Positive Management of Universities: A Model of Motivation to Strive for Scientific Excellence

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the article is to conceptualise a model of work motivation in the management of universities striving for scientific excellence.

Research Design & Methods: The most relevant for our aim is the self-determination theory that is applied to the work and organisational domain. We used a narrative literature review.

Findings: The proposed model is derived from the self-determination theory. It includes three types of motivation: autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation, as well as three psychological needs, i.e. autonomy, mastery, and purpose. These motives and needs can interact to enhance scientific effectiveness further.

Implications & Recommendations: Universities need innovative staff who can contribute to strengthening scientific productivity and enhance the influence of the university at the international level.

Contribution & Value Added: Connection of three perspectives – institutional, individual and scientific disciplines – will capture the complexities of managing work motivation oriented to scientific effectiveness.

Keywords

motivation, university management, scientific effectiveness, psychological needs, positive organisational scholarship, self-determination theory

Author Biography

Beata A. Basińska

Faculty of Management and Economics

Gdansk University of Technology

Associate Professor 

Master of Social Science in Psychology (University of Gdansk, Poland ); PhD in Psychology (University of Gdansk, Poland); Doctor habilitatus in Psychology (SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland); Associate Professor of Gdansk University of Technology (Poland). Her research interests include positive management and organizational psychology.   

Krzysztof Leja

Master of Applied Physics (Gdansk University of Technology, Poland - GUT), PhD in economy (GUT), habilitation in management (University of Economics in Katowice, Poland), associate professor and vice-dean for research at the Faculty of Management and Economics, GUT. His fields of interest include research HEIs and policy studies. He is an expert of Polish Rectors Foundation and Ministry of Science and Higher Education. He is a national expert in “European Tertiary Education Register” (ETER) 2013-2020.

Magdalena Szufllita-Żurawska

Master of Science in Digital Library Management and Information Science (University of Boras, Sweden); Her research interests include scholarly communication, bibliometrics, open and data science.

References

1. Albert, C., Davia, M.A., & Legazpe, N. (2018). Job satisfaction amongst academics: the role of research productivity. Studies in Higher Education, 43(8), 1362-1377.
2. Alimo-Metcalfe, B., Alban-Metcalfe, J., Bradley, M., Mariathasan, J., & Samele, C. (2008). The impact of engaging leadership on performance, attitudes to work and wellbeing at work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 22(6), 586-598.
3. Bar-Ilan, J. (2010). Web of Science with the Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes: The case of computer science. Scientometrics, 83(3), 809-824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0145-4.
4. Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311-320.
5. Blind, K., Pohlisch, J., & Zi, A. (2018). Publishing, patenting, and standardization: Motives and barri-ers of scientists. Research Policy, 47(7), 1185-1197.
6. Bukowska, G., & Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, B. (2013). Determinanty sukcesów publikacyjnych naukow-ców. Nauka, (3), 59-86.
7. Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R.E. (Eds.), (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Founda-tions of a new discipline. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
8. Cameron, K.S., & Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds.), (2011). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Cavero, J.M., Vela, B., & Cáceres, P. (2014). Computer science research: More production, less productivity. Scientometrics, 98(3), 2103-2111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1178-2
10. 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), 980-1009.
11. Christensen, M., Dyrstad, J.M., & Innstrand, S.T. (2018). Academic work engagement, resources and productivity: empirical evidence with policy implications. Studies in Higher Education, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1517304
12. Carivate Analytics. (2017). InCities Indicators Handbook.
13. Cohen, M. (1998). The performance paradox. Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 30-40.
14. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
15. Dahling, J.J., & Lauricella, T.K. (2016). Linking job design to subjective career success: a test of self-determination theory. Journal of Career Assessment, 25(3), 371-388.
16. 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.
17. 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(4), 227-268.
18. Gagné, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
19. Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A.K., ... & Halvari, H. (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.
20. Gillet, N., Becker, C., Lafrenière, M.A., Huart, I., & Fouquereau, E. (2017). Organizational support, job resources, soldiers’ motivational profiles, work engagement, and affect. Military Psycholo-gy, 29(5), 418-433.
21. Goodrum, A.A., McCain, K.W., Lawrence, S., & Lee Giles, C. (2001). Scholarly publishing in the In-ternet age: a citation analysis of computer science literature. Information Processing & Man-agement, 37(5), 661-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00047-9
22. Howard, J., Gagne, M., Morin, A.J., & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at work: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95, 74-89.
23. Kim, M., & Beehr, T.A. (2017). Can Empowering Leaders Affect Subordinates’ Well-Being and Ca-reers Because They Encourage Subordinates’ Job Crafting Behaviors?. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051817727702
24. Klaeijsen, A., Vermeulen, M., & Martens, R. (2017). Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour: The Im-portance of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction, Intrinsic Motivation, and Occupational Self-Efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 1-14.
25. Krupski, R., Niemczyk, J., & Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2009). Koncepcje strategii organizacji. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne.
26. Kulczycki, E., Engels, T.C.E., Pölönen, J. Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Nowotniak, R., Petr, M., Sivertsen, G., Starčič, A.I., & Zuccalaet A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0
27. Kwiek, M. (2015). Uniwersytet w dobie przemian: instytucje i kadra akademicka w warunkach ro-snącej konkurencji. Warszawa: PWN.
28. Kwiek, M. (2018). High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers? Scientometrics, 115(1), 415-462.
29. Landry, A.T., Gagné, M., Forest, J., Guerrero, S., Séguin, M., & Papachristopoulos, K. (2017). The relation between financial incentives, motivation, and performance: An integrative SDT-based investigation. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 16(2), 61.
30. Leja, K. (2013). Zarządzanie uczelnią. Koncepcje i współczesne wyzwania. Warszawa: Oficyna Wolters Kluwer.
31. Leja, K. (2015). Positive management of the university. Journal of Positive Management, 6(2), 59-71.
32. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradoxes: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Man-agement Review, 25(4), 770-776.
33. Olafsen, A.H., Halvari, H., Forest, J., & Deci, E.L. (2015). Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self‐determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 447-457.
34. Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York: Penguin.
35. Ryan, J.C., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Motivational recipes and research performance: A fuzzy set analysis of the motivational profile of high performing research scientists. Journal of Busi-ness Research, 69(11), 5299-5304.
36. Schaufeli, W.B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Develop-ment International, 20(5), 446-463.
37. Scott, J.C. (2006). The Mission of the University: Medieval to Postmodern Transformations. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0007
38. Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 1(1), 27-41.
39. Smith, W.K. & Lewis, M.W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
40. Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A.M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16(5), 537-549.
41. Szuflita-Żurawska, M., Basińska, B.A., & Leja, K. (2018). New model of motivation among academ-ics: data of polish scientific productivity. Unpublished manuscript. Gdańsk: Faculty of Manage-ment and Economics, Gdansk University of Technology
42. Tabatoni P. (2002). Strategic management, a tool of leadership – concepts and paradoxes. In P. Tabatoni, J. Davies, & A. Barblan (Eds.), Strategic management and universities institutional development. EUA-European University Association.
43. Teye, E.T., Abosi, B.A., Tetteh, A.N., Ntim, S.Y., Teye, A., Aseidua-Ayeh, O.L., & Dubi, S.A. (2019). Linking motivation and alliance to perceived ambidexterity outcomes at the individual level in academia. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-10-2018-0205
44. Tremblay, M.A., Blanchard, C.M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L.G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 41(4), 213-226.
45. Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D.L., Chang, C.H., & Rosen, C.C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195-1229.
46. Van der Burgt, S.M.E., Kusurkar, R.A., Wilschut, J.A., Tjin A Tsoi, S.L.M.M., Croise, G., & Peerdeman, S.M. (2018). Motivational Profiles and Motivation for Lifelong Learning of Medical Specialists. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 38(3), 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000205.
47. Wolszczak-Derlacz, J. (2017). An evaluation and explanation of (in) efficiency in higher education institutions in Europe and the US with the application of two-stage semi-parametric DEA. Re-search Policy, 46(9), 1595-1605.
48. Wolszczak-Derlacz, J., & Parteka, A. (2011). Efficiency of European public higher education institu-tions: a two-stage multicountry approach. Scientometrics, 89(3), 887-917.
49. Wollersheim, J., Lenz, A., Welpe, I.M., & Spörrle, M. (2015). Me, myself, and my university: a multi-level analysis of individual and institutional determinants of academic performance. Journal of Business Economics, 85(3), 263-291.
50. Zaharie, M.A., & Seeber, M. (2018). Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer review-ers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics, 117(3), 1587-1609.