20160217 - Motivation and Improved Collaborative Outcomes

Running head: MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 1

Motivation and Improved Collaborative Outcomes

William C. B. Harding

Grand Canyon University

February 17, 2016

MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 2

Motivation and Improved Collaborative Outcomes

Effective collaborative and innovative engagements are built on the foundation of

autonomous motivation, which embraces an alignment of ideas from individuals who come from

multidisciplinary and diverse backgrounds, cooperatively involved in creating technologically

advanced solutions. Moreover, though motivation theory encompasses various concepts,

including amotivation (i.e., lacking the ability to recognize positive outcomes associated with

action), the focus of this paper will be on the use of motivational concepts that are associated

with self-determination theory (SDT). Accordingly, Deci and Ryan (2008a), infer that the

motivational theories characterized within SDT are autonomous, controlled, extrinsic, and

intrinsic motivation. Whereas, Deci and Ryan’s (2008b) discussion of autonomous motivation is

more closely aligned with the prosocial behavioral characteristics that promote an individual’s

freedom to choose, while exhibiting moral and ethical attributes towards other individuals. With

that in mind, it is postulated that individuals who display autonomous motivational behavior are

able to effectively collaborate technologically advanced innovation, resulting in better outcomes

and improved satisfaction, while realizing increased psychological well-being.

Conversely, though traditional collaborative theories focus on anticipating and resolving

interorganizational conflicts (Astley, 1984), this paper examines the desired motivational

concepts that reflect the constructive qualities of each collaborative participant. Additionally,

with consideration for realizing effective collaborations, the positive attributes associated with

psychoanalytic transference (i.e., improved collaborative bonds that support positive experiences

[Langs, 1977]) are embraced as foundational concepts that align the theories of autonomous

motivation and collaboration. Specifically, the foci of this paper are on the motivational


characteristics of participant independence, constructive results, and mutual accountability

within collaborative groups that are oriented towards a common goal (Gray, 1989).

Summary of Motivation Theory

Motivation theory encompasses a number of theoretical concepts (e.g., autonomous,

controlled, extrinsic, intrinsic), but when viewed through the lens of self-determination theory

(SDT), individual motivation is transformed into a cognitive process of self-actualization and

psychological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008a). That being considered, motivation theory is a

concept and process found within sociocultural environments, where an individual's behavior is

both externally and internally influenced, as exhibited through need and desire.

Furthermore, as is suggested within the Deci and Ryan (2008b) article, regardless of

potential influences from an individual’s cultural environment, autonomous motivation will

produce the greatest personal satisfaction while maintaining a healthy mind and body.

Accordingly, Chen and Jang (2010), infer that individuals who maintain constant awareness of

motivational types while embracing a vacillating balance between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivational influences, will experience a greater sense of well-being, where they have chosen to

be productive and socially responsible individuals.

Summary of Collaboration Theory

Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) describe collaboration as concept that is not

focused on simple exchanges, such as guided by the injection of specific declarative instructions,

but as shared experiences between participants that are constructive and result in the creation of

knowledge. Furthermore, collaboration is both a conscious and unconscious process that

aggregates cognition with sociocultural development from the perspective of reaching a balance

between psychological and sociological constructs (Dewey & Small, 1897).


Correspondingly, Gajda’s (2004) proposal that “. . . collaboration is a journey, not a

destination” (p. 69) supports the idea that collaboration theory represents an understanding of

how individuals cooperatively engage in work to achieve a shared goal that embraces mutual

accountability. That said, collaboration across interorganizational environments (i.e., business

units, departments, and locations) empowers individuals to align on long/short term innovative

solutions and goals that could not be realized through individual convergent thinking (e.g.,

working alone or independently) (Gajda, 2004).

Comparison of Collaboration and Motivation Theories

There is a causal relationship between motivation and collaboration, where the success of

collaborative efforts are dependent on the motivational level of the participants who seek to

move from focusing on individual work to tasks that focus on common shared goals, where

making a difference is a driving factor. Specifically, effective collaboration cannot exist unless

participants, problem statement owners, and leadership are properly motivated to trust

collaborative processes, where job title and egos should be set aside (Ansell & Gash, 2008).

From those statements, an examination of collaboration with respect to motivation exposes that

effective collaboration cannot be realized unless participants are properly motivated (i.e.,

autonomous motivation). Correspondingly, the key or binding element that inspires successful

collaboration and encourages desired motivation, is skilled facilitation and mentoring, which

serves to promote attributes of professional growth.

Aligning the Theories of Collaboration and Motivation

The theories of collaboration and motivation appear to be only vaguely aligned, where

collaboration implies cooperative engagement and motivation is principally evaluated through

the lens of the individual. However, it is posited that within technologically innovative


environments, where sociocultural influences focus on developing prosocial behavior,

individuals who are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated (i.e., autonomous) are able to

more easily align their goals within collaborative efforts. Similarly, individuals who seek to

collaborative from the perspective of increasing knowledge, where greater satisfaction is often

derived from the journey towards their goal, aspirationally align with the theory of autonomous

motivation and intrinsic desires.

Comparatively, controlled motivation approaches collaborative efforts from the

perspective of extrinsically influencing individuals to engage in alliances, such that avoidance of

punishment, guilt, and competition are the principle motivating factors. As is inferred by Kohn

(1999), incentivizing (i.e., negative and positive) collaboration among employees, where

individuals are manipulated into working together, may have worked during the industrial

revelation, but is an ineffective method, such that it eventually leads to failure and harm to

employee morale. Thus, from the perspective of collaboration “. . . the more artificial

inducements [that] are used to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what they are being

bribed to do.” (Kohn, 1999, p. 73)

All things considered, successful innovative collaboration focused on integrating

technology, with resultant long-term interorganizational alliances, can only be achieved when

individuals possess the self-realized freedom to choose and act on those choices in directly

connecting collaboration and goal related successes with personal satisfaction. Accordingly, it is

proposed that individuals who exhibit the characteristics of autonomous motivation, such as

those characteristics demonstrate the behavioral attributes of self-discovery and persistence, are

the individuals who are more apt to effectively collaborate in creating innovative and novel

technological solutions (Deci & Ryan, 2008a).


Conclusion

As discussed in this paper, there are effective methods for aligning collaboration theory

and motivation theory (i.e., autonomous motivation) in the creation of an amalgamated concept

for encouraging/motivating individuals to embrace the intrinsic and extrinsic influences that

result in cooperative collaboration. However, what was not discussed within this paper, was the

role that leadership/management plays in establishing a supportive and trusting foundation for

collaboration.

That being considered, leadership structures that are characterized as transformational,

motivate employees to exceed collaborative expectations through observable positive leadership

behaviors, where according to Grant (2012) those positive behaviors include the inspirational

expression of a clear vision, cultivation of trust, and conveyance of confidence. Inclusive of an

effective motivational structure is the exposure of individuals to the solution stakeholders, such

that the collaborative participants are able to develop/express empathetic behavior that aligns

with specific needs.

To summarize, this paper clearly defined the desired collaborative behaviors, preferred

outcomes, and the motivation theories (e.g., autonomous) that yield the greatest technological

and innovative outcomes, resulting in accountable alliances. Additionally, this paper touched on

the aspect of leadership within the scope of collaboration and motivation, where it is suggested

that further study needs to be conducted in order to determine the most effective

methods/concepts that result in leadership initiated engagements, which are supportive of

collaborative efforts.


References

Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of

public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

Astley, W. G. (1984). Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of management

review, 9(3), 526-535. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4279700

Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-

determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741–752.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-

being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human

motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychological, 49(3), 182-185.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

Dewey, J., & Small, A. W. (1897). My pedagogic creed (No. 25). EL Kellogg & Company.

Retrieved from https://books.google.com/

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based

environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher

education, 2(2), 87-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American journal

of evaluation, 25(1), 65-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500105


Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the

performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management

Journal, 55(2), 458-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0588

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Retrieved

from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=122117

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise,

and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retrieved from

https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10217/18176/JOUF_JSA1997.pdf?s

equence=1&isAllowed=y#page=75

Langs, R. J. (Ed.). (1977). Classics in Psychoanalytic Technique. Jason Aronson, Incorporated.

Retrieved from https://rowman.com/isbn/146162780X

Documents

20160217 - Motivation and Improved Collaborative Outcomes