Which of the following scenarios illustrates a recommendation made by equity theory?

Basic psychological needs: ingredients for autonomous motivation.

The satisfaction of a worker’s basic psychological needs affects the type of motivation the individual has towards their job activities. When managers support autonomy, competence and relatedness, employees are more likely to be autonomously motivated (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). Autonomously motivated employees engage in their work with a full sense of willingness, understand the worth and purpose of their job and are self-determined in carrying out work tasks (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Autonomously motivated workers reliably perform better, learn better and are happier at work (Deci et al., 2017). In contrast, when a person’s basic psychological needs are not met their motivation deteriorates and becomes controlled. Controlled motivation is characterized by an employee doing an activity because they feel they “have to” and/or to obtain a separable outcome (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Controlled behaviours are contingent on reward, power dynamics or driven by internal pressure such as guilt or to maintain self-esteem. Compared to controlled motivation, autonomous motivation yields better behavioural outcomes (e.g. sustained willing participation) positive subjective experiences, less job stress and higher satisfaction in the workplace (Fernet and Austin, 2014; Gagné et al.,2010).

Basic psychological needs and positive outcomes in the workplace.

SDT research in organizations has shown basic psychological need satisfaction to be associated with a wide range of positive employee outcomes, beyond autonomous motivation. The satisfaction of basic psychological needs has been associated with lower turnover, improved well-being, higher job satisfaction and positive job attitudes (Gillet et al., 2012; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). A recent meta-analysis of 99 studies reported that each of the three needs predicted lower turnover intention and were associated with higher job satisfaction, engagement and affective commitment (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). Beneficial outcomes of need satisfaction have also been found in studies conducted within the volunteer context (Haivas et al., 2012). For example, Boezeman and Ellemers (2009) examined the way in which volunteers derive their job satisfaction and intent to remain. The results showed that when volunteers experience the satisfaction of autonomy and relatedness needs during their volunteer work, they are more satisfied with their volunteer job and that this, in turn, enhances their intent to remain a volunteer with the volunteer organization.

Overall, SDT’s basic psychological needs have substantial application value because they offer leaders a simple framework outlining the conditions that promote high quality motivation and beneficial outcomes among their workers. The interpersonal approach of leaders, the way they communicate and relate to their followers, is considered paramount in creating a need-supportive climate and shaping motivation in an organization (Deci et al., 1989). The critical issue for leaders, therefore, becomes understanding how they can apply SDT and support basic psychological needs in their own organizations.

A gap between self-determination theory and practice in organizations.

A disconnect between theory and practice (Van De Ven and Johnson, 2006; Zaccaro and Horn, 2003) within SDT research is currently limiting leaders from diffusing this valuable knowledge into managerial practice. SDT literature in the work domain has focused primarily on theoretical testing, measurement of SDT-related constructs and investigating the model’s nomological network (Deci et al., 2017; Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2019; Van den Broeck et al., 2016). In contrast, very little empirical attention has been paid to examining how the theory is applied, interpreted and/or used by practitioners in real world settings. Only a few SDT-based field experiments or quasi-experiments have been undertaken in the work domain (Deci et al., 1989; Forner, 2019; Hardré and Reeve, 2009; Jungert et al., 2018), revealing that researchers have, thus far, done very little to integrate the theory into practically useful organizational interventions or actions. Tangible managerial behaviours or practical strategies that support workers basic psychological needs in the workplace are rarely published (Baard and Baard, 2009; Stone et al.,2009) and SDT researchers have called for studies to “examine concrete workplace tasks, characteristics and managerial behaviours” (Deci et al., 2017, p. 37). The immense popularity of practitioner-oriented books on motivation (Pink, 2009) highlights both the significance of this topic for business professionals and the opportunity for SDT scholars to have a greater impact on informing and shaping employee motivation practices in organizations. The current disconnect presents a problem for managers, HR professionals and fellow academics seeking to use SDT to solve real business problems because there is limited empirical guidance to help them operationalize the theory clearly, within the complexities of strategic organizations and to take appropriate and effective action. The present research contributes towards addressing this issue.

Present research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the application of SDT among leaders and delineate practical managerial approaches for supporting basic psychological needs in the workplace. To investigate the phenomenon of SDT-based leadership the research asks: how do leaders apply SDT, when carrying out their day-to-day managerial functions, to support workers’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness? This study is the first draw upon the lived experience of practitioners, specifically organizational leaders, who have operationalized the theory into actions and have personally applied SDT in their organization. Consistent with engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007), the study aims to leverage theoretic knowledge of SDT scholars alongside the insights and applied experience of practitioners to delineate examples of basic psychological need support that are practically salient and aligned to the theoretic tenets of SDT. In doing so, this paper contributes to bridging the theory-practice gap and further expands our understanding of what leaders do to motivate organizational members.

Learning and application of Self-determination theory by leaders.

Prior to contributing to this study, the leaders spent nine weeks learning about and personally applying SDT in their organization. This process was facilitated through a structured SDT-based leadership intervention, comprising of three phases. The aim of the first phase was for leaders to learn the theory and consider how they would apply the model in their own organizational context. Leaders were introduced to SDT via a face-to-face training day where they received information, took part in workshop discussions, role plays and reflection exercises and created individual action plans for how they would support their followers’ basic psychological needs. The learning content and the conceptual definitions of key constructs were drawn from published research (Deci et al., 1989; Deci and Ryan, 2008; Stone et al., 2009). Next, the leaders completed a nine-week on-the-job learning program. The purpose of this second phase was to prompt leaders to practice their new skills and knowledge in the workplace and for them to identify and try various strategies and approaches for supporting followers’ basic psychological needs during their day to day management activities and reflect on their outcomes. Leaders were facilitated through three cycles of experiential learning (Kolb, 2014) where they implemented their action plan for supporting basic psychological needs, completed post-implementation reflection activities, received mentoring, revised their action plan and completed further theoretical readings. Practice-based learning and multiple delivery methods have been found to be critical for effective leadership learning (Lacerenza et al., 2017). The final phase comprising a community of practice (Li et al., 2009) where the leaders came together to share their experiences with each other, identify successful SDT application actions and discuss barriers and challenges they encountered. Further details and information on how the intervention was designed and delivered, including research evaluating its impact on leaders and followers, can be found in Forner (2019). The quasi-experimental research, which included the sample of leaders in the present study, showed the nine-week intervention significantly changed leaders’ interpersonal orientation towards supporting basic psychological needs and improvement in the leaders was still evident one year after the training.

Data collection.

Data for this present study were collected from leaders at the end of the nine-week intervention using the free-listing methodology (Quinlan, 2019). Free-listing is a well-established ethnographic method that, when coupled with an appropriate analytical technique, enables researchers to elicit and synthesize a coherent view of collective understanding of a domain and indicate which of those things are most important or salient within the group (Quinlan, 2019; Thomson et al., 2012; Weller and Romney, 1988). A free list is a mental inventory of items individuals think of within a given domain. In the generalized free-listing protocol (Bousfield and Barclay, 1950; Thomson et al.,2012) participants are directed to list as many items that “come to mind” within a constrained time-period. The elicited list items are then analysed together and “salience” of each item is calculated. The free-listing activity for the present study followed the generalized protocol and was facilitated as a face-to-face group session. The participating leaders were provided with information about the purpose of the activity and instructed to list strategies and actions detailing “what leaders […] can do to apply SDT and create an optimally motivating climate for their follower”. The exercise was constrained to 20 min and leaders were asked to draw upon their own experience of applying SDT to list as many SDT-informed actions that come to mind. The leaders developed their free lists in small groups of up to five people per group. Next, leaders were given 40 min to write short (one paragraph) case scenarios describing the implementation of two of the actions on their list. The free lists and case scenarios were written by the leaders on a paper-based template. Each group submitted a list of SDT-informed leader actions and two case scenarios. They were advised that the examples would be shared with other practising leaders to help illuminate how SDT is applied in organizations.

Autonomy.

Autonomy represents workers’ basic need to experience a sense of freedom and choice when carrying out an activity and to have some level of control in how they go about their own work (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). The hallmark of autonomy is an internal locus of causality (De Charms, 1968) whereby people experience ownership of their behaviours and perceive them as being self-initiated. Five practical examples, proposed by organizational leaders and managers, for how to support workers’ basic psychological need for autonomy are presented in Table 1.

The findings reveal leaders support workers’ need for autonomy by providing a platform for team members to express their ideas and suggestions. Two examples submitted by leaders included encourage innovation and provide workers with opportunities to express their ideas. Innovation is where team members generate and implement novel ideas, new processes or better ways of doing things which are useful to the team. Leadership styles that are constructive, empowering and transformational are positively associated with both creativity and innovation (Hughes et al., 2018). When leaders are open to their workers’ ideas and suggestions and provide a safe environment for people to express their opinions, they send a clear signal that innovation and creativity are encouraged (Ye et al., 2019). Leaders sustain and enhance motivation, creativity and innovation by listening to workers’ suggestions and empowering then to action their ideas or at least explore them further (Liu et al., 2011; Sun et al., 2012).

Providing full freedom for workers to pursue their own ideas and interests is not always realistic or desirable in the workplace. Strategies were also provided for how leaders support followers’ need for autonomy when workplace tasks and decisions are handed down by the organization or manager. These examples were: consult with those who are affected by your decisions, be less prescriptive in assigning tasks and provide a rationale for decisions where possible. Leaders in the present study support autonomy by inviting others into the decision-making process and consulting with those who will implement or be affected by others’ decisions. Greater worker participation in decision-making has been linked to beneficial outcomes such as job satisfaction and improved performance in the workplace (Grissom, 2012; Scott-Ladd et al., 2006). Participative or consultative decision-making satisfies people’s need for autonomy by providing a platform for them to express their ideas and feelings, as well as having input and some control in their work activities. The language leaders use in communicating their decisions and assigning tasks is also critical for supporting autonomy (Deci and Ryan, 1987). Providing a rationale or explanation for why a decision was made is one way that leaders support their followers to recognize the importance and value of a certain course of action. Previous laboratory research suggests that providing people with a meaningful rational helps them internalize the decision, come to accept it and even autonomously endorse it (Deci et al., 1994). When assigning tasks to members of the team, leaders can support autonomy and intrinsic motivation by avoiding controlling or enforcing language, such as “must” or “should” (Ryan, 1982) and instead invite workers to decide how they go about achieving the task assigned to them.

Autonomy examples represented the smallest portion (19%) of the 42 SDT-informed actions submitted by leaders. This may reflect the contextual challenges of supporting autonomy in an organizational setting. Rather than being free to do as they wish, organizational members must operate within existing structures/processes and their tasks and responsibilities are set for them by the organization. The participants in this study, for example, led organizations where workers must adhere to strict safety procedures specifying how they must carry out their tasks. The small portion of submissions focusing on autonomy may suggest it is more challenging for leaders to implement this element of the theory as they must find a way to balance autonomy with organizational requirements. While providing full autonomy is not always possible, the examples above offer ways in which leaders can provide opportunities for autonomy as often as possible in the day-to-day running of the unit. Finally, it may be that the conception of autonomy need support, as it is described within the academic literature, is less clear and practitioners find this aspect of the theory more challenging to understand and operationalize. Indeed, it can be observed that the term autonomy is included within many theoretically distinct SDT constructs including, for example, autonomy: a basic psychological need (Van den Broeck et al., 2016), autonomy orientation: an individual difference in causality orientation (Hagger and Chatzisarantis, 2011) and, autonomy-support: an interpersonal style (Slemp et al., 2018). To support the application of SDT, it may be necessary for scholars to recognize the potential for conceptual confusion or uncertainty and seek to emphasize the points of divergence across these constructs and accentuate these in their conceptualizations and definitions.

Competence.

The basic psychological need for competence represents workers’ desire to feel effective and successful in their role. According to SDT, leaders support competence by creating a positive learning environment and providing opportunities for others to use their skills and further develop them through optimally challenging tasks (Deci and Ryan, 2014). Competence represented the largest portion of examples (48%) submitted by leaders in this study. This may indicate that leaders are more experienced in this area or that this element of SDT was more readily understood. Table 2 presents the five practical examples, proposed by organizational leaders and managers, for how to support workers’ basic psychological need for competence.

Leaders who participated in this study support competence by creating opportunities for followers to build their skills, capabilities and self confidence in a safe and supportive environment. Two examples provided by leaders included provide development and learning opportunities and let team members learn at their own pace. There are many ways leaders can offer workers opportunities for education and personal development and these have positive motivational effects (Stone et al., 2009). For example, leaders can facilitate on-the-job learning opportunities by providing optimally challenging workplace assignments, offering team members opportunities to take on new tasks, letting someone lead a project or providing an opportunity to take on increased responsibilities (Berings et al., 2005). Being considerate to also maintain autonomy, leaders should avoid imposing development activities without consultation or involvement from the follower. Rather, leaders might take time to understand the individual development interests and needs of their team members and involve them in devising ideas and suggestions for their own learning and development activities. By understanding each followers’ development aspirations, skill level and capabilities, leaders can support their followers to learn autonomously and at their own pace, further building motivational resources.

Leaders further support competence by helping build self-esteem and confidence, which represents another example provided by leaders in this study. Self-esteem refers to workers’ overall self-evaluation of their own competencies and capabilities. Self-esteem and confidence at work are known to be affected, in part, by an individual’s organizational experiences of success and communication and messages of their manager and peers (Pierce and Gardner, 2004). Successful task/work experiences, such as completing a project or achieving a milestone, will bolster self-esteem, whereas failure has the opposite effect. Messages of value and respect for the worker from the manager also contributes towards workers coming to hold a positive image of themselves. To this end, it can help build people’s self-confidence in their own skills by providing optimally challenging yet achievable work goals, acknowledging progress, using people’s strengths and offering authentic non-judgemental support.

Another key strategy to support competence and promote motivation is through offering regular positive and constructive feedback. Positive feedback signals to the follower that they have performed well, are skilled and can succeed. Positive feedback or praise, relative to no feedback or negative feedback, is especially motivating and has been linked to higher levels of well-being, task interest and ongoing participation in the activity (Deci et al., 1999; Mouratidis, 2008). The language leaders use to communicate with their follower is critical and determines whether the feedback is received positively and builds self-confidence or perceived to be controlling and diminishes motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Communicating feedback in a supportive way involves being empathetic, acknowledging the follower’s feelings and difficulties and inviting them to provide their own views (Carpentier and Mageau, 2013; Ryan and Deci, 2000). In contrast, feedback that conveys external pressure focuses on enforcing rules and uses language such as “should” or “must” is controlling and undermines motivation (Ryan, 1981). Overall, both the type of feedback (positive vs negative) and the way in which it is delivered impacts upon people’s competence and motivation (Mabbe et al., 2018).

Leaders further recommend supporting competence by introducing mentoring opportunities. Mentoring involves a supportive relationship between two members of an organization where, traditionally, a senior worker provides a more junior worker with personal and professional development (Kram, 1985). Mentoring may be formal, such as a structured program that pairs organizational members together or informally occurring across team members and networks of workers spontaneously (Higgins and Kram, 2001). The fact that both members of the relationship benefit from this form of professional development is especially valuable (Kram and Isabella, 1985). For example, the more senior worker is provided with an opportunity to demonstrate and be valued for their skills and experience while the junior member benefits by developing new skills and building their knowledge and capabilities. As such, it is expected that both parties are experiencing the satisfaction of their need for competence during mentoring activities.

Relatedness.

Humans are social beings and relatedness represents the need to experience a sense of belonging and to feel accepted and cared for by others. The need for relatedness is satisfied when workers develop close relationships in the workplace and see themselves as part of the group (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). Table 3 presents the five practical examples, proposed by organizational leaders and managers, for how leaders support workers basic psychological need for relatedness.

Positive social interactions and interpersonal relationships between leaders and their followers are responsible for shaping motivation and well-being at work (Deci et al., 2017; Weinstein and De Haan, 2014). The importance of high-quality and authentic relationships between leaders and their followers has been emphasized in various theories of leadership (Gerstner and Day, 1997; Uhl-Bien, 2006). The examples provided by leaders in this study offer some simple interpersonal techniques for building relationships where the aim is to better understand and get to know the followers. Learning about the interests and circumstances of others provides opportunities to find common ground. These commonalities create opportunities for authentic conversations and create the basis for building a genuine relationship. Further to supporting basic psychological needs for relatedness, relationship building practices by leaders have other positive outcomes such as improved team effectiveness, job performance and engagement (Dunst et al., 2018)

Leaders help facilitate high quality relationships among colleagues and team members by implementing team bonding activities, inducting new members into the team. A worker’s need for relatedness is satisfied when they feel such as they belong to the group, have people who care about them and are able to care for others (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Having close friends at work has a positive impact on people’s experience and satisfaction in their job and colleagues provide an important source of basic psychological needs satisfaction and motivation in the workplace (Jungert et al., 2018; Moreau and Mageau, 2012). Leaders create opportunities for team socialization to facilitate the development of genuine and supportive relationships between team members. For example, social activities, such as team lunches or events, provide opportunities for new team members to interact in a relaxed and informal environment. The importance of inducting or onboarding new members into the team is also emphasized. Onboarding helps introduce and socialize newcomers and includes practices such as communication, making resources available, welcome activities, training and a guide or “buddy” assigned to help the new coming navigate their new workplace (Klein et al., 2015).

Leaders also take action to promote diversity and inclusion within their team, focusing on respecting others’ background and experience. Leaders are important role models of group expectations and may support diversity by respecting and valuing the unique strengths that members bring to the group and discussing the value and opportunities that can be realized through increased diversity. Researchers examining the interplay between leadership and team diversity stress the critical importance of matching leadership behaviours to the specific needs arising from diversity-related team processes and have proposed specific competencies, such as social perceptiveness, that allow leaders to shape the influence of diversity within the team (Homan et al., 2020). Leaders also play an active role in supporting HR diversity practices, such as ensuring that opportunities for promotion and training are equitably distributed, which is conducive for employees’ felt inclusion (Buengeler et al., 2018).