Behavioral scientist Dan Ariely has spent decades studying why people work the way they do. He recently came on the Learn-It-All™ podcast to discuss his incredible body of research which points to a consistent conclusion: Motivation is not primarily driven by incentives or pressure. It is shaped by how people experience their work, their leaders, and one another. When those experiences weaken, motivation follows.
Motivation doesn’t behave the way it appears in movies. You know the scene: the last ten minutes of the story when the underdog coach delivers the speech to his losing team which gets them to rise to the occasion and win against all odds. It’s the St. Crispian’s Day speech over and over.
Leaders in the field know that Hollywood magic isn’t sustainable. Even when a little speech does motivate, the challenge appears later, when effort fades even though goals are clear, compensation is competitive, and expectations are well documented. Teams meet requirements, but energy softens. Initiative narrows. Work that once felt alive begins to feel transactional.
This pattern is not a mystery of willpower. It reflects how human motivation actually functions inside organizations.
Intrinsic motivation cannot be mandated, but it can be cultivated.
“Motivation is shaped by how people experience their work, their leaders, and one another. When those experiences weaken, motivation follows.”
Motivation at work generally takes two forms. Both influence behavior, but they operate in fundamentally different ways.
Extrinsic motivation comes from outside the individual. What extrinsic motivation does not do well is sustain effort over time. Once baseline needs are met, additional incentives tend to produce diminishing returns. People adjust their expectations, recalibrate their effort, and move on.
Behavior changes in the short term, but commitment rarely deepens.
Intrinsic motivation operates differently. It comes from within and is shaped by how people experience their work. Pride in contribution, connection to others, a sense of progress, autonomy in decision-making, and belief that effort matters all strengthen intrinsic motivation. These forces are harder to quantify, but their impact is visible in how people show up.
Dan Ariely’s research highlights this distinction clearly. In large-scale studies examining how employees feel about their organizations, companies that perform well on extrinsic measures alone do not consistently outperform the market.
The organizations that do outperform tend to excel in the conditions that support intrinsic motivation. People in these environments care more deeply about their work and about the people they work with.
For leaders, the implication is practical. Extrinsic motivators create structure. Intrinsic motivators create energy. Sustainable performance depends on both, but leadership influence is far greater on the latter.
“In large-scale studies examining how employees feel about their organizations, companies that perform well on extrinsic measures alone do not consistently outperform the market. The organizations that do outperform tend to excel in the conditions that support intrinsic motivation.”
Every role contains a wide range of possible performance. At the lower end is the minimum required to remain in good standing. At the upper end is the best work a person is capable of producing when fully engaged.
Most organizations focus heavily on the lower boundary. Policies, metrics, and reviews are designed to prevent underperformance. Much less attention is given to what expands the upper boundary.
This gap is where intrinsic motivation operates.
Leaders often interpret reduced effort as a motivation problem within the individual.
Ariely’s work suggests a different explanation.
Motivation contracts when people feel unseen, disconnected, or constrained by systems that limit judgment and contribution. It expands when people feel trusted and useful.
The difference between a team that complies and a team that commits rarely shows up in formal plans. It appears in discretionary behavior. People help one another without being asked. They notice problems outside their role. They invest energy in improving outcomes rather than protecting boundaries.
Leadership behavior determines which side of this ceiling teams operate on. Small, consistent signals accumulate. Over time, they define how much of themselves people are willing to bring to their work.
“Motivation contracts when people feel unseen, disconnected, or constrained by systems that limit judgment and contribution. It expands when people feel trusted and useful.”
Appreciation shapes how people interpret their effort. When work is recognized clearly and sincerely in the moment it happens, effort feels worthwhile. When it is overlooked or treated as interchangeable, motivation weakens.
But don't confuse appreciation with praise or rewards. Praise tends to focus on outcomes or personality. Rewards focus on exchange. Appreciation is different. It acknowledges contribution, attention, and progress. It signals that someone’s work was noticed and mattered.
People who feel appreciated are more willing to invest effort beyond formal requirements. They take greater care with their work and remain engaged during periods of difficulty.
The absence of appreciation has a predictable effect. People do not stop working. They stop caring. Effort becomes narrower and safer. Creativity declines, not because people lack ideas, but because they no longer see a reason to offer them.
Leaders influence appreciation structurally through habits. Naming contributors, connecting work to outcomes, and acknowledging effort in real time all reinforce motivation. These behaviors do not require grand gestures. They require attention.
When appreciation becomes part of how work is done, motivation becomes more stable. People no longer wonder whether their effort disappears into the system. They see its impact.
Intrinsic motivation becomes visible when people stop thinking only about their assigned tasks and start thinking about the organization as a whole. Dan Ariely describes this shift as utility embracing. It reflects a mindset where individuals ask not only what they are responsible for, but what would be most useful.
Ariely shares a story from a manufacturing company that produced steel pipes. A recurring problem plagued the operation. A portion of the pipes consistently cracked during production, creating waste, rework, and significant cost. This issue had existed for years and was treated as an unfortunate but accepted part of the process.
One employee chose to investigate. Solving the problem was not part of his formal role. It required time, persistence, and curiosity. Over several years, he traced the issue to an unexpected source. The glass used as a lubricant during production came from recycled car windshields. Some of those windshields contained embedded metal from antenna wires, which compromised the purity of the glass and caused the pipes to crack.
The discovery saved the company substantial resources. More importantly, it revealed something about motivation. This effort was not driven by incentives or oversight. It emerged from a sense of ownership and responsibility for the organization’s success.
Utility embracing cannot be mandated. It depends on trust, autonomy, and the belief that initiative will be valued rather than penalized. When those conditions exist, people apply their judgment in ways that formal systems cannot anticipate.
“Utility embracing cannot be mandated. It depends on trust, autonomy, and the belief that initiative will be valued rather than penalized.”
Intrinsic motivation deepens when work becomes personal. Pride is not about ego or recognition for its own sake. It grows when people can see themselves in what they contribute.
People invest more effort when their work reflects judgment, skill, and care. They are motivated when they can point to an outcome and say that their choices shaped it. This sense of authorship strengthens identity and commitment.
Dan Ariely notes that people are willing to endure difficulty when effort feels meaningful. Work that is challenging but impersonal drains energy. Work that is challenging and connected to identity sustains it.
Leaders influence pride through visibility and ownership. When contributions are clearly attributed, people understand that their work is not interchangeable. When outcomes are connected to individual and team effort, work gains meaning.
Pride does not require constant affirmation. It requires evidence that effort leaves a mark.When leaders reinforce that connection, intrinsic motivation becomes self-sustaining.
“People are willing to endure difficulty when effort feels meaningful.”
“As success increased, risk-taking declined.”
Intrinsic motivation depends on whether people believe effort is worth the risk. That belief is shaped less by stated values and more by how organizations respond when things go wrong.
Dan Ariely worked with a large organization whose performance had stabilized. The company was profitable and growing, but leaders noticed a pattern. As success increased, risk-taking declined. Teams avoided experimentation. People stopped proposing ideas that might disrupt what was already working.
The issue was not laziness or complacency. It was rational behavior. When the cost of failure feels high and the reward for initiative feels uncertain, people protect what they have.
To change this dynamic, leadership introduced an unusual practice. Once a year, teams were invited to present projects that failed. These were not careless mistakes or neglected responsibilities. They were efforts that involved uncertainty, clear assumptions, and thoughtful execution. A prize was awarded for the most meaningful failure.
The signal was intentional. Effort mattered. Learning mattered. Courage mattered.
The impact was not immediate, but it was lasting. Over time, people stopped hiding failed experiments. They began sharing them. Teams learned from one another’s assumptions and missteps. Failure became a source of shared knowledge rather than private embarrassment.
This shift changed motivation. People were more willing to try. They invested energy in ideas that stretched beyond safe execution. They saw their effort as valuable even when outcomes were uncertain.
The experiment highlights an important leadership principle. Intrinsic motivation grows when people feel safe enough to take risks and respected enough to be honest about outcomes. When failure is treated as information rather than indictment, effort expands.
Organizations that want initiative cannot rely on encouragement alone. They must design systems that make intelligent risk psychologically safe. When leaders do that consistently, motivation follows.
Motivation weakens when work feels static. People disengage when effort does not connect to development.
Ariely emphasizes the importance of future-oriented conversations. When leaders ask people to reflect on where they want to grow and what skills they want to develop, work takes on a longer horizon. Effort becomes part of a trajectory rather than a series of tasks.
These conversations do not require promises. They require attention. Asking about learning signals that people are seen as more than their current role. It communicates respect.
Leaders reinforce intrinsic motivation when they treat growth as part of work rather than an optional add-on. Development becomes a shared responsibility. People invest more when they feel their progress matters.
Intrinsic motivation is shaped through everyday leadership behavior. It grows when leaders act with intention and consistency.
Leaders strengthen intrinsic motivation when they make effort visible and specific. Naming contributions, acknowledging progress, and connecting work to outcomes reinforces pride and ownership.
Reducing unnecessary friction also matters. When processes exist only to protect systems rather than support work, motivation contracts. Leaders who question bureaucracy create space for initiative.
Encouraging contribution beyond role boundaries signals trust. When people are invited to apply judgment rather than follow scripts, effort expands.
Feedback plays a central role. Timely, specific guidance helps people learn and adjust. When feedback supports progress rather than judgment, people remain engaged.
Finally, leaders reinforce motivation when they normalize thoughtful risk. Treating mistakes as opportunities for learning rather than personal failure encourages participation and creativity.
None of these behaviors require sweeping cultural programs. They require attention to how work is experienced day to day.
Intrinsic motivation does not need to be manufactured. It already exists in people’s desire to do meaningful work and to contribute with care.
Leadership determines whether that motivation is sustained or suppressed. Through daily decisions, leaders signal what matters, what is safe, and what effort is worth.
Dan Ariely’s work suggests that people bring more of themselves to work when they feel trusted, appreciated, and able to apply judgment without fear. When those conditions are present, motivation becomes a durable source of performance.
Sustainable leadership is not about extracting more effort. It is about creating the conditions where effort emerges naturally and consistently.
Want our articles in your inbox? Sign up for our blog newsletter to never miss out!
