1342–1352.
• Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion , 27 , 199–223.
• Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., … Westbye, C. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 24 (2), 178–196.
• Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the” overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 28 (1), 129–137.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25 (1), 54–67.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist , 55 (1), 68–78.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 61 .
• Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress , 22 (3), 277–294.
• Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 20 (2), 387–412.

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

How to Encourage Clients to Embrace Change

Many of us struggle with change, especially when it’s imposed upon us rather than chosen. Yet despite its inevitability, without it, there would be no [...]

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Motivation is vital to beginning and maintaining healthy behavior in the workplace, education, and beyond, and it drives us toward our desired outcomes (Zajda, 2023). [...]

SMART Goals, HARD Goals, PACT, or OKRs: What Works?

Goal setting is vital in business, education, and performance environments such as sports, yet it is also a key component of many coaching and counseling [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (55)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (26)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (24)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (27)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (46)
• Optimism & Mindset (35)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (48)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (20)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (40)
• Self Awareness (22)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (33)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (36)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Affecting Student Motivation in Completing Thesis

2022, Technium Social Science Journal

This study aims to determine the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence students' motivation to complete their thesis by using self-efficacy variables, the need for achievement, campus environment, and lecturer learning methods to the motivation to complete their thesis at the Indonesian College of Economics. This research method is a questionnaire survey method. The population in this study were morning regular students and evening regular students of the Indonesian College of Economics who graduated in 2019 by 311 people and the study sample was 164 people. The analysis used is SEM-PLS and SmartPLS 3.0 software. The results of this study indicate 3 variables that affect regular morning students: (1) Self-efficacy affects the motivation to complete a thesis of 29.1%. (2) The need for achievement influences the motivation to complete the thesis by 31.9%. (3) Campus environment towards motivation to complete the thesis is 37.5%. And there are 2 variables that affect regular night students: (1) The need for achievement influences the motivation to complete the thesis by 55.5%. (2) The campus environment influences the motivation to complete the thesis by 40.3%.

Related Papers

MAHESA : Malahayati Health Student Journal

Nova Mardiana

Journal Universitas Muhammadiyah Gresik Engineering, Social Science, and Health International Conference (UMGESHIC)

Nadhirotul laily

Self-confidence is a belief that a person has that he is able to behave as needed to get the expected results. Based on the results of interviews and observations of final year students, the results of this research phenomenon are related to the confidence of final year students. What is obtained from this research phenomenon is that students must have the drive to increase their self-confidence, because there are still students who are still afraid and don't want to ask questions about their final project because they are not confident and are still afraid of being wrong. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of motivation to the level of self-confidence in doing thesis for final year students. This research is a quantitative research. Subjects in this study amounted to 117 students. The selection of subjects in this study used a non-probability sampling technique with a purposive technique. Data collection techniques using questionnaires and using a Liker...

Lviv University Herald. Series: Psychological sciences

Olena Musakovska

Journal of Advanced Research in Social Sciences and Humanities

Thoyyibatus Sarirah

Maya Qaisara

JURNAL TARBIYAH

Apren Hutasoit

This study is aimed to investigate the factors that influence the completion of students' final task, thesis. The research is causal comparative research which the data were obtained by directly surveying respondents through questionnaire. The population in this study were students who finishing their final task, who in semester 8 students students, with total sample size of 67. From the results of the hypothesis analysis simultaneously, a significant value was obtained of 0.000, which means that motivation to graduate on time, the ability to write scientific papers, and the quality of assignment guidance final possess effect on the completion of student final assignments. Partial analysis obtained a significant value of the motivation variable of 0.012, the variable of the ability to write scientific papers of 0.018, and the variable of quality of guidance of 0.000, which means that partially motivation, the ability to write scientific papers, and the quality of final assignm...

International Journal of Business and Management

Universiti Teknologi MARA

Ainie Aluwi

Anales de Psicología

Jorge Vergara-Morales

Los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar los perfiles motivacionales de estudiantes universitarios y evaluar sus diferencias en cuanto a la satisfacción académica. Los participantes fueron 882 estudiantes con edades comprendidas entre los 17 y 50 años, procedentes de nueve universidades chilenas. Los perfiles motivacionales se identificaron mediante análisis de conglomerados, siguiendo la combinación de métodos jerárquicos y no jerárquicos. El análisis de conglomerados se realizó incluyendo las siguientes variables motivacionales: (1) motivación autónoma, (2) motivación controlada, (3) percepción de apoyo a la autonomía, y (4) percepción de control de la autonomía. Las diferencias entre los perfiles se evaluaron a través de la prueba Anova unifactorial, considerando el cálculo del tamaño del efecto y el análisis post-hoc de Games-Howell. Los resultados del análisis de conglomerados apoyaron una solución de cuatro perfiles motivacionales: mala calidad (n = 167), baja cantidad (n = 144), buena calidad (n = 333), y alta cantidad (n = 238). Además, los estudiantes agrupados en los perfiles con mayores niveles de autonomía para el aprendizaje, presentaron los niveles más altos de satisfacción académica. Como conclusión, se destaca la importancia que tienen los factores motivacionales para facilitar el desarrollo del bienestar de los estudiantes universitarios. Palabras clave: motivación autónoma, motivación controlada, estilo motivacional docente, satisfacción académica, análisis de conglomerados.

International journal of academic research in business & social sciences

SITI NURANI ZULKFLI

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

How helping employees find the things which inspire their heart contribute to their intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation?

Intrinsic motivation is enhanced when employees find things that inspire their heart, as it taps into their personal passions and interests. This leads to a sense of enjoyment and fulfillment in their work.

Helping employees find the things that inspire their heart can greatly contribute to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the internal desire and enjoyment that individuals experience when engaging in an activity for its own sake, without any external rewards or incentives. When employees are able to connect with their personal passions and interests at work, they experience a deeper sense of purpose and fulfillment. This connection ignites their intrinsic motivation, as they are genuinely inspired to do their best and derive satisfaction from their work.

By identifying and nurturing what inspires employees' hearts, organizations can create an environment that promotes autonomy, mastery, and purpose - the three key elements of intrinsic motivation as described by Daniel Pink in his book "Drive". Employees are given the freedom to pursue tasks and projects aligned with their inspirations, allowing them to exercise their creativity and expertise. This sense of autonomy fosters a greater sense of ownership and pride in their work, leading to increased intrinsic motivation.

Furthermore, when employees are inspired, they tend to exhibit higher levels of engagement and dedication. They are more likely to go above and beyond their basic job responsibilities, actively seek out challenges, and persist in the face of obstacles. This level of commitment and effort contributes to their extrinsic motivation , as they are likely to be recognized, rewarded , and promoted based on their outstanding performance. Inspired employees are also more likely to be seen as valuable assets within the organization, which can lead to increased opportunities for career advancement and financial incentives.

In summary, helping employees find the things that inspire their heart enhances both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It taps into their personal passions, fueling their intrinsic motivation, while also leading to increased engagement and recognition, thus boosting their extrinsic motivation. Creating an environment that encourages and supports employees' inspirations can result in a more motivated, productive, and satisfied workforce.

Learn more about motivation here: brainly.com/question/32256373

Related Questions

A nutritional poverty trap exists when a household does not have enough calories to work effectively. Draw a diagram that includes both the ""wealth effect"" in nutrition and a nutritional poverty trap. Indicate on the diagram the minimum amount of calories needed to escape the trap and the wealth effect

Nutritional poverty trap and its effectThe concept of nutritional poverty trap is associated with the continuous cycle of poverty.

It arises when a household does not have enough calories to work effectively and its members are undernourished. This situation causes low productivity and reduced income, leading to decreased caloric intake. This cycle keeps on going and makes the household trapped in nutritional poverty.

A wealth effect in nutrition is a phenomenon that links nutrition to income and economic growth. As a country or an individual's income increases, so does their food consumption. This leads to an increase in the average number of calories consumed. The wealth effect leads to better nutrition and, in turn, better health, leading to better income and economic growth.Both nutritional poverty trap and wealth effect in nutrition can be represented diagrammatically.

The diagram below illustrates both of these concepts: [tex]X[/tex]-axis represents the amount of income or wealth while the [tex]Y[/tex]-axis represents the amount of calories. When the household's income or wealth is low, the household may consume only enough calories to sustain basic activities. As income or wealth increases, the household has the ability to consume more calories.

The minimum amount of calories required to escape the poverty trap is represented by the vertical dotted line. If the household's income or wealth reaches this point, they can consume enough calories to be productive and improve their health.The wealth effect is represented by the upward slope of the graph.

As income or wealth increases, the average number of calories consumed by the household also increases. The nutritional poverty trap is represented by the horizontal part of the curve. It shows that no matter how much the household's income or wealth increases, they still do not consume enough calories to escape poverty. Hence, the nutritional poverty trap is a major obstacle for households with low income, and the solution is to provide them with access to nutritious and affordable food.

To learn more about proverty:

https://brainly.com/question/29519010

Question Completion Status: A Moving to another question will save this response. Question 1 of 16 Question 1 2 points Seve Ansv Friends Partnership has three partners. The balance of each partner' capital is Alia $48,000, Mariam $50,000 and Fatima $52,000. Alia withdraws from the Partnership. The remaining partners, Mariam and Fatima, agreed to pay cash of $58,000 for Alia from partnership. The partners share income and loss equally Required How much is the capital balance for the remaining partners Mariam and Fatima after the withdrawal of Alia Please DO NOT use the "S" and "," signs in you ansewr. For example, if the right answer is Mariam $75,000 and Fatima $85,000, it should be EXACTLY written as: 75000 85000 Mariam Fatima Moving to another question will save this response.

The capital balance for the remaining partners, Mariam and Fatima, after the withdrawal of Alia is $77,000 for Mariam and $79,000 for Fatima.

To calculate the new capital balances, we start with the total capital before the withdrawal, which is the sum of each partner's capital: $48,000 + $50,000 + $52,000 = $150,000.

Since the remaining partners agreed to pay cash of $58,000 to Alia, we subtract this amount from the total capital: $150,000 - $58,000 = $92,000.

Next, we divide the remaining capital equally between Mariam and Fatima since they share income and loss equally: $92,000 / 2 = $46,000.

Finally, we add the individual capital balances of Mariam and Fatima to the amount they received from the withdrawal: Mariam: $46,000 + $31,000 = $77,000, Fatima: $46,000 + $33,000 = $79,000.

Therefore, the capital balance for the remaining partners, Mariam and Fatima, is $77,000 and $79,000 respectively.

learn more about " capital ":- https://brainly.com/question/23631000

Rondos Renegades is analyzing a proposed project. The company expects to sell 2,400 units, +/- 4 percent. The expected variable cost per unit is $280 and the expected fixed costs are $495,000. Cost estimates are considered accurate within a plus or minus 2 percent range. The depreciation expense is $95,000. The sales price is estimated at $740 per unit, plus or minus 5 percent. What is the sales revenue under the best case scenario? Multiple Choice: $1,776,000 $1,592,490 $1,939,392 $1,897,896 $1,799,242.00

The sales revenue under the best case scenario is c) $1,939,392.

To calculate the sales revenue under the best-case scenario, we need to consider the highest possible values for the variables .

The highest sales volume would be 2,400 units + 4% of 2,400 units = 2,496 units.

The highest sales price would be $740 per unit + 5% of $740 = $777 per unit.

Therefore, the sales revenue under the best-case scenario would be:

Sales revenue = Number of units sold ×Sales price per unit

Sales revenue = 2,496 units × $777 per unit

Sales revenue = $1,939,392

Hence, the sales revenue under the best-case scenario is $1,939,392.

Learn more about sales revenue here:

brainly.com/question/28580932

Dana Company manufactures and sells a single product. The following costs were incurred during the company's first year of operations: Variable costs per unit: Manufacturing: Direct materials $ 20 Direct labor Variable manufacturing overhead $3 Variable selling and administrative $3 Fixed costs per year: Fixed manufacturing overhead $ 250,000 Fixed selling and administrative expenses $120,000 During the year, the company produced 18,000 units and sold 15,000 units. The selling price of the company's product is $65 per unit. Required: Assume that the company uses absorption costing: a) Compute the unit product cost. (3 marks) (5 marks) b) Prepare an income statement for the year (use the detailed format of income statement which shows the calculation of the cost of goods sold).

(a) Unit product cost under absorption costing: To calculate the unit product cost under absorption costing, we need to consider both variable and fixed manufacturing costs. Variable manufacturing cost per unit: Direct materials = $20 Direct labor = $0 (already accounted for in fixed manufacturing overhead) Variable manufacturing overhead = $3 Fixed manufacturing cost per unit: Total fixed manufacturing overhead = $250,000 Number of units produced = 18,000 Fixed manufacturing cost per unit = Total fixed manufacturing overhead / Number of units produced Total unit product cost: Unit product cost = Variable manufacturing cost per unit + Fixed manufacturing cost per unit b) Income statement for the year (detailed format showing calculation of cost of goods sold): Dana Company Income Statement For the Year Ended [Year] Sales revenue : (15,000 units sold x $65 per unit) Less: Cost of goods sold: Beginning inventory Cost of goods manufactured (18,000 units x Unit product cost from part a) Ending inventory Gross profit Less: Selling and administrative expenses (Variable selling and administrative + Fixed selling and administrative) Net income In the income statement, the cost of goods sold includes the cost of beginning inventory, the cost of goods manufactured (which is calculated using the unit product cost), and the adjustment for ending inventory. Gross profit is determined by subtracting the cost of goods sold from the sales revenue.

Selling and administrative expenses (both variable and fixed) are then deducted to arrive at the net income. Please note that the actual calculations for the unit product cost and income statement depend on the specific values provided in the question

To know more about unit production cost please visit:

brainly.com/question/31936853

what might a decrease in sales of new cars indicate about the state of the economy? what would it not necessarily indicate?

A decrease in sales of new cars can indicate a slowdown or weakness in the state of the economy .

It suggests that consumers are less confident in making large purchases, which can be a sign of reduced disposable income or concerns about future economic stability . However, a decrease in car sales does not necessarily indicate the overall health of the economy. It could also be influenced by factors specific to the automotive industry, such as changes in consumer preferences, availability of alternative transportation options, or supply chain disruptions impacting the production and delivery of vehicles.

Economic stability refers to a state in which an economy experiences steady and predictable growth, low inflation , low unemployment rates, and a stable financial system. It is characterized by an absence of extreme fluctuations or shocks that can disrupt economic activities and cause uncertainties.

To learn more about economic stability, click here:

brainly.com/question/1315045

In a market for car insurance, which of the following are examples of statistical discrimination? Instructions: In order to receive full credit, you must make a selection for each option. For correct answer(s), click the option once to place a check mark. For incorrect answer(s), click the option twice to empty the box. Premiums are adjusted based on the zip code of the insured. Premiums are adjusted based on the color of the car. ?Premiums are adjusted based on the driving record of the insured. ? Premiums are adjusted based on the model of the car.

The following are the examples of statistical discrimination in a market for car insurance:Premiums are adjusted based on the zip code of the insured.Premiums are adjusted based on the driving record of the insured.Long AnswerIn a market for car insurance, statistical discrimination happens.

when the insurance companies use demographic information , like age, gender, and location to set car insurance rates, instead of the driving record of the policyholder. Statistical discrimination is deemed inappropriate as it is unrelated to the policyholder's risk, violates anti-discrimination laws, and unfairly penalizes people.A statistical discrimination is determined by grouping people together into categories or groups, based on data and statistical analyses. Some characteristics can be included, like age, location , and gender.

Car insurance companies utilize such groupings to evaluate car insurance rates for individuals in particular categories, such as age groups or regions.Insurance firms are allowed to use demographics to help decide the rates. However, it should not be the sole basis for their decision. When insurance firms decide rates based on arbitrary criteria, it is referred to as statistical discrimination. In a market for car insurance , statistical discrimination includes adjusting premiums based on zip code of the insured or driving record of the insured. ExplanationStatistical discrimination is the act of dividing people into groups based on their demographic or other characteristics. Car insurance firms may use statistical analyses to assess risks and adjust rates accordingly. However, insurers must ensure that their evaluation of risk and rate-setting does not breach anti-discrimination legislation or harm particular groups of individuals. Car insurance rates should be evaluated using the policyholder's driving record and accident history, as well as vehicle specifics and other applicable criteria.

To know more about statistical visit:

https://brainly.com/question/32201536

Consider a market with the inverse demand function P(q) = a − bq, where a and b are positive constants. The cost function of the firm under consideration is C(q) = cq where 0

In the given market scenario, where the inverse demand function is P(q) = a - bq and the cost function is C(q) = cq (where c > 0), we need to determine the optimal level of output and price for the firm.

To find the optimal output level, we can set the marginal cost (MC) equal to the marginal revenue (MR), as profit maximization occurs when these two are equal.

The marginal cost is the derivative of the cost function, which is MC(q) = c. The marginal revenue can be calculated using the inverse demand function: MR(q) = P(q) + q * dP/dq. Taking the derivative of the inverse demand function, we have dP/dq = -b. Substituting these values into the marginal revenue equation, we get MR(q) = a - bq - bq = a - 2bq.

Now, equating MC and MR, we have c = a - 2bq. Solving for q, we find q = (a - c) / (2b).

To determine the price, we substitute the optimal output level into the inverse demand function: P(q) = a - bq. Thus, the price is P = a - b * ((a - c) / (2b)). Simplifying, we get P = (2a + c) / 2.

The optimal output level for the firm is q = (a - c) / (2b), and the corresponding price is P = (2a + c) / 2.

To know more about  cost , visit

https://brainly.com/question/28147009

The sactions against Russia will increase world market price of oil given that Russia is a member of OPEC, all else equal. True OR False

The statement is false. Imposing sanctions against Russia, even if it is a member of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), does not necessarily imply an increase in the world market price of oil. The relationship between sanctions and oil prices is complex and depends on various factors , including the extent of the sanctions, global oil supply and demand dynamics , and the responses of other oil- producing countries .

The impact of sanctions on oil prices is not straightforward. While Russia is a significant oil producer as an OPEC member, the effect of sanctions on oil prices is determined by the overall global supply and demand dynamics .

Sanctions typically aim to restrict the targeted country's access to international markets , potentially leading to reduced oil exports. However, the global oil market is influenced by various factors such as production levels of other oil-producing countries , geopolitical events , economic conditions , and demand from major consumers.

If the sanctions significantly disrupt Russia's oil production or exports, it could potentially reduce global oil supply and push prices upward. However, the actual impact would depend on the ability of other oil-producing countries to compensate for any supply shortage .

To learn more about impact of sanctions click here : brainly.com/question/29890247

A company is planning to expand its business after 5 years from now. The expected money required for the expansion program is $50 000 000. The company can invest $5 000 000 at the end of every year for the next five years. If the assured rate of return of investment is 10% for the company, check whether the accumulated sum in the account would be sufficient to meet the fund for the expansion program. If not, find the difference in amounts for which the company should make some other arrangement after 5 years?

the answer is, the accumulated sum in the account would be sufficient to meet the fund for the expansion program, and there is no need to make any other arrangements.

Planning for the expansion of business and calculating the required funds to meet the objectives is essential for companies. The given problem is an application of compound interest. The company intends to expand its business, and it requires $50,000,000 after 5 years. It plans to invest $5,000,000 every year for the next five years to generate a return of 10%. The problem is to find whether the accumulated sum in the account would be sufficient to meet the required fund for the expansion program and, if not, find the difference in amounts for which the company should make some other arrangement after 5 years.Let us use the formula to find the future value of the investments

P = A(1+r/n)^(nt)

Here,P = Future ValueA = Initial Investmentr = Rate of Returnn = Number of times compounded per yeart = Number of yearsInitially,

the company can invest $5,000,000 per year for the next 5 years, and the rate of return is 10%. Thus, the future value of these investments is:

P = 5,000,000[(1 + 0.10/1)^(1*5) - 1]/(0.10/1)P = 31,825,625.87

At the end of 5 years, the amount in the account is $31,825,625.87. Now, let us find the future value of this amount after 5 years, with the same rate of return:

FV = 31,825,625.87(1 + 0.10/1)^(1*5)FV = 52,044,888.46

Comparing this value with the required amount of $50,000,000, we can see that the amount in the account would be sufficient to meet the required fund for the expansion program. Hence, the company does not need to make any other arrangements for the expansion program. The accumulated amount in the account is more than sufficient to cover the expenses, so there will be no difference between the amount required and the actual value.

To know more about company visit;

brainly.com/question/30532251

Lear Inc. has $800,000 in current assets, $350,000 of which are considered permanent current assets. In addition, the firm has $600.000 Invested in capital assets. a. Lear wishes to finance all capital assets and half of its permanent current assets with long-term financing costing 10 mm term financing currently costs 5 percent. Lear's earnings before Interest and taxes are $200,000. Determine Lear's earnings under this financing plan. The tax rate 1= 30 percent. Earnings after taxes b. As an alternative. Lear might wish to finance all capital assets and permanent current assets plus half of its temporary current assets with long-term financing. The same interest rates apply as in part a. Earnings before interest and taxes will be $200,000. What will be Lear's earnings after taxes? The tax rate is 30 percent. Earnings after taxes c. This part of the question is not part of your Connect assignment. tax

Under the financing plan, Lear's earnings after taxes would be $115,500, and with the alternative financing plan , Lear's earnings after taxes would be $105,000.

In the given scenario, Lear Inc. has two financing options: one where it finances capital assets and half of permanent current assets with long-term financing , and the other where it finances capital assets, permanent current assets, and half of temporary current assets with long-term financing.

Under the first financing plan, the earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $200,000 will be reduced by interest expense of $35,000 (5% of $700,000) and then taxed at a 30% rate , resulting in earnings after taxes of $115,500.

Under the alternative financing plan, the EBIT of $200,000 will be reduced by interest expense of $50,000 (5% of $1,000,000) and then taxed at a 30% rate, resulting in earnings after taxes of $105,000.

The difference in earnings after taxes between the two financing plans is $10,500. This indicates that the choice of financing plan can have a significant impact on the company's profitability . It is important for Lear Inc. to carefully evaluate the financing options and consider the trade-offs between interest expense and tax implications in order to make an informed decision that maximizes its earnings .

To know more about taxes , visit:

https://brainly.com/question/13448049

: At 6.50 percent interest, how long does it take to double your money? (Enter rounded answer as directed, but do not use rounded numbers in intermediate calculations. Round your answer to 2 decimal places (e.g., 32.16).)

it takes approximately 11.08 years to double your money at a 6.50 percent interest rate.

To calculate the time it takes to double your money at a given interest rate, you can use the rule of 72. The rule of 72 states that you can approximate the number of years it takes to double your money by dividing 72 by the interest rate.

In this case, with an interest rate of 6.50 percent, we can apply the rule of 72:

Time = 72 / Interest rate

Time = 72 / 6.50 = 11.08 years

Therefore, it takes approximately 11.08 years to double your money at a 6.50 percent interest rate.

To know more about Interest Rate related question visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30393144

Robert wants to accumulate at least $45,000 by depositing $1,300 at the end of each month into a fund that earns interest at 5.25% compounded monthly. a. How many deposits does he need to make in order to reach his goal? Round to the next payment b. How long will it take Robert to reach his goal? year(s) month(s) Express the answer in years and months, rounded to the next payment period You plan to save money for a down payment of $41,000 to purchase an apartment. You can only afford to save $6,000 at the end of every 6 months into an account that earns interest at 4.25% compounded monthly. How long will it take you to save the planned amount? years months Express the answers in years and months, rounded to the next payment period Lush Gardens Co. bought a new truck for $50,000. It paid $5,000 of this amount as a down payment and financed the balance at 6.50% compounded semi-annually. If the company makes payments of $2,100 at the end of every month, how long will it take to settle the loan? years months

a. To calculate the number of deposits Robert needs to make in order to reach his goal of $45,000, we can use the future value of an ordinary annuity formula:

FV = P * [(1 + r)^n - 1] / r

FV = Future value ($45,000)

P = Monthly deposit ($1,300)

r = Interest rate per period (5.25% divided by 12)

n = Number of deposits

Plugging in the values:

$45,000 = $1,300 * [(1 + 0.0525/12)^n - 1] / (0.0525/12)

Solving for n:

Since we need a whole number of deposits, rounding up to the next payment, Robert needs to make 42 deposits to reach his goal.

b. To calculate how long it will take Robert to reach his goal in years and months, we divide the number of deposits (42) by 12 to get the number of years, and take the remainder to calculate the number of months:

42 deposits ÷ 12 = 3 years (no remainder)

Therefore, it will take Robert 3 years to reach his goal.

For the next set of questions:

You plan to save money for a down payment of $41,000 to purchase an apartment. You can only afford to save $6,000 at the end of every 6 months into an account that earns interest at 4.25% compounded monthly.

Using a similar approach:

Future value formula:

FV = Future value ($41,000)

P = Semi-annual deposit ($6,000)

r = Interest rate per period (4.25% divided by 12)

$41,000 = $6,000 * [(1 + 0.0425/12)^n - 1] / (0.0425/12)

Since we need a whole number of deposits, rounding up to the next payment, it will take approximately 7 deposits (3.5 years) to save the planned amount.

Lush Gardens Co. bought a new truck for $50,000. It paid $5,000 of this amount as a down payment and financed the balance at 6.50% compounded semi-annually . If the company makes payments of $2,100 at the end of every month, we can calculate how long it will take to settle the loan using the future value of an ordinary annuity formula:

FV = Future value ($50,000 - $5,000 = $45,000)

P = Monthly payment ($2,100)

r = Interest rate per period (6.50% divided by 2)

n = Number of payments

$45,000 = $2,100 * [(1 + 0.065/2)^n - 1] / (0.065/2)

Since we need a whole number of payments, rounding up to the next payment, it will take approximately 30 payments (2.5 years) to settle the loan.

Learn more about Future value here:

brainly.com/question/30787954

Holiday Corp, has two divisions, Quall and Marlin. Quail produces a widget that Marlin could use in its production Quail's variable costs are $5.30 per widget while the full cost is $8.30. Widgets sell on the open market for $14.60 each. If Quall has excess capacity, what would be the cost savings if the transfer were made and Marlin currently is purchasing 165.000 units on the open market? Multiple Choice a. $1534.500 b. $0 c. $1369.500 d. $2.409,000

The transfer cost savings in dollars if Quail division transfer the widget to Marlin division and Marlin currently is purchasing 165,000 units on the open market would be $1369.500.Option (c) $1369.500 is the correct answer.A transfer of widgets from Quail to Marlin can be justified if the transfer price of widgets is below the market price for widgets that Marlin currently purchases on the open market.

The cost savings that will occur can be calculated using the following formula:Transfer Cost Savings = Purchase Cost - Transfer Cost.Purchase cost = 165,000 × $14.60 = $2,409,000Variable cost per widget = $5.30Full cost per widget = $8.30Transfer price = Full cost per widgetSince Quail has excess capacity , it will only transfer widgets at full cost of $8.30.Transfer Cost Savings = $2,409,000 - ($8.30 × 165,000)Transfer Cost Savings = $2,409,000 - $1,040,500Transfer Cost Savings = $1369.500

Therefore, the transfer cost savings in dollars if Quail division transfer the widget to Marlin division and Marlin currently is purchasing 165,000 units on the open market would be $1369.500.Marlin division and Marlin currently is purchasing 165,000 units on the open market would be $1369.500.Option (c) $1369.500 is the correct answer.A transfer of widgets from Quail to Marlin can be justified if the transfer price of widgets is below the market price for widgets that Marlin currently purchases on the open market.

TO know more about   cost savings Visit:

https://brainly.com/question/31366599

after determining the physical flow of units, the next step in process costing is:

He next step in process costing after determining the physical flow of units is to calculate the equivalent units of production. Process costing is a cost accounting technique that is used in manufacturing operations to determine the cost of producing a product.

Process costing involves the tracking of direct materials, direct labor, and manufacturing overhead costs incurred in producing a product. Process costing is used in industries such as chemical, pharmaceutical, and food processing, where products are produced in large quantities.Process costing is done in five steps, which are:1. Determine the physical flow of units: The first step in process costing is to identify how many units were started, completed, and how many are in progress in the production process.

Calculate the equivalent units of production : The next step in process costing after determining the physical flow of units is to calculate the equivalent units of production. Equivalent units of production refer to the number of units that could have been completed given the resources used.3. Calculate the cost per equivalent unit: The third step in process costing is to calculate the cost per equivalent unit. The cost per equivalent unit is calculated by adding the total cost of production and dividing it by the equivalent units of production.4. Allocate the total costs: The fourth step in process costing is to allocate the total costs to the completed and in-progress units.5. Prepare a cost reconciliation report: The final step in process costing is to prepare a cost reconciliation report that shows the cost per equivalent unit, total costs, and how the costs were allocated.EXPLANATIONThe next step in process costing after determining the physical flow of units is to calculate the equivalent units of production. The equivalent units of production refer to the number of units that could have been completed given the resources used. The equivalent units of production are calculated by adding the total units completed to the equivalent units of in-process inventory. This step is necessary to convert partially completed units to a finished product that can be accounted for under process costing. The equivalent units of production are then used to calculate the cost per equivalent unit, which is the next step in process costing.

To know more about determining visit:

https://brainly.com/question/29898039

On dec. 31, 2020, ABC Corp issued 4-year, 7% bonds with $3,000,000 as par value. ABC Corp. received $3,360,000 in cash. the bond interest is paid semiannually on june 30 and December 31 every year. Compute the following: Total bonds premium: Interest Paid in cash semianually: The Semiannual amortization amount of the bond premium: Total bonds interest expense over the 4 yea

To compute the requested values , let's break down the calculations step by step.

Total bond premium:

The bond premium is the difference between the cash received and the par value.

Bond premium = Cash received - Par value

Bond premium = $3,360,000 - $3,000,000

Bond premium = $360,000

Interest paid in cash semiannually :

The interest paid in cash semiannually can be calculated using the bond's stated interest rate and par value.

Interest paid in cash semiannually = Stated interest rate * Par value / 2

Interest paid in cash semiannually = 7% * $3,000,000 / 2

Interest paid in cash semiannually = $105,000

Semiannual amortization amount of the bond premium:

The bond premium is amortized over the term of the bond , which is 8 semiannual periods over 4 years.

Semiannual amortization amount = Bond premium / Number of periods

Semiannual amortization amount = $360,000 / 8

Semiannual amortization amount = $45,000

Total bond interest expense over the 4 years:

The total bond interest expense is the sum of the interest paid semiannually over the 4-year period.

Total bond interest expense = Semiannual interest payment * Number of periods

Total bond interest expense = $105,000 * 8

Total bond interest expense = $840,000

In summary : Total bond premium: $360,000

Interest paid in cash semiannually: $105,000

Semiannual amortization amount of the bond premium : $45,000

Total bond interest expense over the 4 years: $840,000

To know more about amortization amount , please visit

https://brainly.com/question/7274714

.Maxim Corp. has provided the following information about one of its products: Date Transaction Number of Units Cost per Unit 1/1 Beginning Inventory 285 $157 6/5 Purchase 485 $177 11/10 Purchase 185 $217 During the year, Maxim sold 570 units. What is cost of goods sold using the average cost method?

To calculate the cost of goods sold (COGS) using the average cost method, we need to determine the average cost per unit and multiply it by the number of units sold.

First, let's calculate the total cost of the inventory by summing up the cost of the beginning inventory and the purchases:

Beginning Inventory Cost = 285 units * $157 per unit = $44,745

Purchase 1 Cost = 485 units * $177 per unit = $85,845

Purchase 2 Cost = 185 units * $217 per unit = $40,045

Total Inventory Cost = Beginning Inventory Cost + Purchase 1 Cost + Purchase 2 Cost

= $44,745 + $85,845 + $40,045

Next, we calculate the weighted average cost per unit by dividing the total inventory cost by the total number of units:

Weighted Average Cost per Unit = Total Inventory Cost / Total Number of Units

= $170,635 / (285 + 485 + 185)

= $170,635 / 955

≈ $178.86 (rounded to two decimal places)

Finally, we can calculate the cost of goods sold by multiplying the weighted average cost per unit by the number of units sold:

COGS = Weighted Average Cost per Unit * Number of Units Sold

= $178.86 * 570

≈ $101,983.20 (rounded to two decimal places)

Therefore, the cost of goods sold using the average cost method is approximately $101,983.20.

To know more about sold visit-

brainly.com/question/24078007

The beginning balance in retained earnings of is $1200,000 (Cr.). The current period net loss is $350,000 and declared stock dividends $150,000. The ending balance in retained earnings equals O A. Credit of $700,000. O B. Credit of $850,000. OC. Credit of $1400,000. OD. Credit of $1550,000.

To calculate the ending balance in retained earnings , we need to consider the beginning balance, net loss, and stock dividends.

Beginning balance in retained earnings: $1,200,000 (Cr.)

Net loss for the current period: $350,000

Declared stock dividends: $150,000

We can calculate the ending balance by subtracting the net loss and adding back the stock dividends to the beginning balance:

Ending balance = Beginning balance - Net loss + Stock dividends

Ending balance = $1,200,000 - $350,000 + $150,000

Ending balance = $1,000,000

However, the question asks for the ending balance in terms of its credit or debit nature. Since the beginning balance is given as a credit of $1,200,000, and the net loss and stock dividends decrease retained earnings, which are normally credited, the ending balance will also be a credit.

Therefore, the correct answer is: (b) Credit of $850,000.

To know more about ending balance, please visit

https://brainly.com/question/28580073

(Interest rate determination) You've just taken a job at an investment banking firm and been given the job of calculating the appropriate nominal interest rate for a number of different Treasury bonds with different maturity dates. The real risk-free interest rate that you have been told to use is 2.5%, and this rate is expected to continue on into the future without any change. Inflation is expected to be constant over the future at a rate of 2.0%. Since these are bonds that are issued by the US Treasury, they do not have any default risk or any liquidity risk (that is, there is no liquidity-risk premium). The maturity-risk premium is dependent upon how many years the bond has to maturity. The maturity-risk premiums are shown in the popup window. Given this information, what should the nominal rate of interest on Treasury bonds maturing in 0-1 year, 1-2 years 2-3 years, and 3-4 years be? -CTD The nominal rate of interest on Treasury bonds maturing in 0-1 year should be% (Round to two decimal places)

The interest rate that is expressly stated on a loan or investment instrument is called the nominal interest rate, sometimes referred to as the stated interest rate or annual percentage rate (APR). It displays the annualized proportion of the principal sum that will be paid or accrued as interest over a certain time frame.

Given that the real risk-free interest rate is 2.5%, inflation is 2.0%, and the maturity-risk premiums are shown in the popup window. The nominal interest rate formula is given as:

Nominal interest rate = Real risk-free interest rate + Inflation premium + Default risk premium + Liquidity premium + Maturity-risk premium. Real risk-free interest rate = 2.5%. Inflation premium = 2.0%. Liquidity premium = 0% (given). Default risk premium = 0% (given).

Therefore, the nominal interest rate on Treasury bonds maturing in 0-1 year would be: Nominal interest rate = Real risk-free interest rate + Inflation premium + Default risk premium + Liquidity premium + Maturity-risk premium= 2.5% + 2.0% + 0% + 0% + 0.5%= 5.0%Therefore, the nominal rate of interest on Treasury bonds maturing in 0-1 year is 5.0%.

To know more about Nominal Interest Rate visit:

https://brainly.com/question/13324776

1. Identify some behaviors you see in employees in your current job (positive and negative) 2. Discuss and explain what you think the causes of the behaviors may be (individual, group, organizational)

As an AI language model, I don't have any current job to be able to identify behaviors of employees, but I can give you some examples of positive and negative behaviors that can occur in the workplace.

Positive Behaviors: Timeliness: Employees who show up to work on time and meet deadlines show respect for their job and their colleagues. This behavior indicates reliability and dependability.

Commitment: Employees who work consistently and effectively, meet targets, take ownership, and show interest in the company's progress demonstrate commitment and dedication to their job.

Teamwork: Employees who communicate and work collaboratively with their colleagues contribute positively to a supportive work environment. The sharing of knowledge, ideas, and information ensures the success of the organization.

Negative Behaviors: Procrastination: Employees who postpone tasks until the last minute or miss deadlines may cause serious problems for the company. This behavior shows laziness and lack of commitment. Poor communication: Poor communication can cause confusion, mistakes, and misunderstandings that can negatively impact the company. Employees who fail to communicate effectively with their colleagues or managers may not achieve their objectives or solve problems effectively.

Absenteeism: Employees who take excessive sick days or show up to work late regularly can harm the company's productivity and cause disruptions. It may also indicate a lack of engagement, motivation, or loyalty. Causes of Behaviors: Individual factors: Attitudes, values, personality, personal goals, and interests all affect behavior. For example, someone who values teamwork is more likely to work collaboratively with others.

Organizational factors: The company's culture, leadership, policies, and structure can influence employee behavior.

For instance, a company that values innovation will encourage employees to be creative. Group dynamics: The behavior of colleagues, team members, or supervisors can also affect the employee's behavior.

For instance, peer pressure can influence an employee to adopt certain behaviors or attitudes to fit in or avoid conflicts.

To know more about   negative behaviors visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30228525

The U.S. market for computers is dominated by domestic firms such as Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and Apple. The U.S. market for consumer electronics is dominated by Japanese firms and brands such as Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, and Toshiba. However, the U.S. automobile market includes both domestic firms like Ford and General Motors and formidable Japanese competitors like Toyota and Honda. Please discuss the following two questions: 1. Do some theories work better than others for different industries? Why? 2. What other industries can you think of that fit one of the three patterns noted in the chapter (dominated by foreign firms, dominated by U.S. firms, or dominated by a combination of U.S. and non-U.S. firms)?

Different industries may be better explained by different theories due to various factors such as market dynamics, cultural influences, technological advancements, and competitive landscapes. The dominance of domestic firms in the U.S. computer market and foreign firms in the U.S. consumer electronics market suggests that industry-specific factors play a significant role in shaping market dynamics.

Theories of international business and market dominance may work differently for various industries due to the unique characteristics and dynamics of each industry. In the case of the U.S. computer market, theories like the Diamond Model by Michael Porter, which emphasizes factors such as factor conditions, demand conditions, related and supporting industries, and firm strategy, may be more applicable. Domestic firms like Dell, Hewlett - Packard , and Apple have established a strong presence in this market by leveraging technological expertise, brand recognition, and competitive pricing.

On the other hand, the dominance of Japanese firms in the U.S . consumer electronics market may be attributed to factors such as innovation, quality, and cultural preferences. Japanese firms like Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Mitsubishi , and Toshiba have a long-standing reputation for producing high-quality consumer electronics, and their success can be attributed to their ability to innovate and meet the specific needs and preferences of the U.S. market.

Regarding the second question, other industries that fit the patterns noted in the chapter include:

- Dominated by foreign firms: The global smartphone market is dominated by foreign firms such as Samsung (South Korea), Apple (United States), Huawei (China), and Xiaomi (China). These companies have expanded their reach and gained market share in various countries worldwide.

- Dominated by U.S. firms: The fast-food industry is largely dominated by U.S. firms such as McDonald's, Burger King, and Subway , which have successfully expanded their operations globally and established a strong presence in many countries.

- Dominated by a combination of U.S. and non-U.S. firms: The pharmaceutical industry represents a combination of U.S. and non-U.S. firms. While there are major U.S. pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, there are also prominent non-U.S. companies like Novartis (Switzerland) and Roche (Switzerland) that have a significant presence in the global pharmaceutical market.

Learn more about Toshiba  : brainly.com/question/28507576

Provide a one to two-paragraph answer . In a detailed discussion, explain how the transtheoretical model of behavioral change can be applied to understanding how consumers change their behavior with respect to choices that have an environmental impact.

The transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavioral change is a framework for conceptualizing the processes of behavior change, based on a stage model of change that considers the individual's readiness to change.

According to TTM, behavior change is a process that occurs in stages, where individuals move through a series of stages as they change their behavior. The stages of change are: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance.The TTM can be applied to understanding how consumers change their behavior with respect to choices that have an environmental impact. For example, if a consumer is in the precontemplation stage, they may not be aware of the environmental impact of their choices, or they may not see it as a problem. In the contemplation stage, the consumer may be aware of the environmental impact of their choices, but may not be sure how to change their behavior. In the preparation stage, the consumer may be actively seeking information on how to change their behavior, and may be making plans to do so. In the action stage, the consumer is actively changing their behavior, and in the maintenance stage, the consumer is sustaining the changes they have made.The TTM can be useful in understanding how consumers change their behavior with respect to environmental impact, because it allows us to see the different stages of change that consumers go through. The transtheoretical model (TTM) of behavioral change is a framework for conceptualizing the processes of behavior change, based on a stage model of change that considers the individual's readiness to change. This can help marketers and policymakers to design interventions that are tailored to the stage of change that the consumer is in, and can help to increase the effectiveness of those interventions.

learn more about framework

https://brainly.com/question/10876122

11.7 For an SKU, the standard deviation of demand during the lead time is 150 units, the annual demand is 10,000 units, and the order quantity is 750 units. Management says it will tolerate only one stockout per year. What safety stock should be carried? What is the average inventory? If the lead time is 2 weeks, what is the order point?

To compute safety stock, the formula used is: Safety stock = (Z x σLT x (L)1/2)Where, Z = Z value for the selected service level. σLT = standard deviation of demand during lead time. L = lead time.1/2 = square root of.

In the given problem, Standard deviation, σLT = 150 units. Annual demand, D = 10,000 units. Order quantity, Q = 750 units.Tolerance limit, Z = 1.Order cycle, L = 1 year = 52 weeks. Lead time, LT = 2 weeks. Operating days = 52 weeks – 2 weeks = 50 weeks.

Therefore, the number of operating days is 50 weeks * 5 days/week = 250 days. Average daily demand = D/operating days = 10,000/250 = 40 units/day. Using the formula, Z value for a service level of 93.32% = 1.48.So, safety stock = (1.48) (150) (2)1/2= 265.96 units. The order point (OP) is: Order point (OP) = average daily demand x lead time + safety stock= (40 x 2) + 265.96 = 345.96 units. The average inventory level is:(Order quantity/2) + Safety stock = (750/2) + 265.96 = 640.96 units.

Thus, The safety stock that should be carried is 265.96 units, the average inventory is 640.96 units, and the order point is 345.96 units.

To know more about standard deviation visit:

https://brainly.com/question/29115611

do you think the rf value for the starting alkene will be higher or lower compared to the epoxide product?

The RF value for the starting alkene will likely be lower compared to the epoxide product .

The retention factor (RF) value is a measure used in chromatography to indicate the relative mobility of a compound compared to the mobile phase. In general, the RF value depends on the polarity and interaction of the compound with the stationary phase.

In the case of an alkene and its epoxide product, the introduction of the epoxide group creates additional polar functionality in the molecule. This increased polarity is likely to enhance the interaction of the epoxide product with the stationary phase in chromatography , resulting in a higher RF value compared to the starting alkene.

The alkene, being less polar and lacking the additional oxygen atom present in the epoxide, may have a lower affinity for the stationary phase and, therefore, a lower RF value. However, it's important to note that the specific RF values can vary depending on the experimental conditions, such as the type of stationary phase and mobile phase used in the chromatographic analysis.

Learn more about chromatography , below:

https://brainly.com/question/29785656

Provide an example of a recent event you attended and what kind of food and beverage service was provided. word limit 500

I recently attended a corporate conference held at a hotel convention center. The event spanned two days and included various sessions, presentations, and networking opportunities.

During the conference, food and beverage services were provided to cater to the attendees' needs.

For breakfast , a buffet-style service was offered, featuring a range of options such as pastries, fresh fruits, yogurt, cereals, and hot items like scrambled eggs, bacon, and sausage. Attendees could choose from a variety of beverages including coffee, tea, juices, and water.

During the mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks, there were refreshment stations set up with an assortment of snacks like granola bars, cookies, and mixed nuts. Additionally, attendees had access to self-serve beverage stations with coffee, tea, infused water, and soft drinks.

Lunch was served in a banquet-style setting, with a selection of salads, sandwiches, wraps, and hot entrées like grilled chicken, pasta dishes, and vegetarian options. Desserts and fresh fruit were also available to satisfy attendees' sweet cravings.

Overall, the food and beverage service at the conference was well-organized and provided a diverse range of options to accommodate different dietary preferences and requirements. The variety of choices and the availability of self-serve stations ensured that attendees could refuel and stay energized throughout the event.

Learn more about networking here

https://brainly.com/question/3521925

Explain how probable maximum loss (PML) of insured products from weather- related natural catastrophes is determined.

The probable maximum loss ( PML ) of insured products from weather-related natural catastrophes is determined through a comprehensive assessment that considers various factors. The process involves analyzing historical data, modeling potential events, and evaluating the vulnerability of insured assets. While the specific calculations may vary depending on the insurance company and the nature of the insured products, the general steps involved in determining PML are as follows:

Data Collection: Historical data on weather-related natural catastrophes, such as hurricanes, floods, or earthquakes, is collected. This includes information on the frequency, severity, and geographic distribution of past events.

Hazard Modeling: Sophisticated modeling techniques, such as catastrophe models, are used to simulate potential weather-related natural catastrophes. These models incorporate factors such as historical data, meteorological conditions, and geographical characteristics to estimate the likelihood and intensity of future events.

Exposure Assessment: The insurance company assesses the exposure of its insured products to weather-related natural catastrophes. This involves identifying the locations and values of insured assets, such as buildings, infrastructure , or inventory, that could be affected by these events.

Vulnerability Analysis: The vulnerability of insured assets to weather-related natural catastrophes is evaluated. This analysis considers factors such as construction type, building codes, structural integrity, and protective measures in place. It helps estimate the potential damage or loss that could occur for different intensity levels of catastrophes.

Loss Estimation: Based on the hazard modeling, exposure assessment, and vulnerability analysis, the potential loss associated with weather-related natural catastrophes is estimated. This involves quantifying the expected financial impact on insured assets and determining the probable maximum loss. Various metrics can be used, such as the loss ratio (estimated loss divided by insured value) or the percentage of the insured portfolio affected.

Determining the probable maximum loss (PML) of insured products from weather-related natural catastrophes involves a comprehensive analysis of historical data, hazard modeling, exposure assessment, and vulnerability analysis. By considering these factors, insurance companies can estimate the potential financial impact and assess the level of risk associated with insuring against weather-related natural catastrophes. This information helps insurers make informed decisions about pricing, underwriting, and risk management strategies to protect their portfolios and maintain financial stability.

Learn more about   PML ,visit:

https://brainly.com/question/25528419

1. Total cost functions a. Cannot be in log log form b. Can be in log linear log form c. Cannot be in nonlinear log form d. Can be in natural log form 5. Studying economics of no

Total cost functions can be in natural log form and log-linear-log form, but they cannot be in a nonlinear log form. When studying the economics of no, it is important to understand the concept of opportunity cost and how it relates to decision-making.

Opportunity cost is the value of the next best alternative that is foregone when making a decision. It is often used in economics to evaluate the costs and benefits of different options, especially when resources are limited. The concept of opportunity cost is relevant when studying the economics of no because choosing to say "no" to one option means giving up the opportunity to say "yes" to another option. This means that the opportunity cost of saying "no" is the value of the alternative option that was foregone.

To know more about resources refer :

https://brainly.com/question/29052951

Capitalism and socialism Check the countries whose economies are best described as "mixed," combining aspects of both capitalism and socialism. Check all that apply. Belgium Netherlands Luxembourg Denmark Ireland. Which of the following are defining characteristics of a socialist economy? Check all that apply. Decentralized decision making through markets Public ownership of resources Centralized decision making Private ownership of resources An authoritarian government

The countries Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Ireland can be described as having mixed economies, combining aspects of both capitalism and socialism .

The defining characteristics of a socialist economy are:

Therefore, the defining characteristics of a socialist economy are public ownership of resources and centralized decision making.

To know more about socialist visit-

brainly.com/question/30115403

The three best indicators of how well a company's present strategy is working are whether Copyright by Glo-Bus Software, Inc. Copying, distributing, or 3rd party website postog isexpressly prohibited and constitutes copyright violation the company has attractive market opportunities, enjoys a sustainable competitive advantage, and charges a lower price than rival firms the company is achieving its stated financial and strategic objectives, is an above-average industry performer, and is gaining customers and market share. Oit is charging a lower price than rivals, has bigger profit margins than rival firms, and has the biggest market share in the industry. Obuyers view the company as having a quality product, whether the company has costs that are comparable to or below those of its close rivals, and whether the company's product offering is highly differentiated from those offered by its rivals. the company is growing rapidly, has an above-average market share, and has bigger profit margins per unit sold than its rivals. Previous question

The three best indicators of how well a company's present strategy is working are whether the company has attractive market opportunities, enjoys a sustainable competitive advantage, and charges a lower price than rival firms.

Additionally, the company's achievement of stated financial and strategic objectives, being an above-average industry performer, and gaining customers and market share are important indicators. Lastly, buyers' perception of the company as having a quality product, cost competitiveness compared to rivals, and differentiation in product offering are key factors to consider.

These indicators reflect different aspects of a company's performance and competitiveness. The presence of attractive market opportunities indicates that the company has identified and capitalized on potential areas for growth and profitability. A sustainable competitive advantage signifies that the company possesses unique resources, capabilities, or market positioning that give it a long-term advantage over competitors. Charging a lower price than rival firms can be an indicator of cost efficiency and competitiveness in the market.

Achieving financial and strategic objectives demonstrates that the company is effectively executing its strategy and generating desired outcomes. Being an above-average industry performer and gaining customers and market share show that the company is outperforming competitors and expanding its presence in the market.

Buyers' perception of a quality product reflects customer satisfaction and loyalty. Cost competitiveness and differentiation from rivals contribute to the company's ability to attract customers and maintain a competitive edge.

By assessing these indicators, companies can evaluate the effectiveness of their present strategy and make necessary adjustments to drive future success. It is important to consider multiple dimensions of performance to gain a comprehensive understanding of the company's strategic position and market competitiveness.

Learn more about strategy here: brainly.com/question/31930552

Thurston Petroleum is considering a new project that complements its existing business The machine required for the project costs $4.5 million. The marketing department predicts that sales related to the project will be $2.67 million per year for the next four years, after which the market will cease to exist. The machine will be depreciated to zerc over its 4-year economic life using the straight-line method. Cost of goods sold and operating expenses related to the project are predicted to be 30 percent of sales. The company also needs to add net working capital of $190,000 immediately. The additional net working capital will be recovered in full at the end of the project's life. The tax rate is 23 percent and the required return for the project is 13 percent. What is the value of the NPV for this project? (Do not round intermediate calculations and enter your answer in dollars, not millions of dollars, rounded to 2 decimal places, e.g., 1,234,567.89.) NPV Should the company proceed with the project? O Yes O No

The value of the NPV for this project is $280,018.80.

To calculate the NPV, we need to determine the cash flows associated with the project and discount them back to the present value using the required return rate.

Initial cash flow: The machine cost of $4.5 million and the net working capital of $190,000 represent the initial cash outflow.

Annual cash flows: The annual sales of $2.67 million, with cost of goods sold and operating expenses being 30% of sales, give us the annual cash inflows. We need to calculate the after-tax cash flows by considering the tax rate of 23%.

Terminal cash flow: At the end of the project's life, the net working capital of $190,000 is recovered in full.

Using the above information, we can calculate the cash flows for each year and discount them to their present value using the required return rate of 13%. After discounting, we sum up all the present values to calculate the NPV.

Based on the calculations, the NPV is positive at $280,018.80.

Therefore, since the NPV is positive, the company should proceed with the project.

To know more about cash flows visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30066211

When applying the co-terminated assumption: A study period equal to the minimum common multiple of the lives of the two alternatives is selected and used to evaluate both alternatives Each alternative is evaluated with its own study period which is equal to its life time A study period equal to the average of the life times of both alternatives is selected to be able to compare them with economic equivalence methods O A study period equal to the life of one of the alternatives is selected, and the life of the other alternative is adjusted to the same study period

When applying the co-terminated assumption , the correct option is: B) Each alternative is evaluated with its own study period which is equal to its lifetime.

The co-terminated assumption assumes that each alternative being evaluated has its own specific study period equal to its expected lifetime. This means that the analysis for each alternative is conducted over a period of time that corresponds to the projected lifespan of that alternative.

By using the co-terminated assumption, the evaluation can capture the full economic impact of each alternative over its entire lifespan. This allows for a fair comparison between the alternatives based on their individual costs, benefits , and cash flows.

It is important to note that using different study periods for each alternative allows for a more accurate assessment of their economic performance and facilitates decision-making based on the unique characteristics and lifespan of each option.

Learn more about assumption here

https://brainly.com/question/4636114