10. RECUPERACIÓN DEL PROCESO VIVIDO
10.3 El encuentro: Kintsugi como metáfora de la transformación y reconciliación
Although MCT has been discussed in organisational settings and the area of voluntary activities, it does not appear to have been explicitly used (or perhaps such use has not been reported) as a basis for implementing participatory organisational change, particularly in the non-profit sector. Using the framework of MCT to guide data collection and the analysis process, I evaluated (using the Motivational Continuum) how, or if, the management of this change affected worker motivation to – and acceptance of – the change and the new system.
As outlined in Chapter 3. and briefly summarised here, types of motivation on the Motivational Continuum are classified according to the type of self-regulatory behaviour, as illustrated in Table 5-1 Intrinsic, Integrated and Identified forms of regulation are referred to as autonomous motivation types (Ryan and Deci, 2000b), (as previously outlined in Chapter 3. ) and are the most relevant types of motivation for this study. This classification scheme for the type of self-regulated behaviour will be used to identify and explain the type of motivation a person may be using during the change process throughout the rest of the empirical investigation.
Table 5-1: Types of motivation based on regulatory behaviour (Ryan and Deci, 2000b)
Type of Motivation Type of Regulation Definition
Intrinsic Motivation
Autonomous Motivation
Intrinsic Regulation “The inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities to explore, and to learn” (p. 70)
Extrinsic Motivation
Integrated Regulation “Occurs when identified regulations are fully assimilated to the self, which means they have been evaluated and brought into congruence with one’s other values and needs.” (p. 73) Identified Regulation “Identification reflects a conscious valuing of a behavioural
goal or regulation, such that the action is accepted or owned as personally important.” (p.72)
Controlled Motivation
Introjected Regulation “Introjection involves taking in a regulation but not fully accepting it as one’s own. It is a relatively controlled form of regulation in which behaviours are performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or attain ego enhancement such as pride.” (p. 72)
104
Type of Motivation Type of Regulation Definition
External Regulation “Such behaviours are preformed to satisfy an external demand or reward contingency. Individuals typically experience their regulated behaviour as controlled or alienated. (p.72)
Amotivation Non-Regulation “the state of lacking the intention to act. When amotivated people either do not act at all or without intent – they just go through the motions. Amotivation results from not valuing an activity, not feeling competent to do it, or not expecting it to yield a desired outcome. (p. 72)
Since I was interested in finding out why users might be intrinsically motivated (via the type of regulation being displayed) to accept change and the system being implemented, I needed to isolate a set of factors which would allow me to compare the different data documents (see section
5.4
). Herzberg et al. (1959) defined job-attitude factors in developing the Motivation-Hygiene theory (also known as the two-factor theory) and this was absolutely relevant to my need to understand why and how worker motivation changes. In Herzberg’s terms (Herzberg et al. 1959 p. 44), I needed to know “what happened and why what happened changed the” type of self-regulation and, thus, the motivation workers exhibited during the change process. This was achieved by using MCT and “the empirical evidence it yields in fostering healthy self-regulation” (Ryan and Deci, 2006, p. 1580).Behaviour is “regulated by an interplay of self-generated and external sources of influence” (Bandura, 1991, p.249) and it has been proposed by Dunning (2016, p. 27) “that theorists adopt an explicit systems approach to the study of motivation” where the object of analysis is the interplay between the person (in this case the user) and environment/situation. In this study I was focussed on how users “organise their behavioural regulation” (Ryan and Deci, 2006, p. 1563) when I applied autonomously supportive interventions. For example, encouraging users to internalise the change, which gave them a sense of control over the situation, helped them to either fully evaluate the change in line with their other values and needs (integrated regulation), or to consciously value the behavioural goal or regulation which was perceived as being personally important to them (identified regulation) – as explained in Table 5-1 above.
During this phase I was specifically looking at the change management and implementation practices being used so as to identify gaps and difficulties which might have occurred in the previous rollout phases. From the organisational change literature, Boddy and Macbeth (2009, p. 299) had identified 11 practices “which were commonly recommended to those implementing change”. These included such things as: project management planning; senior management commitment; ensuring adequate resources; having a champion; creating a project team; having a detailed flexible project plan; and consulting widely with affected staff. My intention during this phase was to review the project and understand how the rollout was progressing; and then to introduce (or re-introduce) some of the commonly recommended change management practices and implementation interventions in a more autonomously supportive way in Phase Two of the action research study. Using a more autonomously supportive implementation approach would have an impact on the type of self-regulation and thus motivation of workers undertaking the change.