Reconsidering Workplace Motivation (Part II): Self-Determination Theory

In the first article of the workplace motivation series, we explored how competence beliefs shape motivation at work. We asked whether what looks like low motivation might sometimes reflect a quieter doubt: “Am I capable?” But competence is only one piece of the picture. 

Another influential framework in motivation research is Self-Determination Theory, developed by Ryan and Deci (2000) (1). This theory distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and argues that human motivation is deeply shaped by the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence.

In this article, we will take a closer look at these three needs and try to understand how shifts in employee motivation can often be traced back to whether these needs are supported or frustrated in the workplace. We will also include workplace learning scenarios to see how they operate in practice.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

Self-Determination Theory approaches motivation as a continuum shaped by the degree of internalization.

At work, there are moments when a task genuinely captures our interest. We may lose track of time. We become curious and focused. The activity itself feels engaging. This is what SDT calls intrinsic motivation. It refers to engaging in an activity for its own sake, and it brings a natural pull toward exploration, learning, or improvement.

But everyday work is not made up only of such moments.

There are also times when we complete tasks for different reasons. We meet deadlines because they influence our evaluation. We prepare presentations because they are expected. We respond to emails because leaving them unanswered would create consequences. The task may not feel particularly enjoyable, yet we still do it. This falls under extrinsic motivation, where behavior is guided by outcomes rather than inherent interest. We act to gain something (recognition, salary) or to avoid something (criticism).

SDT argues that intrinsic motivation is often associated with higher engagement and performance. However, extrinsic motivation is not inherently weaker or problematic. Its impact depends on how deeply externally assigned values are internalized and on how well the work environment supports the three basic psychological needs we will now discuss.

Three Psychological Needs

1. Autonomy

Autonomy refers to the experience of acting with a sense of choice, a form of psychological ownership over one’s actions. It does not mean the absence of structure, deadlines, or expectations. Rather, it concerns how these structures are psychologically experienced.

Consider an employee who is assigned a project with a strict deadline and clearly defined deliverables. In one scenario, the manager presents the task as a directive: the process is prescribed step by step, deviations are discouraged, and no rationale is provided beyond “this is how it must be done.” In this case, the employee’s cognitive focus is likely to shift toward avoiding errors and meeting minimum requirements. The task becomes something to execute correctly rather than something to engage with.

In another scenario, the same project and deadline are introduced differently. The manager explains why the timeline matters, clarifies the expected outcome, and invites the employee to decide how to approach the work within those boundaries. The structural constraints remain identical. However, the employee is now positioned as someone who contributes to shaping the path toward the goal.

The difference, therefore, lies not in the task itself, but in the employee’s psychological position within it. In the first case, behavior is externally regulated and primarily oriented toward compliance. In the second, the employee is more likely to experience ownership, which facilitates the internalization of the task’s value.

SDT argues that it is this internal experience that determines the quality of motivation, and consequently, the level of engagement, persistence, and effort that follows.

2. Competence

The need for competence refers to the desire to feel capable, effective, and able to meet the demands of one’s environment. At first glance, this may seem very similar to what we discussed in the first article through Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy, but the two are not identical.

Self-efficacy is a task-specific belief. It answers the question: “Can I successfully perform this particular task?” SDT’s notion of competence is broader, reflecting the ongoing need to experience effectiveness and mastery across situations. It is considered a psychological need because its satisfaction is essential for sustained motivation and well-being.

When individuals repeatedly experience effectiveness and visible progress, they are more likely to remain invested in their work. When effort feels disconnected from improvement, frustration may replace engagement.

Feedback, therefore, plays a central role here. But not all feedback supports competence equally. Feedback that highlights progress, clarifies what worked, and identifies specific areas for improvement strengthens the experience of effectiveness.

For example, being told, “This was excellent, you met expectations,” provides evaluation, and it feels good. But being told, “Your argument became much clearer once you structured the analysis around the core assumption,” provides information about growth. It not only feels good, but also supports the need for competence by making improvement visible.

When competence is supported, individuals experience work as a space where effort translates into development. When it is chronically undermined through vague expectations, inconsistent standards, or constant evaluation without guidance, motivation may begin to erode. Not necessarily because individuals doubt their ability, but because the environment no longer allows them to experience effectiveness.

From an SDT perspective, competence is not about constant success. It is about creating conditions in which individuals can experience progress, learning, and impact over time.

Learning Scenario Analytics Tool Rollout ▾

The setup: A company introduces a new internal analytics tool. L&D launches a mandatory two-hour training. The session includes slides, a live demonstration, and a final quiz at the end. Participants either pass or fail. Completion rates are high, and the program is considered “successful.”

The problem: Weeks later, employees hesitate to use the tool independently. They return to old methods, or they ask colleagues for help instead of experimenting.

Why this may be a competence issue (SDT lens)? ▾

From an SDT perspective, the issue may not be knowledge transfer but competence frustration. Passing a quiz confirms performance in a narrow sense. It answers “Did you get the correct answer?” But competence in SDT concerns the ongoing experience of effectiveness and growth. If employees do not experience themselves as progressively more capable, motivation remains fragile.

What a redesigned version could look like? ▾

1. Instead of structuring the session primarily around content delivery, the training revolves around progressively complex case tasks. Participants begin with simplified datasets and clearly defined analytical goals. As they demonstrate understanding, the scenarios gradually increase in ambiguity and complexity. The aim is to stretch skills without making the task feel unmanageable. 

2. Feedback also shifts. Instead of “Correct” or “Incorrect,” participants receive process-oriented explanations: “You selected these variables, so you were able to isolate this trend in the dataset.” or “If you include this variable, you may capture these fluctuations more accurately.” This kind of feedback does more than signal success. It makes improvement visible. It clarifies why an approach worked and how it can be refined. It supports the experience of effectiveness rather than mere evaluation. 

3. The design would incorporate iteration. After receiving feedback, learners could revise their analysis and immediately observe how their results change. The emphasis would not be on a single correct attempt, but on visible progression across attempts. 

According to SDT, effort needs to translate into observable improvement. When learners can see that their actions lead to measurable progress, competence is supported. And when competence is supported, engagement with the tool is more likely to persist beyond the training session itself.

3. Relatedness

The need for relatedness refers to the experience of feeling connected to others, of belonging, and of being taken seriously within a social context. It is not simply about working alongside others, but about experiencing that one’s presence and contribution matter.  

Relatedness is also closely intertwined with perceived competence. Perceived competence develops within relational contexts; when individuals feel supported and understood, they are more likely to interpret challenges as manageable rather than threatening (2). In such contexts, people articulate unfinished ideas, revise their thinking, and remain engaged in demanding tasks rather than withdrawing from them. A difficult assignment feels different when it comes from a manager one trusts. Critical feedback feels different when it is delivered within a relationship that signals respect.

Relatedness can also be shaped through the design of tasks themselves. In learning design, when contexts are socially relevant and grounded in real experiences, both cognitive and emotional engagement tend to deepen (3). For example, in a leadership development cohort, working with real dilemmas drawn from participants’ own teams often generates richer discussion than abstract case studies. The conversation becomes less performative and more reflective. Therefore, the learning space gains social meaning, and participants connect not only with one another but also with the work itself.

Taken together, motivation at the workplace appears less like a personality trait and more like a reflection of context. What appears as disengagement, lack of effort, or indifference may reflect frustrated autonomy, unmet competence needs, or weakened relatedness.

From an SDT perspective, the central question is not simply how to increase motivation, but whether the workplace supports the psychological conditions under which motivation can emerge and endure. When individuals experience choice within structure, progress within challenge, and connection within collaboration, motivation becomes more stable and more self-endorsed.

REFERENCES

(1) Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

(2) Wood, D. R. (2016). The impact of students’ perceived relatedness and competence upon their motivated engagement with learning activities: a self-determination theory perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham).

(3) Weng, X., Chiu, T. K. F., & Jong, M. S. Y. (2022). Applying relatedness to explain learning outcomes of STEM maker activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 800569. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.800569