<![CDATA[The ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) framework usually treats motivation as a single quantity, whereas self-determination theory (SDT) distinguishes autonomous from controlled motivation. This study integrates the two perspectives by modelling autonomous and controlled motivation as distinct mediating states between AMO-enhancing HR practices and discretionary effort, and job autonomy as a condition under which autonomous motivation is enacted. Survey data from 130 private-sector service employees in Indonesia were analysed using PLS-SEM with a two-stage interaction approach. Ability- and opportunity-enhancing practices were positively associated with autonomous motivation, and motivation-enhancing practices with controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation was positively associated with discretionary effort, and this association was stronger at higher levels of job autonomy (simple slopes of 0.213 at low and 0.667 at high autonomy). The study found no statistically significant evidence that motivation-enhancing practices were negatively associated with autonomous motivation, or that controlled motivation was negatively associated with discretionary effort. The indirect associations of ability- and opportunity-enhancing practices with discretionary effort through autonomous motivation were significant. Distinguishing motivational quality allows the AMO framework to account for differences between HR bundles in their association with discretionary effort, although the cross-sectional, single-source design precludes causal conclusions.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
