Motivation

How can leaders create conditions for high performance?

Andy Weeger

Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences

February 15, 2026

Learning objectives

After completing this unit, you will be able to:

1. Explain Path-Goal Theory and how leaders clarify the path to follower goal achievement.
2. Compare extrinsic and intrinsic motivation using Self-Determination Theory’s need framework.
3. Describe engaging leadership and how it operationalizes SDT’s basic psychological needs.
4. Contrast engaging and disengaging leadership and their effects on work engagement.

Today’s session

• Warm-up 15 min
• Path-goal theory 30 min
• From extrinsic to intrinsic motivation 25 min
• Break
• Engaging leadership 30 min
• Digital × disengaging leadership 20 min
• Reflection & closing 10 min

135 minutes total.

The session is designed as a flipped classroom — students have pre-read House (1996) and answered four guiding questions about the essence of path-goal theory, leader behavior classes, personal experiences, and empirical evidence.

Activation

Latticework check-in

Which mental models from previous units might help us think about motivation?

Think for yourself and share after the countdown is over.

04:00

Expected connections:

• Incentive structures — how do rewards and punishments shape follower behavior?
• Feedback loops — how does engagement create performance which reinforces engagement?
• Behavioral complexity from Unit 3 — leaders must adapt their motivational approach to the situation
• CVF — the collaborate quadrant is fundamentally about motivating through people

Individual reflection

Write down your findings.

1. The essence of path-goal theory in one sentence.
2. One leader behavior class from House (1996) that you have experienced personally.

After the countdown share your insights with your neighbor. Two minutes per person.

04:00

Students who did the reading should be able to articulate that path-goal theory is about leaders adapting their behavior to complement follower abilities and environmental conditions.

Pair share

Which leader behavior class resonated most? Why?

After the countdown share your insights with your neighbor. Two minutes per person.

04:00

Path-goal theory

The core logic

Leadership is the act of supplementing what is missing in the environment or the follower to ensure the goal is reachable and rewarding (House, 1996).

The Path-Goal “formula”:

1. Clarify the path.
   Remove ambiguity (How do I get there?).
2. Remove the obstacles.
   Fix system problems (What is stopping me?).
3. Increase the reward.
   Make the finish line worth it (Why should I care?).

Mini-lecture (5 min).

Connect to Unit 3: situational leadership told us to match style to follower readiness. Path-goal theory goes further — it specifies which behaviors work when and why (through motivational mechanisms).

Walk through each clarifying behavior with a concrete example. The key insight: path-goal theory is fundamentally about reducing uncertainty for followers. When people know what is expected, how to get there, and what the payoff is, they are more motivated and effective.

Probe: “Which of these clarifying behaviors is most often neglected by leaders you’ve observed?” This connects to the reading.

Leader behavior classes

Leadership behavior classes refers to types of actions and conduct that leaders incorporate into their management styles in order to effectively lead their teams, motivate them, and achieve their goals (House, 1996).

To be effective, a leader must pick the right “tool” based on the follower’s needs (House & Mitchell, 1974):

Behavior class	When to use it	The essence of the action
Directive	Task is ambiguous/complex	Scheduling, standards, and rules (map).
Supportive	Task is boring/stressful	Making the work pleasant and approachable (buffer).
Participative	Followers are autonomous/expert	Consulting and involving them in the plan (voice).
Achievement-oriented	Followers are high-performers	Setting “stretch goals” and showing confidence (challenge).

Table 1: Leader behavior classes

Leader behavior classes

Which behavior class fits which situation?

In groups of 3, take the behavior classes from House & Mitchell (1974) and:

1. Match each behavior class to a concrete leadership scenario.
2. Identify the follower and environmental conditions that make each behavior effective.
3. Connect at least two behavior classes to CVF quadrants from Unit 3.

10:00

Behavior class	When to use it	The essence of the action
Directive	Task is ambiguous/complex	Scheduling, standards, and rules (map).
Supportive	Task is boring/stressful	Making the work pleasant and approachable (buffer).
Participative	Followers are autonomous/expert	Consulting and involving them in the plan (voice).
Achievement-oriented	Followers are high-performers	Setting “stretch goals” and showing confidence (challenge).

In plenary, one spokesperson per station presents the synthesized findings. Push on CVF connections: “Which behavior class maps to the collaborate quadrant? The compete quadrant?”

Transition: “Path-goal theory tells leaders what to clarify. But how do you create the conditions where followers are intrinsically motivated to walk the path?”

Main propositions

Effective leaders do not provide more of everything.
They provide only what the environment lacks.

If a task is already clear, directive leadership is seen as annoying micromanagement.
If a task is already fun, supportive leadership is redundant.

According to House (1996), goal-oriented/directive behavior is helpful and instrumental when:

• The task is ambiguous: The path to the goal is unclear.
• The task is stressful or boring: The leader provides the structure the task lacks.
• The followers are inexperienced: They need the leader to “clear the path.”

From path-goal to motivation

Path-goal theory is largely about extrinsic motivation — clarifying what followers get for performing.

SDT shifts the focus to intrinsic motivation — creating conditions where followers perform because the work itself is meaningful.

Expectancy theory

Before we explore intrinsic motivation, a brief look at expectancy theory — a complementary lens on motivation.

Vroom (1964) proposed that motivation is a function of three beliefs:

• Expectancy — “If I try, can I perform?” (from effort to performance)
• Instrumentality — “If I perform, will I be rewarded?” (from performance to outcome)
• Valence — “Do I value the reward?” (outcome attractiveness)

Motivation = Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence

Mini-lecture (5 min).

Connect naturally to path-goal theory: a leader who clarifies goals and removes obstacles increases expectancy. A leader who links performance to outcomes increases instrumentality. A leader who understands what followers value ensures high valence.

However, expectancy theory primarily explains extrinsic motivation. What about the deeper drive from the work itself? Transition to SDT.

Self-Determination Theory

Three basic psychological needs

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000) proposes that humans have three basic psychological needs that, when satisfied, fuel intrinsic motivation and well-being:

Autonomy
Competence
& Relatedness

Mini-lecture (5 min).

• Autonomy — the need to feel volitional and self-directed
• Competence — the need to feel effective and capable, to master challenges
• Relatedness — the need to feel connected to others, to experience belonging

SDT distinguishes motivation along a continuum from external regulation (“I do it because I’ll be paid”) through identified regulation (“I do it because it matters to me”) to intrinsic motivation (“I do it because I find it fascinating”).

As motivation moves from external to intrinsic, it becomes more autonomous, more sustained, and more associated with well-being and performance. Leaders play a critical role in creating environments that support this internalization process.

SDT in the workplace

Why does SDT matter for leaders?

When needs are satisfied:

• Greater intrinsic motivation
• Higher quality performance
• More creativity and innovation
• Stronger well-being and resilience
• Lower turnover intention

When needs are thwarted:

• Reliance on external incentives
• Compliance without commitment
• Disengagement and burnout
• Higher absenteeism and turnover
• Resistance to change

SDT in practice

Think about your current study or work environment.

1. Which of the three needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) is best satisfied?
2. Which is most thwarted?
3. What would a leader do to address the thwarted need?

05:00

Expected pattern: autonomy is most often thwarted. Probe: “What would a leader do to address this?” This sets up engaging leadership perfectly.

Transition: “SDT provides the motivational logic. Engaging leadership tells us what leaders actually do to satisfy these needs.”

From SDT to engaging leadership

SDT provides the motivational logic;
Engaging leadership the leadership operationalization.

How do leaders translate SDT’s three needs into concrete behaviors?
This is precisely what engaging leadership theory addresses.

Engaging leadership

One of the principal responsibilities of leaders is to motivate their followers so that they will perform well.

Engaged employees invest highly in their job because they enjoy it,
nevertheless they know when to stop (Schaufeli, 2021).

Mini-lecture start (3 min).

Engaging leadership operationalizes SDT for the leadership context. It answers: “If I’m a leader who wants to satisfy my team’s basic psychological needs, what exactly should I do?”

Work engagement

Work engagement refers to “a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74)

• Vigor refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the face of difficulties.
• Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work, and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge.
• Absorption refers to being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work.

Work engagement differs from work addiction. Workaholics are driven by an irresistible inner need to work, and when they don’t, they feel useless, nervous, uneasy, restless and guilty.

Mini-lecture (3 min).

The distinction between engagement and workaholism is important. Engaged employees enjoy their work and know when to stop. Workaholics are driven by an irresistible inner need to work. The former are attracted by work because it is fun; the latter are driven to work to avoid negative feelings associated with not working.

Taris et al. (2014) argue that engaged employees have a positive (approach) motivation and workaholics a negative (avoidance) motivation.

Effects of work engagement

Research shows that work engagement is good for employees as well as for the organizations they work for (see e.g., Schaufeli, 2013).

• Engaged employees suffer less from all kinds of stress complaints (e.g., depression).
• They run a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and, hence, they show lower sickness absenteeism.
• Engaged employees also feel strongly committed to their organization and therefore show lower turnover intentions.
• They often show a growth mindset (e.g., like to learn and develop themselves, take personal initiative, and are innovative).
• Engaged employees perform better (e.g., make fewer mistakes).

Engaging leadership

Engaging leadership is defined as leadership behavior that facilitates, strengthens, connects and inspires employees in order to increase their work engagement (Schaufeli, 2021, p. 4)

• Facilitating team-members satisfies the need for autonomy by giving them the feeling that they are psychologically free to make their own decisions.
• Strengthening team-members satisfies the need for competence, e.g., by delegating tasks and responsibilities, giving them challenging jobs and stimulating their talents.
• Connecting team-members satisfies the need for relatedness, e.g., by encouraging collaboration and creating a good team spirit.
• Inspiring team-members satisfies the need for meaning, e.g., by enthusing them about a particular vision, mission, idea or plan and recognising their personal contribution to the overall goal of the team or organisation.

Engaging leadership builds on the principles of Self-determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2008), which focuses on three core psychological needs that drive human motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are satisfied, people experience greater intrinsic motivation and well-being.

Mini-lecture (5 min).

Walk through each behavior with a concrete example from a workplace context. Emphasize the SDT connection: each engaging behavior maps to a specific psychological need.

Key point: engaging leadership builds on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2008). When these needs are satisfied, people experience greater intrinsic motivation and well-being.

Effects of engaging leadership

Engaging leadership is expected to lead to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.

Satisfying basic psychological needs subsequently leads to

• strengthened personal job resources (e.g., autonomy, task variety, role clarity, social support),
• an increased effect of HR policies (e.g., regarding training and education) on well-being,
• an increase in work engagement of employees,
• decrease of boredom, and
• increase in individual performance and team performance.

Disengaging leadership

According to Schaufeli (2021), engaging leadership can be contrasted with its opposite disengaging leadership.

Disengaging leadership is characterized by:

• Coercive behavior — authoritarian behavior that restricts and controls employees
• Eroding behavior — hindering professional development and diminishing competence
• Isolating behavior — disconnecting staff from the team and pitting them against each other
• Demotivating behavior — creating the impression that employees’ work is meaningless

People that exhibit these behaviors thwart the basic needs for autonomy, competence, relatedness, and meaning.

Mini-lecture (3 min).

This is the dark mirror of engaging leadership. Each disengaging behavior maps to a specific SDT need being thwarted: coercive → autonomy, eroding → competence, isolating → relatedness, demotivating → meaning.

Leadership scenario #1

A leader rotates meeting facilitation so every team member leads at least one meeting per quarter.

1. Is the leader behavior engaging or disengaging?
2. Which specific behavior is at play (facilitating, strengthening, connecting, inspiring — or coercive, eroding, isolating, demotivating)?
3. Which psychological need is being satisfied or thwarted?
4. What would the opposite approach look like?

06:00

Alternatives:

1. “A manager checks in daily with each team member to ask how she can remove obstacles to their work.” (Facilitating → autonomy)
2. “A team lead assigns only routine tasks to junior members, saving interesting projects for senior staff.” (Eroding → thwarting competence)
3. “A director celebrates team successes publicly but handles failures privately with individuals.” (Connecting + strengthening)
4. “A manager uses monitoring software to track employee productivity every 15 minutes.” (Coercive → thwarting autonomy)
5. “A leader rotates meeting facilitation so every team member leads at least one meeting per quarter.” (Strengthening → competence)

Leadership scenario #2

A manager uses an automated AI system to assign tasks to the most capable teammate.

1. Is the leader behavior engaging or disengaging?
2. Which specific behavior is at play (facilitating, strengthening, connecting, inspiring — or coercive, eroding, isolating, demotivating)?
3. Which psychological need is being satisfied or thwarted?
4. What would the opposite approach look like?

06:00

Build the pattern: engaging and disengaging behaviors are context-dependent — the same action can be either, depending on how it’s experienced.

Digital × disengaging leadership

The digital × disengaging leadership

Discuss in groups of 3:

1. How might “the digital” promote disengaging leadership, albeit unnoticed?
2. How can leaders prevent those they lead from disengaging?

08:00

Group discussion (8 min discussion, 4 min plenary).

Steer the conversation toward examples:

• Surveillance software that thwarts autonomy (coercive)
• Algorithmic task assignment that erodes competence (eroding)
• Remote work isolation that undermines relatedness (isolating)
• Automated feedback that strips meaning from work (demotivating)

Push groups to also propose counter-strategies using the engaging leadership framework:

• How do you facilitate in a digital environment?
• How do you connect distributed team members?
• How do you strengthen when you can’t observe performance directly?

Conclusion

Leaders, to be effective, engage in behaviors that complement subordinate’s environments and abilities in a manner that compensates for deficiencies and is instrumental to subordinate satisfaction and individual and work unit performance (House, 1996, p. 348).

Plenary synthesis (3 min).

Connect the full arc: path-goal theory → expectancy theory → SDT → engaging leadership. Each framework adds a layer of understanding about how leaders create conditions for high performance.

The key insight: effective leadership is not about a single behavior but about reading the situation and selecting the right approach. This is behavioral complexity (Unit 3) applied to motivation.

Latticework update

New models added to your latticework:

• Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation continuum
• Path-goal contingency thinking
• Feedback loops: engagement → performance → engagement

Plenary closing (5 min).

Collect these on the board alongside earlier models. Ask: “How do these connect to what we already had?”

Expected connections:

• Behavioral complexity (Unit 3) now includes a motivational dimension — different situations require different motivational approaches.
• Trait paradoxes (Unit 2) connect to engaging/disengaging — the same leader trait can produce engaging or disengaging behavior depending on context.
• CVF quadrants each imply different motivational strategies.

Closing quote

Engaged employees invest highly in their job because they enjoy it — nevertheless they know when to stop (Schaufeli, 2021).

Q&A

Open the floor for remaining questions.

Homework

Think about the best team and worst team you have ever been part of.

• What made your best team great?
• What made your worst team terrible?
• What were the key differences between best and worst teams?

Literature

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352.

House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 1–97.

Schaufeli, W. (2013). What is engagement? In Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 29–49). Routledge.

Schaufeli, W. (2021). Engaging leadership: How to promote work engagement? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 754556.

Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and bournot and: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92.

Taris, T., Beek, I. van, & Schaufeli, W. (2014). The beauty versus the beast: On the motives of engaged and workaholic employees. In Heavy work investment (pp. 159–177). Routledge.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.