Cited by 57Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorEmployee Performance and ManagementMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports

Organizational Support, Job Resources, Soldiers’ Motivational Profiles, Work Engagement, and Affect

Gillet, Nicolas, Becker, Caroline, Lafrenière, Marc-André, Huart, Isabelle, Fouquereau, Evelyne·2017·Military Psychology

Abstract

The authors examined the relationships between soldiers’ motivational profiles and work correlates. Results showed that the profiles differentially related to perceived organizational support and work engagement in both samples, as well as to communication, supervisor support, and positive and negative affect in Sample 2. Specifically, soldiers with the highest autonomous motivation scores displayed the highest levels of perceived organizational support and work engagement. Moreover, the highest levels of autonomous motivation were associated with the highest levels of communication, supervisor support, and positive affect. Finally, soldiers with low to moderate levels of autonomous motivation reported higher levels of negative affect than those characterized by high autonomous motivation scores. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/mil0000179

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When considering studies that considered a broader set of behavioral regulations, despite some variations, results seem to converge on profiles characterized by: (a) high autonomous motivation and low controlled motivation and amotivation (HAu-LC-LAm), (b) high autonomous and controlled motivations and low amotivation (HAu-HC-LAm), (c) low autonomous motivation and high controlled motivation and a

    “Still, when we consider these studies as well as those in which a broader set of behavioral regulations has been considered (Gillet, Becker et al., 2017;Gillet et al., 2018;Graves et al., 2015;Howard et al., 2016;Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014;Moran et al., 2012), despite some variations, the results seem to converge on profiles characterized by: (a) high levels of autonomous motivation, and low”

    From A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees (2020) · cites this paper as Gillet, Becker et al., 2017

  • Person-centered studies have shown that controlled forms of motivation may sometimes be associated with positive outcomes, but only when accompanied by high levels of autonomous motivation.

    “Even more precisely, person-centered studies have shown that controlled forms of motivation may sometimes be associated with positive outcomes, but only when accompanied by high levels of autonomous motivation (e.g., Gillet, Becker et al., 2017;Moran et al., 2012), underscoring the importance of studying behavioral regulations in combination.”

    From A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees (2020) · cites this paper as Gillet, Becker et al., 2017

  • Some of these studies have also supported the importance of differentiating among more specific types of regulation by identifying profiles characterized by differentiated levels of introjected and external regulations.

    “Some of these studies (Gillet, Becker et al., 2017;Moran et al., 2012) have also supported the importance of differentiating among more specific types of regulation by the identification of profiles characterized by differentiated levels of introjected and external regulations.”

    From A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees (2020) · cites this paper as Gillet, Becker et al., 2017

  • The Value-Reward Self-Driven profile shares similarities with the Moderate Autonomous/Introjected/External profile identified by Gillet et al. (2018), with the Moderate profile identified by Gillet, Becker et al. (2017) and Moran et al. (2012), and with the Moderately Motivated profile identified by Jansen in de Wal et al. (2014).

    “The Value-Reward Self-Driven profile was found to share similarities with the Moderate Autonomous/Introjected/External profile identified by Gillet et al. (2018), with the Moderate profile identified by Gillet, Becker et al. (2017) and Moran et al. (2012), and with the Moderately Motivated profile identified by Jansen in de Wal et al. (2014).”

    From A test of work motivation profile similarity across four distinct samples of employees (2020) · cites this paper as Gillet, Becker et al. (2017)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gillet, N., Becker, C., Lafrenière, M.-A., Huart, I., & Fouquereau, E.
Affiliations
  • Université de Tours (FR)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Gillet, Nicolas
Venue
Military Psychology
Published
2017-06-05
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
418-433
ISSN
  • 0899-5605 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7876
OpenAlex
W2616294043
Cited by
57
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Military Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Keywords
military personnel, motivational profiles, autonomous motivation, perceived organizational support, work engagement, positive affect, negative affect, supervisor support, communication, job resources

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review