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.

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 follow.

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, this need is fulfilled. When they repeatedly experience failure, confusion, or helplessness, the need is frustrated.

Feedback, therefore, plays a central role. 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.