What motivates people at work: self-determination theory and Herzberg

Many managers try to motivate people with the tools closest to hand: bonuses, targets, league tables and the occasional pizza. These can work for a while. They rarely produce the kind of motivation that makes someone care about doing the job well when nobody is checking.

Two theories explain why, and both give managers practical levers. Self-determination theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, says people thrive when three psychological needs are met. Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory, from the 1950s, separates what prevents dissatisfaction from what creates motivation. This guide covers both, what the evidence says and how to use them in a normal working week.

Self-determination theory in brief

Deci’s experiments on rewards in the early 1970s led to self-determination theory, formally set out in Deci and Ryan’s 1985 book. Its core claim is that three basic psychological needs drive motivation and wellbeing:

• Autonomy: feeling that you choose and direct your own actions.
• Competence: feeling effective and able to master what you do.
• Relatedness: feeling connected to and cared for by other people.

When these needs are met, people tend to function and develop well. When they are blocked, wellbeing suffers.

The theory also distinguishes types of motivation. The Center for Self-Determination Theory describes autonomous motivation, which includes doing something because you enjoy it or because you value it, and controlled motivation, which comes from rewards, approval or pressure. Extrinsic motivation sits on a scale: the more a person takes on the reasons for a task as their own, the more autonomous it becomes. A salesperson who sees why a follow-up call helps the customer is more autonomously motivated than one who makes the call only to avoid a warning.

What the evidence says about rewards

In Deci’s 1971 study, students paid to solve a puzzle spent less free time on it once the payment stopped.Similar patterns appeared in other studies: rewards for an activity people already find interesting can reduce their interest in it. Unexpected positive feedback tended to increase intrinsic motivation, while negative feedback reduced it, and imposed deadlines could also lower it.

Two cautions keep this in proportion. Much of the early evidence comes from small laboratory studies with students, so the workplace evidence is thinner than the theory’s reach. And critics such as Steven Reiss have questioned how clearly the theory defines intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The practical lesson still holds: pay people fairly, then avoid making rewards the main reason anyone does interesting work.

Herzberg’s two-factor theory

Frederick Herzberg published the theory in 1959 after interviewing 203 engineers and accountants in the Pittsburgh area about times they felt exceptionally good or bad at work. He found two groups of factors:

His argument, restated in his Harvard Business Review classic “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?”, is that poor pay, bad bosses and silly rules can make people miserable, but fixing them does not make people work harder or smarter. Interesting work, challenge and growing responsibility do that.

The theory has been criticised. The sharp split between satisfaction and dissatisfaction may partly come from the interview method Herzberg used, and later studies found that supervision and relationships can also drive satisfaction. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are now generally treated as one scale. Use the two lists as a prompt, not a rule.

Where the two theories agree

Both theories point the same way. Fix the basics so they stop causing harm, then put your effort into the work itself: meaningful tasks, room to decide how to do them, a chance to get better, and people to do it with. Herzberg’s motivators map closely onto self-determination theory’s needs. Responsibility relates to autonomy, achievement and growth relate to competence, and recognition draws on relatedness.

Practical levers for managers

1. Explain the why. Give the reason behind a task so people can take it on as their own.
2. Offer choice on the how. Agree the outcome and deadline, then let people decide the method where you can.
3. Match stretch to skill. Give work that is challenging but achievable, with support at the start.
4. Give specific, timely feedback. Say what was good and why. Unexpected, informative praise supports competence.
5. Build connection. Make time for people to know each other and to see who benefits from their work.
6. Check the hygiene factors. Fair pay, clear policies and decent conditions do not motivate on their own, but problems with them drain motivation fast.

A worked example

An example (illustration only). Leena runs a warehouse team of twelve for an online homeware shop. Error rates on orders are rising, and her first idea is a monthly bonus for the lowest error rate.

She tries a different approach. In a team meeting she shares three customer complaints about wrong items, so the team sees who is affected. She asks the team to design the fix, and two pickers propose a new labelling system. She pairs newer staff with experienced pickers for a week. She also discovers a hygiene problem: the scanners are slow and frequently freeze. She gets two replaced. Over the next quarter errors fall, and the team suggests two more improvements without being asked.

Common mistakes

• Relying on incentives for interesting work. Paying for something people already enjoy can shift their focus to the reward.
• Confusing autonomy with neglect. Autonomy means choice within clear goals and support, not being left alone.
• Treating a pay rise as a motivation plan. It removes a source of dissatisfaction; it does not make the work interesting.
• Generic praise. “Great job, everyone” does little for anyone’s sense of competence.
• Assuming everyone wants the same thing. Ask people what makes work satisfying for them.

When to use these ideas

Use them when motivation is low despite reasonable pay, when you are designing roles or projects, and when you are tempted to add a new incentive scheme. They help less where the basics are broken: if pay is below market or workloads are unmanageable, fix those first. Then shape the work so people have a reason, a choice and a way to improve.