Sustaining Work–Home Enrichment Experience in the Academic Sector: The Role of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivations

Abstract

This research investigated the impact of motivations on work–home enrichment experience among male Saudi academics working in universities. Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT) and the conservation of resources theory (COR), the study employed a quantitative study with data collected from 460 men. The analysis revealed that intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation reinforced by material pressure were significantly and positively related to both work–home enrichment (WHE) and home–work enrichment (HWE), whereas extrinsic motivation underpinned by social pressure is significantly and negatively related to HWE only. Furthermore, the results show that introjected motivation, identified motivation, and amotivation were not related to WHE and HWE. The findings of this study highlight the motivational underpinnings of the positive work–home interaction, demonstrating that working for pleasure and material incentives brings enrichment experiences for employees and their families. Further work and home studies should be carried out to produce useful insights that have the potential to improve and sustain the well-being of individuals, their families, and their communities, organisations, and countries’ economies.

1. Introduction

For the vast majority of people in contemporary societies, finding a work–home balance remains a serious concern, as it has an effect on their professional and personal lives [1,2,3]. The promotion of workplace health and the long-term maintenance of employees’ physical and mental welfare at work depend heavily on a sustainable work–life balance [4]. Although most employees face difficulties balancing work and family responsibilities, this is usually examined through the perspective of work–home conflict [4,5]. However, the overlap between the two domains in areas such as social support and self-esteem can provide a degree of mutual enrichment, fostering improvements in the general quality of life [6]. More recently, the potential for both the work and home domains to benefit one another has recently come into sharper focus due to criticism of the notion that the two domains are competitively engaged in an ongoing struggle for resources [6].

Work–home enrichment (WHE) is a situation where the spillover of resources between work and home can benefit one or the other domain [6]. Established research has demonstrated various consequences of positive work–home interactions in the areas of a person’s work, their family, and their personal well-being [5,6,7] Yet, most research on work–home interactions focuses on the job and organisational level [8], with less attention being given to an individual’s motivational disposition. The exploration of the interplay between work and home through an SDT lens can result in interesting and valuable insights into WHE. SDT is one of the few theories that directly addresses an individual’s self-regulation motivations [9], as well as the impacts of these forms of regulation on general functioning, health, and well-being [10]. Moreover, the topic of the work–home interface has been extensively researched for women as their role expectations shifted from homemaker to working mother; nonetheless, less is known about what drives men to experience enrichment experience from work, as it is rarely studied [11,12].

Furthermore, a notable concern in the work and home interface literature is the need to include different cultures since they can present valuable information on how, in different contexts, individuals cope with work–life issues and how they handle non-work responsibilities [13,14]. The work–family interface is undoubtedly affected by cultural norms and values, public policy, and gender role ideology [13], but it is largely overlooked in theory due to the Western-centric samples that dominate research studies. Saudi Arabia provides a unique and complex context, where tribal and Islamic affiliations strongly influence an individual’s way of life [15]. Family values are strongly adhered to as tribes and families are the backbones of Saudi Arabia’s social structure. As Saudi men place a high value on their clan, heritage, and extended family [16], this leads them to view the family as the centre of everything, where the men make the decisions for other family members. Consequently, Saudi men are responsible for providing for their family members, including women. In light of the differences in expectations between men’s and women’s roles, Munn and Greer (2015) contend that it is crucial to examine men’s experiences with the work–home interface independently from women’s experiences.

This research invokes the conservation of resources (COR) theory to understand how motivation preferences for work could have an effect on WHE. COR theory [17,18] is one of the most influential theories in explaining human stress and well-being, and it offers a useful theoretical foundation for understanding the occurrence of the WHE process and multiple role participation [19,20]. Thus, it is a particularly effective theoretical lens for understanding the work–family literature.

This study provides two main theoretical contributions to the work and home interface literature. First, this study contributes significantly to the field in understanding the role of motivation, as drawn from the SDT perspective [21], in driving enriching processes between work and home domains for men. In doing so, this research shifts the focus away from job characteristics as key drivers of work and home interface experiences to consider the role of person-centred motivational experiences in sparking enrichment for men. Second, the study addresses a notable gap in gaining insights into the experiences of an understudied cultural and ethnic context [22], echoing calls by many scholars [23,24] who point to the growing importance of cultural and cross-national differences in understanding the work–home interface. Thus, this research critically addresses this gap in the literature and offers fruitful insights regarding Saudi men’s work–home interface.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

2.1. Self-Determination Theory

In their original presentation of self-determination theory (SDT), Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest that, while individuals’ motivations are conceptually distinct, they experience to varying degrees complementary types of behavioural regulations. This suggests that the theory of motivation is multidimensional and is based on the idea that intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence an individual’s behaviour, ultimately affecting their performance and well-being [25].

SDT has been used to identify several distinct types of motivation, each of which has specifiable consequences for learning, performance, personal experiences, and well-being [21]. SDT researchers have categorised autonomous and controlled motivation types into five motivational regulations [26].

Intrinsic motivation refers to engagement in an activity for its own sake and for the purpose of enjoyment and satisfaction felt from performing the activity itself [21]. The term identified regulations refers to engaging in an activity because one identifies with its value or significance and embraces it as their own [27]. Identified employees engage in a behaviour based on its perceived meaning or its relation to personal goals [28]. Introjected motivation refers to working for ego protection; that is, the feeling of having made other people’s expectations into their own (internalised) within employees is what drives them to work in a certain way. Contingent self-esteem and ego involvement are examples of introjected regulation, which pushes people to engage in activities to feel valuable. On the other hand, external regulation indicates controlled motivation, whereby external forces (e.g., working in response to social and material pressures) control these motivations. Lastly, amotivation is an individual’s lack of motivation towards work [21].

Proponents of SDT present a relatively nuanced view regarding the interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, namely, a within-person theory [29]. It is argued that to achieve success within a modern organisational structure, there is a need for a better understanding of motivation and self-regulation [30]. In fact, research studies concerning the nature of an individual’s motivation towards work and home outcomes have not been emphasised sufficiently, more particularly in the emerging area of work–home enrichment [31].

While intrinsic and extrinsic motivation have been studied for over 40 years, there are still many unanswered questions regarding their respective roles and their outcomes [32,33,34]. According to Kuvaas et al. (2017), there is an ongoing and somewhat politicised debate on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It centres on whether they have a positive or negative relationship with each other and, consequently, whether they have differential effects. Despite the intense debate between the two opposing arguments of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation being positively or negatively related, few studies have rigorously examined the relationship between them, since extrinsic motivation is rarely examined [34]. However, researchers working on SDT within the area of organisational behaviour have argued for clear differences between these motivation types. There are several reasons, highlighted in previous research studies, that depict these differences.

First, according to Deci and Ryan (2008), ‘‘If the effect of the extrinsic reward had decreased intrinsic motivation, it would indicate that the two types of motivation tend to work against each other rather than being additive or synergistically positive” (2008, p. 15). Thus, intrinsic motivation can be undermined by an incentive, while, on the other hand, an incentive can strengthen extrinsic motivation [29]. Second, when individuals are driven by intrinsic motivation, the consequences and correlations are strongly positive in terms of the quality of their work–life well-being and overall behaviour [35]. This is contrary to individuals who are driven by extrinsic motivation; this is discussed further in this section. The third reason is the way in which they have been defined separately. It is difficult to establish how and why there should be positive relationships between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation [34], as the act of performing an activity to attain satisfaction and pleasure, which is inherently related to this activity, and the act of performing the same activity, which aims to achieve a positive experience or avoid negative outcomes, are logically incompatible.

Over the span of three decades, researchers in this area have demonstrated that there is an extremely strong relationship between motivational regulation and different outcomes and antecedents [33]. According to SDT, an autonomous regulation style has always had advantages over a controlled regulation style since it improves work–life well-being and individual performance [28,36]. Intrinsic motivation is considered, without exception, not only superior in today’s workplace and for job outcomes but also extends to greater benefits to an individual’s overall well-being and satisfaction with life [37]. The results of a meta-analysis in the domain of behavioural health have indicated a good connection between intrinsic, identified, and introjected motivation with healthy behaviours and well-being outcomes. In contrast, external regulation was shown to be unrelated to healthy behaviours and, in fact, to relate negatively to well-being outcomes [38].

Moreover, in the context of work outcomes, autonomous regulation encourages employees’ feelings of professional efficacy, promotes satisfaction in life and with their job, and has a positive impact on employee commitment, engagement, and general mental health. On the other hand, a controlled regulation style is linked to turnover intention, burnout, cynicism, and exhaustion [36,39,40,41,42]. Therefore, as per the impact of intrinsic motivations on work outcomes, it can be seen that this is related to a high number of beneficial outcomes that affect individuals at different levels, promoting overall well-being.

Furthermore, the literature review has highlighted that those behaviours characterised by meaningfulness and high interest (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) support better well-being and performance outcomes. By contrast, through lacking proactivity and creativity, behaviours characterised by ego protection or external incentives (introjection and external regulation) do not yield better well-being or performance outcomes [25,34]. Therefore, the exploration of the work and home interplay model through an SDT lens can result in interesting and valuable insights for the WHE field. It could be that behaviours characterised by meaningfulness have the potential to explain enrichment experiences, while it is conceivable that behaviours affected by external pressures may not be related to enrichment experiences. This will be teased out in this paper’s theoretical framework section.

2.2. Work and Home Enrichment

Greenhaus and Powell (2006) use role accumulation theory [43] as a base from which to develop the work–family enrichment concept, and this highlights the extent to which the quality of life in one role is improved by experiences in another role. The work–home enrichment concept (WHE) is achieved when positive experiences from the role in one domain are conveyed to the role in another domain. Overall, this leads to better outcomes. Therefore, the interface of the work and family domains can bring positive outcomes for different individuals [6].

The consequences of WHE are suggested to affect performance and resource outcomes [6]. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) argue that these relationships can be explained by both affective and instrumental paths. Affective paths refer to where “a resource generated in Role A can promote positive affect within Role B, which, in turn, produces high performance and positive affect in Role B”. On the other hand, on an instrumental path, the resources generated in role A can be transferred to role B to enhance performance [6]. This path suggests that work–family-role-generated resources enhance the work–family role’s performance. This provides the theoretical explanation of work–family enrichment’s cross-domain effects on the individual’s performance, both at work and at home. For example, perspectives and skills, such as active listening to colleagues’ or subordinates’ issues, nurtured at work can improve one’s parenting role at home, such as when listening to a partner’s or child’s problems. In addition, the ability to multitask and to respect individual differences are qualities commonly fostered in individuals’ personal lives, and these can improve their managerial performance [44]. Moreover, as mentioned above, the affective path generates positive effects within the current role that, in turn, enhance performance. However, it provides positive effects for other roles and, thereby, also improves performance. This leads to an individual having overall positive attitudes, which in turn have a positive effect on the main focal domain. This provides the rationale for effective outcomes and resources for the within-domain and cross-domain effects of WHE.

WHE is typically operationalised by domain direction. This means that the enrichment construct is also bi-directional and that experiences can be transferred between both work and home domains [6,45,46]. In this regard, a more positive work experience may assist employees in performing their home/family responsibilities more effectively (WHE). Similarly, due to increased efficiency and work productivity, the coping strategies that employees gain from their positive home roles may also serve to improve their work roles (HWE).

2.3. The Relationship between Motivation and Work–Home Enrichment

This research draws on the theoretical lens of COR theory [17] to explain why motivational states related to work may drive enrichment experiences differently. The findings of [39] and the argument of [47] to treat intrinsic motivation as a personal resource that fuels resource gains provide further rationale for drawing on COR theory to explain the underlying mechanisms of WHE spillover as part of a motivational process.

The COR approach to WHE suggests that an individual’s supply of personal resources is understood to be a ‘bridge’, which links how different motivational drivers for work may have an impact on the processes of WHE. The acquisition principle of COR is used to explain how intrinsic motivations lead positively to WHE. This happens as the result of personal resources being accumulated [17,18]. By contrast, the conservation principle is used to explain how extrinsic motivation leads negatively to WHE. This occurs as a result of personal resources being depleted [17,18].

Intrinsic motivation is believed to act as a fundamental resource that generates resource gain spirals that facilitate the accumulation of an employees’ supply of resources, thus underpinning the WHE process. First, looking at the principle of resource accumulation, the behaviour of intrinsically motivated individuals can be associated with being more active. According to [47], it is inner pleasure that drives these people to perform an activity. When confronted with job-related stress, intrinsically motivated individuals demonstrate a comparatively active coping style [47,48]. This active style assists them in gathering further resources to deal with stresses; helps them to optimise the use of contextual resources; and helps them to cope effectively and efficiently with contextual demands. Furthermore, as argued by [47], intrinsic motivation acts as a personal resource that fuels further resource gains (e.g., resilience and self-esteem). They further contend that intrinsically motivated employees are different from those who are extrinsically motivated in the quantity of their personal resources. Furthermore, Hakanen, Peeters, and Perhoniemi [49] argue that personal resources are the motivational forces for the generation and conservation of resources, which is a central asset for the WHE process.

On the other hand, there are several reasons why being extrinsically motivated leads negatively to WHE. When an employee works for extrinsic reasons, e.g., due to social pressure, they work to achieve positive reinforcement and recognition once work has been completed or to avoid punishment from their colleagues and managers when work needs are not met [32,33]. In the case of material pressures, once sufficient efforts are invested in work, employees use work for material reasons such as financial rewards or greater job security [32]. Consequently, employees drain their own resources to meet these social and material pressures and might leave work thinking about whether they did well enough in the eyes of others working with them.

Vansteenkiste et al. [50] argue that extrinsically motivated employees would leave their job feeling depleted and exhausted, obstructing fulfilment of family life. Eventually, employees drain their resources at work. When returning to their homes to face further demands, their supplies of personal resources are insufficient to meet demands at home. Moreover, employees who are extrinsically motivated avoid resource loss and undesired outcomes, leading to reduced satisfaction because, due to their need for autonomy, they feel coerced by external rewards [9]. Thus, they are more likely to experience negative psychological states associated with their work, with some research pointing to psychological distress as an outcome of extrinsic motivation, for instance [51]. Indeed, as argued by Vansteenkiste et al. [50], employees who are more externally motivated have lower life satisfaction, are less content with their lives, and experience more tension between their work and personal lives. Thus, this research argues that extrinsic motivation thwarts resource gain spirals and inhibits resource generation.

In a similar vein, it is noted that autonomous versus controlled regulation acts as a personal resource that can support employees in their work setting. By examining the effects of these regulations on job control, the findings of a study by Fernet, Guay, and Senécal (2004) elaborated on this topic. Their findings show that a highly intrinsically motivated employee uses and encompasses their job control to reduce the health-impairing effects produced by job demands. On the other hand, in view of high job demands, a less intrinsically motivated employee’s job control seems to have little value in terms of reducing stress [39]. Hence, this finding confirms that different motivation types in the workplace affect job control and, consequently, these motivations act as a personal resource to support the employee within their work environment. Additionally, the findings of a growing number of research studies indicate that work resources, such as autonomy, associated with intrinsic motivation can be beneficial to employees’ happiness, well-being, job satisfaction, and positive home-related outcomes [52].

Furthermore, recently established evidence reveals that motivation within the SDT continuum can predict WHE, but in different ways. First, [31] examined work motivation preferences within SDT and their link to job satisfaction indirectly through WHE and HWE. They found that intrinsic motivation predicted job satisfaction through WHE and HWE processes. Furthermore, Alsuwailem’s [53] recent study examined dominant intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation within an SDT framework on Saudi working women; her study’s findings contend the importance of intrinsic motivation in sparking the enrichment spillover experience between the work and home domains.

Thus, based on the above, this study argues the following (see Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1. 

(a) Intrinsic motivation, (b) identified regulation, and (c) introjected regulation are positively related to WHE and HWE.

Hypothesis 2. 

(a) External social regulation, (b) external material regulation, and (c) amotivation are negatively related to WHE and HWE.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

The following section details the development of measures for this study’s variables. Demographic variables were included at the beginning of the survey, including age, marital status, and organisational tenure. The independent variables were all six types of motivation drawn from the self-determination motivation continuum. The dependent variables were both directions of work–home enrichment. Following a thorough review of previous studies, which attempted to operationalise these variables, this research identified several scales as the most appropriate for adoption.

The information was gathered using a self-reported survey questionnaire that was designed to collect data from three universities spread across a wide regional location in Saudi Arabia. Male Saudi participants were mainly the target of this survey. A total of 460 surveys (from 600) were returned for a response rate of 76.2%. Participants were informed of their right and freedom to withdraw at any time.

3.2. Measures

Motivation was measured using the 9-item Motivation at Work scale (MWSS) [27]. The scale’s items are divided across six categories of the motivation continuum (three for each). These are intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, introjected motivation, external motivation (social and material), and amotivation. In regard to intrinsic motivation, an example is “I work because what I do in my work is exciting”. With regard to identified motivation, an example is ‘’I work because putting efforts in this job aligns with my personal values”. With regard to introjected motivation, an example would be “I work because I have to prove to myself that I can”. With regard to external regulation (social), an example is “I work because others will respect me more (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients, etc.)”, while for external regulation (material), an example is “I work because others offer me greater job security if I put enough effort in my job (e.g., employer, supervisor, etc.)”. Finally, an example of amotivation would be “I do little work because I don’t think this work is worth putting efforts into”. The response items were based on a 5-point Likert-type scale and ranged from very ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

Work–home enrichment was measured using the multidimensional scale devised by Carlson et al. (2006) [45]. This scale has 18 items, with each of the 2 directions (work to family and family to work) consisting of 9 items, with an additional 3 sub-scales for each direction, namely, development, effect and mood, and capital and efficiency. With respect to WHE under development, an example is “Helps me to gain knowledge and this helps me be a better family member”. Under effect and mood, an example is “Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better family member”. Finally, under capital and efficiency, an example is “Provides me with a sense of success and this helps me be a better family member”. When considered from the opposite direction, namely, that of HWE, under development, an example is “Helps me acquire skills and this helps me be a better worker”. Under effect and mood, an example is “Makes me feel happy and this helps me be a better worker”. Finally, under capital and efficiency, an example is “Causes me to be more focused at work and this helps me be a better worker”. A 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”, was employed.

3.3. Data Analysis Strategy

In terms of data analysis, the first objective was to build and test the validity of this study’s measures to confirm the factor structure of each variable and the relationship between each factor and the internal consistency of each measure. The second objective was to build and test the structural model to allow the testing of the study hypotheses. The diagonally weighted least squares (WLSMV) with the delta parameterisation [54] was used to analyse the study’s hypotheses using version 8.3 of the Mplus statistical program [54]. The WLSMV is a reliable estimator that does not assume normally distributed variables and is the best choice for modelling categorical or ordered data [55].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

A total of 460 surveys (from 600) were returned for a response rate of 76.2%. The participants answered their levels of motivation for work and their experience of WHE and HWE. On average, the participants were 45 years old, married (75%), and were parents (79%). Furthermore, 30% of respondents had held organisational tenure for more than 10 years, 27% for between 1 and 5 years, and 10 % had been working less than 1 year.

Initial data screening confirmed that none of the demographic information collected from the participants had any relationship with the variables of interest (i.e., nonsignificant Pearson correlations). Therefore, they were excluded from subsequent analyses. The researcher examined with care the frequencies and descriptive statistics for the study variables to provide insight into the distribution of responses and the sample’s characteristics. The researcher used Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency of each of the study variables. The commonly accepted threshold for reliability is 0.70. All variables demonstrated acceptable levels of reliability.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Variables of the Study.

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.INM	3.933	0.951	(0.81)
2.IDR	4.278	0.824	0.551 **	(0.82)
3.IR	4.060	0.836	0.294 **	0.622 **	(0.66)
4.ERM	2.681	0.999	0.123	0.181 **	0.334 **	(0.68)
5.ERS	1.402	0.589	−0.409	−0.311 **	−0.157 **	0.085	0.163 **
6.AM	11.10	2.192	0.418 **	0.306 **	0.207 **	0.168 **	0.031	−0.219 **
7.WHE	11.10	2.192	0.418 **	0.306 **	0.207 **	0.168 **	0.031	−0.219 **	(0.82)
8.HWE	11.22	2.287	0.376 **	0.191 **	0.132 **	0.163 **	−0.030	−0.170 **	0.529 **	(0.86)

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Numbers in parenthesis = Cronbach’s alpha. ** p value < 0.01. INM = intrinsic motivation. IDR = identified motivation. IR = introjected motivation. ERM = extrinsic motivation (material). ERS = extrinsic motivation (social). AM = amotivation. WHE = work–home enrichment. HWE = home–work enrichment.

presents the descriptive statistics for the research variables and correlations.

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis is a statistical method utilised to represent the interrelationships between a large number of observed variables (e.g., items in a questionnaire) with a smaller number of unobserved variables that are called latent factors [54]. As a special form of factor analysis, CFA is employed to determine whether the measures of a construct are in keeping with a researcher’s understanding of the form and type of that construct. To establish the discriminant validity of the latent factors, the researcher conducted a CFA for both sets of variables used in this research. All observed variables for WHE and HWE had significant (p < 0.001) loadings ranging from 0.70 to 1.00 on their latent factor (see

Table 2. CFA and Factor Loadings for Work–home and Home–work Enrichment dimensions.

W-H Enrichment		b	se	z	p
Development dimensions	WHED1	0.89	0.01	86.86	0.000
	WHED2	1.00	0.01	216.94	0.000
	WHED3	0.85	0.02	49.15	0.000
	WHEM1 *	0.49	0.04	12.02	0.000
Mood dimensions	WHEM1	0.77	0.05	15.89	0.000
	WHEM2	0.96	0.01	126.78	0.000
	WHEM3	0.88	0.01	76.75	0.000
	WHED3 *	0.11	0.02	5.34	0.000
Capital dimensions	WHEC1	0.78	0.02	41.62	0.000
	WHEC2	0.97	0.01	111.18	0.000
	WHEC3	0.90	0.01	73.96	0.000
	WHEM1 *	−0.39	0.06	-6.63	0.000
H-W Enrichment	Item	b	se	z	p
Development dimensions	HWED1	0.92	0.01	102.87	0.000
	HWED2	0.96	0.01	144.08	0.000
	HWED3	0.76	0.03	28.01	0.000
	HWEM1 *	0.52	0.04	13.43	0.000
Mood dimensions	HWEM1	0.74	0.05	16.42	0.000
	HWEM2	0.97	0.01	137.99	0.000
	HWEM3	0.93	0.01	103.64	0.000
	HWEC1 *	0.17	0.04	4.08	0.000
Capital dimensions	HWEC1	0.68	0.04	17.41	0.000
	HWEC2	0.98	0.01	143.32	0.000
	HWEC3	0.92	0.01	99.10	0.000
	HWED3 *	0.22	0.03	6.67	0.000
	HWEM1 *	-0.34	0.06	-5.39	0.000

* Cross-loadings were allowed within the construct dimensions.

).

The researcher compared the three-factor model (target model) to a one-factor model in which all observed variables were collapsed into one general model. The obtained results indicate that the target model achieved an adequate model fit (see

Table 3. Fit measures Alternative Models.

	RMSEA	90% CI	p	CFI	TLI	SRMR	Chi2	df
Final model	0.049	0.045–0.053	0.61	0.984	0.982	0.049
3-factor model solution on the 2 outcomes	0.044	0.040–0.048	0.988	0.988	0.985	0.041	985.078	519	0

).

4.3. Path Model Results

Once the researcher had established CFA fit measures, the next step in the data analysis process was to test the research hypotheses. This research employed diagonally weighted least squares (WLSMV) with the delta parameterisation and probit links using Mplus [55]. The WLSMV is a robust estimator that does not assume normally distributed variables and provides the best option for modelling categorical or ordered data [56]. The results of the path analysis demonstrate an acceptable fit to the data (see

Table 4. Direct Effects of the Path Analysis Model.

WHE Variable	b	SE	z	p
AM	−0.12	0.09	−1.34	0.181
ERS	−0.05	0.09	−0.56	0.574
ERM	0.25	0.10	2.49	0.013
IR	−0.10	0.13	−0.78	0.438
IDR	0.13	0.12	1.05	0.292
INM	0.36	0.08	4.31	0.000
HWE Variable	b	SE	z	p
AM	−0.05	0.10	−0.52	0.606
ERS	−0.29	0.09	−3.22	0.001
ERM	0.39	0.10	3.93	0.000
IR	−0.02	0.12	−0.19	0.851
IDR	−0.12	0.12	−0.94	0.350
INM	0.45	0.08	5.44	0.000

).

First, there was a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation for employees and WHE (β = 0.36 p = 0.00) and HWE (β = 0.45, p = 0.00). The results show that neither introjected motivation nor identified motivation was related to WHE (p > 0.05) or HWE (p > 0.05).

Moreover, there was a positive relationship between employees’ extrinsic motivation for work (material) on WHE (β = 0.25, p = 0.01) and HWE (β = 0.39, p = 0.00). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation (social) was negatively related to HWE (β = −0.29 p = 0.00) and was not related to WHE (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the results show that amotivation was not related to WHE (p > 0.05) nor to HWE (p > 0.05).

5. Discussion

Hypothesis 1 proposed that there would be a positive relationship between (a) intrinsic motivation, (b) identified motivation, and (c) introjected motivation and WHE and HWE. The results support this hypothesis, with only intrinsic motivation being positively significant with both WHE and HWE, whereas identified motivation and introjected motivation did not have any significant relationships. Accordingly, this means that men who pursue work with intrinsic reasons experience enrichment spillover between the work and home domains. This finding is consistent with recent findings by [53], which found that enrichment spillover experiences between the work and home domains were sparked by dominant intrinsic motivation for Saudi women working in academia. Additionally, the results are in accordance with [31]’s investigation on the mediating role of WHE in the relationship between motivation in the framework of SDT and job satisfaction of male leaders in New Zealand. Their findings show that no intrinsic motivation dimension directly predicted job satisfaction, instead working indirectly through enrichment. In addition, the results of this study are consistent with the recent study [57] on individuals working in Portugal’s services industry, with a majority of participants being women (64.7%). This supports the expansion of the motivational components and the inclusion of enrichment in motivational research studies.

Being intrinsically driven to work, as described in this research, leads to behaviours that aid in the acquisition of additional resources that can be amassed for use in the home domain [47,48]. Men who are intrinsically motivated develop a more active coping style [47,48] and improve their vocational self-efficacy by addressing things in a different way [9,9,32,33]. Previous theoretical deliberations about how intrinsic motivations trigger behaviours and resources that enable the enrichment process have supported these links. This is because the active style aids employees in making the most use of contextual resources and dealing with contextual demands effectively and efficiently. As a result, the WHE procedure is enabled [47]. Likewise, men, such as those with strong self-efficacy, save resources for non-work-related tasks, making them less likely to face work–home conflict and more likely to obtain WHE experience [19,58,59].

Hypothesis 2 proposed that there is a negative relationship between (a) external regulation material, (b) external social regulation, and (c) amotivation with WHE and HWE. The results of this hypothesis provided interesting insights. First, men who are motivated extrinsically for work by material drives (e.g., working for pay) were significantly and positively related to both WHE and HWE processes rather than negatively, as predicted. This suggests that when men are forced to work under incentive pressure, they are more prone to experience WHE and HWE. This is in line with the results of [31], who found in their New Zealand sample that external regulation was positively related to HWE. This could be explained by the fact that they work mainly for monetary gains (e.g., salary and promotion) that enable them to better support their families and enhance their quality of life in various ways, even though working under these incentives may have a negative effect on their well-being in terms of depletion of resources. However, these findings indicate that these obtained financial benefits are a rationale for their work–home enrichment experience. These results support the claims of [60,61] that extrinsic motivation is not necessarily negatively related to well-being outcomes, as long as the reason underlying the behaviour is internalised so that it becomes autonomous in executing the activity.

Second, men who are motivated to work with social drives (e.g., working under social pressure) were only negatively related to HWE, as predicted. That is, men who work out of a need for recognition or to avoid punishments for underperforming deplete their own resources in meeting these demands, as explained earlier, and become exhausted once they return home, thus affecting the HWE direction only. Finally, amotivation and WHE or HWE were also found to be unrelated. This may imply that this level of motivation on the SDT continuum is associated with flat motivation, or, to put it another way, a lack of drive to work at all, which would explain why there is no association between this type of motivation and both work and home enrichment directions. However, this comes in conflict with the findings of [57], in which they found a negative association between both external regulation (material and social) with the WHE direction only. As such, the extrinsic motivation dimensions are related in different ways, and in some instances, opposite directions highlight the complexities of these dimensions of motivation. Importantly, these effects also highlight the need to explore and test multiple dimensions of motivation cross-culturally.

Given the lack of research associating workers’ motivation framework on WHE [31,57], and since SDT is a macro-theory of human motivation that is continuously being developed based on the findings of numerous researchers from different fields (e.g., healthcare, education, and work) [57], the current research has the potential to contribute to the SDT literature. The current study adds to the SDT literature by highlighting the specifics of each form of motivation within SDT in cross-cultural terms and demonstrating how each type of motivation relates to WHE.

5.1. Practical Implications

This research has significant consequences for practice. The WHE spillover experiences reflect men’s impressions of their work and how they feel about them, which is a key means of experiencing enrichment. The findings imply that employers and managers should pay more attention to the enjoyment and even fun found in the performance of a job [62,63]. As a result, it is critical to create jobs that promote intrinsic motivation, such as by providing opportunities for having fun at work, and to embrace workplaces that are free of external restrictions [47,50,64]. Work environments that are challenging, interesting, and allow for choice, according to [9], foster autonomous work motivation. Allowing employees to define and plan their own assignments might help create such work designs [29]. Furthermore, by developing human resource practices directed at increasing workers’ autonomous motivations, we contribute to both workers’ and organisations’ sustainability [57].

Furthermore, since extrinsic motivations underpinning the fear of losing reward and job security supported both directions of enrichment processes, this raises the need for employers to design competing incentives for their organisations that will not only attract individuals but will glue the bond between employees and their management teams and foster commitment.

5.2. Limitations and Future Directions

When examining the conclusions of this study, there are a number of limitations that must be considered. To begin with, all of the adopted measures were self-reported, which elevated the likelihood of a common method bias in the results. However, collecting data through self-reports was suitable for this study because job perceptions, personal well-being, and intentions to act in a certain way are all within-person elements that may be obtained and examined by self-reporting [65].

The second limitation relates to the generalisability of this study’s findings. The researcher conducted this study on a sample from three Saudi universities that are members of the same industry, namely, the higher education sector. There is still a need for more research to see if the findings of this study can be applied to other contexts. Different outcomes could be obtained by examining men who work in the private sector, where there are different HR policies and regulations from those in the public sector that may have an impact on work motivations. Furthermore, a qualitative study can be conducted concurrently to obtain a deeper understating of the complexities of internal versus external motivations for work and WHE processes.

6. Conclusions

The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of what causes Saudi men to have positive interface experiences between work and home. The findings highlight the motivational underpinnings of the work–home interaction experience, demonstrating that working for pleasure and material incentives brings enrichment experience. Furthermore, this study filled a gap in the previous work–home interface research by focusing specifically on men working in a non-Western context. Indeed, further work and home studies should be carried out to produce useful insights that have the potential to improve the well-being of individuals, their families, and their communities, organisations, and countries’ economies.