{"id":45,"date":"2019-08-19T15:20:30","date_gmt":"2019-08-19T15:20:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/introductiontogroupcommunicationv2\/chapter\/group-motivation\/"},"modified":"2023-03-24T14:46:00","modified_gmt":"2023-03-24T14:46:00","slug":"group-motivation","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.usnh.edu\/introductiontogroupcommunicationv2\/chapter\/group-motivation\/","title":{"raw":"Group Motivation","rendered":"Group Motivation"},"content":{"raw":"
\n
\n
\n
\n

Gettin\u2019 good players is easy. Gettin\u2019 \u2019em to play together is the hard part.<\/p>\n

Casey Stengel<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

\n

Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.<\/p>\n

Henry Ford<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

\n

A football coach was attempting to motivate his players through a difficult season. They were discouraged. Finally the coach gathered the team together roughly and bellowed, \u201cDid Michael Jordan ever quit?\u201d The team yelled back, \u201cNo!\u201d The coach then shouted, \u201cWhat about the Wright brothers? Did they ever give up?\u201d \u201cNo way!\u201d the team yelled. \u201cHow about John Elway?\u201d They all responded, \u201cNo!\u201d \u201cWhat about Mother Teresa?\u201d \u201cNo! No!\u201d they screamed. \u201cDid Elmer Smith ever quit?\u201d There was a long silence. Finally one player was bold enough to ask, \u201cGosh, Coach, who\u2019s Elmer Smith? We never heard of him.\u201d The coach snapped back, \u201cOf course you never heard of him\u2014he quit!\u201d<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

In this chapter, we\u2019ll address four major questions. They are \u201cWhy do people take action at any given time, instead of remaining inert and inactive?\u201d, \u201cWhy do people choose to act in the particular ways they do?\u201d, \u201cHow can we get individuals, by themselves, to act in certain ways?\u201d, and \u201cOnce people are acting properly as individuals, how can we get them to work together for the good of a group?\u201d<\/p>\n

These questions are short and simple, but their answers are not. Just think of some times in your own experience when you wished you had some way to get another person, or a group you were part of, to \u201cget off the dime\u201d and move in a direction you felt was the right way to go! The frustration you felt has echoed through the ages; the task of motivating people has challenged human beings since at least the dawn of history. Without motivation, we flounder or stagnate.<\/p>\n

In the pages ahead, we\u2019ll review a number of theories of motivation, ranging from complex to relatively straightforward ones, and consider factors which influence how susceptible people are to being motivated. Next, we\u2019ll list and examine two kinds of strategies: first, those which can produce motivation in people, and second, those which can lead people, once motivated, to collaborate with one another.<\/p>\n

No matter how people act, and whether they take any action at all, the process of determining and stating whether something happened or didn\u2019t happen will always be crucial to understanding the past and preparing for the future. You can probably recall situations in your life when a person or a group seemed to be wandering about in circles, repeating statements and behaviors rather than building on them to move forward. Perhaps it was because, even though there was action going on, no one was examining what the action was leading to. To end our chapter, therefore, we\u2019ll consider the vital role which feedback and assessment play in generating and maintaining group motivation.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

9.1<\/span> Group Motivation and Collaboration<\/span><\/h2>\n
\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
    \n \t
  1. Identify two fundamental questions related to group motivation and collaboration.<\/li>\n \t
  2. Identify factors which affect the ability to exercise persuasion and influence toward motivating collaborative behavior in groups.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
    \n

    Your corn is ripe today; mine will be so tomorrow. \u2018Tis profitable for us both, that I should labour with you today, and that you should aid me tomorrow.<\/p>\n

    David Hume<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    \u201cLet everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean.\u201d<\/p>\n

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

    \u201cA dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but on the 12th floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life\u2019s persistent questions: Guy Noir, Private Eye.\u201d Since 1974, Garrison Keillor Keillor, G. (2012, May 26). Guy Noir, private eye<\/em> (Retrieved from http:\/\/prairiehome.publicradio.org)<\/span> has hosted a nationally-broadcast weekly radio program called \u201cA Prairie Home Companion.\u201d One regular feature of Keillor\u2019s show, about a bumbling detective from Minnesota, has always begun with the words we\u2019ve just quoted.<\/p>\n

    The fictitious detective may not know it, but among life\u2019s persistent questions are those dealing with motivation and collaboration. As the theologian H.E. Luccock wrote, \u201cNo one can whistle a symphony. It takes a whole orchestra to play it.\u201d The same goes for any other group of people: no individual can carry the whole load or produce the whole group\u2019s required outcomes.<\/p>\n

    Before we analyze motivation and collaboration in detail, let\u2019s first lay the groundwork by considering what we mean by the terms. Engleburg and Wynn Engleberg, I.N., & Wynn, D. R. (2013). Working in groups<\/em> (6th<\/sup> ed.). Boston: Pearson.<\/span> wrote that motivation<\/a><\/em><\/span> consists in giving a person \u201ca cause, or reason, to act.\u201d Collaboration<\/a><\/em><\/span>, in turn, consists in joint expenditure of energy by two or more people in pursuit of a shared goal or aim.<\/p>\n\n

    \n

    Two Fundamental Questions<\/h2>\n

    We can see that two fundamental questions need to be confronted by anyone who hopes to motivate a group to collaborate:<\/p>\n\n

      \n \t
    1. How can we induce any single individual to act in any particular way?<\/li>\n \t
    2. How can we induce many individuals to act together?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Society can function only if people are motivated to collaborate in groups. Getting people to do that, however, can be extremely difficult. As Garrison Keillor would put it, it\u2019s a persistent question, and it\u2019s one which can tire people out if they persist in trying to answer it. One of Keillor\u2019s \u201cGuy Noir\u201d episodes illustrates this reality.<\/p>\n

      The episode describes a field trip by a middle school band class to Washington, D.C. Ostensibly, the purpose of the field trip is to have the students produce and perform music together while enjoying the experience of visiting the capital. Once the group reaches the National Mall however, its band director gives up on any attempt to herd his students from one destination to another\u2014to collaborate. When Guy sweetly asks one of the girls in the band why she has shaved half her head and why a boy has tattoos on his ears, she calls him a freak and tells him to mind his own business. Soon the clarinet section moves off in six different directions and the percussion section disappears entirely.<\/p>\n

      In the middle of all this, the band director is wearing earplugs to avoid having to listen to his students. \u201cEarplugs; they\u2019re a blessing,\u201d he claims, as a noisy motorcycle nearly flattens him. \u201cI\u2019m going to retire in two weeks to Wyoming,\u201d he continues, where \u201cthe only horns are on the cattle and the only winds are in the trees.\u201d<\/p>\n

      As far as musical performance is concerned, the band director lets his students play three-minute concerts because he can\u2019t get them to concentrate any longer than that. (The idea of making things short by eliminating repetition is, Keillor writes, revolutionary in Washington).<\/p>\n

      People in the real world generally show better manners and are able to focus more readily than the characters in this fictional account. Still, motivating real people to collaborate is no simple matter. Garrison Keillor wrote this about the actual Washington, D.C.: \u201cIt occurred to me that most of the people I saw in Washington were special needs people, and the Congress is designed for verbally aggressive listening-impaired people, and that months go by and nothing gets done, and in an election year, less than nothing, and maybe that\u2019s what the balance of powers means.\u201d<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Persuasion and Influence<\/h2>\n

      Hybels & WeaverHybels, S., & Weaver, R.L. (1998). Communicating effectively<\/em> (5th<\/sup> ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.<\/span> indicated that getting people to act in a certain way requires persuasion and influence. How and where to best direct the persuasion and influence, however, will vary with time. It may be possible to motivate people to work together at certain times on certain tasks, but not at other times on other tasks. Why? Think back to those middle school students. Many factors will vary from time to time, including these:<\/p>\n

      Individuals\u2019 and groups\u2019 level of receptiveness. Sometimes we\u2019re open to suggestions and proposals; sometimes we\u2019re not. Middle school students, for instance, might be more apt to collaborate right after a good lunch than first thing in the morning or in the late afternoon.<\/p>\n

      The surrounding circumstances. We\u2019re more likely to focus our attention if we\u2019re not distracted by external noise or other sensory inputs. Putting middle school students in the middle of a bustling urban center is not likely to help them focus on a joint task.<\/p>\n

      People\u2019s physical condition. Obviously, if a group task is physically demanding, those who possess strength or stamina will be better able to participate than those who don\u2019t. If the middle school students were hot or exhausted, they\u2019d be less likely to cooperate in getting anything done together. The wise grandmother of one of the authors of this book always used to advise other parents, \u201cIf your kids aren\u2019t cooperating, feed them.\u201d<\/p>\n

      People\u2019s attitudes toward a particular task. Getting people to do what they already want to do is no big deal; someone has written that an easy way to be a leader is to \u201cwatch where people are headed and just get out in front of them.\u201d Middle school students might not need a lot of persuasion to eat a few boxes of pizza together out on the grass by the Washington Monument. To get them to walk quietly together through an exhibit of Renaissance porcelain in the National Gallery of Art, on the other hand, would not be easy.<\/p>\n

      Lest we conclude that motivating people to collaborate is a hopeless enterprise, we can look around us any day and see that, although it isn\u2019t easy, it is possible. Tyler and Blader Tyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L. (2000). Cooperation in groups<\/em>. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.<\/span> pointed out that intentional actions, policies, and practices can often influence people\u2019s dispositions, and through them shape cooperation. We\u2019ll consider some such actions, policies, and practices later in this chapter. Above all, we\u2019ll see that adopting a flexible attitude can help us influence people to adopt the motivation to collaborate.<\/p>\n\n

      \n

      Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n

      Motivating people to collaborate in groups is challenging because the effectiveness of persuasion and influence depend on changeable human factors.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

      \n

      Exercises<\/h3>\n
        \n \t
      1. If you were leading a middle-school field trip, what principles and practices would you follow to yield better results than the ones described by Garrison Keillor?<\/li>\n \t
      2. Think of a time when you or someone in a group with you successfully motivated the group to take action. What factors of the situation contributed favorably to the positive motivation? What factors made it difficult to motivate the group?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
        \n

        9.2<\/span> Role of Motivation<\/span><\/h2>\n
        \n

        Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
          \n \t
        1. Distinguish between content and process theories of motivation.<\/li>\n \t
        2. Identify five content theories of motivation and four process theories.<\/li>\n \t
        3. Identify three kinds of action which individuals or groups who are motivated may take.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
          \n

          Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.<\/p>\n

          Ralph Waldo Emerson<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.<\/p>\n

          Helen Keller<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          The Latin term sine qua non<\/em> literally means \u201cwithout which, not\u201d or \u201cthat without which, nothing.\u201d In other words, if something is a sine qua non<\/em>, it\u2019s absolutely necessary. Emerson\u2019s comment indicates that he considered enthusiasm to be the sine qua non<\/em> of greatness. Our position in this book is that motivation is the sine qua non<\/em> of effective group action.<\/p>\n

          As Hoy & MiskelHoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> ed.). New York: Random House.<\/span> noted, motivation comprises \u201ccomplex forces that start and maintain voluntary activity directed to achieve personal goals.\u201d In short, being motivated means having energy and wanting to put it to work.<\/p>\n

          Before we examine just what motivation accomplishes within an individual or in a group setting, we should first take a look at a number of views concerning where it comes from.<\/p>\n\n

          \n

          Theories of Motivation<\/h2>\n

          Thinkers in business, education, psychology, and many other fields have long wondered about and performed research into the causes of motivation. Their theories fall into two major categories: content theories and process theories.<\/p>\n

          Content theories<\/a><\/em><\/span> of motivation focus on the factors which motivate behavior by rewarding or reinforcing it. Process theories<\/a><\/em><\/span> attempt instead to determine how factors which motivate behavior interact with each other.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Content Theories of Motivation<\/h2>\n

          Several content theories of motivation were developed in the middle to late years of the 20th<\/sup> century. Probably the most well-known today is Maslow\u2019s need hierarchy, with its five levels, which we reviewed earlier in this book.<\/p>\n

          Another content theory from this period is Clayton Alderfer\u2019s \u201cERG\u201d theory. Alderfer, C.P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings<\/em>. New York: Free Press.<\/span> According to Alderfer, people\u2019s needs can be broken down into the categories of existence, relatedness, and growth. Like Maslow\u2019s hierarchy, Alderfer\u2019s model portrayed people\u2019s needs in a hierarchical fashion. It differed from Maslow\u2019s hierarchy, however, both in its nomenclature for the levels in the hierarchy and in its contention that development through the hierarchy takes place in a cycle between differentiation<\/a><\/em><\/span> and integration<\/a><\/em><\/span>. Differentiation is a broadening of people\u2019s awareness through new and challenging experiences, whereas integration follows as an individual brings together diverse elements of his or her personality into a new and more unified form. When you decide to join a new club or organization, for instance, you first meet many people whose habits and behaviors may be new and perhaps disorienting to you. Later, however, you become more familiar with the way things work and feel consolidated and confident in your role within that group.<\/p>\n

          A third content theory is Frederick Herzberg\u2019s two-factor theory<\/a><\/em><\/span>. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work<\/em>. New York: Wiley.<\/span> Herzberg classed rewards as either \u201cmotivators\u201d or \u201chygienes.\u201d He held that motivators<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u2014including achievement, recognition, responsibility, and the opportunity to advance within a group\u2014are factors which contribute to satisfaction, but which when absent don\u2019t cause dissatisfaction. In other words, we appreciate them but can do without them. Hygienes<\/a><\/em><\/span>, on the other hand\u2014such as money, status, and job security\u2014don\u2019t create satisfaction when they\u2019re present, according to Herzberg, but do lead to dissatisfaction if they\u2019re absent. In a sense, thus, they\u2019re what people consider to be basic minimal needs and can go only as far as preventing dissatisfaction.<\/p>\n

          Two more content theories of motivation have been identified by more contemporary authorities. Kenneth ThomasThomas, K.W. (2000). Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy and commitment<\/em>. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.<\/span> drew a distinction between extrinsic rewards<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u2014those which come from the external environment\u2014and intrinsic rewards<\/a><\/em><\/span>, which come from within an individual or group.<\/p>\n

          Thomas believed that intrinsic rewards are more likely to motivate people and identified four kinds of intrinsic motivators. The first is a sense of meaningfulness<\/a><\/em><\/span>, which is the idea that what a person or group is doing is worthwhile. The second is a sense of choice<\/a><\/em><\/span>, which is the feeling that the person or group can make decisions about how to behave. The third is a sense of competence<\/a><\/em><\/span>, which is the belief that the person or group is behaving capably. The fourth motivator is a sense of progress<\/a><\/em><\/span>, which is the feeling that the person or group is actually accomplishing something.<\/p>\n

          A final content theory of motivation was put forth by Steven ReissReiss, S. (2000). Who am I? The 16 basic desires that motivate our behavior and define our personality<\/em>. New York: Tarcher\/Putnam and http:\/\/researchnews.osu.edu\/archive\/whoami.htm<\/span> and developed as the outgrowth of a study involving more than 6,000 people. On the basis of statistical analysis of his results, Reiss contended that 16 basic desires motivate people\u2019s behavior: power, independence, curiosity, acceptance, order, saving, honor, idealism, social contact, family, status, vengeance, romance, eating, physical exercise, and tranquility.<\/p>\n

          Interestingly, Reiss asserted that 14 of the 16 desires are similar to those found in animals and are likely to be genetically determined. He also suggested that people\u2019s motivations differ substantially from individual to individual and group to group because each person\u2019s ranking of the 16 desires is unique.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Process Theories of Motivation<\/h2>\n

          Theorists who espouse process theories of motivation are more interested in what starts, sustains, and stops behavior than they are in the things that motivate the behavior in the first place. We\u2019ll consider four kinds of process theories in this section.<\/p>\n\n

          \n

          Expectancy Theory<\/h2>\n

          Expectancy theory<\/a><\/em><\/span> was originated by Victor VroomVroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation<\/em>. New York: Wiley.<\/span> and has been broadened and popularized since then by other authorities. Vroom\u2019s theory is complex, but its central idea is straightforward: People are most likely to be motivated in a certain way if they believe 1) that they will receive a reward, 2) that the reward they expect to receive is something they value highly, and 3) that they can do what it takes to achieve the reward.<\/p>\n

          Here\u2019s an example. If the members of a team of employees think they will receive praise from their boss if they produce a snappy PowerPoint presentation as part of a project they\u2019ve been assigned, if they all care about receiving the boss\u2019s praise, and if they think they have the skills to create the presentation, then they\u2019re apt to work hard on the activity.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Attribution Theory<\/h2>\n

          Attribution theory<\/a><\/em><\/span> holds that people\u2019s behavior is motivated by how they interpret the behavior of others around them. For instance, we may think that what\u2019s causing others to act as they do is a combination of internal, personal factors. On the other hand, we may think that their behavior is a product of environmental variables.<\/p>\n

          According to attribution theory, people might actually be motivated to convey more significant rewards for someone\u2019s failure than for success. Take the case of the team of employees working on the project. Let\u2019s say that their PowerPoint presentation has several errors in it. If the boss observes it and thinks, \u201cWow\u2014they must\u2019ve put a lot of time into this,\u201d he or she might be motivated to congratulate the team on its hard work and offer some kindly advice for improving the presentation. On the other hand, if the presentation is letter-perfect but the boss thinks, \u201cI\u2019ll bet the department head down the hall showed them exactly how to do that,\u201d the boss may be motivated to offer only a routine acknowledgement that the assignment has been completed.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Goal Theory<\/h2>\n

          Goal theory<\/a><\/em><\/span> Locke, E.A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3<\/em>, 157\u2013189.<\/span> contends that people are motivated to behave in certain ways, and to keep behaving in those ways, primarily because they intend to achieve particular goals. This sounds simple and reasonable enough, but goal theorists believe that reaching a goal actually includes seven steps. The first five steps bring behavior about, whereas the last two maintain and regulate it.<\/p>\n

          Here\u2019s what a goal-setter has to do in these seven steps: first, survey and understand his or her environment; second, evaluate which elements of the environment are of value to him or her; third, make an emotional assessment of possible courses of action; fourth, decide what is apt to happen if he or she behaves in a particular way; fifth, decide how likely it is that the results he or she desires can actually be produced; sixth, decide exactly how to behave; and seventh, take action. The authors of this book appreciate the intellectual elegance of goal theory but wonder if they, you, or anyone any of us know has ever deliberately followed all these steps!<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Behaviorism<\/h2>\n

          Behaviorism<\/a><\/em><\/span> has probably received more attention and is better known throughout the public at large than any of the other three theories we\u2019ve discussed. B.F. Skinner, Skinner, B.F. (1974). About behaviorism<\/em>. New York: Knopf.<\/span> the most prominent Western exponent of behaviorism in the last century, wrote that all human behavior is a lawful process determined and controlled in systematic and consistent ways. Furthermore, Skinner and his adherents contended that all behavior is a function of its consequences in the environment. What this means is that any action people take will depend completely on what happens afterward. If the action affects the environment in such a way that it afterward strengthens the behavior, the behavior will persist or reoccur. If what happens afterward does not strengthen the behavior, on the other hand, the behavior will eventually cease.<\/p>\n

          Unlike other theorists of motivation, behaviorists do not describe what happens inside people when they act in certain ways. They don\u2019t deny that people have feelings and thoughts, but to the degree that they deal with such phenomena at all, they consider them to be effects rather than causes of behavior.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Fruits of Motivation<\/h2>\n

          We\u2019ve already established that motivation is a necessary condition to the functioning of any individual or group. If we have it, we possess the capacity to take action.<\/p>\n

          So, what action might we take? Three possibilities stand out, each of them either for better or worse. First of all, we may comply with other people\u2019s wishes, rules, or expectations. We may be motivated, for instance, to obey traffic signals and \u201cno trespassing\u201d signs.<\/p>\n

          Second, we may produce outcomes or create resources for a group. Motivated members of a political party, for example, may prepare or distribute flyers or make phone calls supporting the party\u2019s candidates.<\/p>\n

          Third, we may decide to sacrifice some of our own comfort or security for the sake of others. The classic example of this behavior is wartime military service.<\/p>\n

          Notice that motivation, wherever it comes from, provides a capacity for action but doesn\u2019t guarantee it. In other words, it\u2019s a necessary but not a sufficient condition for getting things done. In the next section we\u2019ll take a look at ways to both produce motivation and ensure that people take action based on it.<\/p>\n\n

          \n

          Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n

          Content theories of motivation concentrate upon rewards and reinforcing factors, whereas process theories focus on what starts, sustains, and stops behavior in response to those rewards and reinforcers.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          Exercises<\/h3>\n
            \n \t
          1. Frederick Herzberg wrote that people\u2019s motivation can be maintained only if they are given responsibility and an opportunity to achieve something. Do you agree? Provide an example which supports your answer.<\/li>\n \t
          2. Name and rank your top five desires from Steven Reiss\u2019s list of 16 desires. Share and compare your desires with a classmate. What do the results imply with respect to how you and the other person might best become motivated in a group?<\/li>\n \t
          3. Expectancy theory says that people will be motivated under three conditions: if they believe they will receive a reward for doing something, if they value the reward, and if they believe they can do what it takes to achieve the reward. Describe a situation in which you were motivated to do something and explain whether and how those three conditions were met.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
            \n

            9.3<\/span> Effective Motivation Strategies<\/span><\/h2>\n
            \n

            Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
              \n \t
            1. Acknowledge the value of trust among group members.<\/li>\n \t
            2. Identify four effective motivation strategies.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
              \n

              No matter what accomplishments you make, somebody helped you.<\/p>\n

              Althea Gibson<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

              In the first parts of this chapter we\u2019ve discussed several theories of motivation. Some of the theories laid greatest emphasis on identifying factors that attract people to become motivated, whereas others focused on how the factors interact to produce motivation. What we haven\u2019t answered yet, however, is a very important question: \u201cHow can we get a person to acquire motivation and actually act on it?\u201d<\/p>\n

              At first glance, we might think this is a very easy question to answer. After all, we see people acting in ways that other people want them to every day. What if getting a person motivated and having the person do something on the basis of that motivation is a really simple matter? What if all we need to do is follow a few steps, like these, which are based on the behaviorist concepts of B.F. Skinner that we touched on earlier?<\/p>\n\n

                \n \t
              1. Tell the person what you want him or her to do in measurable terms. Explain specifically what you have in mind.<\/li>\n \t
              2. Measure the person\u2019s current level of performance. Determine whether and how well the person is doing the activity in question.<\/li>\n \t
              3. Let the person know what kind of reward he or she will receive if he or she does what you\u2019ve asked. Be sure to make clear that the reward will<\/em> follow if the performance goal is achieved.<\/li>\n \t
              4. When the person does what you\u2019ve asked, give the person the reward you said you would.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                In the world of business, some organizations have tried to follow exactly these four behaviorist steps to motivate employees. Burke Burke, W.W. (2011). Organization change<\/em> (3rd<\/sup> ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.<\/span> and Kello Kello, J.E. (2008). Reflections on I-O psychology and behaviorism. In N. K. Innis (ed.), Reflections on adaptive behavior: Essays in honor of J.E.R. Staddon<\/em> (pp. 291\u2013313). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<\/span> wrote that in the 1970s Emery Air Freight was one of the first and most publicized examples. As it turned out, Emery found that performance by its employees increased and that costs to the company declined by approximately $3 million over a three-year period.Schulz, D., & Schulz, S.E. (2002). Psychology and work today<\/em> (8th<\/sup> ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.<\/span><\/p>\n

                But things are more complicated than this in other places, aren\u2019t they? Emery Air Freight was in the business of processing packages, and that\u2019s a pretty cut-and-dried industrial procedure. College students and church members and people in community organizations or not-for-profit agencies are involved in broader, more complex activities than those that many air freight workers or other employees in commercial enterprises perform.<\/p>\n\n

                \n

                Requirements for Motivating Action<\/h2>\n

                According to behaviorism, it\u2019s unnecessary to pay attention to people\u2019s interior states<\/a><\/em><\/span> in order to motivate them to do things. Emery Air Freight\u2019s approach, with its predetermined regimen of consequences for its employees\u2019 behavior, was consistent with this belief.<\/p>\n

                Most theorists today, however, believe that people need to undergo certain mental processes and reach certain mental states in order to take any particular action. Specifically, for people to be motivated to act the way someone else wants them to, they first need to possess the skills and abilities required to accomplish the action. If they have those skills and abilities, they also need to know what the other person wants them to do, how to do it, and what will happen if they do it.<\/p>\n

                In a group, having a designated leader propose that people act in a certain way can often be helpful. This will depend on the structure and mood and purpose of the group, however.<\/p>\n

                If you\u2019re part of a team of students that has been assigned a project, for instance, you might not decide to choose a leader. Instead, you and the other members may want to motivate each other by discussing your needs and options as equals to see what ideas and directions bubble up spontaneously.<\/p>\n

                No matter who is trying to motivate whom to act, one final consideration should be taken into account. Motivation, as we noted in chapter 4, is at least partly determined by whether people trust each other.<\/p>\n

                What if you think someone\u2019s primary reason for asking you to do something in a group is that the person hopes to gain personally from what you do? If that\u2019s the case, you\u2019re not very apt to be motivated. If the person seems to care about you genuinely, on the other hand, you\u2019re more likely to go along with his or her suggestions.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                \n

                Motivation Strategies<\/h2>\n

                Let\u2019s take a look at four strategies for motivating people in groups. Three of the strategies are based in longstanding organizational research, whereas one is a broader approach to motivation in general.<\/p>\n

                Based on their study of research in groups, Hoy and Miskel Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> ed.). New York: Random House.<\/span> contended that taking the following steps will lead people to be motivated:<\/p>\n\n

                  \n \t
                1. Allow all members of the group to set goals together, rather than imposing goals upon them. Research indicates that people who get to participate in developing their own goals become more satisfied during the performance of their tasks than those who don\u2019t. If your student group is supposed to deliver a presentation together, you should all meet at the start of your assignment and decide what you plan to accomplish.<\/li>\n \t
                2. Establish goals which are specific. Broad or unclear goals are unlikely to cause people in a group to focus their attention and energy well. Instead of saying, \u201cLet\u2019s all pitch in and give our presentation 10 days from now,\u201d it\u2019s better to decide which person will talk about which subjects in the presentation, for how many minutes, and with how many handouts or projected images.<\/li>\n \t
                3. Establish the highest possible goals. You\u2019ve perhaps heard the adage \u201cShoot for the moon; even if you miss, at least you\u2019ll hit the stars.\u201d The saying isn\u2019t astronomically accurate, of course, since the stars are a lot farther away than the moon. The principle is a good one, though, since research shows that the more difficult the goals, the more effort people will put into achieving them, as long as they accept the more difficult goals in the first place.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  Hoy and Miskel contended that these three strategies tend to reinforce one another. In particular, they wrote, members of a group who are allowed to participate in setting its goals may not necessarily perform at a higher level than those who aren\u2019t, but they\u2019re likely to set higher goals for themselves than people who have goals imposed upon them. Thus, at least indirectly, the outcomes of their work may be better for the group.<\/p>\n

                  In his book Intrinsic Motivation at Work<\/em>, Kenneth Thomas wrote about a fourth strategy for motivating people: developing rewards tentatively and being prepared to change them as circumstances dictate. Personal goals and desires may shift with time, he contended, and people also sometimes have multiple and even conflicting goals. Sometimes a person who initially was enthusiastic about working on a task might say, \u201cMy get-up-and-go got up and went.\u201d<\/p>\n

                  Students working on a team project, for example, may go through a cycle of changing personal goals. When they first get together, they may want more than anything else to minimize the time they spend on the project. Later, they might start to care much more about receiving a good grade\u2014or about building relationships among themselves, or about something else entirely. To motivate them requires flexibility.<\/p>\n\n

                  \n

                  Key Takeaway<\/h3>\n

                  Allowing group members to set specific, challenging goals and being willing to modify those goals as circumstances change is likely to motivate them to act in a desired manner.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                  \n

                  Exercises<\/h3>\n
                    \n \t
                  1. Think of a group you\u2019ve been a part of in which trust among its members was strong. How did you know that the trust existed? What caused it to develop? How did its presence affect the group\u2019s motivation?<\/li>\n \t
                  2. Some people might claim that part of leadership is to set goals for a group, not to ask people to set its goals together. If you were ever in a group whose leader established its goals, how do you feel that influenced the members\u2019 attitudes and motivation?<\/li>\n \t
                  3. In what ways do you feel a group\u2019s motivation might benefit if its members operated without a designated leader? In what ways might its motivation suffer?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
                    \n

                    9.4<\/span> Effective Collaboration Strategies<\/span><\/h2>\n
                    \n

                    Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n
                      \n \t
                    1. Identify the nature and implications of theories which assume that people collaborate for instrumental reasons.<\/li>\n \t
                    2. Identify a theory of group collaboration that emphasizes social links among group members.<\/li>\n \t
                    3. Identify five strategies for fostering group collaboration.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
                      \n

                      I maintain that cooperation is good, and competition is bad, that society does not flourish by the antagonism of its atoms, but by the mutual helpfulness of human beings.<\/p>\n

                      Helen Keller<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                      In the last section, we discussed ways to motivate individuals to act in certain ways. Now we turn to a harder question: How do we get them to work together?<\/p>\n\n

                      \n

                      A Prevalent Theory<\/h2>\n

                      In addition to setting goals that are specific, challenging, and jointly developed, how we try to get people to work together with others depends on our view of what makes people decide to do so. A prevalent theory, which Tom TylerTyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations<\/em>. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.<\/span> contends has been especially influential in the past few decades throughout American society, has been that people collaborate for instrumental reasons<\/a><\/em><\/span>. What this means is that they weigh costs and benefits and choose what they feel will be most advantageous to themselves. Their amount and quality of participation in a group then depends on \u201cmaterial exchanges<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u201d\u2014transfers of rewards back and forth between the group\u2019s members. Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles<\/em> (pp. 564\u2013596). New York: Guilford.<\/span> If these transfers don\u2019t favor them as individuals, they will simply abandon the group.<\/p>\n

                      If we operate according to this theory, there are many implications. First, we may want to spend considerable effort to decide on incentives to offer group members. Second, we may feel we need to be continually vigilant to make sure our incentives are working. Third, we may need to watch people carefully to see who is pitching in sufficiently. And fourth, we may want to create sanctions that we can impose upon people who don\u2019t comply with the group\u2019s rules and directions.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                      \n

                      The Role of Social Links<\/h2>\n

                      An alternative theory, based on recent research by Tyler Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why people obey the law<\/em> (2nd<\/sup> ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.<\/span> and others, suggests that people do take their self-interest into account when they participate in groups, but that they collaborate primarily for social reasons.<\/p>\n

                      According to this alternative theory, people will be best motivated to collaborate on the basis of social links<\/a><\/em><\/span>. These are defined as \u201clong-term connections based on attitudes, emotional connections, shared identities, common values, trust in the motivation of others, & joint commitment to fairness.\u201dTyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations<\/em>. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.<\/span> Tyler\u2019s book Why People Cooperate<\/em> presents the results of his studies in business, legal settings, and political organizations as evidence that people are often willing to give up the opportunity for personal gain in order to contribute to the welfare of a group as a whole. Specifically, Tyler\u2019s research with groups in more than 15 countries showed that \u201cin none of the countries were people\u2019s behaviors consistent with a narrow self-interest model.\u201dTyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations<\/em>. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      The proponents of this theory believe that using a combination of incentives or punishments\u2014\u201ccarrots\u201d and \u201csticks\u201d\u2014is not always going to produce collaborative behavior in a group. It\u2019s very possible, for instance, for group members who are treated this way to do just enough to get exactly the incentives they\u2019ve been promised rather than to go beyond the call of duty for the sake of the group as a whole.<\/p>\n

                      Tyler pointed out that soldiers can be forced into the military in times of war. Neither money nor legislation nor a military draft nor even the threat of severe legal actions such as courts-martial, however, can actually make them willing to lay down their lives. Something else has to be part of the picture.<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n

                      \n

                      Strategies to Promote Collaboration<\/h2>\n

                      Indeed, fighting successfully in a war requires total and complete collaboration on the part of soldiers. In Shakespeare\u2019s Henry V<\/em>, prior to the Battle of Agincourt, King Henry rallies troops in the famous \u201cSt. Crispin\u2019s Day Speech.\u201d In the speech, he refers to \u201cwe few, we happy few, we band of brothers\u2014for whoever sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother.\u201d As a result of his speech, the English soldiers fight valiantly, and ultimately they defeat the French and win the battle.<\/p>\n

                      What can we learn from Shakespeare\u2019s account, as well as from the thoughts of modern theorists, to promote collaboration within a group? Here are several strategies which researchers now believe can be successful:<\/p>\n\n