Interventions to support autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs in organizations: A systematic review with recommendations for research and practice

Abstract

Organizational research underpinned by self‐determination theory (SDT) has grown substantially over the past decade. However, the effectiveness of interventions designed to promote support for basic psychological needs in organizations remains ill documented. We thus report the results of a qualitative systematic review and synthesis of SDT‐informed studies of interventions to cultivate autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, and in turn, autonomous motivation in organizational contexts. Studies were included in the review if they evaluated the effect of interventions to develop autonomy‐, competence‐, or relatedness‐supportive work climates or leader behaviours. A systematic search yielded ten eligible field studies for inclusion: three randomized‐controlled trials and seven non‐randomized intervention studies (combined N = 2,337). Seven studies yielded mostly favourable effects, two yielded mixed effects, and one study showed no evidence of change post‐intervention. Substantial heterogeneity in intervention format and delivery existed across studies. Studies pointed towards possible moderators of effectiveness. Interventions were more effective at spawning change at the proximal (leader) level than at the distal (subordinate) level, though few studies tracked employees over time to comprehensively evaluate long‐term transfer. Bias assessments showed that risk of bias was moderate or high across studies. We discuss overall implications of the review and suggest several recommendations for future intervention research and practice. Practitioner points Interventions to help leaders to support subordinates' basic psychological needs are effective in creating change in leader behaviour. Intervention effects for subordinate outcomes are smaller and may take time to materialize. Interventions tend to be more effective if they are aligned with organizational strategic needs, proactively consider unique work contexts, are endorsed by senior levels of management, and give preference to pedagogy that aligns with basic needs.

Can managers be trained to further support their employees' basic needs and work engagement: A manager training program study

“…As previously stated, need satisfaction can be improved through need support, which has been shown in numerous studies (see Slemp et al, 2021 for a review). Need support entails different components, but there is no consensus on which components should be involved (Rocchi et al, 2017).…”

“…SDT is an evidence‐based theory that, when applied in an organizational setting, allows us to have a positive impact on workers' attitudes and behaviours. It also proposes a well‐validated model for what to do to advance and sustain motivation and engagement (Hardré & Reeve, 2009; Slemp et al, 2021). For example, many well‐validated metrics of the motivational and emotional components that influence outcomes such as engagement were used in this intervention study.…”

A self-support approach to satisfy basic psychological needs during difficult situations

“…For example, to support workers' basic needs, managers focused on nurturing workers' inner motivational resources, and provided an explanatory rationale for requests (Hardré & Reeve, 2009;Jungert et al, 2021). Recent meta-analyses and review research has also confirmed that need-supportive behaviors at the workplace were effective in increasing workers' intrinsic motivation, performance, and job-related behaviors (Cerasoli et al, 2016;Slemp et al, 2021;Van den Broeck et al, 2016).…”

Building Positive Organizations: A Typology of Positive Psychology Interventions

“…Avey et al (2011) showed that when leaders enact the features of psychological capital (i.e., hope, optimism, resilience, and selfesteem), follower positivity and performance were enhanced. However, a potential risk of interventions targeting leaders is that changes in leader behavior do not always trickle down to the subordinate level (Slemp et al, 2021). (Garcea et al, 2009).…”