Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to ‘A cross-cultural approach to the future of work’

Nature Reviews Psychology volume 1, page 685 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

De Cremer and Narayanan provided an insightful commentary (A cross-cultural approach to the future of work. Nat. Rev. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00116-1 (2022))1 on our article on self-determination theory and the future of work (Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 378–392 (2022))2. We agree with De Cremer and Narayanan that technologies need to be designed in alignment with the cultural values of those who will be using them. However, we want to correct the misconception that self-determination theory is Western-centric. In fact, cross-cultural research generally supports the proposition that the needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness are basic (lead to a decrement in optimal functioning if unsatisfied) and universal (of importance across lifespan, genders and cultures)3.

Cultures vary in their values and goals. Thus, according to self-determination theory, needs can be satisfied differently across cultures4. For example, in individualistic cultures, feelings of volition and intrinsic motivation tend to be related to making choices independently, whereas in collectivistic cultures they tend to be related to accepting (internalizing) choices made by trusted in-group members5. Trust in the wider collective society in some collectivistic cultures might partly explain why monitoring is experienced by these employees as supporting autonomy. De Cremer and Narayanan also suggest that humans can relate to machines in some cultures. It might be that, in these cultures, relatedness needs can be met through developing ‘relationships’ with machines6. We did not address this anthropomorphistic issue in our article, and hope future research can explore this intriguing phenomenon. Altogether, we suggest that it is not needs per se that vary across cultures, but how these needs might be met.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. De Cremer, D. & Narayanan, D. A cross-cultural approach to the future of work. Nat. Rev. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00116-1 (2022).

  2. Gagné, M. et al. Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 378–392 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y. & Kasser, T. What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 80, 325–339 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bao, X. H. & Lam, S. F. Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Dev. 79, 269–283 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Christoforakos, L. & Diefenbach, S. Technology as a social companion? An exploration of individual and product-related factors of anthropomorphism. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211065867 (2022).

  7. Su, Z., Xu, X. & Cao, X. What explains popular support for government monitoring in China? J. Inf. Technol. Polit. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2021.1997868 (2021).

  8. Williams, G. C., Quill, T. E., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. “The facts concerning the recent carnival of smoking in Connecticut” and elsewhere. Ann. Intern. Med. 115, 59–63 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Petegem, S., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M. & Beyers, W. Rebels with a cause? Adolescent defiance from the perspective of reactance theory and self-determination theory. Child Dev. 86, 903–918 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Steingut, R. R., Patall, E. A. & Trimble, S. S. The effect of rationale provision on motivation and performance outcomes: a meta-analysis. Motiv. Sci. 3, 19–50 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Parent-Rocheleau, X. & Parker, S. K. Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 32, 100838 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y. & Kaplan, U. Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: a self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 97–110 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Future of Work Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    Marylène Gagné & Sharon K. Parker

  2. Department of Human Resources Management, HEC Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Xavier Parent-Rocheleau

Authors
  1. Marylène Gagné
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Parent-Rocheleau
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharon K. Parker
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marylène Gagné.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gagné, M., Parent-Rocheleau, X. & Parker, S.K. Reply to ‘A cross-cultural approach to the future of work’. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 685 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00117-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00117-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing