THE DETERMINANTS OF EMPLOYEES’
MOTIVATION TO WORK IN MULTIPLE TEAMS
Master’s Thesis HRM
Mart Evers S2966735 Words: 9339 University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor: prof. dr. G.S. (Gerben) van der Vegt
Abstract
Certain people work in more than twenty teams simultaneously, while others participate in only one or even zero teams, what is the reason behind this? In this research, I proposed that individuals’ motivation to work in multiple teams is an important factor, so I examined the determinants of the motivation to work in multiple teams. I did not only examine the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams in which employees work but also whether this relationship is moderated by the job autonomy of individual employees. The results of the study among 128 employees from a variety of organizations showed that people with higher organizational tenure, openness to experience and self-efficacy reported higher motivation to work in multiple teams, whereas information overload was negatively related to the motivation to work in multiple teams. Moreover, the relationship between motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams in which employees are working was positively moderated by job autonomy. All in all, these findings promote new knowledge and insight on multiple team membership, enabling organizations to make use of this demanding work characteristic in a more effective way.
Keywords: multiple team membership, motivation to work in multiple teams, determinants of
employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams, job autonomy.
Introduction
“Surveys estimate that 65 to 95 percent of knowledge workers across a wide range of industries and occupations in the United States and Europe are members of more than one project team at a time” (O’Leary, Mortensen & Woolley, 2011: 461). Highly qualified human resources are extremely scarce at the moment, which makes it important for organizations to use them as effectively and efficiently as possible (Starr, Ganco, & Campbell, 2018; Mortensen, 2014). Organizations try to realize this by using multiple team memberships (MTMs), defined as individual employees working on multiple teams or projects simultaneously. Examples are the increasing number of project and innovation teams, in which membership is frequently shared, shifted and dissolved (Mortenson, 2014; Pluut, Flestea, & Curseu, 2014; Bertolotti, Mattarelli, Vignoli, & Macrì, 2015). In some companies, it becomes normal for employees to be a member of five, ten or even more teams simultaneously (Martin & Bal, 2006; Zika-Viktorsson, Sundstrom, & Engwall, 2006). This changes the working conditions for numerous individuals in almost every organization (O’Leary et al, 2011). Furthermore, it also has significant consequences for the effectiveness and profitability of whole companies (O’Leary et al, 2011; Pluut et al, 2014; Chen, Smith, Kirkman, Zhang, Lemoine & Farh, 2018).
Some people work in more than twenty teams simultaneously, while others participate in only one or even zero teams (Chan, 2014). Surprisingly, however, little is known about the reasons for this high variation. In other words, although scientific insights into the consequences of MTM increased over the years, we know very little about why some employees engage in more work teams simultaneously than others. In this study, I aim to address this gap in the literature by examining the antecedents of MTMs.
According to Egger and Kaul (2018), the motivation to work in multiple teams can be an important factor for the determination of the actual number of teams. According to them, there is a positive relationship between the motivation connected to specific behavior and the intensity/duration of that same behavior (Egger & Kaul, 2018; Balven, Fenters, Siegel & Waldman, 2018). Nevertheless, employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams is not the only possible determining factor for the actual number of teams. Employees also need to deal with the work environment, like colleagues and other stakeholders of the company (Bertolotti et al, 2015). They do not always have the possibility to do what they want, as they often need to deliberate and discuss with colleagues or to follow the rules and directions of their managers. Hence, they are often restricted in their choices to determine in which and in how many teams they could work simultaneously. (Balven et al, 2018).
RQ1: ‘To what extent does the motivation to work in multiple teams affect the actual
number of teams and to what extent is this relationship moderated by the job
autonomy?’
Another contribution of this research is to examine the factors that determine employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams. Motivated employees perform significantly better than achromatic persons, which makes it relevant for organizations to know what determinants could increase or decrease the motivation of employees to work in multiple teams (Wiyono, 2018). According to several researchers, employee motivation differs as a result of personality, work design and contextual differences (Batova, 2018; Hur, Moon & Ko, 2018). Within this study, I decide to examine the role of the following four determinants of employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams: openness to experience, self-efficacy, information overload, and organizational tenure. Therefore, my second research question is:
RQ2: ‘To what extent does openness to experience, self-efficacy, information overload, and organizational tenure affect employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams?’
Further explanation about the decision for those four specific concepts will be offered later on, in the literature review. The conceptual model is presented in appendix A.
Literature review
Actual number of teamsMotivation to work in multiple teams
One important determinant of the actual number of teams in which employees work is their motivation to work in multiple teams. Motivation is defined as “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being” that determine the intensity and duration of behavior (Balven et al, 2018; Pinder, 1998: 11). Otherwise, the motivation to work in multiple teams is a new concept, which makes it necessary to set up an own definition of this variable. Consequently, within this study, the motivation to work in multiple teams is defined as ‘the set of energic forces that determine the intrinsic satisfaction for working in multiple teams simultaneously’. Balven et al. (2018) mention a positive relationship between the motivation for specific behavior and the intensity/duration of that same behavior. For that reason, it is proposed that a high level of motivation to work in multiple teams will increase the actual number of teams in which employees work:
H1: The motivation to work in multiple teams positively relates to the actual number of
teams in which employees work
Job autonomy
When workers have low job autonomy, the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams is likely to be quite weak because they do not have a lot of opportunities to determine the design of their jobs. Even if employees are highly motivated to work in multiple teams, they do not have the freedom to realize higher levels of MTM. People with a higher level of job autonomy are more able to do tasks according to their interests. This suggests that the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams becomes stronger with a high level of job autonomy. The more freedom employees have in their job, the more likely it is that they will be able to translate their motivation to work in multiple teams into actual behavior. It is expected that the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams is more pronounced for employees who are high, rather than low, on job autonomy. This expectation is formalized in H2.
H2: Job autonomy positively moderates the relationship between the motivation to work
in multiple teams and the actual number of teams, so that the relationship will be
stronger when the level of autonomy is higher
In the next four paragraphs, I explain more about the determinants of employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams: organizational tenure, information overload, openness to experience and self-efficacy.
Organizational tenure
Cummings & Haas, 2012). Ng and Feldman (2010) propose that organizational tenure is more related to the motivation and performance of employees than for example job tenure or group tenure. Organizational tenure may shape an employee’s MTM because individuals with higher tenure have developed specific skills that are useful for a greater number of teams (Cummings & Haas, 2012; Brake et al, 2018). Moreover, Pluut et al. (2014) indicate that organizational tenure is positively connected to the fragmentation of time. This results in a lower job strain, which makes it attractive for employees to work in multiple teams simultaneously. This expectation is further discernible in H3a.
H3a: Organizational tenure positively relates to the motivation to work in multiple
teams
Information overload
I also examine the role of information overload as an important work design characteristic (Schmitt, Debbelt & Schneider, 2018). In this study, information overload is defined as “the situation in which employees receive too much information to sensibly deal with it all in the available time frame” (Eppler, 2015). Eppler (2015) mentions two main effects of information overload, namely a high amount of stress and the difficulty to pay attention to the right and most valuable information. Moreover, Pluut et al. (2014) state that, in an information-overload situation, the job demands become too high for employees, which results in a too high job strain. This creates exhausted employees who are likely less motivated to engage in new challenges, like MTM. This expectation is further discernible in H3b.
H3b: Information overload negatively relates to the motivation to work in multiple
Openness to experience
The third antecedent for the motivation to work in multiple teams is the personality trait openness to experience. Accordance to Lakhal, Frenette, Sévigny, and Khechine (2012) openness to experience is, compared with the other traits of the big five, the strongest predictor of the motivation to work in multiple teams. “Openness to experience reflects the breadth and depth of an individual’s reflection, their intellectual curiosity, imagination, and aesthetic sensitivity” (Schwaba, Denissen, Chung, Luhmann, & Bleidom, 2018: 119). They mention that people high on openness are more likely to try progressive working styles, like MTM. Besides, Lakhal et al. (2012) conclude that those people appreciate working together with other people instead of working solely. Taken together, people with a high score on openness appreciate progressive working styles and they have high regard for working together with other people. That creates the prediction that people who are high on openness have more motivation to work in multiple teams. This expectation is further discernible in H3c.
H3c: Openness to experience positively relates to the motivation to work in multiple
teams
Self-efficacy
self-efficacy is confidence (Ali & Qazi, 2018). People with a high level of self-efficacy are more motivated to accept difficult and new challenges. Therefore, they are more likely to be motivated to become a multi-member. Employees with a lower amount of self-efficacy will be less motivated to work in multiple teams because they are conservative and do not have the confidence to accept refreshing challenges like MTM. This leads to the fourth hypothesis.
H3d: Self-efficacy positively relates to the motivation to work in multiple teams
In accordance with the hypotheses and the conceptual model, I propose a moderated-mediation effect within this study. This will be tested with the PROCESS procedure described by Hayes (2018).
Methodology
Sample and ProcedureTo test the hypotheses, I collected quantitative data with the use of Qualtrics. The data was gathered by approaching individuals from different companies to increase the generalizability of the research. Employees that work at least five hours a week were asked to finish the survey. Before the data collection, the minimum number of participants was established at 100 employees.
‘HBO/WO-bachelor of kandidaats’ as the highest education-level. The average education-level of respondents was 5.23 (SD = 1.08).
Measures
Motivation to work in multiple teams
Within this study, the motivation to work in multiple teams was measured with a self-developed five-item scale. Participants answered five items using a five-point Likert (1932) scale (1=very little to 5=very much). Since the respondents of this research were Dutch the scale was also developed in Dutch. All the five items are presented in appendix B. Cronbach’s alpha was .887.
Job autonomy
Job autonomy was weighed with a five-item scale developed by Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller (1976). Participants rated each of the five items based on a five-point Likert (1932) scale (1=very little to 5=very much). Cronbach’s alpha was .857.
Information overload
Openness to experience
Openness to experience was measured by the shortlist-version of the MRS-30 from Schallberger and Venetz (1999). They established six contrary pairs for each personality trait, like ‘Kreativ – Unkreativ’. The original scale is German, and all the six items are shown at appendix B. Respondents were asked to rate the six pairs using the following six-item scale (scale 1 to scale 6), in which 1 was ‘very creative’, 2 was ‘creative’, 3 was’ rather creative than not creative’, 4 was ‘rather not creative than creative’, 5 was ’ not creative’ and 6 was ‘very not creative’. Cronbach’s alpha was .901.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was measured by the Pearlin Mastery score (Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman & Mullan, 1981). For each statement, the respondent ranked the strength of his or her agreement on a scale of one (“strongly disagree”) to five (“strongly agree”) (Kuhnen and Melzer, 2018). Cronbach’s alpha was .912.
Organizational tenure
The organizational tenure of respondents was measured with one item: ‘Hoelang bent u al werkzaam bij uw huidige werkgever?’ Respondents needed to answer this item in years.
Actual number of teams
Last, the actual number of teams was measured with the following item: ‘In hoeveel verschillende teams bent u op dit moment werkzaam?’
Control variables
may influence the dependent variable of this study; the actual number of teams (Pluut et al, 2014; Chen et al, 2018; Brake et al, 2018).
Employee gender
Employee gender was measured with one item within the Qualtrics survey: ‘Wat is uw geslacht?’ (1= male, 2= female)
Employee age
Employee age was also measured with one item: ‘Wat is uw leeftijd?’ Respondents needed to answer this open-ended question in years.
Education-level
The education-level of respondents was tested with one item: ‘Wat is uw hoogst behaalde opleidingsniveau?’ (1= Geen onderwijs/ basisonderwijs/ lagere school, 2= LBO/ VBO/ VMBO (kader- en beroepsgerichte leerweg, 3= MAVO/ eerste 3 jaar HAVO en VWO/ VMBO (theoretische en gemengde leerweg, 4= MBO, 5= HAVO en VWO bovenbouw/ WO-propedeuse, 6= HBO/ WO-bachelor of kandidaats, 7= WO-doctoraal of master)
The surveys were conducted in Dutch, which made it necessary to translate the scales into Dutch using a double-blind back-translation procedure.
Data analysis
enough evidence to use those scales for the judgment of the hypotheses (Vaske, Beaman, & Sponarski, 2017).
After the internal consistency measurements, the descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were analyzed with the use of SPSS. The main effects of the four possible antecedents of the motivation to work in multiple teams: organization tenure, information overload, openness to experience, and self-efficacy were measured with linear regression on the motivation to work in multiple teams. Last, the PROCESS analysis of Hayes (2018) was used to test the proposed mediation, moderation, and total moderated mediation effect. Consequentially, I used model 14 from the PROCESS analysis of Hayes (2018) to check five specific aspects. First, the moderating role of job autonomy on the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams. Second, I inspected with this analysis the conditional indirect relationship between information overload and the actual number of teams at three levels of job autonomy, namely low job autonomy (16th percentile), mod job autonomy (50th percentile) and, high job autonomy (84th percentile). Third, the conditional indirect relationship between openness to experience and the actual number of teams with the same three levels of job autonomy. Fourth, the conditional indirect relationship between self-efficacy and the actual number of teams with the three levels of job autonomy. Last, I used this analysis from Hayes (2018) to test the conditional indirect relationship between organization tenure and the actual number of teams with again the same three levels of job autonomy. Within this PROCESS analysis, I added the following control variables: employee gender, employee age, and education-direction.
Results
Descriptive statisticsTable 1 shows the mean, standard deviation and intercorrelation of the following ten variables: motivation to work in multiple teams (1), job autonomy (2), information overload (3), openness to experience (4), self-efficacy (5), actual number of teams (6), organizational tenure (7), employee gender (8), employee age (9), and the education-level (10). First, related to the control variables, as expected, employee gender, age, and education-level indeed influenced the actual number of teams. Employee gender was negatively related to the actual number of teams (r=-.351, p<0.01), while employee age (r=.386, p<0.01) and education-level
(r=.232, p<0.01) were positively related to the actual number of teams in which respondents
work simultaneously. Results further indicated that there were more significant relationships with a connection to the control variables.
The gender of employees was negatively related with the motivation to work in multiple teams, openness to experience, self-efficacy, and education level: r=-.382, p<0.01; r=-.348,
p<0.01; r=-.305, p<0.01; r=-.292, p<0.01, respectively. Meanwhile, employee gender was
positively connected to information overload (r=.209, p<0.05).
Second, in this study, the data showed also significant correlations between employee age and the motivation to work in multiple teams (r=.388, p<0.01), information overload
(r=-.182, p<0.05), openness to experience (r=.230, p<0.01), self-efficacy (r=.269, p<0.01), and
organizational tenure (r=.607, p<0.01).
Third, the education-level of employees was positively related with the motivation to work in multiple teams, openness to experience, and self-efficacy: r=.370, p<0.01; r=.352,
p<0.01; r=.400, p<0.01, respectively. In contrast, the education-level of respondents was
Furthermore, the data indicated some additional significant relationships between the four proposed determinants of the motivation to work in multiple teams: openness to experience, information overload, self-efficacy, and organizational tenure. Results indicated namely that information overload was negatively related to the other three determinants, openness to experience (r=-.628, p<0.01), self-efficacy (r=-.738, p<0.01), and organization tenure (r=-.290, p<0.01). However, openness to experience was positively related to both, self-efficacy (r=.697, p<0.01) and organizational tenure (r=.358, p<0.01). Last, there was a positive connection between the self-efficacy and organizational tenure of the respondents
(r=.354, p<0.01).
Hypotheses testing (hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d)
The main effects of the four possible antecedents of the motivation to work in multiple teams: organization tenure, information overload, openness to experience, and self-efficacy were measured with linear regression on the motivation to work in multiple teams.
First, hypothesis 3a predicted that organizational tenure would have a positive effect on the motivation of employees to work in multiple teams simultaneously. The results of the performed linear regression showed that there was indeed a significant positive relationship between the organization tenure and the motivation to work in multiple teams (B = .0144, SE
= .0062, p< 0,05). This means employees with a higher level on organizational tenure are more
motivated to work in multiple teams at the same time. Therefore, hypothesis 3a is supported by the data.
employees who score a higher level of information overload are less motivated to work in multiple teams simultaneously. Hence, hypothesis 3b is supported.
Third, hypothesis 3c suggested that openness to experience higher the motivation to work in multiple teams. The results of the performed regression analysis showed indeed a significant positive relationship between openness to experience and the motivation to work in multiple teams (B = .2280, SE = .0651, p< 0,001). Therefore, hypothesis 3c is supported by the data. Employees who score higher on openness to experience are more motivated to work in multiple teams at the same time.
Last, hypothesis 3d proposed that self-efficacy positively relates to the motivation to work in multiple teams. Using a linear regression procedure, as further depicted in table 2, results did confirm a positive connection between self-efficacy and the motivation to work in multiple teams (B = .3720, SE = .1134, p< 0,01). Workers with high self-efficacy are indeed more motivated to work in multiple teams simultaneously. Hence, hypothesis 3d can be confirmed by the data.
As further depicted in table 2, the motivation for employees to work in multiple teams becomes bigger when they have a high organizational tenure, a low level of information overload, a high score on openness to experience, and a high level of self-efficacy.
Hypotheses testing (hypotheses 1 and 2)
Related to hypothesis 1, the data showed a significant positive relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams simultaneously and the actual number of teams (B =
.7961, SE = .2028, p< 0,001). So, as suggested, employees who are more motivated to work in
multiple teams at the same time are indeed working in more teams. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is supported by the data as further depicted in table 3.
Hypothesis 2 predicted job autonomy to positively moderate the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams. As shown in table 3 the respective moderating term had indeed a significantly positive effect on the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of different teams (B
= .4996, SE = .2104, p< 0,05). Hence, hypothesis 2 was accepted. So, job autonomy positively
moderates the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams, so this relationship is stronger when the level of autonomy is higher. This interaction effect, together with all the other results of the PROCESS analysis are further depicted in table 3.
Moderated mediation model
Hence, the overall pattern of results was supportive of the moderated mediation model as suggested within this research. To formally test this whole model, I used the conditional indirect effects of the four independent variables on the actual number of teams (Hayes, 2018) at three different levels of job autonomy, namely with a low job autonomy (16th percentile), a mod job autonomy (50th percentile), and a high job autonomy (84th percentile).
the lower section of table 3, organizational tenure and the actual number of teams were indeed positively and indirectly related (trough the motivation to work in multiple teams) under conditions with a low job autonomy (indirect effect = .0020, 95% CI = -.0080 to .0124), mod job autonomy (indirect effect = .0034, 95% CI = -.0125 to .0173), and high job autonomy (indirect effect = .0048, 95% CI = -.0174 to .0237) as indicated by a percentile confidence interval that excluded zero. In conclusion, this result suggested that the indirect effect of organizational tenure to the actual number of teams through the motivation to work in multiple teams significantly differs based on the level of job autonomy.
Second, the conditional indirect relationship between information overload and the actual number of teams at three levels of job autonomy (high job autonomy, mod job autonomy, and low job autonomy) was measured. Within this study, I expected that this indirect effect was more pronounced for employees who are high, rather than low, on job autonomy. Depicted in the lower section of table 3, information overload and the actual number of teams were indeed negatively and indirectly related (trough the motivation to work in multiple teams) under conditions with a low job autonomy (indirect effect = -.1060, 95% CI = -.2782 to -.0007), mod job autonomy (indirect effect = -.1816, 95% CI = -.3917 to -.0318), and high job autonomy (indirect effect = -.2571, 95% CI = -.5424 to .0454) as indicated by a percentile confidence interval that excluded zero. This showed that the indirect effect of information overload to the actual number of teams through the motivation to work in multiple teams significantly differs based on the level of job autonomy.
positively and indirectly related (trough the motivation to work in multiple teams) under conditions with a low job autonomy (indirect effect = .0919, 95% CI = .0011 to .2341), mod job autonomy (indirect effect = .1573, 95% CI = .0279 to .3241), and high job autonomy (indirect effect = .2228, 95% CI = .0379 to .4449) as indicated by a percentile confidence interval that excluded zero. According to the data, the indirect effect of openness to experience to the actual number of teams through the motivation to work in multiple teams significantly differs based on the level of job autonomy.
Last, the conditional indirect relationship between self-efficacy and the actual number of teams at three levels of job autonomy (high job autonomy, mod job autonomy, and low job autonomy) was measured with PROCESS. Within this study, I expected that this indirect effect was more pronounced for employees who are high, rather than low, on job autonomy. Depicted in the lower section of table 3, self-efficacy and the actual number of teams were indeed positively and indirectly related (trough the motivation to work in multiple teams) under conditions with a low job autonomy (indirect effect = .1377, 95% CI = -.0056 to .3690), mod job autonomy (indirect effect = .2358, 95% CI = .0291 to .4938), and high job autonomy (indirect effect = .3339, 95% CI = .0428 to .6767) as indicated by a percentile confidence interval that excluded zero. So, the indirect effect of self-efficacy to the actual number of teams through the motivation to work in multiple teams do significantly differs based on the level of job autonomy.
To conclude, all confidence levels excluded zero. Therefore, the proposed moderated-mediation model can be confirmed by the data.
Discussion
relationship between the motivation and the intensity/duration of that same behavior, but within the literature, the motivation to work in multiple teams was an unknown variable (Balven et al, 2018; Egger & Kaul, 2018). Therefore, it was necessary to set up an own measurement scale. This scale gained a Cronbach’s alpha of .877, which provided enough evidence to use this scale. Developing a measurement scale for a new construct was the first contribution of this study.
Second, with the use of this self-developed scale, the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams was measured. The data showed that employees who are more motivated to work in multiple teams at the same time are indeed working in more teams simultaneously. However, employees do not always have the possibility to do what they want. Therefore, the moderating role of job autonomy on the relationship between the motivation to work in multiple teams and the actual number of teams was tested (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018). I indicated that this relationship is stronger when the level of job autonomy is higher. In other words, this relationship is more pronounced for employees who are high, rather than low, on job autonomy.
Third, beyond clarifying the effect of the motivation to work in multiple teams on the actual number of teams and the connecting moderating effect of job autonomy, the findings of this research also included antecedents of the motivation to work in multiple teams. Motivated employees perform significantly better, which made it relevant to know what determinants will higher or lower the motivation of employees to work in multiple teams simultaneously (Wiyono, 2018). Besides, employees who are more motivated to work in multiple teams at the same time are indeed working in more teams simultaneously according to the data, which made it even more interesting to consider the antecedents of the motivation to work in multiple teams.
motivated to work in multiple teams at the same time. Second, employees who score high on information overload are less motivated to work in multiple teams simultaneously. Third, the data illustrated a significant positive relationship between openness to experience and the motivation to work in multiple teams. Last, in this study, I showed that workers with high self-efficacy are more motivated to work in multiple teams simultaneously.
All in all, the outcomes confirmed that people with a high organizational tenure, openness to experience and self-efficacy are more motivated to work in multiple teams. On the contrary, information overload is negatively related to the motivation to work in multiple teams.
Practical Implications
From a practical perspective, organizations can use the results to improve the effectiveness of their employees. According to Bertolotti et al. (2015), organizations still use MTM ineffectively, and they mention that there is improvement necessary to get the most out of the huge possibilities, connected to MTM. The results of this research can help organizations to set up a more effective MTM program within companies.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
Like any study, the present one has some limitations which consequently suggest directions for future research. First, there were some issues with the generalizability of the 128 respondents. I promoted the survey on my own social media platforms, which affected the final group of respondents. In comparison with all the Dutch citizens, I concluded that the education-level of the respondents is too high (CBS, 2018). Furthermore, the respondents of this study needed to have a higher average age correlated with the average age in the Netherlands (CBS, 2018). For these reasons, the respondents of the survey were not completely representative of the Dutch citizens. Therefore, it is interesting to repeat this study with another group of respondents.
Second, I collected some background information from the respondents. Their age, gender, and education-level had significant consequences on the actual number of teams and their motivation to work in multiple teams. Otherwise, there was no attention within this study for respondents’ job-direction, although multiple team membership is a job-related variable (Pluut et al, 2014). Therefore, it seems that the job-direction of respondents can also have significant influences on the actual number of teams and their motivation to work in multiple teams. Hence, I encourage future research to build on the present findings and to add the role of respondents’ job-direction.
Last, I tested the hypotheses with a quantitative approach. With quantitative research, it can be difficult to understand the context of a phenomenon (Robertshaw, 2007). In this study, the quantitative approach resulted in useful data, however, it is interesting to get more information on explaining why the respondents think and behave in certain ways. Therefore, it seems useful to conduct qualitative research in future research about the determinants of employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams. Qualitative research is, namely, an open-ended process, which makes it possible to get underneath and emotional responses. Within proposed future qualitative research, I expect a broader view of the determinants of employees’ motivation to work in multiple teams.
Conclusion
References
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational Synergy: toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3), 185.
Balven, R., Fenters, V., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. (2018). Academic Entrepreneurship: The Roles of Identity, Motivation, Championing, Education, Work-Life Balance, and Organizational Justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 21–42.
Batova, T. (2018). Work Motivation in the Rhetoric of Component Content Management.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 32(3), 308–346.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Beenen, G. (2015). How Do I Keep My Employees Motivated? The Practice of Empathy-Based Management. Personnel Psychology, 68(4), 929–930.
Bertolotti, F., Mattarelli, E., Vignoli, M., & Macrì, D. M. (2015). Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Research Policy, 44(4), 911–924.
Bohlmann, C., Krumbholz, L., & Zacher, H. (2018). The triple bottom line and organizational attractiveness ratings: The role of pro‐environmental attitude. Corporate Social
Responsibility & Environmental Management, 25(5), 912–919.
CBS. (2018). CBS StatLine - Bevolking; onderwijsniveau; geslacht, leeftijd en
migratieachtergrond. Retrieved from:
https://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=82275NED&D1=0&D2=
0&D3=0,2-8&D4=1,4-5&D5=0,3,5-6,9-11,14,16-17&D6=l&HDR=T,G1,G5,G2&STB=G3,G4&VW=T.
Cerrone, C., & Manna, E. (2018). Pay for Performance with Motivated Employees. B.E.
Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 18(1), 1–8.
Chan, K. Y. (2014). Multiple project team membership and performance: Empirical evidence from engineering project teams. South African Journal of Economic Management
Sciences, 17, 76–90.
Chen, G., Smith, T., Kirkman, B., Zhang, P., Lemoine, G., & Farh, J. (2018). Multiple team membership and empowerment spillover effects: Can empowerment processes cross team boundaries? Journal of Applied Psychology.
Drysdale, M. T. B., & McBeath, M. (2018). Motivation, self-efficacy and learning strategies of university students participating in work-integrated learning. Journal of Education &
Work, 31(5/6), 478–488.
Cummings, J. N., & Haas, M. R. (2012). So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 316–341. Darr, W. A., Ebel-Lam, A., & Doucet, R. G. (2018). Investigating the Extravert Advantage in
Training: Exploring Reward Sensitivity, Training Motivation, and Self-Efficacy as Intermediary Factors. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 50(3), 172–184. Eppler, M. J. (2015). Information quality and information overload: The promises and perils of
the information age. In L. Cantoni & J. A. Danowski (Eds.), Communication and
Jafri, M. H. (2018). Moderating Role of Job Autonomy and Supervisor Support in Trait Emotional Intelligence and Employee Creativity Relationship. Vision (09722629), 22(3), 253–263.
Haas, E., Ryan, M., & Hoebbel, C. (2018). JOB AUTONOMY & SAFETY CLIMATE: Examining Associations in the Mining Industry. Professional Safety, 63(12), 30–34. Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4-40.
Heyns, M., & Rothmann, S. (2018). Volitional Trust, Autonomy Satisfaction, and Engagement at Work. Psychological Reports, 121(1), 112–134.
Hur, W.-M., Moon, T.-W., & Ko, S.-H. (2018). How Employees’ Perceptions of CSR Increase Employee Creativity: Mediating Mechanisms of Compassion at Work and Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 629–644.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308.
KUHNEN, C. M., & MELZER, B. T. (2018). Noncognitive Abilities and Financial Delinquency: The Role of Self‐Efficacy in Avoiding Financial Distress. Journal of
Finance, 73(6), 2837–2869.
Lakhal, S., Frenette, É., Sévigny, S., & Khechine, H. (2012). Relationship between choice of a business major type (thing-oriented versus person-oriented) and Big Five personality traits. International Journal of Management Education (Oxford Brookes University), 10(2), 88–100.
Martin, A., & Bal, V. (2006). The state of teams. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
McEnrue, M. P. (1988). Length of experience and the performance of managers in the establishment phase of their careers. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 175–185. Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Observations and commentary on recent research in work
motivation. Motivation and Work Behavior, 7, 225–254.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., Asencio, R., Seely, P. W., & DeChurch, L. A. (2018). How Organizational Identity Affects Team Functioning: The Identity Instrumentality Hypothesis. Journal of Management, 44(4), 1530–1550.
Mo, G. Y., & Wellman, B. (2016). The effects of multiple team membership on networking online and offline: using multilevel multiple membership modeling. Information,
Communication & Society, 19(9), 1250–1266.
Mortensen, M. (2014). Constructing the team: The antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organization Science, 25, 909–931.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Organizational Tenure and Job Performance. Journal
of Management, 36(5), 1220–1250.
Raharjo, K., Nurjannah, Solimun, & Achmad Rinaldo Fernandes, A. (2018). The influence of organizational culture and job design on job commitment and human resource performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(7), 1346–1367. Robertshaw, G. (2007). Epistemological limitations in quantitative marketing research:
implications for empirical generalisations. Journal of Empirical Generalisations in
Marketing Science, 11, 1–13.
O'Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams.
Parker, S.K., Axtell, C.M. & Turner, N. (2001). Designing a safer workplace: Importance of job autonomy, communication quality and supportive supervisors. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 211-228.
Pearlin, Leonard I., Elizabeth. G. Menaghan, Morton A. Lieberman, and Joseph T. Mullan. (1981). The stress process, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(12), 337–356. Pinder, C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Pluut, H., Flestea, A., & Curseu, P. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 18(4), 333-348. Schallberger, U. & Venetz, M. (1999). Kurzversion des MRS-Inventars von Ostendorf (1990)
zur Erfassung der fünf “großen” Persönlichkeitsfaktoren [Short version of the MRS-Inventory by Ostendorf (1990) to assess the “Big Five” personality factors]. Abteilung
Angewandte Psychologie, 30(1), 1–51.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A., B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716.
Schmitt, J. B., Debbelt, C. A., & Schneider, F. M. (2018). Too much information? Predictors of information overload in the context of online news exposure. Information,
Communication & Society, 21(8), 1151–1167.
Schwaba, T., Denissen, J. J. A., Chung, J. M., Luhmann, M., & Bleidom, W. (2018). Openness to Experience and Culture-Openness Transactions Across the Lifespan. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 115(1), 118–136.
Sims Jr., H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. (1976). The Measurement of Job Characteristics.
Academy of Management Journal, 19(2), 195–212.
Starr, E., Ganco, M., & Campbell, B. A. (2018). Strategic human capital management in the context of cross‐industry and within‐industry mobility frictions. Strategic Management
Journal, 39(8), 2226–2254.
Steinbauer, R., Renn, R. W., Chen, H. S., & Rhew, N. (2018). Workplace ostracism, self-regulation, and job performance: Moderating role of intrinsic work motivation. Journal
of Social Psychology, 158(6), 767–783.
Stiglbauer, B., & Kovacs, C. (2018). The more, the better? Curvilinear effects of job autonomy on well-being from vitamin model and PE-fit theory perspectives. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 23(4), 520–536.
Tae Seok Yang, Pandey, A., Yin-Chi Liao, & Dobson, J. J. (2017). A Path from Job Autonomy to Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Perceived Organizational Politics as Mediator. Journal of Business & Accounting, 10(1), 44–56.
Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., & Sponarski, C. C. (2017). Rethinking Internal Consistency in Cronbach’s Alpha. Leisure Sciences, 39(2), 163–173.
Williamson, J., Christopher Eaker, P., & Lounsbury, J. (2012). Identifying factors of online news comments. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 49(1), 1-3.
Wiyono, B. B. (2018). The effect of self-evaluation on the principals’ transformational leadership, teachers’ work motivation, teamwork effectiveness, and school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(6), 705–725. Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundstrom, P., & Engwall, M. (2006). Project overload: An exploratory
study of work and management in multi-project settings. International Journal of
Appendix
Appendix A
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and Correlations
Note. a Male (1), Female (2). b 1= Geen onderwijs/ basisonderwijs/ lagere school, 2= LBO/
VBO/ VMBO (kader- en beroepsgerichte leerweg, 3= MAVO/ eerste 3 jaar HAVO en VWO/ VMBO (theoretische en gemengde leerweg, 4= MBO, 5= HAVO en VWO bovenbouw/ WO-propedeuse, 6= HBO/ WO-bachelor of kandidaats, 7= WO-doctoraal of master
Table 2: Results linear regression
Mediator variable
Predictor Motivation to work in multiple teams
B SE t p
Constant -,19598 ,5574 -3,5161 ,0006***
Table 3: Results PROCESS analyses
Dependent variable
Predictor Actual number of teams
B SE t p Constant 3,7289 1,5489 2,4075 ,0176 Study variables Organizational tenure ,0820 ,0161 5,0942 ,0000*** Information overload -,1613 ,1897 -,8501 ,3970 Openness to experience ,2755 ,1485 1,8553 ,0661 Self-efficacy -,1974 ,2635 -,7493 ,4552 Motivation to work in multiple teams (H1) ,7961 ,2028 3,9253 ,0001*** Job-autonomy ,6436 ,1772 3,6322 ,0004*** Moderating effect (H2) ,4996 ,2104 2,3743 ,0192* Control variables Employee gender -,3828 ,2787 -1,3734 ,1723 Employee age -,0112 ,0122 -,9134 ,3629 Education-direction -,1125 ,1242 -,9058 ,3669 *p<.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Conditional indirect relationship between organizational tenure and the actual number of teams.
95% percentile confidence interval Moderator value Indirect relationship Lower limit Upper limit 1 Low job autonomy (16th
percentile)
.0020 -.0080 .0124
2 Mod job autonomy (50th percentile)
.0034 -.0125 .0173
3 High job autonomy (84th percentile)
Conditional indirect relationship between information overload and the actual number of teams.
95% percentile confidence interval Moderator value Indirect relationship Lower limit Upper limit 1 Low job autonomy (16th
percentile)
-.1060 -.2782 -.0007
2 Mod job autonomy (50th percentile)
-.1816 -.3917 -.0318
3 High job autonomy (84th percentile)
-.2571 -.5424 -.0454
Conditional indirect relationship between openness to experience and the actual number of teams.
95% percentile confidence interval Moderator value Indirect relationship Lower limit Upper limit 1 Low job autonomy (16th
percentile)
.0919 .0011 .2341
2 Mod job autonomy (50th percentile)
.1573 .0279 .3241
3 High job autonomy (84th percentile)
.2228 .0379 .4449
Conditional indirect relationship between self-efficacy and the actual number of teams.
95% percentile confidence interval Moderator value Indirect relationship Lower limit Upper limit 1 Low job autonomy (16th
percentile)
.1377 -.0056 .3690
2 Mod job autonomy (50th percentile)
.2358 .0291 .4938
3 High job autonomy (84th percentile)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Low Job autonomy Mod Job autonomy High Job autonomy
Moderating; Job Autonomy
Low motivation Mod motivation High motivation
Appendix B
Measurement scales
Motivation to work in multiple teams (own developed-scale).
1. Mijn voorkeur gaat uit naar het werken in meerdere teams tegelijkertijd in plaats van het werken in één team.
2. Ik vind het plezierig om met veel verschillende mensen in verschillende teams samen te werken.
3. Ik prefereer het individuele werken boven het samenwerken in één team of meerdere teams. (R)
4. Ik zou graag meer tijd willen besteden aan het werken in meerdere teams.
5. Ik zou het erg stressvol vinden om werkzaam te zijn in meerdere teams op hetzelfde moment. (R)
Job autonomy (original by Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller (1976)).
1. How much are you left on your own to do your own work?
2. To what extent are you able to act independently of your supervisor in performing your job function?
3. To what extent are you able to do your job independently of others? 4. The freedom to do pretty much what I want on my job
5. The opportunity for independent thought and action
Job autonomy (translated by a double-blind back-translation procedure).
1. In welke mate wordt u vrij gelaten om uw eigen werk in te vullen?
2. In welke mate kunt u zelf de inhoud van uw werk bepalen en vormgeven? 3. In welke mate kunt u uw werk onafhankelijk van uw collega’s uitvoeren?
4. Ik welke mate heeft u de vrijheid om zelf de volgorde van uw werkzaamheden te bepalen?
5. In welke mate kunt u binnen uw functie zelfstandig opereren?
Information overload (Schmitt, Debbelt, and Schneider (2018)).
1. It is sometimes hard for me to concentrate because of all the information I have to assimilate
2. I feel overwhelmed learning a new subject or topic because there is so much information 3. I am confronted by an avalanche of Email, phone and text messages each day.
4. I have so much information to manage on a daily basis that it is hard for me to prioritize tasks.
5. I sometimes feel numb and incapable of action because of all the information I have to process on a daily basis.
Information overload (translated by a double-blind back-translation procedure).
1. Ik kan me soms moeilijk concentreren door alle informatie die ik moet verwerken. 2. Ik voel me soms overweldigd bij het leren van een nieuwe dingen, omdat ik dan zo veel
extra informatie moet verwerken.
4. Ik krijg zoveel informatie te verwerken dat het soms lastig is om mijn taken te prioriteren.
5. Ik voel me soms niet in staat bepaalde taken uit te voeren vanwege de grote hoeveelheid informatie die ik moet verwerken.
Openness to experience (Schallberger and Venetz (1999)).
1. Künstlerisch - Unkünstlerisch 2. Kreativ – Unkreativ 3. Originell – Konventionell 4. Phantasievoll – Phantasielos 5. Intelligent – Unintelligent 6. Gebildet – Ungebildet
Openness to experience (translated by a double-blind back-translation procedure)
1. Kunstzinnig – Niet-kunstzinnig (R) 2. Creatief – Niet-creatief (R) 3. Origineel - Conventioneel (R) 4. Fantasierijk - Fantasieloos (R) 5. Intelligent - Dom (R) 6. Ontwikkeld - Onderontwikkeld (R)
Self-efficacy (Pearlin, Menaghan, Lieberman, and Mullan (1981)).
1. No way I can solve some of the problems I have 2. Sometimes I feel that I am being pushed around in life 3. I have little control over the things that happen to me 4. I can do just about anything I really set my mind to 5. I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of life 6. What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me
7. There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life
Self-efficacy (translated by a double-blind back-translation procedure)
1. Sommige problemen die ik heb zijn onoplosbaar. (R)
2. Soms heb ik het gevoel dat ik heen en weer wordt geslingerd in het leven. (R) 3. Ik heb weinig controle over de dingen die met me gebeuren. (R)
4. Ik kan alles voor elkaar krijgen als ik mij ertoe zet.
5. Ik voel me weleens hulpeloos bij het oplossen van mijn problemen. (R) 6. Wat er met mij gaat gebeuren in de toekomst hangt vooral van mijzelf af. 7. Er is weinig dat ik kan veranderen aan de belangrijkste dingen in het level. (R)
