Evaluate rewards and self-determination at work
Distinguish financial reward systems from non-financial recognition and explain how competence, autonomy and relatedness can shape the meaning of a reward in Landry et al.’s Study 1.
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.1, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate the syllabus and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.1.3 and Landry et al. (2019), Study 1. The study compared reward presentation in a laboratory; it is not a universal workplace prescription.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which three needs are central to self-determination theory?
What you will learn
- Extrinsic reward systems: pay, bonuses, profit-sharing and performance-related pay
- Intrinsic rewards: praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and belonging
- Self-determination theory: competence, autonomy and relatedness; Landry et al. (2019), Study 1
Work rewards can be financial or non-financial
Extrinsic reward systems provide a separable outcome for work. Pay is regular compensation; bonuses add a one-off or periodic payment; profit-sharing links some reward to organisational results; performance-related pay links reward to an individual or team measure. Each system can influence effort, but its effect depends on fairness, controllability, access and the measure used.
The syllabus lists praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and belonging as intrinsic motivators. In everyday workplace language, these are non-monetary rewards. Self-determination theory uses intrinsic motivation more narrowly for doing an activity because it is interesting or satisfying in itself. Recognition may support that motivation when it communicates useful information and respects choice, but can feel controlling when used as pressure.
Money and non-financial recognition are not automatically good or bad motivators. A fair reward can communicate appreciation and competence; a controlling reward can make a person feel pressured. Poorly designed targets can shift attention from quality, cooperation, safety or learning.
Self-determination theory describes three basic psychological needs
Competence is feeling able to act effectively and develop skill. Autonomy is experiencing choice and ownership rather than coercion. Relatedness is feeling respected, connected and included. Work conditions can support or frustrate these needs.
Landry et al. (2019), Study 1, used a laboratory experiment with 123 student volunteers recruited through an organisational-behaviour course at a Canadian university. Participants received the same monetary reward described either in an autonomy-supportive, informational way (a token of appreciation) or in a controlling, pressuring way (to reinforce performance standards). The task and questionnaire measures allowed researchers to compare the functional meaning of the reward, not simply whether money was present.
The authors reported that an autonomy-supportive presentation produced greater need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and task performance than a controlling presentation. The result suggests that how a reward is communicated can matter. It does not show that the same wording will improve every employee’s performance: the study used students in a laboratory, not a real workplace, and the syllabus requires Study 1 rather than detailed methodology from Study 2.
Design reward systems around fairness and need support
A useful design explains the purpose of a reward, applies clear and consistent criteria, provides feedback that helps people improve, and leaves meaningful choice where possible. Recognition should be specific and sincere. Empowerment requires real decision authority, not simply extra responsibility without resources.
Evaluation should measure more than output. Define quality, safety, cooperation and wellbeing indicators before introducing the reward. Check who can access it, whether criteria are understood, and whether workers feel supported or pressured. Combine administrative measures with confidential feedback and consider effects over time.
An experiment such as Landry et al.’s can support a causal comparison in its study conditions, while a laboratory task has limits in ecological validity. Workplace case studies may reflect real settings but have other confounds. Apply findings cautiously and do not infer that recognition or cash alone caused a change without a suitable design.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Landry et al. (2019), Applying self-determination theory to the motivational impact of cash rewards
- Deci and Ryan (2000), The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits
Pause and explain
What was the key comparison in Landry et al.’s Study 1?
Worked example
Two teams receive the same bonus. One is told it recognises their contribution and receives coaching; the other is warned that the bonus will be withheld unless a target is met. Use self-determination theory to explain why the experience may differ.
Show the worked solution
- The bonus is the same, but its functional meaning differs.
- Connect informational support or pressure with autonomy and competence; consider relatedness.
- State what evidence would be needed to claim a performance effect in that workplace.
Answer The first presentation may communicate appreciation and useful information, supporting autonomy and competence; coaching may also build competence and a respectful relationship. The second may be experienced as controlling and frustrate autonomy, although outcomes depend on the workers and context. A workplace evaluation should measure need satisfaction, motivation, output and quality over time rather than infer effects from the message alone.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A company offers praise only when employees exceed an aggressive target. Explain how the praise might support or undermine motivation under self-determination theory.
Give me a hint
Consider whether the message provides useful recognition or pressure, and name the needs involved.
Compare my reasoning
- Specific, respectful praise may communicate competence and appreciation.
- If praise is conditional pressure to reach an unsafe or unrealistic target, it may undermine autonomy.
- The way managers communicate can affect whether workers feel respected and related to others.
- Check actual worker experience and safeguards rather than assume praise is always motivating.
Praise may support competence when it gives accurate, respectful information about a skill. When it is used to pressure employees toward an unrealistic target, it can feel controlling and frustrate autonomy. Relatedness may depend on whether workers feel respected. The effect should be assessed with staff feedback and quality and safety measures.
Look for these in your work
- Competence applied
- Autonomy considered
- Reward meaning evaluated in context
Evaluate the claim that Landry et al. (2019) proved cash bonuses improve performance in all workplaces.
Give me a hint
Describe Study 1’s comparison and the reported result, then assess the setting and outcome limits.
Compare my reasoning
- Landry et al. compared autonomy-supportive and controlling presentations of a monetary reward in a laboratory study.
- They reported greater need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and task performance in the autonomy-supportive condition.
- The sample was 123 student volunteers recruited through an organisational-behaviour course, not a representative workforce.
- The result concerns how a reward was presented in the study; it does not establish a universal effect of cash or detailed Study 2 findings.
The claim is too broad. Landry et al. reported that, in Study 1, an autonomy-supportive presentation of a monetary reward produced higher need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and task performance than a controlling presentation. The lab used student volunteers, so it cannot prove that cash bonuses improve performance in all jobs. The syllabus focuses on Study 1; workplace replication and outcome safeguards would be needed for a practical claim.
Look for these in your work
- Independent variable described
- Results reported without overstatement
- Sample and ecological limits included
Plan a six-week workplace test comparing supportive and controlling reward messages. Protect workers and decide what evidence would count as improvement.
Give me a hint
Hold the reward rules constant, vary only the message where ethical, and measure needs, performance and possible harms.
Compare my reasoning
- Use clear, voluntary and non-deceptive communication; keep reward amount and eligibility rules consistent across comparable groups.
- Measure perceived informational versus controlling meaning and competence, autonomy and relatedness using suitable validated measures.
- Predefine performance, quality, safety and workload outcomes; keep access equitable and allow confidential feedback.
- Compare baseline and follow-up across conditions, document implementation and other changes, and avoid treating one result as universal.
A defensible workplace test would keep the reward and eligibility rules constant while communicating the reward supportively or controllingly in comparable settings, with appropriate consent and safeguards. Measure how the message is perceived, the three psychological needs, motivation, output, quality, safety and workload. Compare baseline and follow-up, check equal access and report the limits of the sample and implementation.
Look for these in your work
- Message is the planned contrast
- Need measures included
- Safety and equity protected
- Limits reported
Common mistakes
- Claiming that all financial rewards undermine intrinsic motivation
- Treating the reward’s amount as the only important feature
- Calling all praise intrinsically motivating regardless of how it is used
- Generalising a student laboratory result to every real workplace
- Measuring target quantity while ignoring safety, quality and access to rewards
What can you explain now?
What differed between Landry et al.’s two Study 1 conditions?
Compare with the explanation
The same type of monetary reward was presented in an autonomy-supportive, informational way or in a controlling, pressuring way.
The independent variable was the meaning communicated about the reward, not simply reward versus no reward.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Explain how the same cash reward could support or frustrate competence, autonomy and relatedness, using Landry et al.’s Study 1 and one limit on applying it at work.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.