• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

A study on intrinsic motivational needs and engagement of leaders

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Dissertation
Author: Cheryl L Baucum
Abstract:
This research involved studying the relationship between the intrinsic motivational needs of leaders and their engagement in their work. The study used the Basic Needs Satisfaction Work Survey (BNSW) (Deci et al., 2001) as an indicator of motivation, and a positive psychology use of Maslach's Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) as an indicator of engagement. The BNSW is based on the motivation construct in Self-determination theory (Dec & Ryan, 2002) that postulates that all people have three basic psychological needs, which are autonomy, competency, and relatedness. The research used full-time, Protestant ministers as a sample of leaders. A general ministry survey, created for this study and consisting of demographic, organizational, and ministry related questions, was also administered. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine which of the sub-factors of motivation--autonomy, competency, or relatedness--were the best predictors of engagement in leaders. The demographic and organizational data were analyzed using moderated multiple regression (MMR) analysis. The analysis found a significant ( p <.001) correlation between motivational needs and engagement. The study found that personal stress, relationship with lay leaders, church personality, and independent financial security factors had a moderating effect on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. Independent financial security also moderated the correlation between relatedness and engagement. Post hoc analysis indicated that autonomy was the only sub-factor of motivation in stepwise regression analysis that predicted a pastor's desire to leave the ministry. Implications and further research are discussed.

v Table of Contents Acknowledgments iii List of Tables viii List of Figures xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Background of the Study 1 Statement of the Problem 4 Purpose of the Study 4 Research Questions 7 Nature of the Study 11 Significance of the Study 12 Definition of Terms 14 Assumptions and Limitations 17 Organization of the Remainder of the Study 18 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 19 Introduction 19 Thriving Organizations 20 Job Engagement 26 Motivation 48 Self-determination Theory 60 BNSW 72 Rationale for Using Ministers as a Sample 76 Correlations between Motivation and Engagement 81

vi General Ministry Survey 83 Review of Methodological Literature 85 Summary of Literature Review 88 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 90 Research Design 90 Target Population 91 Variables 92 Procedures 95 Research Question 96 Data Analysis 100 CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS 102 Survey Administration 102 Data Coding 104 Participant Characteristics 109 Ministry Survey 116 Hypothesis Testing 119 Correlations 142 Post Hoc Analyses 146 Summary 153 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 154 Introduction 154 Discussion 155 Post Hoc Analysis 172

vii Limitations 174 Further Research 179 REFERENCES 183 APPENDIX A. GENERAL MINISTRY SURVEY 196

viii

List of Tables Table 1. Survey Packets Returned by Association 103 Table 2. Mean Answers on BNSW by Item 105 Table 3. BNSW Sub-Factor Frequencies 105 Table 4. Mean Scores on the MBI by Item 106 Table 5. MBI Sub-Factor Frequencies 107 Table 6. Minister Age Frequencies 110 Table 7. Minister Ethnicity Frequencies 110 Table 8. Minister Education Frequencies 111 Table 9. Years in the Ministry Frequencies 113 Table 10. Years at Current Ministry 114 Table 11. Church Attendance 115 Table 12. Ministry Survey Frequencies 116 Table 13. Correlation Data for Motivation and Engagement 120 Table 14. Regression Analysis of Motivation (predictor) and Engagement (criterion) 120 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics for H2 Variables 122 Table 16. Model Summary for H2 Model 1 123 Table 17. Coefficients for H2 Model 1 123 Table 18. Model Summary for H2 Model 2 123 Table 19. Coefficients for H2 Model 2 124 Table 20. Model Summary for H2 Model 3 124 Table 21. Coefficients for H2 Model 3 124

ix Table 22. MMR Analysis of Demographic Variables for H3 (Motivation as Predictor) 125 Table 23. MMR Analysis for H4 (Autonomy as Predictor) 127 Table 24. MMR Analysis for H4 (Competency as Predictor) 127 Table 25. MMR Analysis for H4 (Relatedness as Predictor) 128 Table 26. MMR Analysis of Organizational Variables for H3 (BNSW as Predictor) 129

Table 27. MMR Analysis of Organizational Variables for H3 (Autonomy, Competency and Relatedness as Individual Predictors) 132 Table 28. Partial Correlations for Possible Moderating Variables 141 Table 29. Post hoc correlations of all demographic and ministry specific variables. 143 Table 30. Regression of sub-factors of motivation on GMS 13 147 Table 31. Excluded Variables for regression of sub-factors of motivation on GMS 13 147 Table 32. Regression of sub-factors of motivation on GMS 14 148 Table 33. Excluded Variables for regression of sub-factors of motivation on GMS 14 148 Table 34. Regression of sub-factors of motivation on years at current position 149 Table 35. Excluded Variables for regression of sub-factors of motivation on years at current position 149 Table 36. Regression of sub-factors of engagement on GMS 13 150 Table 37. Excluded Variables for regression of sub-factors of engagement on GMS 13 150 Table 38. Regression of sub-factors of engagement on GMS 14 151 Table 39. Excluded variable for regression of sub-factors of engagement on GMS 14 151

x Table 40. Regression of sub-factors of engagement on years at current position 152 Table 41. Excluded Variables for regression of sub-factors of engagement on years at current position 152

xi List of Figures Figure 1. Scatter plot of correlation between MBI and BNSW scores 121 Figure 2. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of religious differences scores on the correlation between motivation and engagement. 130 Figure 3. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of religious differences scores on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. 135 Figure 4. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of church personality on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. 136 Figure 5. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of relationship with church lay leaders on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. 137 Figure 6. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of personal stress on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. 138 Figure 7. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of independent financial security on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. 139 Figure 8. Paneled scatter plots of moderating effect of independent financial security on the correlation between relatedness and engagement. 140

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study Research indicates that in order for organizations to thrive, they need highly engaged leaders (Harrison, 1998; Locander, 2005; Tobias, 2004). Paradoxically, research also indicates that roles that require unusually high levels of involvement (i.e., engagement) in relation to time and emotional energy (e.g., nursing, teaching, protective services, etc.) have been known to experience excessive levels of stress and job-related fatigue (Cordes, & Dougherty, 1993; Euwema, Kopt, & Bakker, 2004). In the 1970s this phenomenon became known as burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Christina Maslach’s work, which resulted in the development of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), helped to quantify the construct into three primary components—inefficacy, isolation, and deep emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). By the 1990s the construct of burnout was expanded to include a wide variety of conditions and occupations (Cordes & Dougherty). Today, the spectrum of burnout-related conditions has come to include issues such as powerlessness, frustration, cynicism, unmanageable fatigue, and hostility (Maslach et al.). Burnout among workers is at epidemic proportions (Maslach & Leiter, 1997) with reports claiming that as many as 68 % of all workers deal with some form of burnout (Lodging HR, 2003). Research indicates that some of the significant organizational issues that stem from burnout include low morale, reduced job

2 satisfaction, retention and recruitment problems, performance issues, and disconcerted customers (Maslach & Leiter; Moore, 2000). Because leadership is crucial to an organization’s ability to thrive (Tobias, 2004), it is imperative for leaders to avoid the crippling effects of burnout (Gagne, 2003). Research indicates that a significant number of leaders deal with feelings of isolation, inefficacy, depression, stress, and a loss of passion/motivation for their work (Cooper, & Quick, 2003; Menon & Akhilesh, 1994; Schopick, 2004). Although the stress that leaders have to deal with has been documented for some time (Howe, 2006; Menon & Akhilesh), there is little research specifically evaluating the influence of burnout or engagement on leaders. For the purpose of this study, evaluating burnout from a positive psychology perspective entails looking at it from the viewpoint of its antithesis—engagement. Maslach & Leiter (1997) have characterized burnout as an erosion of engagement within one’s job. In relation to the work of Maslach et al. (2001), engagement can be evaluated by inverting the MBI subscales of inefficacy, isolation, and emotional exhaustion to create the opposite sub-factors of efficacy, involvement, and energy. Therefore, engagement scores can be obtained by inverting the scores on the three MBI dimensions (Maslach et al.). Although there are competing constructs that attempt to define engagement, Maslach characterizes engagement as dissimilar from other established constructs within psychology, such as organizational commitment. For example, engagement is distinct from organizational commitment in that engagement does not focus on the organization, but rather on the work itself.

3 The purpose of this research was to study leaders who are evidenced to struggle with engagement-related issues, and to ascertain if there exists a correlation between basic motivational needs and engagement. The present study was undertaken to shed light on the construct of engagement by looking for evidence of a correlation between motivation and engagement, as well as whether the three sub-factors of motivation (i.e., autonomy, competency, and relatedness) as defined by Self-determination Theory, predict engagement (i.e., energy, involvement, and efficacy) as defined by Maslach et al (2001). Using Deci and Ryan’s (2000) definition of intrinsic motivation, the hypothesis is that the more intrinsically motivated leaders are in relation to their job, the more they will be engaged in their work and the less at risk they will be for burnout (the antithesis of engagement). It is therefore assumed that there will be a significant connection between leaders’ intrinsic motivation and their engagement. Research indicates that individuals have vast amounts of energy for what intrinsically motivates them but limited energy for that which they are only extrinsically motivated to accomplish (Gagne & Deci, 2005). This approach to evaluating the problem directly relates back to other research on masking that indicates that individuals deplete their self-control when they have to maintain self-presentation over a period of time (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). If leaders have to fake an attachment to their role so as to receive extrinsic motivators, they may eventually burn out or deplete their exhaustible resource of self-control.

4 Statement of the Problem A primary challenge to thriving organizations is the ability to develop highly motivated, engaged leaders who are resistant to the detrimental effects of burnout. Self- Determination Theory (SDT) considers there to be three fundamental psychological needs (i.e., competency, autonomy, and relatedness) that underpin motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). At the heart of SDT is the difference between autonomous and controlled motivation. When a person engages in some kind of work solely because the individual finds it interesting (e.g., the work is enjoyable, fun, etc.), that person is being intrinsically or autonomously motivated. If, on the other hand, a person only does a certain kind of work because of being pressured or rewarded in some way—that the individual is doing it for some other reason than the love of the activity itself—then it is a case of extrinsic or controlled motivation (Gagne & Deci). If these three sub-factors of motivation are correlated to and/or predict engagement, then it can be theorized that the development of job-related autonomy, competency, and relatedness should help leaders form the motivation necessary to remain engaged in their work.

Purpose of the Study Because of the essential role that leaders play in the functioning of their organizations (Thrice & Beyer, 1991; Jamrog, 2004), it is vital that leaders be engaged in their work. Yet most articles written on the subject of job engagement seem to assume that leaders are the ones who must help their employees be motivated (Catteeuw, Flynn, & Vonderhorst, 2007; Haudan & MacLean, 2002). Accordingly, there is little literature dedicated to the engagement of the leaders themselves. On the other hand, there is a

5 wealth of literature documenting stress and problems related to being the leader of an organization (Cooper, & Quick, 2003; Howe, 2006; Menon & Akhilesh, 1994). Company leaders are so often reported in the media as being involved in misconduct and impropriety that they are one of the lowest ranked professional categories when it comes to public perception of ethics and morality (Lantos, 1999; Lyons, 2002; Tropman & Shaefer, 2004). Though it could be argued that leaders only appear to have more misconduct problems than other employees because of their visibility, organizations tend to cover-up misdeeds of leaders out of embarrassment (Tropman & Shaefer; Grossman, 2005), which makes it difficult to determine the actual extent of the problem. Even so, in 2004 the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners reported that executives and business owners caused 12.4% of all reported fraud, 16 times more than the average employee (Grossman). This is a strong indication that leaders are high risk for misconduct and acting out. Though the cause of this misconduct is debated, research indicates that lack of engagement by executives is an early indication of these problems. Tropman & Shaefer (2004) found evidence that problematic behavior often begins with signs of disengagement at work—lack of communication, being away from the office a lot, etc. They found that this is often followed by a state of burnout in the leader. They also discovered that this was not due to the personality of the individual executive, but rather the cause seem to arise as a consequence of having to fulfill the role of leader. To better understand these concepts of engagement and burnout in leaders, the present study looks at engagement and the relationship of this construct to that of motivation. Though there have been many studies on engagement/burnout and research

6 done on motivation, there has not been much research examining the correlations between engagement/burnout and motivation in the workplace (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007), particularly among the leaders. The population of leaders used in this study is Baptist pastors. Research indicates that despite growing demand, unusually large numbers of pastors are leaving the ministry (Baptist Pastorless List, 2006; SBC Virginia, 2006). Although there is some research that identifies burnout as a major component of ministerial retention problems (Grosch & Olsen, 2000), there seems to be a lack of solid research that evaluates ministerial burnout in relation to the evidenced high attrition rates. The problem cannot be solved by saying that fewer ministerial leaders are needed. A search of one site that advertised positions available for Baptist churches in Texas (Baptist Pastorless List, 2006) had posted 243 churches without ministers, 82 of which had been without ministers for over a year, 19 of which had been looking for a minister for over two years. The website stated that these are only churches that have full-time ministers and there were hundreds of smaller churches for which no data was available. Other denominations complain of similar shortages. One of the identified reasons for this shortage is that pastors are leaving the ministry. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America reported that 5% of men and 17% of women pastors leave the ministry after their first placement (Eickmann, 2000). The United Methodist Church estimated their pastor attrition rates at 35% for women and 25% for men, not including those who quit during seminary training (Crowe, 2002). Statistics show that Presbyterian pastors leaving the ministry have increased 55% from 1990 to 2000 (Marcum, 2001).

7 Although research has been conducted in relation to the loss of motivation and engagement in various service-oriented fields, little research as been conducted in relation to those serving in ministerial positions (Green, 2003). Because many ministers seek advanced degrees in order to attain their position and are often underpaid in relation to national averages for other graduate-level degreed professionals (Barna Group, 2001, March), it is perplexing that so many appear to be losing their motivation to serve. It is important, therefore, to evaluate some of the possible reasons behind why a significant number of leaders are struggling with a lack of engagement. This research examined leaders from a positive psychology perspective. In other words, the intent of this study was to measure the degree to which leaders are motivated to remain engaged in their work. In the present study, a positive psychology perspective shifts the focus from “Why are leaders burning out?” to “How can leader remain more engaged with their work?” Therefore, the purpose of the study was ultimately to explore the relationship between motivation and engagement, rather than the relationship between motivation and burnout.

Research Questions The questions that were studied: 1. Are the participants’ overall engagement scores correlated to their overall intrinsic motivation scores? 2. Are their autonomy, relatedness, and competency scores correlated to their engagement scores? 3. How do the demographic factors of the leaders’ ethnicity, age, education level, number of years in their field, and number of years at their current position moderate (change the strength or direction of) the correlation between motivation and engagement?

8 4. Do the demographic factors of the leaders’ ethnicity, age, education level, number of years in their field, and number of years at their current position moderate the correlation between the motivation sub-factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness and engagement? 5. Do the organizational and job-specific factors of average age of the congregation, average weekly attendance, church personality, perception of compensation, religious differences scores, spirituality score, church’s openness to change, relationship ratings (staff relations, member relations, lay leader relations), need to mask, schedule flexibility, commitment (desire to change jobs, independent financial security), and personal life stress score moderate the correlation between motivation and engagement? 6. Do the organizational and job-specific factors of average age of the congregation, average weekly attendance, church personality, perception of compensation, religious differences scores, spirituality score, church’s openness to change, relationship ratings (staff relations, member relations, lay leader relations), need to mask, schedule flexibility, commitment (desire to change jobs, independent financial security), and personal life stress score moderate the correlation between the motivation sub-factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness and engagement?

Research Hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: When leaders’ scores on intrinsic motivation in their work and scores on engagement in their work are compared, there will be a significant correlation. Null Hypothesis 1: When leaders’ scores on intrinsic motivation in their work and scores on engagement in their work are compared, there will be no significant correlation. Hypothesis 2: When leaders’ sub-scores on autonomy, relatedness, and competency in their work and scores on engagement in their work are compared, there will be a significant correlation. Null Hypothesis 2: When leaders’ sub-scores on autonomy, relatedness, and competency in their work and scores on engagement in their work are compared, there will be no significant correlation.

9 Hypothesis 3: The demographic factors of the leaders’ ethnicity, age, education level, years in the ministry, and number of years at current position will moderate (change the strength or direction of) the correlation between motivation and engagement. Null Hypothesis 3: The demographic factors of the leaders’ ethnicity, age, education level, number of years in the field, and number of years in current position will not moderate (change the strength or direction of) the correlation between motivation and engagement. Hypothesis 4: The demographic factors of the leaders’ ethnicity, age, education level, and number of years in the field, and number of years in current position will moderate the correlation between the motivation sub-factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness and engagement. Null Hypothesis 4: The demographic factors of the leaders’ ethnicity, age, education level, number of years in the field, and number of years in current position will not moderate the correlation between the motivation sub-factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness and engagement. Hypothesis 5: The organizational and job-specific factors of average age of the congregation, average weekly attendance, church personality, perception of compensation, religious differences scores, spirituality score, church’s openness to change, relationship ratings (staff relations, member relations, lay leader relations), need to mask, schedule flexibility, commitment (desire to change jobs, independent financial security), and personal life stress score will moderate (change the strength or direction of) the correlation between motivation and engagement.

10 Null Hypothesis 5: The organizational and job-specific factors of average age of the congregation, average weekly attendance, church personality, perception of compensation, religious differences scores, spirituality score, church’s openness to change, relationship ratings (staff relations, member relations, lay leader relations), need to mask, schedule flexibility, commitment (desire to change jobs, independent financial security), and personal life stress score will not moderate (change the strength or direction of) the correlation between motivation and engagement. Hypothesis 6: The organizational and job-specific factors of average age of the congregation, average weekly attendance, church personality, perception of compensation, religious differences scores, spirituality score, church’s openness to change, relationship ratings (staff relations, member relations, lay leader relations), need to mask, schedule flexibility, commitment (desire to change jobs, independent financial security), and personal life stress score will moderate the correlation between the motivation sub-factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness and engagement. Null Hypothesis 6: The organizational and job-specific factors of average age of the congregation, average weekly attendance, church personality, perception of compensation, religious differences scores, spirituality score, church’s openness to change, relationship ratings (staff relations, member relations, lay leader relations), need to mask, schedule flexibility, commitment (desire to change jobs, independent financial security), and personal life stress score will not moderate the correlation between the motivation sub-factors of autonomy, competency, and relatedness and engagement. Nature of the Study

11 The research was a correlational study of descriptive design (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). The study used SDT (focusing on autonomous and controlled states of being) and the assessment built on its principles (Amabile, Tighe, Hill, & Hennessey, 1994; SDT, 2006) in order to shed light on the motivational issues experienced by leaders within the context of their work. The research involved administering Maslach’s Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) and the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (BNSW) (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004) to Baptist ministers in three Texas Baptist Associations. The MBI has three separate inventories, with the MBI-HSS being designed specifically for human services type workers dealing directly with clients, which (according to the MBI manual) includes ministers (Fitzpatrick, 2005). The tests yielded quantitative information in the form of test scores that were compared to the BNSW scores to see if there was a correlation between intrinsic motivation and engagement in these ministers. Each of the measures has three sub-factors that were averaged to produce on overall score for each test. These overall scores were analyzed to see if there was a significant correlation. The three areas of intrinsic motivation as described by SDT— autonomy, competency, and relatedness—were analyzed as the predictor variables against the criterion variable of the overall engagement score using multiple regression analysis. Moderating factors such as the age of the ministers, number of years in the field, church size, etc. were analyzed using moderated multiple regression to see which variables affect the strength and direction of the correlation between motivation and engagement. The sample of ministers studied was limited to Texas Baptist because it was both a convenient sample and one that was organizationally homogeneous. Churches that are

12 members of the Baptist General Convention of Texas all share similar democratic and structural processes. This allows for the evaluation of leaders that deal with similar organizational and cultural issues; thus limiting the number of factors that could have potentially compromised the study’s findings. By studying a population of leaders where intrinsic motivation is expected but where retention and engagement are shown to be problematic, it was hoped that the possible underpinning effects of motivation could be explored. Also, it was hoped that some of the factors that moderate motivation’s prediction of engagement would be identified.

Significance of the Study Because thriving organizations depend on their leaders (Symon, 2002), it is imperative for organizations to guard engagement of their leaders. If support can be found for the hypothesis that the three sub-factors of motivation (i.e., autonomy, competency, relatedness) (as depicted in SDT) predict engagement (as defined by Maslach, 2001), then organizations and leaders might also need to begin looking for methods that encourage and protect their basic motivational needs. Understanding how motivation predicts engagement is also important from an organizational standpoint. Organizations that are able to maintain the engagement of their leaders have been shown to thrive and excel over organizations that cannot (Seijts & Crim, 2006). The study of engagement is rooted in understanding employee motivation. Motivation researchers like Maslow, White, Alderfer and others (Frank, Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004) have studied the reasons employees make the choices that they do. These theorists have sought to harness the motives behind an individual’s intentions, feelings,

13 and behaviors. The theory of engagement shows that an employee’s ability to contribute meaningfully to an organization is determined by more than their gifts and abilities. It is vital that they have a sense of being individually developed and personally valued (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Quinn, 2005). This means that understanding the relationship between an individual’s basic motivational needs and engagement is essential for organizations to better understand their primary employees and leaders. Hopefully a greater understanding of this relationship will lead to the implementation of strategies intended to stimulate the maintained engagement of leaders. Some researchers have become more interested in SDT as a way of understanding motivation in the workplace (Gagne & Deci, 2005). By looking at the three sub-factors of SDT motivation both separately and together in their relationship to engagement in the workplace, perhaps new avenues for experimental research can be discovered. For the population being studied, the hope is that this research will shed light on the problem of the lack of engagement in ministers. If a specific area (or areas) of motivation can be identified as highly influencing or predictive of engagement, or if there are other identified factors that moderate the correlation between motivation and engagement, this could provide new directions for future, related research. In relation to the population of leaders chosen for this study, religion is a very important part of the lives of a vast majority of the people in America (as well as around the world). The General Social Survey (2004) found that 77% of Americans rated religion as important to them. The same study also found that about 90% of the population of the US claims some kind of religious affiliation, with 48.7% of the country claiming to attend religious services at least every month, 32.8% attending nearly every

14 week or more. Protestants, who alone make up about half of the population of the United States, give an estimated 17 billion dollars a year to churches (Baard, 2004). Yet, despite the fact that religion is so important to many people, too little research has been done to determine why so many of the leaders of congregations are quitting.

Definition of Terms Autonomy. Autonomy is one of the sub-factors of intrinsic motivation in SDT. It represents one of three basic psychological needs of the SDT construct. Autonomy involves acting with a feeling of free will and having the experience of choice (Gagne & Deci, 2005). It has to do with believing in one’s own actions, as well as behaving in a way that does not contradict one’s beliefs. Burnout. Burnout is the erosion of engagement to one’s job, and is characterized by the sub-factors of inefficacy, emotional exhaustion, and isolation (Maslach et al., 2001). Competency. Competency is one of the sub-factors of intrinsic motivation in SDT. It is one of the three basic psychological needs of the SDT construct. It is related to the feeling of ability and skill one has in one’s job. Competency at work means that a person believes that he is good at what he does. This is because of his own assessment of his work, as well as what he is told by others. Efficacy. Efficacy is one of the three sub-factors of engagement. It is the opposite of inefficacy, which is a sub-factor of burnout (Maslach et al.). Efficacy refers to the feeling of accomplishment and effectiveness that one feels in relation to his work. Energy. Energy is one of the three sub-factors of engagement. It is the opposite of emotional exhaustion, which is a sub-factor of burnout (Maslach et al.). Energy refers to

15 the internal drive one feels to do one’s work. A person who has low energy finds it difficult to accomplish his work. As such, energy is viewed as the central characteristic of engagement (Maslach et al.). Engagement. Because this research took a positive psychology approach to burnout, the construct being studied was actually engagement rather than burnout. Engagement is the positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach et al.). It is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy in one’s job. From an organizational perspective, engagement is further defined as the effort to form commonality via the involvement of each employee’s affect and perspective in the organization’s belief system, goals, and vision (Emrich, 2006; Grossman, 2002; Seijts & Crim, 2006). Intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to people engaging in work because they find it interesting. That is to say, that they are doing the work completely volitionally (Gagne & Deci, 2005). This is opposed to extrinsic motivation, which is work that is done because of some outside pressure or inducement. Involvement. Involvement is one of the three sub-factors of engagement. It is the opposite of isolation, which is a sub-factor of burnout (Maslach et al.). Involvement is an active attempt by a worker to place himself emotionally closer to his service recipients (in this case—a minister to his congregation). A minister who is involved with the people with whom he works sees them as valuable and unique, and he is genuinely responsive to their needs. Lay Leaders. Lay leaders are the leaders in a church who are not paid staff, but who take a decision making role in church affairs. Often in Baptist churches it is the deacons who

Full document contains 210 pages
Abstract: This research involved studying the relationship between the intrinsic motivational needs of leaders and their engagement in their work. The study used the Basic Needs Satisfaction Work Survey (BNSW) (Deci et al., 2001) as an indicator of motivation, and a positive psychology use of Maslach's Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996) as an indicator of engagement. The BNSW is based on the motivation construct in Self-determination theory (Dec & Ryan, 2002) that postulates that all people have three basic psychological needs, which are autonomy, competency, and relatedness. The research used full-time, Protestant ministers as a sample of leaders. A general ministry survey, created for this study and consisting of demographic, organizational, and ministry related questions, was also administered. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine which of the sub-factors of motivation--autonomy, competency, or relatedness--were the best predictors of engagement in leaders. The demographic and organizational data were analyzed using moderated multiple regression (MMR) analysis. The analysis found a significant ( p <.001) correlation between motivational needs and engagement. The study found that personal stress, relationship with lay leaders, church personality, and independent financial security factors had a moderating effect on the correlation between autonomy and engagement. Independent financial security also moderated the correlation between relatedness and engagement. Post hoc analysis indicated that autonomy was the only sub-factor of motivation in stepwise regression analysis that predicted a pastor's desire to leave the ministry. Implications and further research are discussed.