Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes : A Conceptual Review and Future Research Directions

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes : A Conceptual Review and Future Research Directions © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Published version McAnally, Kaylyn; Hagger, Martin S. McAnally, K., & Hagger, M. S. (2024). Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes : A Conceptual Review and Future Research Directions. Behavioral Sciences, 14(6), Article 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060428 2024 Citation: McAnally, K.; Hagger, M.S. Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes: A Conceptual Review and Future Research Directions. Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060428 Academic Editors: Gengfeng Niu and Lei Wang Received: 1 October 2023 Revised: 18 May 2024 Accepted: 20 May 2024 Published: 22 May 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). behavioral sciences Review Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes: A Conceptual Review and Future Research Directions Kaylyn McAnally 1and Martin S. Hagger 1,2,3,4,* 1Department of Psychological Sciences, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA; [email protected] 2Health Sciences Research Institute, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA 3Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, 40014 Jyväskylä, Finland 4School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Mount Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Adaptive workplace outcomes, such as employee work engagement, job performance, and satisfaction are positively associated with physical and psychological well-being, while maladaptive workplace outcomes, including work-related disengagement, dissatisfaction, stress, boredom, fatigue, and burnout, are negatively associated with well-being. Researchers have applied self-determination theory to identify key motivational correlates of these adaptive work-related determinants and outcomes. Research applying the theory has consistently indicated that autonomous forms of motivation and basic psychological need satisfaction are related to better employee performance, satisfaction, and engagement, while controlled forms of motivation and need frustration are associated with increased employee burnout and turnover. Forms of motivation have also been shown to mediate relations between need satisfaction and adaptive workplace outcomes. Despite support for these associations, a number of limitations in research in the field have been identified, which place limits on the inferences that can be drawn. Noted limitations encompass an over-reliance on single-occasion, correlational data; few fit-for-purpose tests of theory mechanisms; and a lack of consideration of key moderating variables. In the current conceptual review, we discuss these limitations in turn, with specific reference to examples from the extant research applying the theory in workplace contexts, and provide a series of recommendations we expect will set the agenda for future studies applying the theory in the workplace. Based on our review, we make three key recommendations: we stress the need for studies adopting experimental and longitudinal designs to permit better inferences (i.e., causal and directional), highlight the need for intervention research to explicitly test mediation effects to provide evidence for theory mechanisms, and outline some candidate moderators of theory effects, including workplace context, job type, pay structure, and causality orientations. We expect these recommendations to set an agenda for future research applying self-determination theory in workplace contexts with a view to filling the current evidence gaps and improving evidential quality. Keywords: autonomous motivation; need support; behavioral intervention; occupation; job satisfaction 1. Introduction Employees’ work engagement and job satisfaction are positively associated with their workplace productivity and reduced absenteeism [ 1 , 2 ] and negatively associated with stress, boredom, fatigue, and burnout [ 3 – 6 ]. In addition, employees reporting positive mental and physical health are more likely to be productive and less likely to disengage from work tasks or seek employment elsewhere [ 7 , 8 ]. In contrast, employees who work long hours or regularly feel under stress at work can experience burnout, reduced work engagement, and impaired job performance, which can impact productivity [9,10]. Employers and workplace leaders, therefore, recognize the value of developing interventions in the workplace aimed at promoting the use of key strategies and behaviors that Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14060428 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 2 of 20 promote employee work engagement and satisfaction and reduce disengagement and dissatisfaction. This is predicated on evidence indicating that employees who are motivated to engage in these strategies and behaviors may be more likely to stay engaged in their work, improving their overall job performance and work satisfaction [ 11 – 13 ]. Innovative work behaviors, creativity, idea-sharing, and service represent candidate workplace behaviors that have been identified as having the potential to promote work engagement and job satisfaction. For instance, employees who engage in team-based idea-sharing may feel a sense of peer relatedness and inspiration from their team members, which may influence their engagement in relevant work tasks and improve overall workplace productivity and individual-level job satisfaction [ 14 , 15 ]. Ultimately, workplace success is associated with these adaptive workplace behaviors, as well as job satisfaction, work engagement, and job performance, and is negatively associated with turnover and burnout [12–15]. In order to develop interventions that optimally enhance the uptake of these behaviors in the workforce, employers and leaders need to first identify the motivational determinants of these strategies and behaviors. Theories of motivation from psychological behavior change research may assist in identifying these determinants and may help guide the content of interventions aimed at promoting employee success and adaptive outcomes [16–21] . Prominent among these theories is self-determination theory, a pre-eminent theory of motivation that describes how forms of motivation relate to outcomes, functioning, and behavior [ 22 ]. In particular, the theory emphasizes the quality of motivation and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs as key mechanisms that are likely to enhance motivation and future persistence in behaviors. The theory has been adopted in many contexts, including the workplace, to identify the motivational determinants of behaviors likely to promote adaptive outcomes across contexts and the mechanisms involved [ 23 , 24 ]. Specifically, correlational research applying the theory in workplace contexts has identified forms of self-endorsed or autonomous motivation—a key adaptive form of motivation that is central to self-determination theory and reflects engaging in tasks for self-endorsed reasons [25]—and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, particularly the need for autonomy, as key mechanisms that mediate the adoption of strategies and behaviors that lead to adaptive outcomes, like job engagement and satisfaction (e.g., task creativity or knowledge sharing) [ 26 – 29 ]. In order to encourage their employees to engage in these types of behaviors that ultimately promote workplace success and productivity, employers need to create environments that support these forms of motivation and need satisfaction in their employees. The theory predicts that it is the creation of a social environment or motivational climate by employers and workplace leaders that can foster and scaffold motivation and need satisfaction in their employees with respect to these behaviors. Specifically, it is employers’ adoption of autonomy-supportive behaviors that is proposed to create such a climate. Autonomy-supportive behaviors include providing employees with choice in task engagement, giving a rationale for assigned work-related tasks, and allowing employees to voice their opinions and have a say in how tasks are performed [ 30 ]. This proposition is supported by research indicating that interventions in which social agents display behaviors that promote greater choice, autonomous reasons, and responsibility and ownership in the workplace lead to greater employee engagement and satisfaction and do so by enhancing autonomous forms of motivation [31]. In the current conceptual review, we outline and critically discuss research that has applied self-determination theory in workplace contexts, identify key methodological and conceptual limitations of this research, and outline a research agenda to address these limitations. Our approach follows similar conceptual reviews of research applying selfdetermination theory in specific contexts, comprising an overview of current work followed by commentary, analysis, and recommendations regarding issues or limitations emerging from the overview [ 32 – 34 ]. We begin by critically reviewing research identifying the motivational determinants of key workplace behaviors and outcomes (e.g., job performance, work engagement, and job satisfaction) and research on interventions based on the theory to promote the adoption of key behavioral strategies aimed at promoting workplace out- Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 3 of 20 comes. The review focuses on prior primary research applying self-determination theory in workplace contexts, particularly research referred to in leading conceptual, systematic, and meta-analytic reviews in this context [ 26 , 29 , 35 ] and key primary studies that have been published since [ 13 , 36 ]. Our focus on these contributions functions to effectively summarize trends in research applying the theory and, importantly, to identify methodological and conceptual limitations present in the extant research that affect the quality of the findings and the extent of the inferences that can be drawn from them and evaluate whether researchers have sought to address them. Such research has demonstrated support for associations among constructs from self-determination theory and workplace outcomes but has called for increased sophistication in research methods in the area [ 37 ]. There have also been observations on the over-reliance on correlational data and methods in extant research that limit the key inferences, such as directionality and causality. Accordingly, these reviews serve as the basis for identifying limitations and gaps in the current evidence and provide an evidential basis for recommendations for future research aimed at resolving these limitations and addressing these evidence gaps. Specifically, we start by providing an overview of self-determination theory and its evidential basis and summarize prior work applying the theory in workplace contexts, particularly the established patterns of associations between theory constructs and workplace behaviors and outcomes. Next, we identify several key limitations and evidence gaps in the reviewed research applying the theory in workplace contexts, including an over-reliance on correlational data, the dearth of mechanism tests, particularly in workplace interventions based on the theory, and a lack of tests of key moderators. In doing so, we make reference to both initial and current primary research in this context, with a specific focus on research identified in key prior reviews that have signaled the extent to which these issues are prevalent in the research and studies that have since attempted to address them. Based on the review of this research, we provide recommendations to address these limitations, including the adoption of cross-lagged panel and experimental designs that afford means to infer directional and causal effects, tests of intervention mechanisms of action, and tests of moderators of theory motivational constructs on workplace outcomes to identify the contextual factors on which theory effects are dependent. We cite studies that have employed these proposed designs as exemplars that researchers might consider addressing these limitations and gaps in workplace research. These proposed designs are aimed at promoting greater precision in research, broadening knowledge on direction and causation in theory effects and how interventions based on the theory affect behavior and outcome change in the workplace, and identifying when the theory is likely to be most effective in accounting or variance in workplace outcomes. We expect these recommendations to form an agenda for future research applying the theory in this context and inform future practice, such as the development of interventions to promote better workplace outcomes among employees. 1.1. Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory makes a global distinction between autonomous and controlled forms of motivation, both of which reflect qualitative differences in motivation and eschew the sole focus on motivation intensity offered in other theories [ 38 , 39 ]. Autonomous motivation reflects acting or performing tasks for self-determined reasons, such as the inherent interest or enjoyment derived from the behavior or task or because it aligns with personally valued goals [ 38 ]. In contrast, controlled motivation reflects acting or performing tasks for externally referenced reasons or contingencies (e.g., rewards and praise) or out of perceived obligation or pressure from external social agents (e.g., authority figures) [ 38 ]. The type of motivation experienced by individuals engaged in behaviors or tasks is important because it is likely to determine the extent to which they will persist with the behavior or task over time and experience parallel salient affective (e.g., positive or negative emotion), psychological (e.g., psychological well-being or distress), and interpersonal (e.g., harmonic Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 4 of 20 or disharmonic personal relations) outcomes arising from the performance of the behavior or task. A further important premise of the theory is that the forms of motivation individuals experience when performing behaviors or tasks are determined by the extent to which doing so satisfies their basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The need for autonomy is defined as individuals’ need to experience their actions performed out of their own volition and choice and consistent with their genuine sense of self. The need for competence represents individuals’ need to gain a sense of agency and effectance when performing actions [ 40 ]. The need for relatedness represents individuals’ need to feel supported, accepted, and affiliated with those in the social context in which actions are performed. According to the theory, the potential for a behavior or task to satisfy individuals’ psychological needs serves to determine whether they will experience autonomous or controlled reasons for performing the behavior or task and the extent to which they will experience concomitant outcomes associated with that form of motivation [ 41 ]. Further, theorists have outlined the processes by which psychological need satisfaction relates to behavior or task performance and the experience of associated outcomes. Specifically, psychological need satisfaction may be associated with behavioral persistence and adaptive outcomes through their effects on the forms of motivation experienced when acting. Specifically, the extent to which individuals perceive a task or action will satisfy their psychological needs will determine the form of motivation they will experience when performing the task or acting and, therefore, the extent to which they are likely to persist with the task or behavior and experience concomitant adaptive outcomes, including well-being and life satisfaction [39,41]. The theoretically stipulated relations between the perceived need satisfaction of tasks and behaviors, the forms of motivation experienced when performing the tasks and behaviors, and the outcomes experienced provide a potential avenue for interventions aimed at increasing task and behavioral engagement. Specifically, theorists have suggested that creating behavioral contexts or environments that support individuals’ psychological needs is likely to promote greater behavioral persistence and adaptive outcomes and reduce maladaptive or dysfunctional outcomes. This can be achieved through social agents who are adept at enhancing the need-satisfying aspects of behaviors and downplaying the controlling contingencies. For example, studies have shown that interventions that train social agents to display sets of behaviors that support or foster the psychological needs of subordinates ultimately lead to increased behavioral persistence and adaptive outcomes in those subordinates in multiple contexts and for numerous behaviors [ 40 , 42 ]. When the need-satisfying aspects of a behavior or task are emphasized for individuals, and they perceive it to be satisfying their psychological needs, they are more likely to internalize the behavior or task as one that is need-satisfying and, in turn, will tend to cite autonomous reasons for performing it [43]. Self-determination theory has been widely applied to predict the forms of motivation adopted and behavioral, affective, psychological, and interpersonal outcomes in multiple behaviors, populations, and contexts, including educational, social, health, and, importantly, occupational and workplace contexts [ 23 , 24 , 44 ]. Beyond support for the associations between autonomous forms of motivation, need satisfaction, and adaptive outcomes, there has also been research testing the specific theory-derived mechanisms that underpin these associations. For example, the research has indicated that need satisfaction is linked to perceived need support from social agents, experiences of the tasks or behaviors as autonomously motivated, and the expression of adaptive outcomes [ 45 , 46 ]. These associations have also been proposed as reflecting the process by which support for needs relates to outcomes. Ryan et al. [ 47 ] formally specified a generalized process model that summarizes these key processes derived from self-determination theory, and similar models have been proposed and tested elsewhere [ 23 , 48 ]. Such models propose that perceived need support and need satisfaction with respect to a task or behavior will be related to behavioral persistence and associated outcomes through the mediation of the type of motivation experienced Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 5 of 20 when performing the task of behavior [ 23 , 47 , 49 ]. For clarity, these proposed relations are illustrated in Figure 1. Numerous primary studies and meta-analytic research have provided support for these mediation models in numerous behavioral contexts, including the proposed indirect effects of need satisfaction and perceived need support on behavior and associated outcomes through the mediation of the form of motivation adopted [ 23 , 47 , 50 ]. This research has provided qualified support for a process by which need support and satisfaction relate to experienced forms of motivation and behavioral performance and the concomitant outcomes. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20 models have been proposed and tested elsewhere [23,48]. Such models propose that perceived need support and need satisfaction with respect to a task or behavior will be related to behavioral persistence and associated outcomes through the mediation of the type of motivation experienced when performing the task of behavior [23,47,49]. For clarity, these proposed relations are illustrated in Figure 1. Numerous primary studies and meta-analytic research have provided support for these mediation models in numerous behavioral contexts, including the proposed indirect effects of need satisfaction and perceived need support on behavior and associated outcomes through the mediation of the form of motivation adopted [23,47,50]. This research has provided qualified support for a process by which need support and satisfaction relate to experienced forms of motivation and behavioral performance and the concomitant outcomes. Figure 1. Model proposing associations among constructs from self-determination theory and workplace outcomes; adapted from Ryan et al. (2008) [47] and Slemp et al. (2018) [35]. 1.2. Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes Correlational research applying self-determination theory in workplace contexts has indicated that autonomous forms of motivation in the workplace are associated with greater work engagement and job satisfaction and reduced stress and burnout [48,51,52]. Studies have also demonstrated that workers who cite autonomous reasons for performing work-related actions and tasks displayed more employee communication and mentoring behaviors [53] and had higher levels of job satisfaction [54]. On the other hand, individuals who cite controlled reasons for performing tasks and behaviors, such as monetary or verbal rewards, report lower levels of work engagement and job satisfaction [55,56]. Importantly, and consistent with a key premise of the theory, there is evidence that the satisfaction of psychological needs in the workplace is associated with autonomous forms of motivation with respect to work engagement, and need satisfaction is also associated with adaptive work outcomes, including better job performance, increased levels of job satisfaction, and workplace engagement [35,57]. Similarly, there is research testing Ryan et al.’s model in workplace contexts [35,47] contributing evidence on the mechanisms by which self-determination theory constructs relate to outcomes in the workplace and providing possible guidance to intervention or experimental research, which may Autonomy Need Satisfaction Relatedness Need Satisfaction Competence Need Satisfaction Autonomous Motivation Controlled Motivation Workplace Behaviors Workplace Outcomes Need support Figure 1. Model proposing associations among constructs from self-determination theory and workplace outcomes; adapted from Ryan et al. (2008) [47] and Slemp et al. (2018) [35]. 1.2. Self-Determination Theory and Workplace Outcomes Correlational research applying self-determination theory in workplace contexts has indicated that autonomous forms of motivation in the workplace are associated with greater work engagement and job satisfaction and reduced stress and burnout [ 48 , 51 , 52 ]. Studies have also demonstrated that workers who cite autonomous reasons for performing work-related actions and tasks displayed more employee communication and mentoring behaviors [ 53 ] and had higher levels of job satisfaction [ 54 ]. On the other hand, individuals who cite controlled reasons for performing tasks and behaviors, such as monetary or verbal rewards, report lower levels of work engagement and job satisfaction [ 55 , 56 ]. Importantly, and consistent with a key premise of the theory, there is evidence that the satisfaction of psychological needs in the workplace is associated with autonomous forms of motivation with respect to work engagement, and need satisfaction is also associated with adaptive work outcomes, including better job performance, increased levels of job satisfaction, and workplace engagement [ 35 , 57 ]. Similarly, there is research testing Ryan et al.’s model in workplace contexts [ 35 , 47 ] contributing evidence on the mechanisms by which selfdetermination theory constructs relate to outcomes in the workplace and providing possible guidance to intervention or experimental research, which may further enable the inference of temporal or causal effects within the theory, particularly in workplace contexts. There is, however, a need for further model tests that move beyond correlational designs and permit better inferences of causal effects. Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 6 of 20 1.3. Self-Determination Theory Interventions in the Workplace The growing convergence of research findings supporting associations between constructs from self-determination theory, including need satisfaction and autonomous forms of motivation and behavioral and other adaptive workplace outcomes, signals the potential for the development of interventions based on the theory that promote adaptive behavioral and psychological outcomes in this context. This may be through the adoption of autonomy-supportive techniques (e.g., choice provision) by social agents in the workplace (e.g., managers and supervisors) that may promote employees’ basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation and, in doing so, lead to increased adoption of productive work behaviors, including workplace creativity or task-sharing, which may promote better workplace outcomes. These proposals have been supported by research applying the theory in these contexts. Ryan et al.’s [ 47 ] generalized model has also been applied in workplace settings to identify the processes by which constructs from self-determination theory, like need support or autonomous motivation, relate to workplace behaviors and outcomes, including job satisfaction and well-being [ 36 , 58 ]. Specifically, employees’ perceptions of the extent to which their social agents in the workplace (e.g., employers, workplace leaders, supervisors, authority figures, and mentors) support their autonomy has been shown to be associated with adaptive workplace outcomes through increased autonomous forms of motivation and reduced controlled forms of motivation [ 36 , 59 , 60 ]. Such mediation tests provide preliminary evidence of the mechanism by which support for psychological needs by employers relates to adaptive outcomes and behavioral persistence in employees. This may signal possible constructs that could be targeted in interventions seeking to change workplace outcomes using appropriate techniques, such as social agents in workplace contexts offering employees need support. In addition, studies have demonstrated that employees’ perceptions of their work environment as being autonomy-supportive are related to their work behaviors (i.e., knowledge sharing and creativity) and work outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction and work engagement). Employees’ perceptions of the degree to which their work environment supports their three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness may be especially important in the context of the theory [ 57 ]. For example, when employees perceive that the office environment fostered by social agents in their workplace is supportive of their autonomy, they are more likely to engage in work-related behaviors autonomously, which may, ultimately, lead to adaptive workplace outcomes [ 35 ]. Therefore, need support, particularly autonomy support, has been identified as a key strategy that employers may adopt to create environments in which their employees are more autonomously motivated toward workplace actions and tasks. For instance, employers who support their employees’ relatedness by encouraging team members to share their perspectives may create environments where employees collaborate more often, resulting in higher-quality task performance and overall improved job satisfaction [61]. Based on this cumulative evidence, researchers have developed interventions in which supervisors are trained to make their work environments more autonomy-supportive for their employees [ 35 ], consistent with autonomy-support training programs based on the theory developed in other contexts [ 62 , 63 ]. Interventions focused on supporting employees’ basic psychological needs through workplace leaders’ adoption of autonomy-supportive strategies and behaviors (e.g., providing employees with choice, considering employee perspectives, promoting responsibility and ownership over tasks, and limiting the use of rewards and punishments) by workplace leaders have been effective in improving adaptive workplace outcomes, such as improved job performance, job satisfaction, and work engagement [35,60]. 2. Limitations of Current Research Applying Self-Determination Theory in Workplace Contexts Despite generalized support for key predictions of self-determination theory in its application in workplace contexts [ 31 , 36 , 51 ], inconsistencies in the effect sizes of relations Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 7 of 20 between the theory constructs and key outcomes in prior research and gaps in the current research have been observed. Research expressly seeking to resolve these inconsistencies and evidence gaps is needed to advance knowledge of the motivational bases of workplace outcomes. Accordingly, in the next sections, we outline these key limitations based on the extant literature, review research in the area [ 26 , 37 , 64 ], and provide recommendations for future research in the application of self-determination theory in workplace contexts. We focus on three key issues: (a) the excess use of correlational research designs that limit the extent to which directional and causal effects among theory constructs can be inferred; (b) the lack of mechanistic testing in interventions based on the theory; and (c) the potential contextual and theoretical moderators that may impact the magnitude of the effects of theory constructs on workplace outcomes. With respect to the over-reliance on correlational data, while such designs have value in that they provide indications that theory constructs and outcomes are related, they do not permit inference of directional effects nor do they provide indications of how the constructs themselves, or the relations among them, change over time. So, the use of correlational data to support temporal or causal claims based on the theory ultimately falls short and misrepresents study findings. In the current review, we suggest the adoption of forms of longitudinal ‘panel’ research designs, including new implementations of these designs, such as random intercept panel designs, which control for covariance and temporal stability, as a potential solution to account for change in theory constructs and better enable researchers to make inferences with respect to the direction in the effects or their reciprocity [65]. In terms of the need to test the mechanisms by which interventions based on the theory impact change in behavior and outcomes in the workplace, we propose that researchers need to augment their research designs to enable tests of their intervention mechanisms of action. This entails including measures and design elements to intervention studies to demonstrate that changes in targeted workplace outcomes as a result of the intervention occur through the change or activation of the theory-based constructs involved [ 66 – 68 ]. The value of identifying such research is that it provides verification that the putative theoretical mechanism is responsible for the intervention effect. Although there is expanding literature testing such mechanisms in the context of self-determination theory-based interventions in other contexts [ 69 ], researchers have not routinely tested these mechanisms in workplace contexts [ 70 ]. We outline the importance of testing these mechanisms of action of selfdetermination theory-based interventions in the workplace and outline examples of study designs that will address this research gap and elucidate how interventions ‘work’ in changing behavior and outcomes. Finally, inconsistencies in the observed size and pattern of effects of research applying self-determination theory in workplace contexts may be attributable to methodological artifacts, such as the sample size, study design, and lack of statistical power. These artifacts aside, the inconsistencies may also be attributable to conceptual- (e.g., the type of organizational structure—authoritative or hierarchical as opposed to democratic and ‘flat’—and individual differences in self-determined orientations or ‘causality orientations’), contextual- (e.g., worker level—blue-collar and white-collar workers), methodological (e.g., study design and quality and types of measure used), and sampling- (e.g., sample characteristics, like gender and age, and type of worker) moderating variables. We propose that researchers need to pay more consideration to these candidate moderators when conducting workplace research based on theory. In doing so, we outline some key research directions that may assist in resolving these inconsistencies, provide greater precision in the effects of self-determination theory constructs on adaptive workplace behaviors (e.g., creativity and knowledge sharing) and outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and task performance), and identify the conditions (e.g., organizational structure, job type, advancement opportunities, and remote work options) and extraneous factors on which these relations are contingent with a view of elucidating the boundary conditions of theory predictions [ 71 , 72 ]. Further, the identification of moderators of the effect of self-determination theory-based interventions Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 8 of 20 on workplace behaviors and outcomes may also assist in outlining the conditions in which interventions are more or less likely to be efficacious [73]. 3. Moving on from a Focus on Correlational Study Designs A substantive proportion of studies applying self-determination theory in workplace contexts adopt correlational, single-occasion research designs. Many studies seek to test hypotheses from the theory by measuring constructs, such as employee need satisfaction and autonomous motivation, and examining their unique associations with concurrent measures of behavior-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, job performance, employee turnover, and creativity) [ 35 , 57 , 59 ]. Studies employing such designs are useful in identifying the size and variability of relations among constructs from self-determination theory and workplace behaviors and outcomes and add to an evidence base of research supporting theory-based relations in this context. However, such studies are also limited insofar as they prohibit the inference of directionality (i.e., the order of variables in a proposed nomological network) and causality (i.e., whether change in one variable affects change in another) in effects. For example, correlations among theory constructs and outcomes do not provide information on the direction of the effect, i.e., does the theory construct precede the outcome, or vice versa, or is the relation reciprocal? Nor do correlations inform whether a change in the construct through, for example, an intervention or manipulation affects a change in the outcome. Although other reviews have noted the reliance on correlational designs, they have typically not provided direct suggestions on alternative research methods that could be applied in research in workplace contexts to address the shortcomings of these designs. Further, while there has been a greater adoption of alternative designs, there is little evidence of a substantive shift, and the field still relies heavily on correlational designs. In addition, single-occasion correlational designs do not account for a change in variables over time, known as covariance stability, or whether an intraindividual change in independent variables in a model over time is related to an intraindividual change in other dependent variables in the model [ 74 ]. For instance, assessing relations between constructs from self-determination theory in the workplace (e.g., relations between employees’ perceived autonomy support from their supervisors and their need satisfaction and autonomous motivation toward their work activities) only suggests that these variables share variance. The theory may specify the direction of these effects (e.g., supervisor autonomy support may precede need satisfaction and autonomous motivation), but correlational data do not provide verification. Further, the nature of the relations between these constructs may be more complex. For example, new information may come to light that alters one or both of these constructs, which could affect their stability over time. Such variations are not captured in studies testing these relations using single-occasion designs or even in prospective designs in which antecedent and consequent or dependent constructs are measured at different timepoints. Similarly, relations between the constructs may not be solely unidirectional. For example, it is possible that the effects of perceived autonomy support may not only influence psychological need satisfaction, but psychological need satisfaction may also influence need support, known as a reciprocal pattern of effects and indicative of a more dynamic process. Again, such effects cannot be inferred by studies adopting single-occasion correlational designs, and an application of more sophisticated longitudinal designs is needed to provide insight into these potential patterns of effect. 3.1. Longitudinal Tests and Panel Designs One means to potentially test these directional effects over time while also accounting for temporal stability and within-individual or intraindividual changes in theory constructs over time is through the adoption of forms of cross-lagged panel research designs. Research adopting these designs typically measures the variables of constructs of interest at multiple timepoints and theory-determined associations among the variables within and across timepoints are tested. The design may help resolve issues surrounding the direction of Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 15 of 20 the actions of others or environmental contingencies or unsupportive of their needs and extrinsically motivating. These orientations, therefore, have been identified as key moderators of certain predictions of self-determination theory, such as the effect of environmental contingencies on experienced forms of motivation. For example, research has indicated that autonomy-oriented individuals are less likely to experience the undermining effect of external contingencies, like rewards, on their intrinsic motivation [96]. Applying causality orientations as moderators in self-determination theory research in the workplace, employees who endorse an autonomy causality orientation may have a greater propensity to interpret workplace contingencies and situations as supportive of their needs, even those that do not ostensibly offer a high degree of autonomy support. So, autonomy-oriented workers may have greater resilience when it comes to the undermining effects of controlling contingencies on their autonomous motivation. They may, therefore, be more likely to experience their work as need supportive and autonomous, even in ostensibly controlling contexts. In contrast, those endorsing controlled orientations may be more vulnerable to having their needs undermined, particularly in contexts where support is not provided or ambiguous. Acknowledging this moderating effect of causality orientations identifies a key avenue for research and intervention in the workplace. Individuals who likely endorse a controlled orientation may be those who benefit most from autonomysupportive interventions, and researchers would do well to screen employees for their causality orientations and target interventions accordingly. 6. Conclusions Self-determination theory is a leading theory of motivation that has been applied in multiple contexts and demonstrated efficacy in accounting for behavioral persistence and adaptive outcomes [ 23 , 47 , 49 ], including workplace behaviors and outcomes [ 35 , 90 ]. Specifically, the research has indicated that interventions aimed at enhancing workplace leaders’ autonomy support can subsequently impact employees’ basic psychological need satisfaction, motivational orientation, and, ultimately, their persistence in adaptive workplace behaviors, resulting in more favorable workplace outcomes [ 90 ]. However, despite these findings, evidence gaps remain in the literature. In this article, we set out to review the extant research applying the theory in this context with the goal of identifying these gaps and, in doing so, making specific recommendations for researchers on how to address them, which we expect to serve as an agenda for future research. Specifically, our review spanned both initial and recent applications of self-determination theory in the workplace [ 35 – 37 ] but focused on the research reviewed and identified trends and shortcomings in prior conceptual, systematic, and meta-analytic reviews, and the subsequent primary research studies conducted since. Foremost among the gaps identified in the research applying self-determination theory in the workplace is the lack of evidence enabling the drawing of definitive directional and causal inferences in tests of relations among theory constructs and outcomes. Restrictions on these inferences are primarily due to an over-reliance of studies in the field on single-occasion correlational designs. To address this concern, researchers should consider employing alternative designs, including variants of cross-lagged panel designs and experimental or randomized controlled intervention designs. These designs can help overcome these limitations by allowing better inference of directional and causal effects among theory constructs and workplace outcomes, both of which may increase the value of the evidence in support of theory predictions and for informing intervention development. For example, better causal inferences mean that interventionists can be more confident that adopting a theory-based technique purposed to change a particular construct can lead to changes in workplace behaviors or outcomes. We reviewed research adopting these designs and how they address concerns over inferences but also noted a marked dearth of studies in the workplace context and advocate accordingly for more research adopting these designs in this context. Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 16 of 20 An additional limitation of the extant research applying self-determination theory in the workplace is the lack of formal tests of the mechanisms by which interventions based on the theory operate in changing behavioral and subsequent outcomes. Researchers need to explicitly specify and test these mechanisms by adopting designs that allow them to test whether the expected intervention effects occur through change in the putative theorybased mediators. Such tests will provide essential information on the extent to which the underlying theory accounts for intervention effects as specified. This has important ramifications in assessing whether interventions based on the theory are not only efficacious, but sufficiently translated into effects on the desired constructs representing the theorystipulated process. This approach can provide insight into how and why interventions work and guide the development of more effective and efficient workplace interventions based on the theory. It is also important to consider key contextual and intrapersonal variables that may act as moderating variables of relations between constructs from self-determination theory and behavior and outcomes in the workplace. Specifically, workplace environment (e.g., job type: bluevs. white-collar workers and pay structure) and worker-intrapersonal characteristics (e.g., causality orientations) may impact the degree to which constructs, like need support and autonomous motivation, impact workplace engagement and subsequent outcomes. Researchers should measure these and other moderators likely to influence the relationship between self-determination theory variables and workplace outcomes when conducting research in this area. Understanding specific joband environment-level factors that may impact intervention effects can help tailor interventions to specific workplace contexts and maximize their effectiveness. Overall, the current evidence indicates the appropriateness of self-determination theory to identify the motivational antecedents of adaptive workplace behaviors, like knowledge sharing and creativity, and successful workplace outcomes, including job satisfaction, work engagement, and job performance. The evidence on the viability and application of the theory, however, may be limited by an over-reliance on data derived from single-occasion correlational designs, a lack of testing of the intervention mechanisms of action, and the often unacknowledged impact of moderating variables. Researchers should consider developing studies and adopting appropriate research designs that address these concerns in order to provide new data that seek to resolve these concerns. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.M. and M.S.H.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M.; writing—review and editing, M.S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: No original data were used in this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References 1. Rezvani, A.; Chang, A.; Wiewiora, A.; Ashkanasy, N.M.; Jordan, P.J.; Zolin, R. Manager emotional intelligence and project success: The mediating role of job satisfaction and trust. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016,34, 1112–1122. [CrossRef] 2. Sullivan, S. Making the business case for health and productivity management. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2004,46 (Suppl. 6), S56–S61. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Ahmed, A.; Ramzan, M. Effects of job stress on employees job performance a study on banking sector of Pakistan. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2013,11, 61–68. [CrossRef] 4. Bhuvanaiah, T.; Raya, R.P. Employee Engagement: Key to Organizational Success. SCMS J. Indian Manag. 2014,11, 61. 5. Neuber, L.; Englitz, C.; Schulte, N.; Forthmann, B.; Holling, H. How work engagement relates to performance and absenteeism: A Meta-analysis. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2021,31, 292–315. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 17 of 20 6. Rodríguez-Cifuentes, F.; Topa, G.; Fernández-Salinero, S.; Moriano, J.A. Presenteeism, Overcommitment, Workplace Bullying, and Job Satisfaction: A Moderated Mediation Relationship. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2020,17, 8616. [CrossRef] 7. Faragher, E.B.; Cass, M.; Cooper, C.L. The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A Meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005,62, 105–112. [CrossRef] 8. Chen, L.; Hannon, P.A.; Laing, S.S.; Kohn, M.J.; Clark, K.; Pritchard, S.; Harris, J.R. Perceived workplace health support is associated with employee productivity. Am. J. Health Promot. 2015,29, 139–146. [CrossRef] 9. Gilboa, S.; Shirom, A.; Fried, Y.; Cooper, C. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Pers. Psychol. 2008,61, 227–271. [CrossRef] 10. Lee, Y.S.; Eissenstat, S.H.J. A longitudinal examination of the causes and effects of burnout based on the job demands-resources model. Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid. 2018,18, 337–354. [CrossRef] 11. Slemp, G.R.; Zhao, Y.; Hou, H.; Vallerand, R.J. Job crafting, leader autonomy support, and passion for work: Testing a model in Australia and China. Motiv. Emot. 2021,45, 60–74. [CrossRef] 12. Moon, T.W.; Hur, W.M.; Hyun, S.S. How service employees’ work motivations lead to job performance: The role of service employees’ job creativity and customer orientation. Curr. Psychol. 2019,38, 517–532. [CrossRef] 13. Galletta, M.; Vandenberghe, C.; Portoghese, I.; Allegrini, E.; Saiani, L.; Battistelli, A. A cross-lagged analysis of the relationships among workgroup commitment, motivation and proactive work behaviour in nurses. J. Nurs. Manag. 2019,27, 1148–1158. [CrossRef] 14. Swaroop, P.; Dixit, V. Employee engagement, work autonomy and innovative work behaviour: An empirical study. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change 2018,4, 158–176. 15. Nasution, N.R.; Siregar, Z.M.E.; Pristiyono, P. The effect of job autonomy on employee innovative behavior: The role of job satisfaction as intervening variable. Budapest. Int. Res. Crit. Inst. J. 2021,4, 2846–2853. [CrossRef] 16. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985. 17. Kruglanski, A.W.; Bélanger, J.J.; Chen, X.; Köpetz, C.; Pierro, A.; Mannetti, L. The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychol. Rev. 2012,119, 1–20. [CrossRef] 18. Weiner, B. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1986. 19. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977,84, 191–215. [CrossRef] 20. Conner, M.; Norman, P.; Conner, M.; Sparks, P. The theory of planned behaviour and health behaviours. In Predicting Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models. Predicting Health Behaviour; Conner, M., Norman, P., Eds.; Open University Press: Maidenhead, UK, 1996. 21. Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 1943,50, 370–396. [CrossRef] 22. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000,55, 68–78. [CrossRef] 23. Ng, J.Y.Y.; Ntoumanis, N.; Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.; Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M.; Duda, J.L.; Williams, G.C. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2012,7, 325–340. [CrossRef] 24. Tang, M.; Wang, D.; Guerrien, A. A systematic review and meta-analysis on basic psychological need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in later life: Contributions of self-determination theory. PsyCh J. 2020,9, 5–33. [CrossRef] 25. Knight, C.; Patterson, M.; Dawson, J. Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. J. Organ. Behav. 2017,38, 792–812. [CrossRef] 26. Coxen, L.; van der Vaart, L.; Van den Broeck, A.; Rothmann, S. Basic psychological needs in the work context: A systematic literature review of diary studies. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 698526. [CrossRef] 27. Messmann, G.; Evers, A.; Kreijns, K. The role of basic psychological needs satisfaction in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2022,33, 29–45. [CrossRef] 28. Wörtler, B.; Van Yperen, N.W.; Barelds, D.P.H. Do individual differences in need strength moderate the relations between basic psychological need satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior? Motiv. Emot. 2020,44, 315–328. [CrossRef] 29. Van den Broeck, A.; Ferris, D.L.; Chang, C.H.; Rosen, C.C. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J. Manag. 2016,42, 1195–1229. [CrossRef] 30. Reeve, J. Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and why their students benefit. Elem. Sch. J. 2006,106, 225–236. [CrossRef] 31. Hardré, P.L.; Reeve, J.; Hardre, P.L.; Reeve, J. Training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees: An intervention study. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2009,13, 165–184. [CrossRef] 32. Teixeira, P.J.; Silva, M.N.; Mata, J.; Palmeira, A.L.; Markland, D. Motivation, self-determination, and long-term weight control. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012,9, 1–3. [CrossRef] 33. Quinn, R.W.; Spreitzer, G.M.; Lam, C.F. Building a Sustainable Model of Human Energy in Organizations: Exploring the Critical Role of Resources. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2012,6, 337–396. [CrossRef] 34. Hagger, M.; Chatzisarantis, N. Self-determination Theory and the psychology of exercise. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2008,1, 79–103. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 18 of 20 35. Slemp, G.R.; Kern, M.L.; Patrick, K.J.; Ryan, R.M. Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motiv. Emot. 2018,42, 706–724. [CrossRef] 36. van Hooff, M.L.M.; van Hooft, E.A.J. Boredom at work: Towards a dynamic spillover model of need satisfaction, work motivation, and work-related boredom. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2016,26, 133–148. [CrossRef] 37. Deci, E.L.; Olafsen, A.H.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2017,4, 19–43. [CrossRef] 38. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020,61, 101860. [CrossRef] 39. Tang, M.; Wang, D.; Guerrien, A. The contribution of basic psychological need satisfaction to psychological well-being via autonomous motivation among older adults: A cross-cultural study in China and France. Front. Psychol. 2021,12, 5028. [CrossRef] 40. Olafsen, A.H.; Halvari, H.; Forest, J.; Deci, E.L. Show them the money? The role of pay, managerial need support, and justice in a self-determination theory model of intrinsic work motivation. Scand. J. Psychol. 2015,56, 447–457. [CrossRef] 41. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000,11, 227–268. [CrossRef] 42. Adie, J.W.; Duda, J.L.; Ntoumanis, N. Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the optimal functioning of adult male and female sport participants: A test of basic needs theory. Motiv. Emot. 2008,32, 189–199. [CrossRef] 43. Osbaldiston, R.; Sheldon, K.M. Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behavior: A prospective study of environmental goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003,23, 349–357. [CrossRef] 44. Bureau, J.S.; Howard, J.L.; Chong, J.X.Y.; Guay, F. Pathways to Student Motivation: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents of Autonomous and Controlled Motivations. Rev. Educ. Res. 2022,92, 46–72. [CrossRef] 45. Milyavskaya, M.; Nadolny, D.; Koestner, R. Where Do Self-Concordant Goals Come From? The Role of Domain-Specific Psychological Need Satisfaction. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2014,40, 700–711. [CrossRef] 46. Pelletier, L.G.; Fortier, M.S.; Vallerand, R.J.; Brière, N.M. Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motiv. Emot. 2001,25, 279–306. [CrossRef] 47. Ryan, R.M.; Patrick, H.; Deci, E.L.; Williams, G.C.; Ryan, R. Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on Self-Determination Theory. Eur. Health Psychol. 2008,10, 2–5. 48. Raza, M.Y.; Akhtar, M.W.; Husnain, M.; Akhtar, M.S. The Impact of Intrinsic Motivation on Employee’s Job Satisfaction. Manag. Organ. Stud. 2015,2, 80. [CrossRef] 49. Barkoukis, V.; Hagger, M.S.; Lambropoulos, G.; Tsorbatzoudis, H. Extending the trans-contextualmodel in physical education and leisure-time contexts: Examining the role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2010,80, 647–670. [CrossRef] 50. Williams, G.C.; McGregor, H.A.; Sharp, D.; Levesque, C.; Kouides, R.W.; Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Testing a self-determination theory intervention for motivating tobacco cessation: Supporting autonomy and competence in a clinical trial. Health Psychol. 2006,25, 91–101. [CrossRef] 51. Cerasoli, C.P.; Nicklin, J.M.; Ford, M.T. Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 2014,140, 980–1008. [CrossRef] 52. Fernet, C.; Guay, F.; Senécal, C. Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004,65, 39–56. [CrossRef] 53. Park, S.M.; Rainey, H.G. Work motivation and social communication among public managers. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 2630–2660. [CrossRef] 54. Omansky, R.; Eatough, E.M.; Fila, M.J. Illegitimate tasks as an impediment to job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation: Moderated mediation effects of gender and effort-reward imbalance. Front. Psychol. 2016,7, 12. [CrossRef] 55. Li, M.; Wang, Z.; You, X.; Gao, J. Value congruence and teachers’ work engagement: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2015,80, 113–118. [CrossRef] 56. Roche, M.; Haar, J. Motivations, work–family enrichment and job satisfaction: An indirect effects model. Pers. Rev. 2019,49, 903–920. [CrossRef] 57. Tafvelin, S.; Stenling, A. Development and Initial Validation of the Need Satisfaction and Need Support at Work Scales: A Validity-Focused Approach. Scand. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2018,3, 1. [CrossRef] 58. Graves, L.M.; Luciano, M.M. Self-determination at work: Understanding the role of leader-member exchange. Motiv. Emot. 2013, 37, 518–536. [CrossRef] 59. Dahling, J.J.; Lauricella, T.K. Linking Job Design to Subjective Career Success: A Test of Self-Determination Theory. J. Career Assess. 2017,25, 371–388. [CrossRef] 60. Gillet, N.; Gagné, M.; Sauvagère, S.; Fouquereau, E. The role of supervisor autonomy support, organizational support, and autonomous and controlled motivation in predicting employees’ satisfaction and turnover intentions. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2013,22, 450–460. [CrossRef] 61. Haski-Leventhal, D.; Kach, A.; Pournader, M. Employee Need Satisfaction and Positive Workplace Outcomes: The Role of Corporate Volunteering. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2019,48, 593–615. [CrossRef] 62. Su, Y.L.; Reeve, J.; Su, Y.L.; Reeve, J. A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2011,23, 159–188. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 19 of 20 63. Cheon, S.H.; Reeve, J. Do the benefits from autonomy-supportive PE teacher training programs endure?: A one-year follow-up investigation. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2013,14, 508–518. [CrossRef] 64. Slemp, G.R.; Lee, M.A.; Mossman, L.H. Interventions to support autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs in organizations: A systematic review with recommendations for research and practice. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2021,94, 427–457. [CrossRef] 65. Lucas, R.E. Why the Cross-Lagged Panel Model Is Almost Never the Right Choice. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2023,6, 25152459231158378. [CrossRef] 66. Hagger, M.S.; Moyers, S.; McAnally, K.; McKinley, L.E. Known knowns and known unknowns on behavior change interventions and mechanisms of action. Health Psychol. Rev. 2020,14, 199–212. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Rothman, A.J.; Klein, W.M.P.; Sheeran, P. Moving from Theoretical Principles to Intervention Strategies: Applying the Experimental Medicine Approach. In The Handbook of Behavior Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 285–299. 68. Sheeran, P.; Klein, W.M.P.; Rothman, A.J. Health Behavior Change: Moving from Observation to Intervention. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2017,68, 573–600. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 69. Sheeran, P.; Wright, C.E.; Avishai, A.; Villegas, M.E.; Lindemans, J.W.; Klein, W.M.P.; Rothman, A.J.; Miles, E.; Ntoumanis, N. Self-determination theory interventions for health behavior change: Meta-analysis and meta-analytic structural equation modeling of randomized controlled trials. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2020,88, 726–737. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 70. Suls, J.; Mogavero, J.N.; Falzon, L.; Pescatello, L.S.; Hennessy, E.A.; Davidson, K.W. Health behaviour change in cardiovascular disease prevention and management: Meta-review of behaviour change techniques to affect self-regulation. Health Psychol. Rev. 2019,14, 43–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 71. Chatzisarantis, N.L.D.; Yli-Piipari, S.; Schriefer, L.S.; Wang, D.; Barkoukis, V.; Hagger, M.S. Is the relationship between physical activity intentions and behaviour convex? A test across 13 studies. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019,43, 114–122. [CrossRef] 72. Trafimow, D. Generalizing across auxiliary, statistical, and inferential assumptions. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 2022,52, 37–48. [CrossRef] 73. Rothman, A.J.; Sheeran, P. The Operating Conditions Framework: Integrating Mechanisms and Moderators in Health Behavior Interventions. Health Psychol. 2021,40, 845–857. [CrossRef] 74. Hertzog, C.; Nesselroade, J.R. Beyond Autoregressive Models: Some Implications of the Trait-State Distinction for the Structural Modeling of Developmental Change. Child Dev. 1987,58, 93. [CrossRef] 75. Hamaker, E.L.; Kuiper, R.M.; Grasman, R.P.P.P. A critique of the cross-lagged panel model. Psychol. Methods 2015,20, 102–116. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 76. Usami, S. On the Differences between General Cross-Lagged Panel Model and Random-Intercept Cross-Lagged Panel Model: Interpretation of Cross-Lagged Parameters and Model Choice. Struct. Equ. Model. 2020,28, 331–344. [CrossRef] 77. Hogenelst, K.; Schelvis, R.; Krone, T.; Gagné, M.; Heino, M.; Knittle, K.; Hankonen, N. A within-person approach to the relation between quality of task motivation, performance and job satisfaction in everyday working life. Motiv. Emot. 2022,46, 588–600. [CrossRef] 78. Gillison, F.B.; Rouse, P.; Standage, M.; Sebire, S.J.; Ryan, R.M. A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychol. Rev. 2018,13, 110–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 79. Reeve, J.; Jang, H. What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. J. Educ. Psychol. 2006,98, 209–218. [CrossRef] 80. Teixeira, P.J.; Marques, M.M.; Silva, M.N.; Brunet, J.; Duda, J.L.; Haerens, L.; La Guardia, J.; Lindwall, M.; Lonsdale, C.; Markland, D.; et al. A classification of motivation and behavior change techniques used in self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts. Motiv. Sci. 2020,6, 438–455. [CrossRef] 81. Michie, S.; Thomas, J.; Johnston, M.; Mac Aonghusa, P.; Shawe-Taylor, J.; Kelly, M.P.; Deleris, L.A.; Finnerty, A.N.; Marques, M.M.; Norris, E.; et al. The Human Behaviour-Change Project: Harnessing the power of artificial intelligence and machine learning for evidence synthesis and interpretation. Implement. Sci. 2017,12, 121. [CrossRef] 82. Kok, G.; Gottlieb, N.H.; Peters, G.J.Y.; Mullen, P.D.; Parcel, G.S.; Ruiter, R.A.C.; Fernández, M.E.; Markham, C.; Bartholomew, L.K. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: An Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016,10, 297–312. [CrossRef] 83. Carey, R.N.; Connell, L.E.; Johnston, M.; Rothman, A.J.; De Bruin, M.; Kelly, M.P.; Michie, S. Behavior Change Techniques and Their Mechanisms of Action: A Synthesis of Links Described in Published Intervention Literature. Ann. Behav. Med. 2019,53, 693–707. [CrossRef] 84. Connell, L.E.; Carey, R.N.; De Bruin, M.; Rothman, A.J.; Johnston, M.; Kelly, M.P.; Michie, S. Links Between Behavior Change Techniques and Mechanisms of Action: An Expert Consensus Study. Ann. Behav. Med. 2019,53, 708–720. [CrossRef] 85. Dombrowski, S.U.; O’Carroll, R.E.; Williams, B. Form of delivery as a key “active ingredient” in behaviour change interventions. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2016,21, 733–740. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 86. Sheeran, P.; Wright, C.E.; Avishai, A.; Villegas, M.E.; Rothman, A.J.; Klein, W.M.P. Does Increasing Autonomous Motivation or Perceived Competence Lead to Health Behavior Change? A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychol. 2021,40, 706–716. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 87. De Fraga, D.; Moneta, G.B. Flow at work as a moderator of the self-determination model of work engagement. In Flow Experience: Empirical Research and Applications; Harmat, L., Andersen, F.Ø., Ullén, F., Wright, J., Sadlo, G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Chapter XVI; pp. 105–123. Behav. Sci. 2024,14, 428 20 of 20 88. Roche, M.; Haar, J.M. A metamodel approach towards self-determination theory: A study of New Zealand managers’ organisational citizenship behaviours. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013,24, 3397–3417. [CrossRef] 89. Platts, K.; Breckon, J.; Marshall, E. Enforced home-working under lockdown and its impact on employee wellbeing: A crosssectional study. BMC Public Health 2022,22, 199. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 90. Gagné, M.; Parker, S.K.; Griffin, M.A.; Dunlop, P.D.; Knight, C.; Klonek, F.E.; Parent-Rocheleau, X. Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2022,1, 378–392. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. Hu, X.; Kaplan, S.; Dalal, R.S. An examination of blueversus white-collar workers’ conceptualizations of job satisfaction facets. J. Vocat. Behav. 2010,76, 317–325. [CrossRef] 92. Nydegger, R. Occupational Stress And Job Satisfaction In White-And Blue-Collar Workers. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2002,1, 12. [CrossRef] 93. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M.; Koestner, R. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 1999,125, 627–668. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 94. Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1982,43, 450–461. [CrossRef] 95. Hagger, M.S.; Hamilton, K. General causality orientations in self-determination theory: Meta-analysis and test of a process model. Eur. J. Pers. 2021,35, 710–735. [CrossRef] 96. Hagger, M.S.; Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. Causality orientations moderate the undermining effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2011,47, 485–489. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.