Executive summary. The article provides an overview of Self-Determination Theory, with a specific focus on Organismic Integration Theory, relevant for analysing the quality of motivation in educational and organisational contexts, and Basic Psychological Needs Theory, which is central to SDT-based analyses of wellbeing. These perspectives are mobilised to examine existing initiatives at the Mediterranean School of Business, the first and only business school in French-speaking Africa to hold triple international accreditation (AACSB, AMBA, and EFMD). The article concludes by proposing a framework intended to support the development of a culture of wellbeing at the institutional level.

Key takeaways

• Wellbeing has become a central concern in higher education, reflecting a broader shift toward holistic human development that integrates academic performance with quality of life, mental health, and institutional climate.
• Self-Determination Theory provides a robust framework for understanding wellbeing, highlighting autonomy, competence, and relatedness as key drivers of motivation, engagement, and flourishing in educational environments.
• Business schools can foster sustainable wellbeing by designing learning and organisational practices that support these core psychological needs across students and staff, aligning institutional strategy with human development and long-term engagement.

---

Wellbeing in Higher Education and Business Schools

Contemporary wellbeing issues now extend beyond the social sphere alone, emerging as a major political concern at the crossroads of economic, health, and environmental imperatives. They reflect a shift in public priorities toward a more integrated conception of human development, coherently linking the economic, social, cultural, and sustainable dimensions of wellbeing. This evolution is reflected in the OECD and UNESCO guidelines, both of which promote individual and collective wellbeing.

Through its Better Life Initiative, launched in 2011, and its annual report How’s Life? Measuring Well-being, the OECD advocates a multidimensional approach to wellbeing based on both objective and subjective indicators, including health, knowledge and skills, social connections, work-life balance, job quality, and subjective wellbeing (OECD, 2025). UNESCO, for its part, has taken this reflection a step further through its Strategy on Education for Health and Well-being, which aims to envision resilient, health-promoting education systems that integrate a comprehensive approach to school health and wellbeing as an essential part of their daily missions (UNESCO, 2022).

In the field of higher education, wellbeing has become a central concern in university policies and a research topic in its own right, closely linked to growing attention to mental health and student success. Long driven by logics of performance and competitiveness, universities are now compelled to integrate quality of life and institutional climate into their strategic priorities. Business schools, in particular, face a tension between the pursuit of excellence and the pressures of academic intensity, which generate stress for both students and faculty members (Emerson et al., 2023). This situation raises questions about how these institutions can reconcile their managerial training requirements with environments that foster engagement, autonomy, and wellbeing among their members.

There is no unified conceptual definition of wellbeing in the literature, as the term can encompass related notions such as happiness, quality of life, or optimal functioning (Fenouillet et al., 2017). While research on wellbeing initially developed from a hedonic perspective, focusing on satisfaction and the balance between positive and negative emotions, a eudaimonic approach has gradually gained prominence, viewing wellbeing as a process of personal growth and the realisation of human potential (Creusier, 2013).

These perspectives are increasingly reflected in the scientific literature, which highlights the role of educational environments in fostering wellbeing. From this standpoint, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2002; Ryan and Deci, 2017) appears particularly relevant as a eudaimonic theory of wellbeing. SDT is both a conceptual theory and an empirical framework, robustly supported by several decades of experimental and applied research. By placing the fundamental needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness at the core of optimal functioning and wellbeing, it provides a particularly relevant analytical framework for higher education, where the recognition, development, and mobilization of skills are essential levers for wellbeing and motivation.

Several empirical studies confirm this approach, including that of King et al. (2024), which shows, based on data collected in 70 countries (over 500,000 students), that supportive learning environments systematically promote emotional, eudaimonic, and academic wellbeing, although the strength of this effect varies across cultural, economic, and political contexts. These findings, grounded in SDT, suggest that fostering a need-supportive learning environment is an effective strategy for enhancing student wellbeing and motivation in all types of institutions, including business schools, while remaining sensitive to local specificities.

In line with this body of research, we propose to examine how SDT can provide a relevant analytical framework for understanding the pedagogical and organisational practices that promote wellbeing in business schools, among both students and teaching and administrative staff. We first present the theoretical foundations of SDT, followed by concrete initiatives implemented at the Mediterranean School of Business (MSB) in Tunisia, before discussing the contributions of this theory to understanding wellbeing in business schools and outlining directions for future research.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT): Conceptual Framework

According to Tessier (2024), SDT, first formalised in the 1980s, has grown considerably: the number of scientific publications rose from 55 between 1980 and 1990 to more than 54,000 between 2012 and 2021. This growth can be explained by its many applications in education, sports, work, family, and health, as well as by its integrative approach that bridges different branches of psychology, such as social psychology, neuroscience, and behavioural economics. The strength of this motivational theory lies in its empirical foundations and its theoretical perspective, which explains human motivation as a dialectic between individual characteristics and environmental factors. SDT thus recognises individuals’ potential for self-actualisation, while acknowledging the influence of the environment on its development (Lafreniere et al., 2009). SDT is an integrative framework composed of six mini-theories of human motivation.

In this contribution, we draw on two of these mini-theories, the Theory of Organismic Integration and the Theory of Basic Psychological Needs, to illustrate, through case studies, practical applications that are particularly relevant for understanding the development of wellbeing in business schools. These two theories have been selected not to exclude the others but because they provide a useful starting point for understanding the analytical scope of SDT in the context of higher education.

The Theory of Organismic Integration

This theory conceptualises human motivation as a continuum based on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and on the process of internalisation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the interest and enjoyment individuals derive from activities performed freely and autonomously. Extrinsic motivation, by contrast, refers to behaviours driven by external factors that are not inherently satisfying. Internalisation is defined as the process through which individuals assimilate values, beliefs, or behavioural norms originating from external sources and transform them into personally endorsed values (Deci and Ryan, 1985).

Human motivation is therefore conceived as a continuum of self-determination, ranging from amotivation (the absence of motivation) to intrinsic motivation, distinguishing between controlled forms of regulation (external and introjected) and autonomous forms (identified, integrated, or intrinsic). These latter forms may still be extrinsic but remain congruent with the individual’s own values. According to SDT, the more autonomous the regulation of behaviour, that is, the closer it is to self-determined regulation, the more beneficial its effects on wellbeing, performance, and persistence.

The Theory of Basic Psychological Needs

Deci and Ryan (2002) identify three basic psychological needs that underlie human motivation: the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. When the environment supports the satisfaction of these needs, individuals experience optimal functioning in terms of behavior, personal growth, and quality of experience.

The need for competence corresponds to what individuals feel when they interact effectively with their environment and when that environment offers opportunities to use and develop their abilities. The need for relatedness refers to the feeling of being connected to others, caring for others, and experiencing a sense of belonging to individuals and communities, without expecting any particular benefit beyond the sense of connection itself. Finally, the need for autonomy refers to being the origin of one’s own behaviour. As described in organismic theory, self-determined behaviours are those motivated by interest or enjoyment in the activity or by personally endorsed values.

SDT provides a framework for understanding learning and work environments as contexts that foster motivation and cooperation, placing the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness at the centre of educational and organisational systems. When these needs are satisfied, individuals develop what is known as self-determined motivation, that is, engagement based on interest, personal value, and the meaning attached to the activity rather than on external pressures or rewards. Conversely, contexts that frustrate these needs tend to elicit controlled motivation or disengagement.

Building on these theoretical foundations, the following section examines the initiatives implemented at the Mediterranean School of Business (MSB). Rather than reporting an empirical study, this section uses SDT as an analytical framework to identify a set of motivational indicators from field observations, which serve to formulate theoretically grounded hypotheses interpreted as manifestations of more self-determined forms of motivation.

Case Study: Applying the SDT Framework at the Mediterranean School of Business

Presentation of MSB and its context

Founded in 2002, the Mediterranean School of Business (MSB) is one of Tunisia’s first private universities, born out of an initiative by Tunisian-born academics trained in North America and local economic actors. The first to offer English-language education based on active learning, it aims to make Tunisia a leading educational destination. In a highly competitive public environment, MSB has built its legitimacy on visionary leadership and an organisational culture that values trust, commitment, and wellbeing, integrating performance, motivation, and recognition at the heart of its institutional strategy. Its development takes place in an environment dominated by a strong public academic tradition, imposing a double challenge on private institutions to attract students and teachers. To stand out, MSB has focused on innovative teaching methods and international openness, while placing wellbeing at the heart of its institutional strategy.

The expansion of its training offerings and activities has made it necessary to formalise a workplace wellbeing policy that incorporates both objective (performance, retention, absenteeism) and subjective (motivation, commitment, trust) indicators in order to reconcile academic excellence with professional fulfilment. MSB is currently the only business school in Tunisia and French-speaking Africa to have obtained triple international accreditation: AACSB, AMBA, and EFMD.

Conducted as a case study at the Mediterranean School of Business (MSB), this analysis examines two types of actions aimed at fostering wellbeing: those concerning students and those involving teaching and administrative teams. Because motivational dynamics are interconnected, environments that support autonomy and cooperation benefit the entire educational community.

Actions to promote student wellbeing: autonomy, competence, belonging

Two programmes established at MSB to promote student wellbeing reflect the principles of SDT: the Advising and Counselling Centre (ACC) and the Student Life Department (SLD).

The ACC aims to strengthen students’ autonomy and competence through individualised support. Each student is assigned an academic advisor who helps them define their personal and academic goals, identify obstacles, and mobilise appropriate resources, such as tutoring, academic support, or mentor guidance. This latter programme plays a key role: it not only strengthens the perception of competence among the students receiving support, but also their sense of belonging.

The Student Life Department acts more directly on the need for social relationships and belonging. By supervising more than 30 cultural, artistic, entrepreneurial, and humanitarian clubs, it promotes cooperation, diversity, and a sense of inclusion. These collective projects allow students to experience supervised autonomy, in which initiative is combined with a supportive institutional framework. This configuration creates a need-supportive environment conducive to self-determined motivation and experiential learning.

Actions to promote team wellbeing: autonomy, recognition, cooperation

MSB applies similar principles to its administrative and academic staff. The initiatives carried out aim to strengthen cohesion, recognition, and professional development, all of which are levers that respond to the psychological needs identified by SDT.

The annual team-building day brings all employees together for fun activities and moments of sharing. These gatherings promote cooperation and mutual recognition while strengthening the sense of belonging to a working community. The Summer Kids Club, intended for employees’ children, extends this dynamic to the family sphere and reflects a more comprehensive approach to wellbeing, integrating the personal dimensions of employees’ lives.

The ACC and the partnership with the Ahkili association are also open to teams, offering a space for listening and support that is accessible at all times. This openness to the entire community reflects an inclusive approach to organisational wellbeing, where trust and institutional availability play a central role. Finally, differentiated skills development plans for administrative and academic staff respond to the need for professional autonomy and recognition, supporting the development of careers aligned with transformations in higher education.

Analysis of actions in light of the SDT

The effects presented in Table 1 are assumed to be associated with the actions described, based on the conceptual framework of SDT. These are not direct empirical findings but theoretical interpretations of existing institutional data, analysed through the SDT framework to explore potential links between the support of basic psychological needs and observed manifestations of motivation and wellbeing. This approach provides an explanatory lens that helps make sense of data, which taken alone, would not reveal the underlying dynamics of motivation and wellbeing within the institution. This analysis highlights how the SDT framework can serve as a practical tool for understanding and enhancing institutional wellbeing. By framing existing actions in terms of need satisfaction, it allows for a more coherent vision of how professional development, recognition, and community support contribute to motivation and engagement at the MSB.

The Contribution of SDT to Developing a Culture of Wellbeing in Business Schools

We have seen how SDT, and in particular the Basic Psychological Needs Theory and the Organismic Integration Theory, can be applied to analyse, in the field of higher education, the social-contextual conditions that support the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and how such satisfaction fosters internalisation and self-determined motivation. The international study by King et al. (2024) shows that when learning environments support these needs, students experience greater subjective and educational wellbeing, as well as more sustained engagement.

However, other mini-theories within SDT also deserve further exploration to complement this understanding (Tessier, 2024): Cognitive Evaluation Theory, which explains the effects of control and feedback on intrinsic motivation; Causality Orientations Theory, which examines individual differences in motivational orientation; Goal Contents Theory, which focuses on the nature of the goals pursued (intrinsic versus extrinsic); and Relationships Motivation Theory, which highlights the quality of interpersonal relationships. It would therefore be relevant to develop an empirical research programme integrating these six perspectives in order to jointly examine their contributions to wellbeing, achievement, and vitality in higher education. In this sense, SDT offers a comprehensive framework for understanding human development within academic institutions.

Nevertheless, it is already possible to outline a structured approach aimed at helping business schools orient their educational practices in ways that support the development of self-determined motivation and eudaimonic wellbeing, as conceptualised by SDT. This reflection can be organised across three analytical levels — the micro level, the meso level, and the macro level — which provide a coherent framework for examining educational practices from multiple vantage points (Carré, 2020). These three levels enable us to consider jointly the dynamics involved in SDT-aligned educational innovation.

The micro level focuses on the learner’s individual experience, the meso level on the organisational and collective structures that shape it, and the macro level on the broader institutional and cultural contexts that influence the whole system. At each analytical level, one should consider to what extent the initiatives undertaken foster the satisfaction and development of the three basic psychological needs — autonomy, competence, and relatedness — as defined by SDT.

It is important to note that while SDT is fundamentally a micro-level theory centred on the psychological functioning of individuals, the macro level remains highly relevant insofar as it shapes the broader institutional and cultural environment that can either support or constrain need-supportive practices at the micro and meso levels. In this sense, the macro level does not directly assess the satisfaction of psychological needs, but rather examines the structural, policy, and cultural conditions that enable—or hinder—the implementation of actions that effectively support autonomy, competence, and relatedness within educational institutions.

Building on this perspective, we propose a SDT-Based Framework for Implementing Eudaimonic Wellbeing in Business Schools, which invites institutions to systematically question whether the actions undertaken at each level — micro, meso, and macro — effectively support the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs and, consequently, the development of self-determined motivation and eudaimonic wellbeing (see Table 2).

In the following sections, we apply this framework to the MSB case by examining the initiatives presented earlier and evaluating their contribution to autonomy, competence, and relatedness across the three levels of analysis. To make this application more concrete, we assigned indicative values to each sub-dimension. These values reflect a hypothetical 1–3 scale, where students would be surveyed for the micro-level assessment, while institutions would evaluate themselves at the meso and macro levels.

At the meso level, organisational culture, community life, and the support and mentoring system at MSB would reasonably fall on the higher end of the scale. At the macro level, and given the broader Tunisian context in which the school operates — characterised by a relatively centralised higher education system — autonomy would likely receive a lower score, whereas cultural representations of learning and success would be positioned toward the higher end (see Figure 1).

This proposition should be regarded as an initial attempt to operationalise the SDT framework for conceptualising individual development — whether for students, administrative staff, or faculty, that is, for the educational community as a whole — while remaining attentive to the macro-level constraints and specificities within which these actors are embedded. We hope, however, that this approach will provide a meaningful foundation for integrating wellbeing as a genuinely structuring dimension in the development of business schools, and, more broadly, for contributing to a wider societal conversation on the role of higher education in fostering human flourishing.

---

References

Carré, P. (2020). Pourquoi et comment les adultes apprennent : De la formation à l’apprenance (3e éd.). Paris : Dunod.

Creusier, J. (2013). Clarification Conceptuelle du Bien-être au Travail. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2319810

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research : Reflections and future directions. In Handbook of self-determination research (p. 431‑441). University of Rochester Press.

Emerson, D. J., Hair, J. J., and Smith, K. (2023). Psychological Distress, Burnout, and Business Student Turnover : The Role of Resilience as a Coping Mechanism. Research in Higher Education, 64(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09704-9

Fenouillet, F., Chainon, D., Yennek, N., Lemasson, J., and Heutte, J. (2017). Relation entre l’intérêt et le bien-être au collège et au lycée. Enfance, 1(1), 81‑103. https://doi.org/10.3917/enf1.171.0081

King, R. B., Haw, J. Y., and Wang, Y. (2024). Need-support facilitates well-being across cultural, economic, and political contexts : A self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Instruction, 93(8) pp. 101978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101978

Lafreniere, M.-A. K., Vallerand, R. J., and Carbonneau, N. (2009). La théorie de l’autodétermination et le modèle hiérarchique de la motivation intrinsèque et extrinsèque : Perspectives intégratives. In Traité de psychologie de la motivation (p. 47‑66). Dunod; Cairn.info. https://doi.org/10.3917/dunod.carre.2009.01.0047

OECD. (2025, octobre 2). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (2025 Update). OECD. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-on-measuring-subjective-well-being-2025-update_9203632a-en/full-report.html

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory : Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.

Tessier, D. (2024). Chapitre 4. La théorie de l’autodétermination. In Grand manuel de psychologie de la motivation: Vol. 2e ed. (p. 113‑138). Dunod; Cairn.info. https://shs.cairn.info/grand-manuel-de-psychologie-de-la-motivation–9782100856602-page-113?lang=fr

UNESCO. (2022). UNESCO strategy on education for health and well-being. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381728