Self-Determination Theory for Work Motivation

Motivation is defined by Craig Pinder, in Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior (1998), as “a set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration.” It is at the heart of management and organizational behavior, as it plays an important role in both organizational and employee outcomes, such as organizational performance and personal well-being. Initially developed by psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, self-determination theory (SDT) has evolved gradually over the last few decades to become a leading theory of human motivation. Applied SDT research has flourished in many areas of psychology, such as education, sports, exercise and health, and, more recently, organizational psychology and management. At its core, SDT uses the classic concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. However, through rigorous research into people’s reasons for engaging in different activities, SDT has evolved these concepts to propose a more meaningful multidimensional conceptualization of motivation that distinguishes between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation is characterized by a sense of choice and volition, whereas controlled motivation is grounded in a sense of pressure and having to engage in a certain behavior. Importantly, a key proposition of SDT is that individuals have deeply evolved psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. When these needs are satisfied at work, either through the job itself, work climate, or interactions with colleagues and managers, employees tend to have more autonomous, high-quality motivation and greater well-being. In contrast, when these psychological needs are frustrated or thwarted, employees are prompted toward more controlled forms of motivation and, subsequently, more symptoms of ill-being and diminished performance at work. Grounded in this theoretical framework, researchers have been able to examine social-contextual factors that contribute to or jeopardize employees’ quality of motivation and related outcomes. Autonomy support, leadership, work design, and compensation systems are examples of such contextual factors that have generated considerable attention in this field and are further elaborated in this article.