Objective: The present research examined whether individual differences in self-motivation (i.e., action vs. state orientation) moderate the effect of demands on self-regulatory performance. Whereas state-oriented individuals consistently show a locking effect (i.e., impaired self-regulatory performance under demands), it is empirically less clear whether action-oriented individuals need at least some demands to unlock their self-motivation potential. Method: In three studies (N1=164, N2=120, N3=113), we examined the impact of demanding conditions (Study 1: subjective listlessness; Studies 2&3: uncompleted vs. completed intention) on action- and state-oriented individuals in established self-regulatory tasks (Studies 1&2: Stroop task; Study 3: Grid task). Tasks required self-regulation when congruent Stroop stimuli were frequent (vs. rare) and target shifts in the Grid task self-initiated (vs. externally cued). Results: Across all studies, action versus state orientation moderated the effect of demands on self-regulatory performance. Action-oriented participants showed fewer errors (pStudy1=.074, pStudy2=.036) and faster self-initiated target shifts (pStudy3=.046) under moderate compared to low demands. State-oriented participants showed trends in the opposite direction. Conclusions: The findings show that action-oriented individuals do not unlock their self-motivation potential unless there is some kind of demand. This dynamic suggests that action orientation is neither good nor bad but has opposing effects under different demand levels.