Discover how Self-Determination Theory explains motivation. Learn how autonomy, competence, and relatedness boost performance, engagement, and wellbeing at work.
What if the difference between motivated and unmotivated employees has less to do with personality and more to do with whether their basic psychological needs are supported?
Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, explains why people thrive when three universal psychological needs are met: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
When individuals experience choice, capability, and meaningful connection, their motivation becomes internalized and self-driven. This intrinsic motivation predicts stronger engagement, better performance, deeper learning, and greater wellbeing across work, education, and health.
Just as schemas shape interpretation, SDT explains how environments shape motivation. Supportive environments energize people; controlling environments drain them.
SDT is one of the most influential theories in motivation science because it answers a fundamental question:
Why do people excel in some environments but disengage in others?
The answer is simple but powerful:
People function at their best when their psychological needs are supported—and struggle when they are undermined.
SDT distinguishes between:
Autonomous motivation: Acting out of interest, value, or personal endorsement
Controlled motivation: Acting out of pressure, fear, guilt, or external reward
When needs are supported, motivation becomes deeper and more sustainable.
When needs are blocked, people experience frustration, stress, and disengagement.
SDT argues that humans naturally move toward growth, learning, and wellbeing—if the environment supports:
Autonomy: Feeling choice and ownership
Competence: Feeling effective and improving
Relatedness: Feeling connected and valued
Support leads to energy, engagement, and resilience.
Blocking these needs leads to burnout, resistance, and shallow motivation.
Autonomy is the feeling of “I choose to do this,” not “I have to do this.”
Environments that support autonomy:
Offer meaningful choices
Invite input and perspective-taking
Explain the reasoning behind tasks or rules
Avoid unnecessary control or pressure
Environments that block autonomy rely on threats, rigid control, or micromanagement—conditions that weaken motivation and increase resistance.
Competence involves feeling skilled, challenged appropriately, and able to grow.
Competence is strengthened through:
Clear, realistic goals
Constructive, timely feedback
Opportunities to build mastery
Tasks that are neither too easy nor overwhelming
When competence is supported, people experience progress, momentum, and satisfaction.
Relatedness is the feeling of being valued, cared for, and included.
It grows through:
Respectful, trusting relationships
Genuine interest in people’s experiences
Supportive communication
Inclusive, psychologically safe cultures
When relatedness is strong, people invest more deeply in goals and teams.
When autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported together, motivation shifts from external control to internal commitment.
Research shows that this shift produces:
Higher performance
Greater persistence
Better learning outcomes
Lower burnout
Improved wellbeing
For example, studies in education—including during the COVID-19 pandemic—show that autonomy-supportive environments significantly increased student motivation, persistence, and academic outcomes even under high stress.
Autonomy-supportive leadership, opportunities for mastery, and strong team relationships predict:
Higher job satisfaction
Stronger commitment
Better performance
Lower turnover
More voluntary adherence to rules
Teaching practices that allow choice, scaffold competence, and build supportive teacher–student relationships improve:
STEM motivation
Identity development
Self-regulated learning
SDT-based interventions improve long-term behavior change, including:
Physical activity
Medication adherence
Rehabilitation participation
The key: people sustain behaviors they find personally meaningful—not just externally rewarded.
Practical SDT-aligned environments:
Ask for input rather than issuing commands
Communicate the “why” behind tasks
Provide optimal challenge
Offer timely, constructive feedback
Build team cultures rich in trust, fairness, and belonging
Acknowledge people’s feelings and constraints
When these elements are combined, autonomy, competence, and relatedness naturally grow—and motivation deepens.
These three needs work together to shape motivation in powerful and measurable ways.
Self-Determination Theory shows that motivation is not fixed—it is shaped by the environment.
Autonomy, competence, and relatedness create conditions where people feel energized, capable, and connected.
When leaders understand these needs, they design workplaces, classrooms, and systems that support performance and long-term wellbeing.
Motivation grows naturally when people experience choice, mastery, and belonging.
Organization Learning Labs offers SDT-aligned motivation diagnostics, leadership training, and behavioral design programs that help teams build environments rich in autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Our research-backed tools support higher engagement, stronger performance, and healthier long-term growth.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 730–746.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.
Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 325–340.
Comments