There are three basic needs essential for individual satisfaction and high-performance organisational success: A – C – R.
Those familiar with the Spark Intent Performer Framework (Figure 1) will recognise that the entire model is built on three words:
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness.
Figure 1 – The Spark Intent Performance Framework, underpinned by satisfying the Performer’s needs for Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness
These are the three basic psychological needs of self-determination theory. When these needs are fulfilled, they stimulate internalisation, resulting in benefits not only for employees but also in improved organisational profitability and effectiveness (1,2). However, when these needs go unmet, we risk contributing to pathology and ill-being (3), and poor performance at work.
Autonomy
Autonomy is the need to be in control of one’s own experiences and actions. It’s the desire to self-regulate, typically through behaviours that align with our values and interests (2).
A team member with high perceived autonomy might approach tasks with intent and energy because they understand why the task is important, feel that the reasons align with their personal values, or appreciate having a choice in how to manage their work.
Poor leadership, on the other hand, often sits at the extremes of the control-autonomy spectrum. This might manifest as high-control, directive leadership with little room for input, or, conversely, as laissez-faire management with a lack of guidance (4). Effective leaders, however, know how to strike the right balance, tailoring their approach depending on the team member or project.
Central to fostering autonomy is understanding what drives your team members. What are their values, passions, successes, and purpose? How can personal and professional values be aligned to create self-endorsed actions?
Next comes education. No one can feel in control of the unknown, so providing clarity on company values, project purposes, and necessary skills is crucial. Finally, the power of choice plays a significant role. The level of autonomy offered can vary, and more on this will be covered in a future article focused on Autonomy.
Competence
Humans have a deep desire to feel effective and to experience mastery. This need for competence is clearly evident in social technology, where positive reinforcement—likes, comments, levels—fuels our engagement.
A team member with high perceived competence might say, “I’m working hard because I know what success looks like and I’m confident I can achieve it.”
In my experience, competence can be high-risk but high-reward. I’ve had both successes and setbacks in trying to foster competence, sometimes relying too much on leaderboards, monetary rewards, and social comparisons. These methods often externalise motivation, which undermines long-term satisfaction. Competence is also thwarted when challenges are overly difficult, or when feedback is too critical.
High-quality leaders, in contrast, provide clear standards for success before tasks, use change-oriented feedback (5), and avoid extrinsic incentives whenever possible. Instead, they acknowledge accomplishments and foster peer support, recognising the long-term wellbeing benefits of these approaches.
Competence, incentives, and rewards will be the focus of their own article—stay tuned!
Relatedness
Fostering relatedness has led to some of my most memorable moments. I’ve seen masters of relatedness— Scott Mathie , Mike Rogers and Thomas Kindley —build strong connections that drive team success.
Relatedness is the need to feel socially connected, valued, and part of something greater than oneself (2).
Great leaders understand the importance of social bonds within their teams and actively seek to strengthen or create these connections. This goes beyond simple job satisfaction or pay; it’s about fostering meaningful relationships that make people feel cared for and accepted. Stuart Kellyhas written wonderfully on leveraging social identity for transformative leadership.
On the flip side, many poor-quality environments neglect relatedness, particularly in times of stress or failure. Criticism, blame, isolation, and ignoring social opportunities beyond work can damage team cohesion.
As with autonomy and competence, relatedness will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming article.
Next steps
This article provides an overview of the three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—that underpin internalisation of motivation in the workplace. Each of these deserves further exploration, and future articles will outline strategies for maximising needs satisfaction. We will also delve into the interconnections between these needs, as treating them as independent is a mistake.
Interested in learning more? Connect with us!
References
1. Deci EL, Olafsen AH, Ryan RM. Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science. Vol. 4, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2017.
2. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guildford Press; 2017.
3. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist. 2000;55(1):68–78.
4. Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Vol. 21, Journal of Sports Sciences. 2003.
5. Carpentier J, Mageau GA. When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2013;14(3).