Self Determination Theory

What Self Determination Theory is

Self Determination Theory (نظرية تقرير المصير) is a theory of motivation. It holds that the drive of a person to work, and the kind of that drive, are affected by how far the person’s environment satisfies three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. An employee who feels that the employee chooses what to do, sees the employee as able to do it, and feels a real connection with the people around the employee has a drive to work that is more self generated and closer to interest in the work.

The theory is attributed to the American psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. It is associated in the literature with their 1985 book on intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behaviour and with their two articles of 2000.

The theory is a psychological theory of motivation that is applied to work. What follows is an explanation of the theory and of its limits. It does not claim that satisfying these needs raises performance or satisfaction in every establishment, or that the theory explains every drive.

Where the theory comes from

We verified the following works in Crossref and in an online search. They are the article by Ryan and Deci in American Psychologist, volume 55, issue 1, 2000, pages 68 to 78; the article by Deci and Ryan in Psychological Inquiry, volume 11, issue 4, 2000, pages 227 to 268; the article by Gagné and Deci on the theory and work motivation in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, volume 26, 2005, pages 331 to 362; and the 1985 book by Deci and Ryan, whose chapters are recorded in Crossref.

We did not verify the text of any of them, so we quote nothing from them, and our description is a summary in our own wording of what writers circulate.

Among the theories of motivation listed under work motivation, this theory receives only a brief mention. The sections below give more: what the needs are, how kinds of drive are graded, and what limits the theory has.

The basic psychological needs

• Autonomy. The person feels that what the person does comes from the person’s own choice and values and is not imposed by pressure. Autonomy does not mean the absence of direction. It means that the employee understands the reason for what is asked and has a say in how it is done.
• Competence. The person feels able to achieve and to learn, and sees an effect of the work.
• Relatedness. The person feels connected to colleagues and valued by them, and has a place in the group.

According to the theory, when these needs go unmet, the quality of drive falls, and a drive closer to pressure, fear or the pursuit of reward takes its place.

How kinds of drive are graded

As presentations of the theory circulate, it distinguishes between a self generated drive that comes from interest in the work and an external drive that results from a reward or a punishment, with varying degrees between them. An employee can perform a task for fear of reprimand, or because it matters to the team, or because it expresses a value in which the employee believes. External drive is not one thing, and some of it is closer to self conviction than the rest.

The process by which a person adopts what was originally an external demand, until the person regards it as the person’s own value, is called internalisation. This grading is a general description from the summaries, and the names of its degrees are not given here.

The grading helps a manager in a practical matter. The manager can ask not whether an employee is enthusiastic, but what kind of drive the employee has. An employee who works for fear of being held to account may reach the same goal as an employee who works from belief, but the condition of the first may differ when circumstances change.

How the theory shows in work

The three needs, and one related practice, appear in management practices:

• Autonomy. The freedom that a job leaves its holder is the focus of job autonomy, and giving an employee authority to decide within the employee’s work is the idea of employee empowerment.
• Competence. An employee gets a picture of the employee’s progress through continuous feedback, and wider tasks that build the employee’s capacity come from job enrichment.
• Relatedness. An employee who can speak without fear works in conditions of psychological safety, which underlies a sound relationship with colleagues.
• Reshaping work. Letting an employee adjust some tasks and relationships to fit the employee’s interest is the practice of job crafting.

How the theory differs from other theories of motivation

• Needs are ranked in levels that are satisfied in turn in the hierarchy of needs. Self Determination Theory treats the basic psychological needs as concurrent and sets no rising order among them.
• The Herzberg two factor theory separates hygiene factors from motivators; like Self Determination Theory, it places part of what moves an employee in the work.
• Using elements of games at work, as in gamification, can be judged by whether it supports the needs or replaces them with external rewards.

A hypothetical example: reading a short survey on the needs

Suppose a hypothetical establishment asked 10 employees in a team to rate from 1 to 5 their agreement with a statement about each need. The autonomy scores were 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4 and 3, and their sum is 32, so the average is 32 ÷ 10 = 3.2. The average for competence was 4.1 and for relatedness 3.8. The average of the averages is (3.2 + 4.1 + 3.8) ÷ 3 = 11.1 ÷ 3 = 3.7.

Autonomy appears to be the weakest need in this team, and the gap between it and competence is 4.1 minus 3.2 = 0.9 of a point. The manager might suggest, as a trial and not a conclusion, giving employees wider room to choose how some tasks are done, and repeating the survey after a while.

This reading is limited. One statement per need is not enough, 10 employees is a small sample, and the difference may come from the nature of the work and not from the management style. The figures are hypothetical and set to illustrate. They do not represent an establishment or a study, and they do not mean that 3.7 is a good or a bad level. The value of the example is that it shows how needs are turned into questions that can be monitored.

Where the theory is limited

• Evidence outside the workplace and outside Saudi Arabia. The theory arose in psychological experiments and in fields such as education before it was applied to work. In the sources we reviewed, we found no documented source for the volume of research in establishments or for bringing its results to Saudi establishments, so we state nothing on either.
• The effect of rewards. Deci, Koestner and Ryan published a meta analysis of the effect of external rewards on intrinsic motivation in Psychological Bulletin, volume 125, issue 6, 1999, pages 627 to 668. A commentary by Lepper, Henderlong and Gingras followed in the same issue, pages 669 to 676. The question is debated in the literature, and we draw no judgement on the dispute.
• Measuring needs by questionnaire. The measurement relies on employees’ answers, which are affected by the wording of the question and by what the employee wants to say.
• No specified action. The theory does not say how much autonomy a manager gives or when autonomy is a burden.

How the theory is misunderstood

• Assuming that autonomy means leaving an employee without direction. What is meant is that the employee understands the reason for what is asked and has room in how it is done, not that the frame is removed.
• Treating rewards as always harmful. The circulating presentations do not say so, and the question is still being studied.
• Using the survey as a verdict on the manager. The survey is a reading of the state of the team and not a grade for the manager.
• Attributing to the theory results that we have not verified. An example is saying that satisfying the needs raises productivity by a percentage.

The role of human resources

Human resources can examine the systems of the establishment with a simple question: do they support these needs or weaken them? An appraisal system based on close supervision can narrow autonomy. Training that is not tied to a clear path can fail to strengthen competence. A structure that isolates teams can weaken relatedness.

Human resources can also train managers to give what is required together with the reason for it, to offer choices in how work is done, and to notice employees’ effort. These remain adjustments to be tested by what actually changes in the team, and not assumptions.

What the evidence allows

We do not state that Self Determination Theory explains the cause of motivation in every establishment, or that satisfying the needs raises performance by any amount. The theory has a wide research base in psychology, and what we say about work stays at the level of general description.

The theory is treated as a framework that helps with specific questions. Where does the employee feel restricted? Where does the employee see no effect of the work? Where does the employee find no connection with colleagues? It is judged by what changes: did employees’ answers improve, and did that show in their behaviour?

The theory remains a way of looking at a question that is neglected by anyone who relies on reward alone: does the employee work because the employee wants to or because the employee has to? What is decided after the answer depends on the nature of the work and on the need of the team.

This is an explanation of the concept, not legal advice.