Framework Foundation

The Anchor Relationships framework emerged from in-depth interviews with seasoned leaders who have served in consequential roles, including a university president, Marine Corps captain, CEO, Wall Street Journal bestselling author, and former members of the National Security Council and CIA.

When asked how they maintained their values despite intense pressures to conform, these leaders consistently credited morally affirming relationships as their source of crucial stability during difficult decisions.

A closer examination of their responses revealed a distinct pattern in the type of support these leaders found most valuable. Across interviews, these ethically minded leaders described how their most important relationships shaped their decision-making in three specific ways: 1) providing growth encouragement, 2) offering emotional support that builds resilience and self-efficacy, and 3) affirming core moral values.

Research Integration

Established theoretical and empirical research supports the framework derived from these leadership interviews, illuminating why each relationship quality strengthens both interpersonal connections and decision-making effectiveness. This research foundation also reveals how leaders can become empowering partners for others, fostering mutually beneficial relationships throughout their careers.

The Three-Quality Integration Model 

Primary Foundation (SDT/RMT): Anchor Relationships integrates converging research streams from Self-Determination Theory and Relationships Motivation Theory (a sub-theory within SDT). This rich compilation of empirical research demonstrates that relationships supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness consistently predict enhanced well-being, performance, and authentic self-expression across cultures and contexts (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Anchor Quality 1: Mutual Investment in Growth

Primary Evidence (SDT/RMT): The theoretical foundation rests on the principle that growth-motivated individuals are characterized by openness to feedback, desire for improvement and mastery, and support for autonomy and growth in others (Knee et al., 2002). Autonomy-oriented individuals "tend to have a more stable self-view and are less likely to engage in esteem-maintenance strategies," enabling them to "support autonomy and growth in others as well" and "view differences as novel and interesting" (Knee et al., 2002, p. 180).

Knee and Browne's research demonstrates that "when one friend was more autonomy-supportive, their partner was more autonomy-supportive as well" and that "several aspects of relationship quality were predicted not merely by the degree of autonomy support received but also simultaneously and uniquely by the degree of autonomy support given" (Knee & Browne, 2023, p. 167).

Key Mechanism: Mutual Basic Psychological Need Fulfillment

Converging Evidence Lines:

• Self-Expansion Theory: People are motivated to expand their self-concept by incorporating the resources, perspectives, and identities of close others, with research showing that this expansion process is inherently rewarding and creates positive affect while driving relationship formation and development (Aron et al., 2022).

• Capitalization Processes: Research reveals that sharing positive events with others creates benefits beyond the positive event itself, as people who share good news and receive enthusiastic, supportive responses experience increased positive affect, enhanced wellbeing and self-esteem, reduced loneliness, and strengthened relationship bonds (Gable & Gosnell, 2011).

• Organizational Behavior: Growth-oriented relationships predict career development and job satisfaction. In addition to career strategizing, information sharing, and work feedback, these relationships provide psychosocial benefits including emotional support, personal feedback, and friendship. The key advantage of peer relationships over traditional mentoring is their reciprocal nature - both people can alternate between giving and receiving support, creating more balanced and sustainable developmental partnerships that can endure for decades rather than the typical few years of mentoring relationships. (Kram & Isabella, 1985)

Anchor Quality 2: Enhancement of Self-Efficacy

Primary Evidence (SDT/RMT): The theoretical foundation incorporates SDT's emphasis on autonomy support as a catalyst for competence development. The concept of volitional reliance (self-directed support-seeking) from Lynch, La Guardia, and Ryan (2009) shows that people are more willing to seek help and support when they trust that assistance will be provided in an autonomy-supportive manner.

According to SDT, the need for competence reflects "the need to feel competent and effective at what one does" (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When this need is satisfied through supportive relationships, it enhances individuals' confidence in their capabilities and promotes autonomous motivation for continued growth and challenge-seeking.

Key Mechanism: Volitional Reliance

Converging Evidence Lines:

• Self-Efficacy Theory: Self-efficacy develops primarily through social processes rather than individual factors alone. People build confidence by observing similar others succeed through effort, receiving encouragement from others, and interpreting their own experiences within social contexts. Personal standards and goals also originate from social sources including modeling, feedback, and cultural influences. Self-efficacy operates within interconnected social systems rather than as isolated individual traits (Bandura, 2012).

• Source of Strength Support: Feeney and Collins's research demonstrates that supportive relationships actively promote thriving through four key mechanisms: providing a safe haven, providing fortification, assisting in reconstruction, and redefining meaning, with this support going beyond merely buffering against stress to actively helping people emerge from stressors in ways that enable them to flourish (Feeney & Collins, 2017).

• Psychological Safety Theory: Research shows that psychological safety creates a shared belief that teams are safe for interpersonal risk-taking, with psychologically safe teams demonstrating 19% higher productivity, 31% more innovation, and 27% lower turnover rates through enhanced knowledge sharing and collective decision-making (Edmondson, 1999). 

Anchor Quality 3: Connection to Core Values

Primary Evidence (SDT/RMT): This quality is grounded in SDT's concepts of true self expression and intrinsic value internalization. According to RMT, behaviors are "regulated by the true self in the fullest, most unobtrusive sense when the motivation for them is intrinsic" and when they resonate with higher-order or overarching identities (Knee & Browne, 2023, p. 161).

The relationship provides a context where partners can express their convictions without fear of judgment, enabling "true-self involvement" in ethical decision-making – creating an optimal sense of self-esteem based on "being who one is rather than what one does" (Knee & Browne, 2023, p.168).

Hadden, Knee, and colleagues found that when self-determined motivation is high in relationships, people become less dependent on external constraints and more focused on satisfaction-based commitment, demonstrating how autonomy-supportive relationships enhance individuals' sense of personal agency and confidence in their choices (Hadden et al., 2015).

The more people focus on intrinsic aspirations (personal growth, meaningful relationships, community contribution) over extrinsic goals (wealth, fame, image), the happier they are according to Kasser and Ryan (1996).

Research on authentic inner compass reveals that when people actively reflect on their core preferences and form an authentic inner compass consisting of foundational values and personal inclinations, they experience greater autonomy satisfaction, true volition, and vitality, with supportive relationships facilitating this developmental process (Assor et al., 2020).

Key Mechanism: Intrinsic Value Internalization

Converging Evidence Lines:

• Moral Psychology: Haidt's social intuitionist model demonstrates that confirmation bias prevents objective moral reasoning, but trusted relationships can overcome this barrier because people are more likely to reconsider their moral views when challenged by someone they respect, particularly when there is affection, admiration, or a desire to please that person (Haidt, 2012).

• Moral Identity Activation: Aquino and colleagues found that situational factors that increase the accessibility of moral identity within the working self-concept strengthen motivation to act morally, with relationships serving as critical environmental cues that can either activate or deactivate moral identity depending on the values they reinforce (Aquino et al., 2009).

• Authentic Leadership: Hannah, Avolio, and Walumbwa's research identifies "balanced processing" as crucial for ethical leadership, describing leaders who solicit challenging views from followers and create open, transparent cultures where discussing ethical issues is rewarded, thereby bolstering followers' moral courage and supporting authentic self-expression (Hannah et al., 2011).

• Behavioral Ethics: Treviño and colleagues' organizational research reveals that peer behavior is a stronger predictor of ethical decision-making than individual moral development, with meta-analytic evidence showing that ethical climate and peer influence significantly impact workplace moral choices, demonstrating how relationships shape ethical standards (Treviño et al., 2014).

References

Aron, A., Lewandowski, G., Branand, B., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. (2022). Self-expansion motivation and inclusion of others in self: An updated review. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39, 3821 - 3852. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221110630.

Assor, A., Assor-Shalev, E., & Tzur, O. (2020). Autonomy support for moral agency as a path to meaningful inner-compass and value-congruent living. Journal of Moral Education, 49(4), 446-464.

Assor, A., Benita, M., & Geifman, Y. (2023). The authentic inner compass as an important motivational experience and structure: Antecedents and benefits. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 362–386). Oxford University Press.

Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., Lim, V. K., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123-141.

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606

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.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2017). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113-147.

Gable, S. L., & Gosnell, C. L. (2011). The positive side of close relationships. In K. M. Sheldon, T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology (pp. 265-279). Oxford University Press.

Hadden, B. W., Knee, C. R., DiBello, A. M., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2015). High alternatives, low investments, no problem: A motivation perspective on the investment model. Motivation Science, 4(1), 244-261.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage Books.

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2011). Relationships between authentic leadership, moral courage, and ethical and pro-social behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(4), 555-578. 

Kasser & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream_ Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006

Knee, C. R., & Browne, N. M. (2023). Relationships motivation theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 363–386). Oxford University Press.

Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination as growth motivation in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 609-619.

Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.

Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different cultures: ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(4), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902933765

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

Ryan, R. M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2023). Self-determination theory: Metatheory, methods, and meaning. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 3–30). Oxford University Press.

Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un)ethical behavior in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635-660.