Title: Collective Intrinsic Motivation: a New Challenge for HRD
1
Title: Collective Intrinsic Motivation: A New Challenge for HRD
Author: Danielle Dimitrov
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore USA
Address: 21504 Tamarack Ridge Sq., Sterling VA, 20164, USA
E-mail:
Stream: Creativity, Innovation, and Sustainability
Type of Submission: Working Paper
WordsTotal = 2,464
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study will trail the following scheme:1) explore the essence of collective intrinsic motivation (CIM); 2) find the factors that promote CIM; 3) seek empirical evidence to show the impact of CIM on team and organizational outcomes; as well as 4) discover direct application of the findings to HRD policies that improve CIM.
Methodology:The study will include a mixed-methodology of quantitative and qualitative research techniques: team-member questionnaires of real and high-performing teams,document analysis of existing HR policies related to teams, and interviews based on convenience sampling.
Theoretical Framework: The study will perform a literature review and use theoretical stands from the following areas: team dynamics, intrinsic motivation and collective agency,humanistic psychology studies, content and motivation theories, and cross-cultural studies.
Research and practicalrecommendations:Future research recommendations include other mixed-method investigations on team-member perceptions of the conditions leading to the efficacious application of all team basics, as well as heuristic studies on team members’ internal motivation for team performance and success. More case studies of particular HRD policies, linked to CIM encouragement, are also advised.
Originality/value:This study will define CIM better and bring some immediate suggestions for HRD policies and practices that can aid organizations in achieving a higher level of collective intrinsic motivation (CIM) through better identification of those factors that promote CIM.
Keywords: collective intrinsic motivation (CIM), team performance, team creativity, real teams, HRD policies, culture
Introduction
Coming from the extensive studies on the effectiveness of work groups and teams by Hackman (2002) and Katzenbach and Smith (2003), it is clear that the creation of real as well as high-performing teams is the future path for organizations to promote performance, innovation, and creativity. Teams are said to be the most flexible and pragmatic drivers of ingenuity, change, and innovation (Lewin, 1951; Balogan, 2001; Hackman, 2002). Scholars and practitioners alike have been trying to figure out the intricacies of team composition, life cycles, performance drives, and meaning. Meaning, however, is internal and implicit. It needs to be sought and inquired about. Thus, team members’ perceptions would be most informative in this quest.
Significance of Study for HRD
Katzenbach and Smith’s (2003) six team basics are a challenge for HRD professionals ̶ namely, how a small number of people bring together complementary skills,create a common purpose, form mutual goals, agree upon a common approach, and accede tomutual responsibility. All this gives birth to a special and meaningful social context that is expressed in having fun and genuine concern for each other. According to Katzenbach and Smith (2003), the organizations of the future will have teams, instead of managers, decide whatindividuals should do. HRD is the field that needs to figure out how this transition will happen more smoothly as well as what fuels these new driving forces – the working teams. In this discovery, many team fads will be dissipated and many futile organizational groupings,such as pseudo teams,will be disbanded (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Levi, 2011); thus, saving employers millions of currency on team trainings, special workshops, high expectations, and unfulfilled human dreams.This study will bring some immediate suggestions for HRD policies and practices that can aid organizations in achieving a higher level of collective intrinsic motivation (CIM) through better identification of those factors that promote CIM. The study argues that higher motivation for teams will lead the latter to better performance results, infused with meaning for individual members, teams, and organizations.
Purpose
Academicians and practitioners alike are busy searching for ways to motivate and engage the individual talent at work(Herzberg, 2003, Maslow, 1970; McClelland, 1966; Roger, 1961; Thackray, 2001). Likewise, the cultivation of all types of groups and teams is a fashionable statement inthe majority oforganizations worldwide (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003; Hackman, 2002; Levi, 2011). Type and productivity of different teams have been studied for decades now; however, the ways to provoke, harness, and maintain the synergy-producing collective intrinsic motivation, have not been explicitly formulated yet (Hackman, 2002). Thus, the purpose of this research is tobetter define Collective Intrinsic Motivation (CIM) as an organizational phenomenon through an extensive literature review followed by a study of the perceptions of individuals comprising potential, real or highly performing teams, as per Hackman (2002) and Katzenbach and Smith’s(2003) definitions of such teams.As a result of the literature review and the perception analysis of team members, the study will also seek to establish better the relationship of CIM with other concepts from the team dynamics and HRD literature such as team performance, leadership, meaningful workplace, humane organization, employee engagement, national culture, and organizational culture. It will also try to establish suitable HR polices, which will boost the formation and maintenance of CIM for the benefit of both humans and organizations alike.The following logical progression will be established in the proposed quest (Figure 1): 1) explore the essence of collective intrinsic motivation (CIM); 2) find the factors that promote CIM; 3) seek empirical evidence to show the impact of CIM on team and organizational outcomes; as well as 4) discover direct application of the findings to HRD policies that improve CIM.
Figure 1: Research Model.
Research Questions and Methodology
This study will entail two rounds: an extensive literature review and team member perceptions inquiry.Both phases of the research will seek todefine CIM and investigate the following research questions: 1) How can HRD scholars and practitioners find ways to ignite and facilitate the display of CIM?; and 2)What HRD policies can strengthen CIM to promote effective team performance? Various industries and types of businesses, organizations, and agencies will be solicited to participate, based on their history of utilizing real and high-performing teams.
The study will include a mixed-methodology of quantitative and qualitative research techniques: team-member questionnaires of real and high-performing teams (per Hackman, 2002 and Katzenbach & Smith, 2003), document analysis of existing HR policies related to teams, and interviews based on convenience sampling. The questionnaires will include four types of questions: 1) demographics, 2) cultural background (individualistic/ collectivistic), 3) team experience, and 4) CIM- inquiries. The instruments of Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995), as well as of Triandis and Singelis (1998), collectively described as SINDCOL,are suggested in assessing the cultural background of participants. Correlation analysis and other statistics will investigate the dependence of certain CIM patterns with the other variables such as cultural background, different demographics, and team experience. The purposeful convenience sampling for interviews will be based on the following criteria: team members who are willing to be interviewed; who have workedon teams for more than 10 years; who are representatives of both genders;who come from different cultural backgrounds; and who have performed various team roles, including team leadership. These criteria will help observe the effect of factors such as experience, gender, cultural background, tasks, and responsibilities.The interviews will be semi-structured, consisting of open-ended questions. Data will be coded using open and theoretical codes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The study will also use content and constant comparative analysis in order to link the emerging themes from the interviews (Krippendorff, 2004).
Literature Review
Team Dynamics
A literature review of Hackman (2002), Katzenbach and Smith (2003), and Levi (2011) informed the present paper with the necessary conditions to predispose the advent of real teams. Those teams’ members are involved in something bigger than themselves and are unstoppable in the face of challenges and limitations in order to achieve their mutually agreed upon goals, through immense creativity and innovation,which could not be reached by a single individual or another organizational grouping. The above mentioned workssuggest that higher levels of CIM exist in such teams.
Definition of CIM
Database JSTOR was searched by disciplines such as business, business and economics, communication studies, development studies, education, humanities, management and organizational behavior, psychology, and social sciences. The following keywords and phrases were searched for: “intrinsic motivation for teams,” “team intrinsic motivation,” “intrinsic collective motivation,” ”collective intrinsic motivation,” “group intrinsic motivation”, and”social intrinsic motivation.”Group intrinsic motivation (GIM) was found mentioned in Yidong and Xinxin (2013) and the following definition was provided: “group intrinsic motivation defines the collective belief, perception, and experience that the group members work for the internal interest, challenge, and satisfaction of the job regardless of the external rewards.” (p. 444). GIM was also said to encourage the individual promotion of ideas and to stimulate the acquiring of individualKSAs for performing innovative work (Yidong & Xinxin, 2013).It was noted that employees in groups with higher CIM exhibit more innovative work behavior(Yidong & Xinxin, 2013), butno specific definition for CIM was found in the literature.
Intrinsic Motivation and Collective Agency
Intrinsic motivation for teams is a reality as much as it is for individuals(Bandura, 2000),as can also be deducted from Bandura’s (1997) collective efficacy definition and Bandura’s (2006) human agency theory. Collective efficacy is "a collective’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 447); whereas,“people’s conjoint belief in their collective capability to achieve given attainments is a key ingredient in collective agency” (Bandura, 2006, p. 165).
The meaningful work concept (Chalofsky, 2003), the sources of meaningfulness at work (Dimitrov, 2012), and the development of conditions for the humane organization (Chalofsky, 2008; Dimitrov, 2009)are all other studies that suggest the facilitation of collective intrinsic motivation (CIM).
Foundational Humanistic Psychology Studies
A review of Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990, 1997)flow and autotelic activity concepts shows how self-directed teams are a group of people who “self-goal” (auto-telic) and thus, find meaning in what they do. The autotelic activity is such because of the attention autotelic people bestow on it. Furthermore,flow happens when clear goals meet immediate feedback and balance between skills and challenge – some of the basics for effective teams (Hackman, 2002; Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). In light of these concepts, it can be said that high-performing and effective teams are ones that experience flow and are comprised of autotelic members.
As applied to teams,Roger’s (1961) therapy studies are also instructional with the important principle of sense of self – the ability to specify for oneself what hurts, what is needed, what has been neglected, etc. The same principle is part of the meaningful work concept of Chalofsky (2003), and it seems only logical that team members operate and find meaning the same way as individuals who are not part of teams. They are the ones who know self and each other best and are aware how their skills mesh and complete each other to achieve synergy.
Content and Motivation Theories
A review of Herzberg’s (2003) job enrichment applies to teams in the present quest for CIM because it is a compilation of all necessary conditions for team success: removal of control, increase of autonomy, challenging tasks, and the ability to direct one’s own career. McClelland’s (1953, 1961) high-achieving individuals can be translated into high-achieving teams, who may also be Maslow’s (1970) self-actualizers. Provided the application of these theories is factored in the appropriate national cultural context, where competition is not destructive to collaboration, teams can be successful.
Cultural Underpinnings
Individualistic and collectivistic(I and C) national cultural values influence the working processes and outcomesofreal and high-performing teams because they impact the decision-making, achievement motivation, communication, problem-solving, conflict resolution, and any other individual activities at the workplace (Triandis, 1995).More community and group-oriented values and behaviors are typical for collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). Creativity, innovation, and the sustainable use of resources come easier with long-term oriented cultures valuing the past; affective cultures emphasizing social relationships and the community; sequential cultures that form a plan of action in advance and value efficiency; as well as outer-directed cultures that go along with nature(Triandis, 1995; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012).The cultural background (I vs. C) ofteam members and the cultural reality of the current work context influence motivationlevels and directionorientation (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2012). In addition, the level of collective motivation, and the way it is expressed and understood in different national cultures, can be a source of individual job satisfaction (Klassen, Usher, & Bong, 2010), which in turn may stimulate the degree of CIM as well.
Future Research and Potential Practical Recommendations
Further testing of this study’s team-member perceptions about what brings people together for a fruitful CIM application is suggested in various organizational cultures and industries. Thus, future research recommendations include othermixed-method investigations on team-member perceptions of the conditions leading to the efficacious application of all team basics, as well as heuristic studies on team members’ internal motivation for team performance and success.More case studies of particular HRD policies, linked to CIM encouragement, arealso advised.The differences in national cultural values, workplace cultures, and existing HR polices for the organization of work, its evaluation, and reward systems are also factors that need to be researched in relation to CIM. Just like the meaning of working (MOW, 1987) and the sources of meaningfulness (Dimitrov, 2012) for individuals are of interest to HRD, new research and practical applications of the same studies, but in a team context, need to be engaged in order to serve today’s global businesses.In addition, team leaders and HRD facilitators are cautioned to be sensitive to the characteristics of teams(Hackman, 2002) and individual team members(Dimitrov, 2009)in order to harness their potential for outstanding results. The distinctive personal styles of leaders are called upon one more time to combine efforts with the specificsof circumstances and the idiosyncrasies of teams in order to lead to such fruits of success as creativity, innovation, and sustainability(Hackman, 2002).
Discussion and Conclusions
Real teams are the organizational tool that can achieve maximum productivity through innovation and alternative-generation in problem-solving and decision-making activities. Real teams are seldom created for the purpose of being just teams (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003). They are formed with a decided performance priority in mind; and when this goal is valid, mutual, and complex, it sparks the inner drive for innovativeness and positive transformation of all members. Thus, the primary engine that powers teams up is collective intrinsic motivation (CIM). The latter sums up all team basics discussed by Hackman (2002) and Katzenbach and Smith (2003) because real atoms of creativity are not made or managed ̶ they just happen and need to be recognized. Similarly, if team culture is the collective programming of all members’ minds (based on Hofstede’s definition of culture from 1997);if team learning sprouts fromthe group’s transactive memory (Wegner, 1987) comprisingpeople’s shared mental models; intrinsic motivation, which drives both team values and learning, is another collective phenomenon that exists and is in need of HRD’s recognition and deployment.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75-78.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspective son Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180.
Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct of meaningful work. Human Resources Development International, 6(1), 69-83.
Chalofsky, N. (2008). Work-life programs and organizational culture: The essence of workplace community. Organizational Development Journal, 26(1), 11-18.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.New York: Harper Perennial.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997).Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Dimitrov, D. (2009). The perceptions of hospitality employees from diverse national cultures regarding the humane organization. The GeorgeWashingtonUniversity, AAT 3349871.
Dimitrov, D. (2012). Sources of meaningfulness in the workplace: A study in the US hospitality sector. European Journal of Training and Development, 36 (2/3), 351-371. doi: 10.1108/03090591211204788.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances.Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN: 1-57851-333-2.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 86-96.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK: McGraw-Hill.
Katzenbach, J, R. & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams(3rdEd.). Harper Business, ISBN: 0-06-052200-3.
Klassen, R. M., Usher, E. L., & Bong, M. (2010). Teachers' collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78 (4), 464-486.