Let's not forget that many training courses on motivation make abundant and abusive use of the term intrinsic motivation when talking about autonomous motivation. It's not the first time a subject has been taught by trainers who haven't acquired the basics.
But let's consider intrinsic motivation in the context of a paid activity.
Deci and Ryan have shown that intrinsic motivation is diminished by extrinsic reward.
As far back as 1970, Titmuss, in his book "The Gift Relationship", argues that paying blood "donors" destroys the social values to which they are attached and reduces or eliminates their willingness to give blood.[1]
Dan Ariely, professor of psychology and behavioral economics, has also demonstrated the harmful effects of financial incentives on performance[2]
So, how do we reconcile the two extremes: work for pleasure and work for pay, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation? How do we reconcile Flow with the constraints of corporate work?
As I defined in the first part of this book, work is a constrained activity. Intrinsic motivation is exactly the opposite.
If a person takes real pleasure in doing what they do, without worrying about the quality of the result or the time it may take, I find it difficult to defend such an approach to performance in the context of paid work.
I use a slightly different classification from that proposed above, keeping intrinsic motivation separate from extrinsic motivation:
This qualification enables me to better present the levels of employee mobilization in a professional environment.
But then, work: with or without intrinsic motivation?
Yes, it's important. Not essential, but important.
But it shouldn't be a binding corporate objective. It shouldn't be yet another injunction to employees. Happiness at all costs! Intrinsic motivation is mandatory! ...
Intrinsic motivation is the employee's responsibility. It is the worker who chooses, within the limits of market availability, the job that suits him and in which he can realize his potential.
And it's precisely because the market cannot meet the aspirations of all the world's workers that a large proportion of them are satisfied with their jobs as a source of income, an implacable financial necessity. Better still, the constraints of this market can also reveal pleasant surprises for those who experiment in areas they had never considered. They may find pleasure and motivation in activities far removed from their initial ambitions.
In response, the company can offer internal mobility:
How this motivational construct is linked to mobility, therefore, remains largely unexplored. However, with the rise in expectations of meaning at work, we may well wonder whether executives, when choosing mobility, are not taking into account, in a decisive way from now on, their intrinsic motivations and are not also expecting the organization to take greater account of their intrinsic motivations.[3]
[1] Larré Françoise, Plassard Jean-Michel, « Chapitre III. La fragilité de la relation entre incitation, effort et performance », dans : , L’Enseignant : réalités économiques et enjeux professionnels. sous la direction de Larré Françoise, Plassard Jean-Michel. Paris, L'Harmattan, « L’esprit économique », 2012, p. 161-192. URL : https://www.cairn.info/---page-161.htm
[2] Dan Ariely: Bonuses don't motivate employees https://youtu.be/oeF-mYrCw_M
[3] Janand Anne, Voynnet Fourboul Catherine, « Mobilité interne : ce sera avec les motivations intrinsèques ! À la recherche de sens, choix, compétence et progrès », @GRH, 2015/1 (n° 14), p. 11-45. DOI : 10.3917/grh.151.0011. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-agrh1-2015-1-page-11.htm