Photo by Kraken Images

By Dr. Jessica Henlon | Educational Psychologist

In any professional setting, whether proposing a new initiative, mentoring a team, or managing organizational change, the outcome doesn’t always match the effort. A proposal may receive partial approval, a project might stall in one department, or a timeline might shift due to limited resources. These moments can be ambiguous, but how we interpret them plays a pivotal role in sustaining motivation, resilience, and effective leadership.

The Psychology of Motivation: A Multi-Theory Perspective

Motivation is a complex construct with multiple theories that blend biology, behavior, emotion, and cognition. Over time, scholars have developed various frameworks to explain how and why people strive, persist, and succeed (Ormrod, 2020):

• Instinct & Evolutionary Theories: Focus on survival-based drives and inherited behaviors.
• Drive and Reinforcement Theories: Suggest that behavior is shaped by rewards, punishments, and external stimuli (e.g., Skinner’s reinforcement model).
• Humanistic Theories: Emphasize personal growth, autonomy, and self-actualization (e.g., Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Rogers’ theory of self-regard).
• Growth and Mastery Theories: Propose that motivation arises from the need to master challenges and fill skill gaps.
• Cognitive Theories: Argue that internal thought processes, such as expectations, goals, and self-perception, drive engagement.

These foundational models continue to inform three of today’s most relevant motivation frameworks in education and leadership: Attribution Theory, Social Cognitive Theory, and Self-Determination Theory.

Attribution and Meaning-Making in Leadership

Attribution Theory helps explain how people interpret results and how those interpretations shape future behavior. Do we attribute outcomes to our effort (internal) or luck and external factors? Do we see those causes as stable over time or temporary? (Simmering, 2006).

In a recent leadership setting, I submitted a proposal for a new initiative. While it was well received, only part of it moved forward. Instead of viewing this as a setback, I used Attribution Theory to reframe the outcome. I recognized it as stemming from internal, stable, and partially controllable factors, like timing, alignment, and clarity of scope. That reflection helped me maintain momentum and led to future approvals.

This mindset supports long-term motivation and is especially valuable for leaders navigating uncertainty or systemic complexity.

Partial Wins, Purposeful Framing

In leadership, we must learn to recognize and build upon partial wins. Attribution Theory offers a framework for this kind of constructive reflection. When we guide our teams to interpret setbacks not as failures but as steps in a longer process, we nurture resilience and long-term motivation.

This is especially critical in educational environments, where outcomes are often incremental, delayed, or measured over time. Stable, internally driven strategies, like data-informed planning, strategic proposals, and evidence-based leadership, are what create sustainable systems and confident leaders.

Social and Internal Drivers: What the Research Tells Us

Recent scholarship confirms that lasting motivation is rooted in meaning, relationships, and psychological safety, not just external outcomes or monetary rewards.

• Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) emphasizes the power of observation, peer modeling, and self-efficacy. People are more likely to persist when they see others like them succeeding, and when they believe in their own ability to perform (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).  These insights also align with findings from my doctoral research, which examined how online first-generation college students experienced motivation, connection, and persistence through virtual extracurricular engagement (Henlon, 2025). Across interviews, students consistently described how self-efficacy, peer support, and purpose-driven programming increased their motivation to stay enrolled and thrive.
  
• Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) identifies three psychological needs that drive motivation: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When people feel trusted, skilled, and connected, their intrinsic motivation tends to increase. This has been shown to reduce burnout and strengthen performance across education and workplace settings (Van den Broeck et al., 2016).
  
• Cerasoli, Nicklin, and Ford (2014) found that intrinsic motivation predicts the quality of performance, while extrinsic incentives predict the quantity. Effective leaders strike a balance by creating environments that support both individuals and teams, fostering a culture that promotes collaboration and mutual growth.
  
• A compelling neuroscience study by Ma et al. (2014) showed that external monetary rewards can actually diminish the brain’s intrinsic response to success. Their findings confirm that over-reliance on extrinsic incentives can weaken the internal motivation needed for long-term growth.
  

Designing for Motivation and Purpose

What all of these frameworks share is a clear message: people are most motivated when they feel competent, autonomous, and socially supported. 

This means:

• Celebrating effort and progress (not just outcomes)
• Encouraging peer modeling and shared leadership
• Promoting self-efficacy through meaningful feedback
• Framing setbacks as stable, controllable learning opportunities
• Structuring work around purpose, community, and growth
  

Learn how we integrate motivation theory into student engagement and staff development strategy: www.jessicahenlon.com

About the Author

Dr. Jessica Henlon is an educational psychologist, consultant, and national speaker with over two decades of experience designing student engagement systems, leadership development programs, and inclusion-focused strategies. Her work centers on helping universities, nonprofits, and creative professionals build environments that foster belonging, purpose, and growth.

She is the founder of Dr. Jessica Henlon Consulting Co., a firm specializing in student development, online learning, and educational leadership strategy.

References

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40‑year meta‑analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

Henlon, J. (2025). Exploring the learning experiences of online first-generation college students participating in virtual extracurricular activities (Publication No. 32114979) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3217854749

Ma, Q., Jin, J., Meng, L., & Shen, Q. (2014). The dark side of monetary incentive: How does extrinsic reward crowd out intrinsic motivation. Neuroreport, 25(3), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000113

Ormrod, J. E. (2020). Human learning (8th ed.). Pearson.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

Simmering, M. J. (2006). Attribution theory. In H. Bidgoli (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management (5th ed., pp. 22–25). Thomson Gale.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058