You can't motivate your team — but you can create the conditions for motivation

“My team just aren't motivated.”

It's something I've heard many times in conversations with leaders, usually when they've been trying hard to get some kind of change happening. Perhaps the same expectations keep slipping, teachers aren't taking the initiative they hoped they would, or they find themselves answering the same questions and solving the same problems over and over again. Eventually, it becomes easy to conclude that people simply aren't motivated.

I've been thinking about this differently lately, particularly through the lens of Self-Determination Theory. Developed through the work of psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, the theory suggests that our motivation is influenced by three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. In simple terms, we are more likely to experience meaningful, intrinsic motivation when we have some ownership over what we do, feel capable of doing it, and feel connected and valued within the environment we're doing it in.

Creating the conditions for motivation: autonomy, competence and connection can grow when leaders make space for people to think, contribute, make decisions and build confidence in their own capability.

For me, this shifts the leadership question. Instead of asking “How do I motivate my team?”, perhaps we need to be asking “What kind of environment am I creating for motivation?”

I think about how often, as leaders, we become the problem solvers. A teacher comes to us unsure about how to approach a parent, respond to a situation with a child, or manage an issue with another teacher, and often the quickest and easiest response is to give them the answer. But when this becomes our default way of helping, we can accidently become the person everyone relies on to know what to do. We become increasingly competent at solving the problems while the people around us end up with fewer opportunities to develop confidence in solving them themselves.

Sometimes supporting autonomy and competence means resisting the urge to immediately provide the answer and becoming curious instead. What have you tried? What do you think is happening? What do you think will help? We aren't removing support or lowering expectations; we're creating space for someone else to think, make decisions and experience themselves as capable. That space also needs to be safe to fail. If we want people to use their own professional judgement, try something new or work through a problem themselves, there has to be room for things not to work perfectly the first time. Otherwise, autonomy can quickly become another kind of pressure — you can make the decision, but you'd better make the right one.

The same motivation lens is useful when agreed practice isn't happening. If we've spent time as a team talking about improving assessment, for example, and weeks later we're still not seeing much change, it's easy to interpret that as resistance or lack of motivation. But before deciding that's the problem, I think we need to consider competence. Does the person actually understand what we're asking for? Have they seen what good practice looks like? Have they had an opportunity to practise it, talk it through, receive feedback and build confidence? What looks like “I don't want to” from the outside can sometimes be “I'm not sure I can.”

Building competence doesn’t mean giving people all the answers. It means working alongside them, creating opportunities to practise, reflect, receive feedback and gradually build confidence in their own capability.

Then there is relatedness — our need to feel that we belong, that our contribution matters and that we are connected to the people around us. In a team, I think this is about much more than whether people get along. It is also about whether someone feels safe enough to say they don't understand, to ask for help, to disagree, to contribute an idea or to acknowledge that something isn't working. This is where motivation starts to intersect with relational trust, because autonomy doesn't mean very much if I don't feel safe enough to use my voice, and opportunities to develop competence are harder to embrace if making a mistake feels risky.

None of this means that leaders stop setting expectations or holding people accountable. Supporting autonomy isn't the same as allowing everyone to do whatever they like, just as supporting relatedness doesn't mean avoiding uncomfortable conversations. There can be very clear expectations around what needs to happen while still allowing people meaningful ownership over how they contribute, learn and get there.

So when we find ourselves thinking that someone “just isn't motivated”, we should consider these 3 psychological needs. How much genuine autonomy are they experiencing? Do they feel capable of what is being asked of them? Do they feel connected, valued and safe enough to participate fully?

And perhaps most importantly, what are we doing as leaders to create those conditions?

We can't create motivation for another person, but we can pay much closer attention to the environment we're asking it to grow in.

Keep exploring

If this has you thinking about the conditions you're creating for your team, explore more HeartLead resources and support around leadership and professional growth.