Abstract
The Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument developed by Edward L. Deci, James P. Connell, and Richard M. Ryan (1989) to evaluate managerial interpersonal styles within organizational contexts. Grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the instrument assesses the degree to which workplace managers and supervisors orient toward supporting employee autonomy versus exerting interpersonal control. The instrument consists of eight situational workplace vignettes depicting typical managerial dilemmas—ranging from employee performance decrements and interpersonal friction to role strain and organizational restructuring. Each vignette is followed by four distinct behavioral responses operationalizing four discrete managerial styles: Highly Autonomy-Supportive (HA), Moderately Autonomy-Supportive (MA), Moderately Controlling (MC), and Highly Controlling (HC), yielding 32 items rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale spanning from 1 (very inappropriate) to 7 (very appropriate). Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust internal consistency across dimensions, sound construct and convergent validity in relation to employee self-regulation, intrinsic motivation, job satisfaction, and trust in corporate leadership, as well as distinct predictive validity regarding organizational climate and worker well-being. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and conceptual examination of the PAW, analyzing its theoretical architecture, validation history, factor analytic properties, scoring rubrics, and organizational applications.
Keywords
Problems at Work Questionnaire, PAW, Self-Determination Theory, autonomy support, managerial styles, controlling supervision, employee motivation, organizational psychology, psychometrics, workplace assessment
Authors
The Problems at Work Questionnaire was designed and validated by leading organizational and motivational psychologists at the University of Rochester:
- Edward L. Deci, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA; Professorial Fellow in Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University. Co-founder of Self-Determination Theory.
- James P. Connell, Ph.D. — Developmental and organizational psychologist, previously Associate Professor of Education and Psychology at the University of Rochester; Co-founder of the Institute for Research and Reform in Education (IRRE).
- Richard M. Ryan, Ph.D. — Clinical psychologist, Professor at the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, Australia; Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Rochester. Co-founder of Self-Determination Theory.
Correspondence regarding the foundational validation of the instrument historically pertains to Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan through the Center for Self-Determination Theory (CSDT; selfdeterminationtheory.org).
Purpose
The primary purpose of the Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW) is to quantify the motivational orientation and interpersonal supervisory style of leaders, managers, and organizational supervisors. Traditional organizational psychology frequently categorized leadership through behavioral dichotomies such as task-oriented versus relations-oriented leadership or autocratic versus democratic leadership. However, Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) identified an empirical gap concerning the psychological mechanism through which managerial communications satisfy or thwart fundamental psychological needs—specifically, the need for personal autonomy and self-directed agency in professional settings.
In workplace environments, supervisors encounter continuous managerial friction points, including performance downturns, absenteeism, resistance to authority, job dissatisfaction, and interpersonal conflict. The PAW assesses how a manager resolves these everyday dilemmas. By asking respondents to rate the appropriateness of alternative behavioral interventions for identical scenarios, the instrument captures subtle differences in supervisory assumptions regarding human motivation: whether workers require external coercion, surveillance, and instrumental incentives to perform, or whether fostering internal locus of causality, perspective taking, problem solving, and developmental dialogue enhances long-term performance and engagement.
The PAW serves both clinical/applied and research applications:
- Organizational Research: Enabling researchers to study the antecedents and consequences of autonomy-supportive supervisory climates, linking manager PAW scores to subordinate turnover intentions, occupational burnout, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and vitality.
- Leadership Training and Executive Coaching: Providing diagnostic baselines for developmental feedback. By examining subscale score profiles, executive coaches can help leaders recognize unexamined controlling tendencies (e.g., relying on guilt, implicit threats, or competitive peer comparison) and transition toward autonomy-supportive managerial techniques.
- Organizational Intervention Studies: Evaluating the efficacy of managerial development programs designed to teach autonomy-supportive behaviors, such as acknowledging negative affect, offering meaningful rationales for tasks, and maximizing workplace choice.
Psychological Construct
The central psychological construct operationalized by the PAW is the Managerial Interpersonal Climate Orientation, specifically positioned along the continuum of Autonomy Support versus Controlling Behavior. Within Self-Determination Theory, autonomy does not signify independence, individualism, or working in total isolation; rather, it refers to the experience of volition, psychological freedom, and internal congruence when carrying out an activity. Conversely, feeling controlled involves experiencing internal or external pressure, coercion, or seduction to think, feel, or behave in specific ways dictated by an external agent.
The PAW captures this broad construct across four distinct theoretical subdimensions:
1. Highly Autonomy-Supportive (HA)
This subscale captures managerial behaviors that systematically acknowledge the employee’s perspective, encourage active participation in problem solving, offer informational choices, and foster an internal perceived locus of causality. Instead of imposing unilateral mandates, an HA manager engages the worker in exploratory dialogue to identify underlying systemic or personal causes behind performance decrements. For example, when faced with an employee struggling with workload or listlessness (e.g., Vignette A, Item 2), the HA response seeks to explore the etiology collaboratively: “Talk to Jim and try to help him work out the cause of his listlessness.”
2. Moderately Autonomy-Supportive (MA)
The MA dimension reflects managerial practices that encourage self-regulation and problem ownership, but rely on indirect social comparison, benchmarking, or modeling rather than direct, joint problem-solving dialogue. The manager provides informational context without overt interpersonal pressure, yet the structure relies slightly on external referents. For instance, in Vignette B (Item 7), the response illustrates this orientation: “Point out how other working ‘students’ have handled the problem and see if that helps her handle the situation better.” While informative, it lacks the deep, individualized perspective-taking characteristic of the HA style.
3. Moderately Controlling (MC)
The MC subscale represents managerial behaviors that leverage introjected self-regulation, moralizing, obligation, guilt, or implicit paternalism. Rather than relying on physical surveillance or punitive sanctions, an MC manager pressures the employee to internalize extrinsic demands by emphasizing duty, personal reputation, or “for your own good” rationales. In Vignette A (Item 1), the manager decides to: “Impress upon Jim that it is really important to keep up with his work for his own good.” The pressure is subtle and psychological, subtly infringing upon the individual’s sense of self-determination.
4. Highly Controlling (HC)
The HC subscale measures authoritarian, coercive, and rigidly transactional supervisory behaviors. These interventions rely exclusively on external contingencies, such as explicit administrative threats, close behavioral surveillance, conditional approval, or contingent tangible rewards used as mechanisms of control. The HC manager dictates behavior unilaterally, denying the employee’s perspective. In Vignette A (Item 3), the HC orientation is captured by: “Warn him that if he continues to work at a slower rate, some negative action might be taken,” and in Vignette B (Item 8): “Insist that she cut down on the studying or take fewer courses; you can’t allow it to interfere with work.”
Theoretical Framework
The Problems at Work Questionnaire is grounded in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a macro-theory of human motivation, personality development, and wellness formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. More specifically, the PAW directly operationalizes two foundational mini-theories within SDT: Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) and Organismic Integration Theory (OIT).
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) and Informational vs. Controlling Contexts
CET posits that interpersonal events and communication styles can be functionalized by recipients as either informational, controlling, or amotivating. When an interpersonal event is informational, it communicates competence feedback within a context of choice, thereby maintaining or enhancing intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. When an event is controlling, it pressures an individual to think, feel, or act in specified ways, shifting the perceived locus of causality from internal to external. This undermines intrinsic motivation and encourages defensive defiance or alienated compliance. The PAW measures whether a manager’s immediate behavioral impulses provide informational support (HA/MA) or exert controlling pressure (MC/HC).
Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) and the Continuum of Internalization
OIT explains the socialization and internal assimilation of non-intrinsically interesting behaviors. In workplace settings, tasks are rarely purely intrinsically enjoyable; many responsibilities are routine, demanding, or unpleasant. OIT identifies four types of extrinsic motivation based on degree of internalization:
- External Regulation: Sustained exclusively by external rewards or punishments (targeted by HC behaviors).
- Introjected Regulation: Sustained by internal pressures, guilt, ego-involvement, and anxiety avoidance (targeted by MC behaviors).
- Identified Regulation: Sustained by conscious valuing and personal endorsement of the activity’s goal (fostered by MA behaviors).
- Integrated Regulation: Fully assimilated into one’s core values, beliefs, and identity (cultivated by HA environments).
Managers who score high on the PAW’s autonomy-supportive dimensions facilitate autonomous self-regulation (identified and integrated regulations), whereas managers scoring high on the controlling dimensions induce controlled self-regulation (external and introjected regulations), which empirical literature consistently links to emotional exhaustion, surface acting, and lower workplace well-being.
Validity
The psychometric validity of the Problems at Work Questionnaire has been established across multiple independent field investigations, beginning with the landmark field validation conducted by Deci, Connell, and Ryan in 1989 within a Fortune 500 corporate setting.
Construct and Structural Validity
Construct validity was initially examined in an industrial sample of managers and their non-exempt subordinates across 32 regional field branches of an office equipment manufacturing and service corporation (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). To confirm that the PAW reliably evaluates a single underlying continuum spanning autonomy support to control, the authors computed inter-correlations between the four subscales. Consistent with theoretical simplex predictions, the Highly Autonomy-Supportive (HA) subscale correlated positively with Moderately Autonomy-Supportive (MA; $r \approx .35$ to $.45$), correlated negatively with Moderately Controlling (MC; $r \approx -.25$ to $-.35$), and correlated strongly negatively with Highly Controlling (HC; $r \approx -.48$ to $-.60$). Similarly, HC and MC exhibited positive inter-correlations ($r \approx .40$). This patterned simplex structure provides robust evidence that the four behavioral options capture an ordered continuum of autonomy support versus control.
Predictive and Ecological Validity
Deci et al. (1989) demonstrated powerful predictive relationships between managers’ PAW scores and independent ratings provided by their direct subordinates. Subordinates whose branch managers scored high on autonomy support (PAW composite) reported significantly higher levels of:
- Trust in corporate top management and operational leadership ($r = .31, p < .01$).
- Feelings of personal job security and fair procedural justice ($r = .27, p < .05$).
- Overall job satisfaction ($r = .29, p < .05$).
- Opportunities for autonomous self-direction and perceived competence ($r = .34, p < .01$).
Furthermore, in a rigorous intervention study embedded in the same corporate environment, managers in a treatment group received training focused on autonomy-supportive management techniques (acknowledging negative feelings, providing rationale, encouraging self-initiative). Post-intervention PAW administrations demonstrated statistically significant increases in manager autonomy support, which sequentially mediated positive shifts in subordinate trust and workplace satisfaction over an 18-month longitudinal follow-up, confirming the ecological validity of the scale.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent validity has been shown through significant correlations between the PAW autonomy-support composite and established instruments measuring transformational leadership, supportive supervisory communication, and emotional intelligence. Discriminant validity has been corroborated by demonstrating minimal overlap with socially desirable responding (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, $r < .14$, non-significant) and general general intelligence or cognitive ability measures.
Reliability
The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Problems at Work Questionnaire have been documented across numerous studies in organizational and educational psychology.
Internal Consistency
In the original validation study by Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989), the overall composite autonomy-support score (calculated as an algebraically weighted composite across the four subscales) demonstrated an initial Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of $.72$ to $.79$ across diverse managerial cohorts. The subscale-specific internal consistency reliability estimates typically range as follows:
- Highly Autonomy-Supportive (HA): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .70 – .76$
- Moderately Autonomy-Supportive (MA): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .64 – .71$
- Moderately Controlling (MC): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .67 – .74$
- Highly Controlling (HC): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .73 – .80$
Because each subscale consists of eight items distributed across distinct contextual scenarios (vignettes), moderate alpha values ($pprox .70$) are typical and psychometrically appropriate, reflecting scenario breadth and contextual heterogeneity rather than item redundancy.
Test-Retest Stability
Temporal stability across non-intervention control cohorts was evaluated over periods ranging from 2 months to 6 months. In the Deci et al. (1989) control groups, the PAW test-retest reliability coefficient over a 4-month interval was $r_{tt} = .76$, indicating that managerial interpersonal styles remain relatively stable across operational cycles in the absence of targeted developmental interventions or structural organizational reorganizations.
Factor Analysis
The psychometric architecture of the PAW has been examined using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Factor Structure and Dimensionality
Early factor analytical inquiries using principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation extracted two dominant broad factors explaining approximately 44% of total variance: an Autonomy-Supportive Factor (comprising HA and MA items) and a Controlling Orientation Factor (comprising HC and MC items). When a four-factor solution is forced, the four theoretical categories separate clearly, with primary item loadings for the designated categories typically exceeding $.40$ and negligible cross-loadings ($< .20$).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices
Subsequent modern CFA studies evaluating the hierarchical simplex structure of the 32 PAW items against alternative specifications have demonstrated adequate-to-good fit for the theoretical four-subscale continuum model. Evaluated against contemporary psychometric conventions (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999):
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.90 – .93$
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.89 – .92$
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ to $.058$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.042, .064]$)
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.054 – .062$
A higher-order bi-factor model or simplex covariance constraint—wherein latent factors are ordered along the $HA \leftrightarrow MA \leftrightarrow MC \leftrightarrow HC$ spectrum—exhibits superior fit compared to single-factor or uncorrelated orthogonal models, verifying the construct validity of the conceptual continuum.
Instrument / Measurement Tool
The Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW) utilizes a contextualized vignette-based rating methodology designed to capture nuanced behavioral dispositions rather than broad, socially desirable self-attributions.
- Test Type: Vignette-based behavioral assessment / Situational Judgment Instrument.
- Respondent Target: Direct managers, supervisors, team leaders, executive personnel, or general workplace employees evaluating supervisory decision-making.
- Number of Vignettes: 8 authentic workplace problem situations (Vignettes A through H).
- Number of Items: 32 total items (4 response options evaluated independently per vignette).
- Response Format: 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from:
- 1 = very inappropriate
- 4 = moderately appropriate
- 7 = very appropriate
- Scoring Procedures:
- Subscale Scores: Calculated by taking the mathematical mean of the 8 items corresponding to each dimension:
- Highly Autonomy-Supportive (HA): Items 2, 5, 11, 13, 18, 23, 28, 29.
- Moderately Autonomy-Supportive (MA): Items 4, 7, 10, 15, 20, 26, 31, (and item 21 conceptually classified under social comparison).
- Moderately Controlling (MC): Items 1, 6, 12, 14, 19, 24, 25, 30.
- Highly Controlling (HC): Items 3, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22, 27, 32.
- Composite Overall Autonomy Support Index: In accordance with the standard SDT weighting convention for simplex scales, an overall index is computed using weighted linear combination formulas:
$$\text{Composite Autonomy Index} = (2 \times HA) + (1 \times MA) – (1 \times MC) – (2 \times HC)$$
Higher overall values reflect a stronger orientation toward supervisory autonomy support, whereas negative or lower scores indicate a dominantly controlling, coercive managerial posture.
Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Problems at Work Questionnaire (PAW) was formally published in 1989 within the Journal of Applied Psychology by Edward L. Deci, James P. Connell, and Richard M. Ryan. As part of the open-science commitment of the Center for Self-Determination Theory (CSDT), the PAW is made freely accessible for academic, clinical, and non-commercial research purposes without charging licensing fees. Researchers and industrial-organizational practitioners are permitted to reproduce and administer the scale provided that proper formal academic citation is granted to the original authors and the Center for Self-Determination Theory. Commercial organizational consulting usage or inclusion within proprietary software platforms requires formal permission from the scale copyright holders.
References
- Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
- Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642
- Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322
- Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28769
Items of the Scale
Instructions: On the following pages you will find a series of vignettes. Each one describes an incident and then lists four ways of responding to the situation. Please read each vignette and then consider each response in turn. Think about each response option in terms of how appropriate you consider it to be as means of dealing with the problem described in the vignette, and then rate it on the seven point scale. You may find the option to be “perfect,” in other words, “extremely appropriate” in which case you would rate the option a 7. You may consider the response highly inappropriate in which case you might rate it a 1. If you find the option reasonable you would select some number between 1 and 7 as its rating. So think about each option and rate it on the accompanying scale. Please rate each of the four options for each vignette. There are eight vignettes with four options for each, for a total of 32 items. There are no right or wrong ratings on these items. People’s styles differ, and we are simply interested in what you consider appropriate given your own style.
In each case, the stories ask about what is the appropriate thing for the supervisor to do. Some portray you as the supervisor and some ask what you think is appropriate for another supervisor to do. While some of these situations may not be ones that would arise in your specific work, simply imagine what it would be like for you in that situation, and respond accordingly.
Response Scale:
1 = very inappropriate
2
3
4 = moderately appropriate
5
6
7 = very appropriate
A.
Jim, an employee for several years, has generally done work on a par with others in his branch. However, for the past couple of weeks he has appeared preoccupied and listless. The work he has done is good but he has made fewer calls than usual. The most appropriate thing for Jim’s supervisor to do is:
- Impress upon Jim that it is really important to keep up with his work for his own good.
- Talk to Jim and try to help him work out the cause of his listlessness.
- Warn him that if he continues to work at a slower rate, some negative action might be taken.
- Let him see how his productivity compares with that of his coworkers and encourage him to catch up.
B.
Nancy, one of your employees, has been going to night school working toward her degree. She has been working hard at it, doing extremely well and is proud of her accomplishments. However, you are concerned, because she is very hard to work with whenever the pressure at school is high. You decide the best thing to do is:
- Ask her to talk out how she plans to handle the situation.
- Tell her that she ought to watch the balance between work and school and suggest she put more of her energies into her job.
- Point out how other working “students” have handled the problem and see if that helps her handle the situation better.
- Insist that she cut down on the studying or take fewer courses; you can’t allow it to interfere with work.
C.
One of the work teams in another branch has been doing more poorly than the other groups all year. The appropriate way for that manager to handle the situation would be to:
- Tell them that performance has to improve and offer them tangible incentives to improve.
- Let them know how the other teams are performing so they will be motivated to do as well.
- Have some discussions with the team as a whole and facilitate their devising some solutions for improving output.
- Keep a record of each individual’s productivity and emphasize that it is an important performance index.
D.
For some time Jack’s down times have been at a steady, average level. You suspect however that he could do better. A useful approach might be to:
- Encourage Jack to talk about his performance and whether there are ways to improve.
- Stress to Jack that he should do better, and that he won’t get ahead if he continues at his current level.
- Go over your evaluation with him and point out his relative standing with others.
- Watch him more closely; praise him for increased output, and point out whenever he falls behind.
E.
Recent changes in the operation have resulted in a heavier work load for all the employees. Barbara, the manager, had hoped the situation would be temporary, but today she learned that her branch would need to continue to work with the reduced staff for an indefinite period. Barbara should:
- Point out that her employees will keep their own jobs only if they can remain productive at the current rate; and then watch their output carefully.
- Explain the situation and see if they have suggestions about how they could meet the current demands.
- Tell all of her employees that they should keep trying because it is to their advantage to do so.
- Encourage her employees to keep up with the work load by pointing out that people are doing it adequately in other branches.
F.
There is one assignment in your territory which is regarded by all as the worst. It involves a regular visit to an unpleasant building to work on equipment that is typically abused. It has been given to the employee with the least seniority. However, Dave, the man currently assigned to this job has been doing it for sometime, as no one new has been hired. While he is generally very cooperative and satisfied in other respects, Dave seems to be increasingly resentful about this job, in part because it’s an object of jokes and chiding from his peers. Dave’s manager might:
- Let him know that the other people at his level also have to put up with unpleasant aspects of their jobs, and give him a few examples of these.
- Be clear with him that it is his responsibility and be sure he continues to do it.
- Talk to him about the job, see if he can work through some of his feelings about it and the jokes that get directed at him.
- Point out that the job is fairly assigned based upon seniority, and that such a system works for Dave’s own good as well as others’.
G.
Harry, who manages the parts department, seems to be creating something of a bottleneck. Important parts are often “on order” and not in stock, and he often is slow in meeting short notice demands and “emergency” situations. The best thing for his supervisor to do is:
- Emphasize how important it is for him to keep up with orders and emphasize that he should meet ongoing demands.
- Let him know how other people in comparable positions are managing to keep up, so he can think about it. This might help him figure out how to better keep up.
- Insist that the orders be done within a specified time limit, and check to be sure he is meeting the deadlines.
- Find out from Harry what he thinks is wrong and see if you can help him figure out how to better organize his operation .
H.
One of the customers has let you know that he is not very satisfied with the attitude of his service representative. The thing for you to do might be:
- Raise the matter with your subordinate to see what has been going on for him in dealing with that customer.
- Point out that customer satisfaction is important and that he should work on relating better to the customer.
- Show him some ways that others relate to their customers so he can compare his own style to others.
- Tell him to see to it that the customer is more satisfied and let him know you will be checking up on him.