There's more than meets the eye to motivation

  • 310 views
Uploaded on

This presentation describes Self Determination Theory and its application to coaching.

This presentation describes Self Determination Theory and its application to coaching.

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
310
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
10
Comments
2
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Warm Up activityStand up – find two other people in the room you share two things in common with.Outline of the presentationDescription of 3 studies activities – requires your participation – will help you understand the studies that I am presenting implications for coaching practice
  • Person - coach
  • CALM aims to explain factors that enable or thwart this innate tendency within the system of integration as it applies in a coaching context.This is where the coaching relationship and process becomes important.
  • Goal regulation has been conceptualized along a motivational gradient the reasons goals are pursued Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985b) is a theory of motivation which posits that social environments and relationships are vital for positive human growth and functioning. An organismic dialectical theory, SDT recognises that humans have an innate need for growth and development, but also that there are socio-contextual factors which can either facilitate or inhibit this growth (Deci & Ryan, 2002). As a theory of motivation, SDT describes a construct that is of high relevance in any coaching relationship. Furthermore, SDT has been proposed as a theory from which coaching could form a conceptual evidence base (Oades, Caputi, Robinson, & Partridge, 2005) . SDT also posits that it is possible to promote internalisation of extrinsic goals when our basic needs for autonomy and competence and to a lesser extent relatedness are satisfied.Basic psychological needs are essential for growth and if thwarted or enhanced, can influence motivation, integrity and wellbeing.Autonomy: sense of volition, behaviour coming from the self. Autonomy as a personCompetence: feeling capable and confident in our environment and also having the opporutnity to utlise our capabilitiesRelatedness: feeling belonging and understanding, of feelings of community, but not necessarily in a proximal sense.
  • Need satisfaction has been found to positively predict factors such as engagement, work satisfaction, psychological health, self-esteem, and self-determination (Deci, et al., 2001; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkist, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). Richer, Blanchard and Vallerand (2002) tested a motivational model of work turnover. Utilising structural equation modelling with alumni from a school of administration, they found that competence and relatedness, as well as intrinsic job rewards, predicted self-determined work motivation, which in turn positively predicted work satisfaction and negatively predicted emotional exhaustion.
  • SDT separates motivation into six motivational states: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation (split into integrated, identified, introjected and external regulations) and, finally, amotivation. The model is defined conceptually as a continuumAmotivation refers to non-regulation, or the absence of intention to act (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation refers to doing something where the reward is not inherent within the task itself, that is, for an independent outcome. At external regulation, the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, behaviour is motivated by external reward or punishment. Introjected behaviour is regulated by internal pressure to act in a specific way, for example, to feel esteemed or avoid guilt. During identified regulation, behaviour is largely internally regulated and valued by the individual. Once integrated, behaviour becomes completely internalised and part of an individual’s self-concept. Although experienced volitionally, when integrated, behaviour is still extrinsically motivated because it is nevertheless performed to some end. To be intrinsically motivated is to do something purely for interest and enjoyment. At this level of motivation, behaviour is performed for its own sake. Thus behaviour can be categorised as controlled (regulated externally or by introjection) or autonomous (motivated intrinsically or by integrated or identified regulations).
  • Importantly, factors within the socio-contextual environment can facilitate growth and autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Contexts are expressed as being informational, promoting autonomy and internalisation, or controlling, undermining internalisation and autonomous or self-determined motivation. One aspect of the socio-contextual environment relevant to SDT is the interpersonal context. An autonomy supportive interpersonal context supports autonomous motivation and is associated with, for example, managers taking a subordinate’s feelings and perspectives into account, providing choice, encouraging initiative and independent action, providing feedback in an informational manner, and providing a meaningful rationale (Baard & Baard, 2009; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Williams, 2002). People who are at more self determined levels of motivation may need more informational, autonomy supportive coaching, whereas people who are less self determined may respond better to a more controlling environment. We are currently conducting experiments to investigate these relationships
  • SDT separates motivation into six motivational states: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation (split into integrated, identified, introjected and external regulations) and, finally, amotivation. The model is defined conceptually as a continuumAmotivation refers to non-regulation, or the absence of intention to act (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation refers to doing something where the reward is not inherent within the task itself, that is, for an independent outcome. At external regulation, the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, behaviour is motivated by external reward or punishment. Introjected behaviour is regulated by internal pressure to act in a specific way, for example, to feel esteemed or avoid guilt. During identified regulation, behaviour is largely internally regulated and valued by the individual. Once integrated, behaviour becomes completely internalised and part of an individual’s self-concept. Although experienced volitionally, when integrated, behaviour is still extrinsically motivated because it is nevertheless performed to some end. To be intrinsically motivated is to do something purely for interest and enjoyment. At this level of motivation, behaviour is performed for its own sake. Thus behaviour can be categorised as controlled (regulated externally or by introjection) or autonomous (motivated intrinsically or by integrated or identified regulations).
  • Mainly cross-sectional and correlation studies
  • A total of 58 individuals participated in the study (74.1% female, 25.9% male, mean age range 25 – 34 years). However, due to the rate of attrition over the period of the study, 36 participants completed the study in its entirety. Participants included students and professionals from 12 industries, with most (20.7%) working in Health. The majority of participants were employed on a casual basis (34.5%), followed by full time (25.9%), part time (19%), and 20 percent were unemployed. Only individuals over the age of 18 were eligible to participate. Free coaching, information on leadership, and a professional report detailing participant’s leadership style were used as incentives for participation.Coaching context was ‘coaching for leadership’.Causality orientations influence individual’s interpretations regarding the initiation and regulation of behaviour. Three orientations are specified: autonomy, control and impersonal. Individuals with an autonomy orientation have a tendency to interpret stimuli as facilitating the regulation of their own self-determined behaviour. They seek out situations of greater opportunity for self-determination and also have a tendency to interpret situations as informational. Individuals with a high level of autonomy orientation also experience greater levels of self-determined motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). Control oriented individuals have a tendency to organise behaviour through internal or external controls. They are also more likely to interpret situations as controlling and seek out environments which offer greater pressure or control of their regulatory events. An impersonal orientation refers to experiencing a lack of intention. That is, individuals with an impersonal orientation have a tendency to feel like they are incompetent, unable to regulate behaviour, or have control over outcomes.*Like Locus of Control but not the same.
  • Discuss - What does it mean to be autonomy supportive OR NOT, in coaching?Remember An autonomy supportive interpersonal context supports autonomous motivation and is associated with, for example, managers taking a subordinate’s feelings and perspectives into account, providing choice, encouraging initiative and independent action, providing feedback in an informational manner, and providing a meaningful rationale (Baard & Baard, 2009; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Williams, 2002). How do we reflect this in coaching?This study was the first to attempt to develop a ‘treatment condition’ in a coaching context.
  • Coaching Conditions
  • Distribute scoring sheet.Group activity – reflect on your score with the person next to youShow scoring guide on slideshow and show them how to translate their responses
  • Satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs was found to be significantly and strongly related to autonomous motivation.Perceived autonomy support was significantly associated with satisfaction of the three needs and increased coachee autonomous motivation.Autonomy support and standards support conditions did not differ significantly in relation to autonomous motivation after adjusting for the covariates of autonomy need, relatedness need, and impersonal causality orientation
  • Means over time in the low autonomy supportive condition actually increased to a greater extent than means in the autonomy supportive condition.This was in the opposite direction to what we expected!
  • Through autonomy supportive coaching processes, coaches may facilitate coachee internalisation of behaviours, and increased self-determined regulation.Relationships expected from research in relation to causality orientation, needs satisfaction and self-determined motivation were shown to also exist within a coaching context.HOWEVER these findings were only from cross sectional analysesThere were no significant differences between coaching conditions.Study Limitations.Did we get the conditions rightSmall sample – not enough power to achieve results – possibility of Type 2 error?
  • RF Prime for coaches in the roomMake sure they spend at least 5 minutes doing this.Encourage them to think about strategies to acheivetheor goals, dont be limited just brainstorm here – its your time to reflect on what you have learned so far in this session and at this conference and what development need you would like to really work on after these 2 days.
  • SDT addresses the reasons for pursuing a goal and RFT addresses the purpose of pursuing a goal. Reasons for pursuing a goal addresses ‘what am I trying to do?’ The purpose of pursuing a goal addresses implicit motives about ‘why am I generally trying to do this?’ The answers to these questions have been shown to impact on how people think and act in relation to their goals.RFT differs from SDT by proposing that goals serve a more general purpose that is thought to be related to different motivational dispositions or internal drives rather than external demands.
  • PAIN AND PLEASURE - two distinct motivational self-regulatory orientations (foci), The approach or avoidance motive is a form of self regulation. There are different ways people will regulate pleasure and pain – this is called Regulatory Focus. Regulatory Focus Theory proposes that people with a promotion focus are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between their current situation and an ideal situation. People with a prevention focus are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between their current situation and an imposed minimum standard (Vaughn, Baumann, & Klemann, 2008). Promotion focused goals tend to satisfy a nurturance need and are concerned with hopes and aspirations. Prevention focused goals tend to satisfy a security need and are concerned with duties and obligations. whereas when people have with a prevention focus they are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between actual and ought end states . Therefore, their motivational state would be one of vigilance to ensure the absence of negative outcomes and ensure against the presence of negative outcomes. For each preference, it is the ability to sustain the orientation that is important for motivation rather than attaining the end state itselfIn promotion focus an individual is focused on achievements and fulfillment of ideals, while in prevention focus they are focused on avoiding mistakes and fulfilling requirements.Need for nurturance creates a promotion focus; need for safety (security) promotes a prevention focus.Tell my story about the heritage planner and the statutory planner.
  • - Silver medallist Gemma Gibbons celebrates her win in Women's -78kg judo. We saw how the torch ignited excitement in every corner of the land. Now our task must be to maximise the Games’ impact in the UK For each regulatory focus there is a preferred manner during goal pursuit (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). The nature of this preference is derived from the ability of a strategy to either support gains or prevent losses. Motivation can be sustained or increased via regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000). Eagerness strategies (eg actively approaching a goal) are preferred in promotion focus.. Vigilance strategies (eg carefully avoiding mistakes) are preferred in prevention focus.Any given behaviour can be based on either an approach motive or an avoidance motive (or some combination of the two). it is important to understand how someone is likely to respond to a particular situation when under pressure arising from specific variables which might, for example, include peer disapproval, a reduced sense of personal autonomy, or a loss of direct control.RFT suggests that motivation can be sustained or increased via regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000). Regulatory fit occurs when an individual applies their preferred strategy during goal pursuit. The effect of fit is a subjective sense of “feeling right” about the goal-directed behavior which in turn increases strength of commitment, engagement and motivation towards the goal (Higgins, 2005). Regulatory fit predicts that individuals will have a higher level of motivation if they apply an eagerness approach when in promotion focus or if they apply a vigilant approach when in prevention focus, compared to the non-fit situations (promotion/vigilance or prevention/eagerness) (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003).
  • Spiegel, Grant and Higgins (2004)Participants asked to complete a written report: “capture as many details as possible to make the report vivid and interesting” (eagerness)“avoid forgetting detail and being careful not to make the report bland and boring” (vigilance). Motivation was assessed by whether the report was turned in within four weeks. Participants in the regulatory fit condition were 50 precent more likely to hand in the report than participants in the non-fit condition. Where other studies used measures of intentions to infer motivation, Spiegel et. al’s study used an objective measure, the actual performance of turning in the report, as the measure of motivation and effect of fit.Participants are recommended to eating more fruit and vegetables. Achieving health (promotion focus)Avoiding illness (prevention focus) Participants in the fit condition were found to eat 20 precent more fruit the following week than participants in the non-fit condition.
  • Will framing feedback to recipient’s particular regulatory focus increase motivation? Feedback framing involves maintaining the overall outcome information (success or failure) but emphasising, for example, “you achieved an ideal score by identifying correct answers” (promotion goal with eagerness means) or “you met standards by avoiding incorrect answers” (prevention goal with vigilance means).Specifically, this study will examine two types of positive feedback, framed to either fit or not fit a recipient’s promotion focus. It is hypothesised that:Positive feedback framed in a manner that emphasises promotion goals and eagerness means (fit), will lead to increased levels of motivation compared to feedback framed in a manner that considers prevention goals and vigilance means (non-fit). There will be no relationship between level of mood and level of motivation following feedback.Part of larger study – T4: 29 participants took part in this experiment (age ranged between 18-55 years; 5 participants were over 35years of age; 22 were women; 7 were unemployed). Participants were divided into two experimental conditions. There were 17 participants in the fit feedback condition and 12 in the non-fit condition. - Online
  • RF Induction.The experimental RF induction procedure (Freitas & Higgins, 2002) was modified to fit the coaching for leadership context. It has been used in numerous studies (for example, Cesario, et al., 2004; Leder, et al., 2010; Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002) and was chosen based upon the similarities to typical reflections undertaken in a coaching session.Promotion induction:You have now spent a few weeks focusing on a particular goal relating to your leadership style development. Now, you are asked to think about an additional goal. Please think about something you ideally would like to do in relation to your leadership development. In other words, please think about a hope or aspiration you currently have.  Participants were asked write down their goal in the survey, along with the description of five strategies which would support achievement of that goal. In alignment with previous studies, participants were asked to spend approximately 10 minutes on the goal and strategy selection.Research suggests taht 10 mins is effective amount of time for priming.
  • Look familiar!! – Separate people in the room into Fit and Non Fit condition – Please stand up and make sure you have your feedback sheet.Create a living frequency table...GET MICHAEL AND ROB TO HELPIf you had this type of feedback stand in the right aisle.If you had the other type of feedback stand in the left aisle.Now look at the scores on the two questions you answered – average them.If you got a 5 stand at the front of the room.If you got a -5 stand in the back of the room.Everyone else distribute yourself along the scale from -5 to +5.Then reveal which group was in a regulatory fit condition and which was in a non fit conditon. Explain again how they were primed for promotion focus.
  • the effect of fit was unrelated to the level of positive mood experienced after feedback, that is, level of motivation was not higher in individuals that reported higher level of positive mood. The ANOVA results showed a significant interaction between time and type of feedback, Wilks Lambda = .79, F (1, 27) = 7.14, p = .01, with a small effect size of partial eta squared = .21, observed power .73. There was a significant main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = .79, F (1, 27) = 7.14, p = .01, with a small effect size of partial eta squared = .21, observed power .73. There was no main effect for type of feedback, F(1, 27) = 1.32, p = .26, partial eta squared = .05. This finding suggests that mean motivation scores increased in the feedback fit condition but not in the non-fit condition at Time 2 compared to Time 1 A paired sample t-test revealed a significant increase in motivation scores in the fit-condition between T1 and T2 (refer back to Table 1for descriptive data), t (16) = -3.56, p <.01 (two-tailed). The mean increase in motivation scores was .79 with a 95 % confidence interval ranging from .32 to 1.27. The eta square statistics indicated a large effect size (.48). There was no increase in motivation scores in the non-fit condition, from T1 to T2, t (11) = .00, p =1.00.
  • A regulatory fit effect was found when level of motivation was assessed according to individuals’ induced but not dispositional regulatory focus.
  • Further research – to do with priming prevention focus

Transcript

  • 1. Josephine Palermo Coaching Leadership and Motivation (CALM) Deakin University August 2013
  • 2.  Complete the survey – respond to each scenario
  • 3. 1. Organismic systems Cognitive Psychology: Our perceptions of the world are a function of environmental stimulus and mental structures. Humanistic Psychology: a self unifying system that responds to experience and meaning.
  • 4. 2. Dialectic System Focuses on the development and interaction between a person and their environment (social/contextual) where change and conflict are seen as ongoing necessary processes.
  • 5. „Individuals have natural, innate, and constructive tendencies to develop an ever more elaborate and unified sense of self‟ (Deci & Ryan, 2004). This tendency involves integrating both autonomy (self) and homonomy (self with others). The integration process can be enabled or thwarted by (social/ contextual) factors.
  • 6. Others Self Aims to explain factors that enable (nurture) or thwart (impede) this innate tendency within the system of integration
  • 7. Why we pursue goals: Three needs:  Autonomy  Competence  Relatedness Need strength and satisfaction are important.
  • 8. Why we pursue goals:  Motivation is multidimensional with multiple levels (strengths) and multiple orientations (types).  Motivation can be conceptualised along a continuum between instrinsic and extrinsic motivation.  Needs satisfaction positively predicts motivation in a number of contexts. (Grouzet, Vallerand, Thill, & Provencher, 2004; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006; Sheldon & Filak, 2008; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2006).
  • 9. Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Amotivation Integrated Regulation Identified Regulation Introjected Regulation External Regulation Non-regulation More self-determined Less self-determined
  • 10. >Extrinsic motivation
  • 11. >Intrinsic motivation
  • 12. >Integrated Regulation
  • 13.  Contexts can be informational, promoting autonomy and internalisation, or controlling, undermining internalisation and self- determined motivation  (Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006)
  • 14. Intrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation Amotivation Integrated Regulation Identified Regulation Introjected Regulation External Regulation Non-regulation More self-determined Less self-determined >Where is your coachee on this continuum? >How could you know? >High autonomy support >Low autonomy support
  • 15.  Staff well-being, job satisfaction and motivation for carrying out treatment programs in psychiatric patient sample (Lynch, Plant and Ryan, 2005);  Similar effect has been found in non-psychiatric patients (Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998);  Swimmers autonomous motivation (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001);  Student‟s autonomous motivation (Black & Deci, 2000);  Engagement (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004);  Self-determined learning (Williams & Deci, 1996);  Patient‟s long-term medication adherence from physicians (Williams, et al., 1998);  Increased autonomous motivation for smoking cessation (Williams, Gagné, Ryan, & Deci, 2002);  Employees‟ acceptance of organisational change, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally over a 13-month period (Gagne, Koestner and Zuckerman, 2000).  Perceived autonomy support from managers predicted needs satisfaction of employees, which in turn predicted performance and adjustment (Baard et al., 2004).
  • 16.  Increases in needs satisfaction  Increases in self determined motivation  Maximal or optimal work performance in coachees...
  • 17.  Blind experimental coaching study (N=58)  3 conditions:  High autonomy supportive  Low autonomy supportive (controlling)  Self coaching  Coaches trained to deliver both conditions.  Study also measured and controlled for causality orientation
  • 18. Taking coachee’s feelings and perspectives into account, providing choice, encouraging initiative and independent action, providing feedback in an informational manner, and providing a meaningful rationale. Discuss how you might create a coaching condition That is “high autonomy supportive”... That is “standards (control) supportive”...
  • 19. Condition Autonomy Support GROW SMARTER Autonomy Support (AS) Autonomy support high. Coachees with complete autonomy in all aspects of the coaching program such as selection of goals and goal attainment strategies. Coaches enact provisions of autonomy support. e.g. “Are there any specific goals that you would like to focus on?” Goal - coachee chooses specific objective of coaching. Reality – what is happening at the moment? Options – options from coachee. Wrap-up – commit to action, agree on support, next steps. Specific. Measurable: how will others / coachee know? Attractive: to coachee. Realistic. Timely. Ethical. Recorded: by coachee. Standards Support (SS) Autonomy support low. Coaches act as expert advice givers, suggest goals and objectives, and use evidence from leadership literature to influence and evaluate coachee strategies. e.g. “Based on our discussion, I think that you should focus on improving...” Goal - coach suggests specific objective of coaching. Reality – what is happening at the moment? Options – options (advice) from coach. Wrap-up – commit to action, agree on support, next steps. Specific. Measurable: coach will measure / know. Accountable: to coach. Realistic. Timely. Ethical. Recorded: by coach.
  • 20.  Remember that questionnaire you completed...  Use the scoring guide...  Higher scores (closer to 100) reflect a more autonomy supportive orientation and a lower score or negative scores reflect a more controlling orientation.
  • 21.  Satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs was found to be significantly and strongly related to autonomous motivation.  Perceived autonomy support was significantly associated with satisfaction of the three needs and increased coachee autonomous motivation.  Autonomy support and standards support conditions did not differ significantly in relation to autonomous motivation.
  • 22.  Means over time in the low autonomy supportive condition actually increased to a greater extent than means in the autonomy supportive condition  Note: (not a statistical significant difference).
  • 23.  Autonomy supportive coaching processes may facilitate coachee internalisation of behaviours, and increased self-determined regulation.  Relationships expected from research in relation to causality orientation, needs satisfaction and self-determined motivation were shown to also exist within a coaching context.  No significant differences between coaching conditions.
  • 24.  You completed an assessment earlier.  Think about a development goal related to developing autonomy support within your own coaching practice.  Please think about something you ideally would like to do in relation to your development as a practitioner.  In other words, please think about a hope or aspiration you currently have.
  • 25.  SDT addresses the reasons for pursuing a goal...  RFT addresses the purpose of pursuing a goal...  Goals serve a more general purpose that is thought to be related to different motivational dispositions or internal drives rather than external demands.  Goal pursuit itself is motivational and increasing the strength of engagement.  Feedback in coaching that matches goal pursuit can increase motivation and strength of engagement?
  • 26. Promotion focus: individuals are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between actual and ideal end states.  Success is represented as the presence of positive outcomes (achieving goals), while failure is the absence of positive outcomes (not achieving goals). Prevention focus: individuals are dispositionally motivated to minimize discrepancies between actual and ought end states.  Success is represented as the absence of a negative outcome (not missing a goal) while failure is represented as presence of a negative outcome (missing a goal). (Higgins, 1997, 1998)
  • 27.  Individuals will have a higher level of motivation if they apply an eagerness approach when in promotion focus  or if they apply a vigilant approach when in prevention focus  …compared to the non- fit situations.
  • 28. Complete a written report:  “capture as many details as possible to make the report vivid and interesting” (eagerness)  “avoid forgetting detail and being careful not to make the report bland and boring” (vigilance). Participants in the regulatory fit condition were 50 percent more likely to hand in the report than participants in the non-fit condition Recommended to eating more fruit and vegetables:  Achieving health (promotion focus)  Avoiding illness (prevention focus) Participants in the fit condition were found to eat 20 percent more fruit the following week than participants in the non-fit condition.
  • 29.  Prevention and promotion states can be primed..  Will framing feedback to recipient‟s particular regulatory focus (after priming) increase motivation?
  • 30.  You have now spent a few weeks focusing on a particular goal relating to your leadership style development.  Now, you are asked to think about an additional goal. Please think about something you ideally would like to do in relation to your leadership development.  In other words, please think about a hope or aspiration you currently have.
  • 31. Congratulations, you have achieved an ideal score on the Leadership Skills test by successfully finding the majority of correct answers. You have achieved above 90 percent of the correct answers. Your score indicates that you are considering the full range of leadership behaviours in order to achieve an optimal match between your skills and a particular situation.
  • 32. Congratulations, you have met the performance standard set by the test producers and successfully avoided most of the incorrect answers. You avoided 90 percent of incorrect answers. Your score indicates that you are carefully considering which type of leadership behaviour is appropriate for a particular situation in order to avoid substandard performance.
  • 33. Level of motivation increased following feedback that contained promotion goals and eagerness means (fit) compared to feedback that contained prevention goals and vigilance means (non-fit). 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 Before feedback Post feedback MotivationLevel Fit Non-Fit
  • 34. Dispositional Focus Motivation T1 Motivation T2 Mean SD Mean SD Promotion (n=19) 8.60 1.92 8.97 1.67 Prevention (n=10) 7.30 2.40 7.98 2.41 There was no significant interaction between dispositional RF and time
  • 35.  Feedback effectiveness can be increased by framing feedback to the individuals‟ regulatory (promotion) focus.  In situations where it would be difficult or impossible to frame feedback, the coach may induce a regulatory promotion focus that matches the feedback to be provided.  The organisational context may provide cues for the coach about the coachee‟s goal orientation and how to frame feedback to increase motivation accordingly.