Is there evidence that intrinsic motivation stated during hiring predicts better employee performance than extrinsic motivation?

I’m trying to understand this from a labor economics perspective rather than a cultural or moral one.

In hiring, candidates are often expected to emphasize intrinsic motivation, such as interest in the mission, culture, or values, rather than extrinsic motivation like compensation. Anecdotally, candidates who are direct about compensation being a primary motivator sometimes face negative reactions, even when they appear well qualified.

This raises a few questions:

1.  Is there empirical evidence that stated intrinsic motivation during interviews predicts higher productivity, retention, or firm performance?

2.  Are candidates who prioritize compensation empirically worse performers, or is this mainly a signaling and social norm issue in hiring?

3.  How do economists interpret interview responses as signals, given strong incentives for candidates to give socially desirable answers?

4.  Is there evidence that honesty about extrinsic motivation leads to adverse selection, or does it simply conflict with hiring conventions unrelated to performance?

I’m especially interested in research that distinguishes actual motivation and on-the-job behavior from what candidates say during interviews.

Thanks in advance for any insight or references.