Connecting working in multidisciplinary teams to autonomous motivation: the mediating role of the fulfillment of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness
Floris Vonk S2324199
Master Human Resource Management 5 June 2017 First supervisor: Eric Molleman Second supervisor: Gepke Veenstra
Abstract
Health care organizations increasingly use multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) to solve complex health care problems. Despite a growing stream of academic studies exploring the functions and benefits of working in MDTs, previous research has not examined how MDTs effect individual autonomous motivation. I propose that the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness mediates the relationship between MDTs and autonomous motivation. Data were collected within an Intensive Care (IC) department of a large health care organization in the Netherlands. The results show that working in MDTs does not lead to autonomous motivation through the fulfillment of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Additionally, I found no relationship between the satisfaction of the need for competence and autonomous motivation. However, I did find that the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy and relatedness is positively related to autonomous motivation. This finding regarding the positive relationship between the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy and relatedness and autonomous motivation corresponds with Self-determination theory (SDT).
Introduction
In recent decades, health care problems have become more and more complex (Hudson, 2002). Due to an aging society, patients increasingly have multiple and interrelated problems (Heinemann & Zeiss, 2012). Additionally, due to technological developments, the variety of comprehensive diagnoses and treatments in health care increases the need for applicable knowledge, all of which cannot be possessed by single individuals. Health care professionals are therefore increasingly specializing in a particular functional group (Wilson, Holt & Greenbalhg, 2001). Given these trends, it is likely that health care problems require contributions from professionals with different occupational backgrounds. To coordinate these contributions, health care organizations use working arrangements such as multidisciplinary teams (MDTs).
making through debate and therefore enhance the quality of decisions (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Secondly, through a greater range of knowledge and perspectives MDTs are better equipped to make creative and innovative solutions (van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2012; Mitchell & Boyle, 2015). Whereas previous research found positive effects of MDT on decision making, creativity and innovation, the effect on individual autonomous motivation is largely overlooked. Knowing if MDT is related to autonomous motivation could be valuable for organizations because it is related to important work outcomes (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Autonomous motivation can be defined as the energy or force, to take on behavior, and to shape this behavior’s form, intensity, and duration because it is interesting, enjoyable or important to an individual’s internalized values (Pinder, 1998; Perreira, Innis & Berta, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomous motivation is determined by the fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The basic psychological needs are the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness leads to autonomous motivation because fulfillment of these basic psychological needs are essential for individuals to function effectively, actualize their full potential and strive for growth. Individuals are therefore seeking for opportunities to fulfill these needs. Since the basic psychological needs are essential for the establishment of autonomous motivation, I am interested in the extent to which working in an MDT contributes to the satisfaction of health care professionals’ basic psychological needs, and subsequently, their autonomous motivation. The main goal of this study will therefore be investigating the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation and if this relationship is mediated by the fulfillment of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness.
sense of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Molleman, Broekhuis, Stoffels & Japsers, 2008; Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012; Thylefors, 2000) they have not made the connection with autonomous motivation. Thirdly, this study will contribute to the literature on Self Determination Theory (SDT). Although SDT has a strong empirical foundation, there are only few studies that have tested SDT in an organizational context (Ryan & Deci, 2000). MDTs are part of organizational context. Performing this research will therefore enlarge the application, test the validity and test reliability of the theoretical foundation of SDT.
In sum, I will investigate whether the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation is mediated by the fulfillment of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. In order to answer this research question, a quantitative study will be performed among health care professionals working in a large health care organization.
Theoretical background
The basic psychological needs.
Satisfaction of the basic psychological needs leads to autonomous motivation because of the internalization of extrinsic motivation and enhancement of intrinsic motivation ( (2000) & Deci, 2005). The fulfillment depends on the extent to which the organizational environment provides support for the fulfillment of these basic psychological needs.
Autonomous motivation.
In this research I am only interested in motivation that is autonomously regulated and not controlled by the environment (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Autonomous motivation is being willing to take on a behavior or shape behavior, because it is interesting to the person itself or experienced as enjoyable (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Additionally, motivation can also be autonomous when environmental (i.e. external) forces are fully internalized. Individuals therefore sense a personal importance to engage in particular behavior (Gagne & Deci, 2005). For example, an individual engages in behavior without a managers instructions and supervision (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Linking MDT to autonomous motivation and the mediating role of the need for autonomy
an activity” (Chiniara & Benthein, 2014, pp.127) Kirkman and Rosen (1999) argue that MDTs can only be effective when they are autonomous. Therefore, MDTs are probably highly autonomous within an organization (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Langfred, 2004). Given that MTD’s are generally given a lot of autonomy, individuals who are part of a MDT might experience an increased sense of autonomy (van Mierlo, Rutte, Vermunt, Kompier, & Doorewaard, 2006).
On the other hand, it could be argued that the fulfillment of the need for autonomy is decreased through shared decision making. Some organizational members have a high level of autonomy, much freedom in decision making and are not very dependent on the instructions of others. (Hackman & Oldman, 1976). When these professionals join MDTs, they need to share decision making with other group members (Molleman et al., 2008; Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012). This shared decision making causes that an individual’s sense of volition decreases. Based on this reasoning, it can be stated that the use of MDT decreases the fulfillment of autonomy. (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Despite contradicting arguments, I predict that shared decision making has a stronger negative effect on the fulfillment of autonomy (van Mierlo et al. 2006; Langfred, 2007). Based on this argumentation it has been argued that working in a MDT decreases health care professionals’ satisfaction on the need for autonomy.
H1a: Working in MDT is negatively related to the fulfillment of the need of autonomy.
Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest that self-regulation is a necessity and a requirement for the satisfaction of the need for autonomy. Individuals who experience less autonomy feel that they can make fewer work related decisions that are meaningful and consistent with their own interest (Gagne & Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). This argument can be substantiated by the job characteristics model from Hackman and Oldman (1975). Hackman and Oldman (1975) suggest that people who experience less autonomy in their jobs are less motivated because they experience less responsibility for their work outcome. Based on the arguments of Gagne, Deci, Hackman and Oldman (2005, 1975) I expect that a lower fulfillment of the need for autonomy will lead to a decrease in autonomous motivation.
H1b : A lower fulfillment of the need for autonomy is negatively related to autonomous motivation.
Based on previous argumentation, I state that MDT leads to a lower fulfillment of autonomy. Additionally, I argue that a lower fulfillment of autonomy leads to less autonomous motivation. I therefore hypothesize that MDT leads to a less autonomous motivation because the fulfillment of the need for autonomy is decreased. For an overview of the conceptual model see Figure 1.
H1: The fulfillment of the need for autonomy mediates the relationship between working in MDT and autonomous motivation.
Linking MDT to autonomous motivation and the mediating role of the need for competence
The need for competence can be defined as an “individual’s need for feeling effective in ongoing interactions with one's social environment and experiencing opportunities to exercise and master one's capacities” (Chiniara & Benthein, 2014, pp.128). Working in a MDT brings professionals with different occupational backgrounds together (Keller, 2001; Nahaphiet & Ghosall, 1998), which enables them to share their knowledge and experience (Kvarnström, 2008; Flinchbaugh, Luth & Chadwick, 2016). Sharing these experiences and knowledge contributes to the development of individual competence because individuals can learn from each other (O’Leary, Mortensen and Woolley, 2011). I therefore argue that when individuals are part of a multifunctional team, individuals develop their competences. These competences contribute to the feeling that they can be effective in their work (Lent, 2016). Therefore, working in a MDT will contribute to the fulfillment of an individual need for competence.
Additionally, MDT gives individuals the ability to share their knowledge and competence with others (Flinchbaugh et al., 2016; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005), which enables individuals to practice and demonstrate their capabilities.
Taking into account that working in a MDT gives individuals the ability to improve their competence to master the environment and give them the ability to practice and demonstrate their capabilities, I argue that MDT will lead to the fulfillment of the need for competence.
H2a: Working in MDT is positively related to the fulfillment of the need for competence.
have a satisfied need for competence are more autonomously motivated. Individuals with a highly satisfied need for competence believe that they possess the internal resources to achieve desirable outcomes and are able to change their environment, which subsequently leads to a higher level of individual autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005; White, 1959; Chiniara & Bentein, 2014). This argument by Ryan and Deci can also be substantiated by theories from other researchers, in particular the self-efficacy theory from Loeb, Stempel and Isakson (2010) and the outcome expectancy theory from Cook and Artino (2016). Self-efficacy theory and outcome expectancy theory argue, in slightly different words, that when individuals believe and are confident that they can accomplish the desired outcome they are more autonomously motivated (Cook and Artino, 2016; Loeb et al., 2010). Based on SDT, self-efficacy and outcome expectation theory I can argue that when there is a higher fulfillment of the individual need for competence this will lead to more autonomous motivation.
H2b: A higher fulfillment of the need for competence is positively related to autonomous motivation.
Based on previous argumentation I state that working in MDT leads to a higher fulfillment of competence. Additionally, I argue that a higher fulfillment of the need for competence leads to more autonomous motivation. I therefore expect that MDT leads to more autonomous motivation because the fulfillment of the need for competence is increased. For an overview of the conceptual model see Figure 1.
H2: The fulfillment of the need for competence mediates the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation.
Linking MDT to autonomous motivation and the mediating effect of the need for relatedness.
Richter, West, Dick, Dawson, 2006). Therefore, I could argue that individuals are capable of identifying with the MDT and with their functional group simultaneously. Working in an MDT gives individuals the opportunity to expand the number of relationships with others, and therefore increase the satisfaction of the need for relatedness (Kumar & Jauhari, 2016).
H3a: Working in multidisciplinary teams is positively related to the fulfillment of the need for relatedness.
Gagne and Deci (2005) suggest that that the satisfaction of an individual’s need for interdependencies, work group identification, respectful and concerned interactions (i.e. relatedness) will lead to autonomous motivation. This linkage between the need for relatedness and autonomous motivation can be explained by the internalization of extrinsic motivation. Working in groups causes individuals to internalize the group values and regulations because of group identification (Gagne & Deci, 2005). This argument could be substantiated by the theory of the need for belongingness by Baumeister and Leary (1995). The theory on the need for belongingness suggests that an individual’s need to interact with and be related to others is a great source of motivation. On the individual level, belonging to a group results in positive emotions, activity of cognitive processes and social identification (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Working in a group causes individuals to experience positive emotions, cognition and social identification; and is therefore a source for individuals to, autonomously and volitionally, internalize group identification to oneself. I could therefore argue that the need for belongingness leads to autonomous motivation. Based on SDT and the need for belongingness theory I can state that the fulfillment of the need for relatedness will lead to autonomous motivation.
H3b: A higher fulfillment of the need for relatedness is positively related to autonomous motivation.
Based on previous argumentation I state that MDT leads to a higher fulfillment of relatedness. Additionally, I argue that higher fulfillment of the need for relatedness leads to more autonomous motivation. I therefore expect that MDT leads to more autonomous motivation because the fulfillment of the need for relatedness is increased. For an overview of the conceptual model see Figure 1.
H3: The fulfillment of relatedness mediates the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation. Figure 1: Conceptual model Methodology
Sample and procedures
This study was conducted within the Intensive Care (IC) department of the Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) in Nijmegen. The employees of this IC department differ in the degree to which they are working in MDTs. By assessing MDT, the fulfillment of psychological needs and autonomous motivation, I was able to establish whether the fulfillment of basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation vary among different levels of participation in MDTs. Data were collected by means of quantitative research. An electronic invitation, including a link for a web-based survey, was sent to the 264 employees of the IC department.
Overall, 135 employees (male = 33; female = 99; missing = 3) responded. The response rate was therefore 52%. Ten respondents were excluded because they filled out none or only one measure of the questionnaire. Of the remaining 125 participants, 30 were male and 95 female. The average age of these 125 respondents was 41.77 years (SD = 11.60; min. age = 25; max. age = 64). The respondents belonged to different specialties. Of the 125 respondents, 84% were nurses, 6% were medical specialists, 9% were doctors in training and 2% represented other specialties.
Measures
Multidisciplinary teams
In order to measure the extent to which individuals work in MDTs, I adopted the measure from Van der Vegt, Emans and Van der Vliert (2001). In the IC department, multifunctional teams (Carrol, 2002) provide intensive and customized care for patients. Task interdependence can therefore be used to measure multifunctional collaboration (Wageman, 1995; Sethi, 2000). Van der Vegt et al. (2001) developed a scale with five items, which measures the task interdependence (α =.81) of professionals. I chose the measure of task interdependence from Van der Vegt et al. (2001) because it contains fewer items than other measures of task interdependence (Kinguddu, 1983; Mohr, 1971; Pearce and Gregersen, 1991). Van der Vegt et al. (2001) discarded three items that were redundant (Kinguddu, 1983; Mohr, 1971; Pearce and Gregersen, 1991) and created a five-item scale for measuring task interdependence.
An example question from Van der Vegt et al.’s five-item scale is: “Do I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly?” Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agree with this statement, on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “Totally disagree” and 5 = “Totally agree”).
Fulfillment of psychological needs
To measure the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness (i.e. basic psychological needs) I adopted the measure from Sheldon, Kim, Elliot and Kasser (2001). Sheldon et al. (2001) have developed a scale for all three basic psychological needs, which includes nine items in total. Three items in the questionnaire measured the fulfillment of the need for autonomy (α = .67). One example of these three statements was “I feel a sense
of choice and freedom in my work.” Three items measured the fulfillment of the need for competence (α = .51). One example statement was “I feel competent to achieve my work
goals.” Three scale items in the questionnaire measured the fulfillment of the need for relatedness (α = .71). One example of these three statements was “At work, I feel close and
connected with other people who are important to me.” For these nine items, participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with this statement, on a five-point Likert scale (1= “Totally disagree” and 5= “Totally agree”).
Autonomous motivation
al. (2015). Gagne et al. (2015), like Ryan and Deci (2000), make a distinction between different forms of motivation. In this study I am only interested in identified (α = .63) and intrinsic motivation (α = .85), because these types of motivation are part of autonomous motivation (Gagne et al., 2015). Ryan and Deci (2000) suggested that integrated motivation is also part of autonomous motivation. However, Gagne et al. (2015) found that integrated motivation can hardly be separated from intrinsic and identified motivation. Including integrated motivation will explain no additional variance in outcomes when intrinsic and identified motivation are used. I therefore did not include the integrated motivation in the composite score of autonomous motivation.
Three items of identified motivation and three items of intrinsic motivation were used to form a measure of autonomous motivation (α = .84). An example statement of identified motivation was “putting effort in my job aligns with my personal values” and an example of an intrinsic motivation item was “I have fun doing my job.” Participants were asked to indicate, on a seven-point Likert scale, to what extent this is the reason they put effort into their jobs (1 = “Not at all” and 7 = “Completely”).
Results
Descriptive statics
Table 1: Descriptives and correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age 41.77 11.60 -
2. Task interdependence (MDT) 5.44 1.14 .25** -
3. Fulfillment of need for autonomy 3.51 0.59 .11 -.01 -
4. Fulfillment of need for competence 3.93 0.48 -.03 .08 .24*** -
5. Fulfillment of need for relatedness 3.70 0.51 -.01 -.01 .52*** .29*** -
6. Autonomous motivation 5.03 0.81 .17 .08 .45*** 13 .33*** -
Note: N=121; * p < .10, ** p < .05,*** p < .01
Hypotheses testing
To test if the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs mediates the relationship between MDTs and autonomous motivation, I conducted a regression analysis, with MDTs as the independent variable, the three basic psychological needs as mediators and autonomous motivation as the dependent variable. Table 2,3 and 4 give an overview of the regression analyses results.
A regression analysis shows that there is no relationship between MDTs and the need for autonomy (R2 = .00, B = –. 01, t(121) = –.31, p = .76). Therefore, Hypothesis 1a is not
supported. Hypothesis 1b states that the fulfillment of the need for autonomy is related to autonomous motivation. The regression analysis shows that there is a positive relationship between the fulfillment of the need for autonomy and autonomous motivation (R2 = .22, B = .65, t(121) = 5.64, p = <.01). Hypothesis 1 states that the fulfillment of the need for autonomy mediates the relationship between working in MDTs and autonomous motivation. A regression analysis shows no support for Hypothesis 1 (R2 = .21, B = .06, t(121) = 1.12, p = .26). Furthermore, the Sobel test gives a non-significant result (Z = –.31, p = .76, κ2 = –.01). These results support Hypothesis 1b, but not hypotheses 1a and 1.
With regard to Hypothesis 2a, a regression analysis shows that MDTs are not related to the fulfillment of the need for competence (R2 = .01, B = .04, t(121) = .97, p = .33). Hypothesis 2b states that the fulfillment of the need for competence will be positively related to autonomous motivation. A regression analysis shows that there is no relationship between the fulfillment of the need for competence and autonomous motivation (R2 = .02, B = .20,
t(120) = 1.32, p = .19). Hypothesis 2 states that the fulfillment of the need for competence
hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2
With regard to Hypothesis 3a, a regression analysis shows no relationship between working in an MDT and fulfillment of the need for relatedness (R2 = .00, B = –. 01, t(121) = – .38, p = .70). Hypothesis 3b states that the fulfillment of the need for relatedness will be positively related to autonomous motivation. A regression analysis shows that there is a significant positive relationship between relatedness and autonomous motivation (R2 = .11, B = .55, t(120) = 3.82, p = <.01). Hypothesis 3 states that the fulfillment of the need for relatedness mediates the relationship between MDTs and autonomous motivation. A regression analysis shows that there is no support for Hypothesis 3 (R2 = .11, B = .06, t(120) = 1.04, p = .30). Furthermore, the Sobel test results are not significant (Z = –.37, p = .71, κ2 = – .01). These results support Hypothesis 3b, but not hypotheses 3a and 3.
Table 4: Regression results with mediator the fulfillment of need for relatedness Coefficient (SE) t p Task interdependence (MDT) on fulfillment of relatedness (A) -.01 (.04) -.38 .70 Fulfillment of relatedness on autonomous motivation (B) .55 (.14) 3.82 < .01*** Direct effect task interdependence (MDT) on autonomous motivation (C) .05 (.06) .86 .39 Indirect effect task interdependence on autonomous motivation through the fulfillment of relatedness (C’) .06(.06) 1.04 .30 (-.06, .18) Note: N=121; * p < .10, ** p < .05,*** p < .01; Unstandardized B coefficients are reported with (standard errors) Discussion
The goal of this study was to determine if the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness mediates the relationship between working in MDTs and autonomous motivation.
I did not find support for Hypothesis 1a, which states that MDT is negatively related to the fulfillment of the need for autonomy. This could be explained by the following reasons. First, I suggested that MDT could be both positively and negatively related to the need for autonomy. MDT has a positive effect on the fulfillment of the need for autonomy because in general MDTs are given more autonomy in organizations (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Langfred, 2004; Van Mierlo et al., 2006). On the other hand, MDTs could have a negative effect on the fulfillment of the need for autonomy because professionals need to share decision making with other professionals (Molleman et al., 2008; Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012). The positive effect of increased autonomy and the negative effect of shared decision making could neutralize each other. This neutralizing effect results in no relationship between MDTs and the fulfillment of the need for autonomy. Secondly, Molleman and Broekhuis (2012) found that personality, in particular emotional stability and openness to experience, influences the relationship between MDTs and perceiving autonomy. The lack of support for Hypothesis 1a could therefore also be explained in terms of different personalities (Molleman & Broekhuis, 2012). Future research could include personality as a moderating variable when looking at the effect of MDTs on basic psychological needs and, subsequently, autonomous motivation.
Hypothesis 2a suggests that MDT is positively related to the need for competence. However, I did not find support for this claim. This can be explained by the following reasons. Functional diversity results in greater conflict (Galinsky et al., 2015). Conflict can undermine trust, which is the underlying factor of knowledge sharing (Panteli & Sockalingam, 2005). Knowledge and competence sharing contribute to the development of competences and, subsequently, to the feeling of being effective in their work (Lent, 2016). Functional diversity in MDTs will therefore lead to lower fulfillment of the need for competence if it is accompanied by conflict. Additionally, conflict that stems from functional diversity in MDTs diminishes members’ ability to share knowledge and competence with others (Flinchbaugh et al., 2016; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005). Sharing knowledge and competence is necessary in order for individuals to practice and demonstrate their capabilities. I argue that MDTs might fail to lead to the fulfillment of the need for competence because functional diversity in MDTs may generate conflict, which decreases collaboration and, subsequently, knowledge sharing. This post-hoc explanation is tentative and needs to be supported by future research.
Hypothesis 2b states that the need for competence is positively related to autonomous motivation. I find no support for this claim. The reason why I did not find a relationship between the fulfillment of the need for competence and autonomous motivation might be that individuals do not value the fulfillment of the need for competence equally. Richer, Blanchard and Vallerand (2000) found that the production of motivation, through the satisfaction of the need for competence, also depends on the extent to which individuals find it important to satisfy this need. The fulfillment of the need for competence will lead to lower motivation if a person finds it less important to satisfy this need for competence. I could therefore argue that the importance of the fulfillment of the need for competence differs between individuals and therefore question SDT (Gagne & Deci, 2005).
Based on previous argumentation, I can also substantiate why the fulfillment of the need for competence does not mediate the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation (i.e. Hypothesis 2).
need for relatedness. This argument can be substantiated by the theory of intergroup bias of Kruglanski and Webster (1996). Kruglanski and Webster (1996) argue that individuals prefer and feel more positive when others are similar (i.e. individuals of their own functional group). MDTs contain individuals who are dissimilar, causing less positive affect and therefore resulting in a lower satisfaction of the need for relatedness. Secondly, Keller (2001) argues that functional diversity will lead to less cohesiveness. Individuals of less cohesive groups feel less connected to others. I could therefore argue that MDTs will result in less cohesive groups and, consequently, will not result in the fulfillment of the need for relatedness. Again, these explanations are post-hoc and need to be supported by future research.
Based on previous argumentation, explaining the lack of support for Hypothesis 3b, I can also substantiate why the fulfillment of the need for relatedness does not mediate the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation (i.e. Hypothesis 3).
Limitations and future research
needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000) differs across specialties.
Theoretical implications
This research contributes to the theory about MDT, motivation and self-determination. First, this research contributes to the theory on MDT because previous research did not make a connection between MDT, basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation. The knowledge that MDTs do not lead to the fulfillment of basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation, respectively, will therefore complement the theory on MDT. Secondly, this research contributes to the knowledge base on SDT. Although SDT has a strong empirical foundation, there are only a few studies that have tested SDT in an organizational context (Deci, 2005). This research was done in an organizational context. The finding that the fulfillment of the need for relatedness and autonomy is related to autonomous motivation will therefore strengthen the foundation of SDT. Thirdly, in contrast to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005) I found that the fulfillment of the need for competence does not lead to autonomous motivation. SDT argues that the need for competence is innate and universal and does not differ among individuals (Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, the finding that the fulfillment of the need for competence does not lead to autonomous motivation, and therefore may not be indicative of a universal and innate aspect, possibly questions SDT. Vallerand (2000) argues that the relationship between need satisfaction and autonomous motivation is moderated by the level of individual importance to satisfy a basic psychological need. These levels of importance differ across individuals and are determined by for example personality and aptitude (Vallerand, 2000; Richter et al., 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2015; Stroup, 2015). Future research is needed to determine if individual differences have effect on the relationship between the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation.
Practical implications
outcomes.
Conclusion
The results show that the relationship between MDT and autonomous motivation is not mediated by the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. I therefore conclude that working in MDTs does not lead to autonomous motivation through the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Additionally, I found no relationship between the satisfaction of the need for competence and autonomous motivation. However, I did find that the fulfillment of the needs for autonomy and relatedness is positively related to autonomous motivation. Finding that the fulfillment of autonomy and relatedness is positively related to autonomous motivation correspond with SDT.
References
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Boxall, P. Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high‐performance work systems: progressing the high‐involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3– 23.
Cabrera, E. F. Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal Of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 720–735.
Carroll, J. (2002). Crossing the quality chasm. Quality Management in Health Care, 10(4), 60–61.
Chiniara, M., Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant leadership to individual performance: Differentiating the mediating role of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction.
The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124-141.
Cook D.A. & Artino A.R. (2016). Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories.
Medical Education, 50(10), 997-1014.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). Research Reports - The Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Work Group Performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 445 .
Flinchbaugh, C., Li, P., Luth, M. T., & Chadwick, C. (2016). Team‐level high involvement work practices: investigating the role of knowledge sharing and perspective taking. Human
Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal
Of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., Halvari, H. (2015). The multidimensional work motivation scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 24(2), 178-196.
Galinsky, A. D., Todd, A. R., Homan, A. C., Phillips, K. W., Apfelbaum, E. P., Sasaki, S. J.,Olayun & Maddux, W. W. (2015). Maximizing the gains and minimizing the pains of diversity: A policy perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 742-748.
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.
Heinemann, G. D., & Zeiss, A. M. (Eds.). (2002). Team performance in health care: Assessment and Development. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance,
15(4).
Hudson, B. (2002). Interprofessionality in health and social care: The Achilles’ heel of partnership? Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16, 7–17.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product
development: Diversity,communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 547–555.
Kiggundu MN. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: test of a theory. Organizational
Behavior And Human Performance, 31(2), 145-72.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Kumar, M. and Jauhari, H. (2016) ‘Satisfaction of learning, performance, and relatedness needs at work and employees’ organizational identification’, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, 65(6), pp. 760–772.
Kruglanski, A.W., Webster, D.M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: "seizing" and "freezing" Psychological Review, 103(2), 263-83.
Kvarnström, S. (2008). Difficulties in collaboration: A critical incident study of
interprofessional health care teamwork. Journal Of Interprofessional Care, 22(2), 191-203.
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385-399.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885-900.
Lent, R. W. (2016). Self-Efficacy in a Relational World. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(4), 573-594.
Liao, J., O'Brien, A. T., Jimmieson, N. L., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2015). Predicting transactive memory system in multidisciplinary teams: The interplay between team and professional identities. Journal Of Business Research, 68(5), 965-977.
Loeb, C., Stempel, C. & Isaksson, K. (2016). Social and emotional self-efficacy at work.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 57, 152–161.
Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. The Academy of Management
Review, 21(2), 402-433.
Mitchell, R., Boyle, B. (2015). Professional diversity, identity salience and team innovation: The moderating role of open-mindedness norms. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 873-894.
Molleman E, Broekhuis M, Stoffels R, & Jaspers F. (2008). How health care complexity leads to cooperation and affects the autonomy of health care professionals. Health Care Analysis :
HCA : Journal Of Health Philosophy And Policy, 16(4), 329-41.
Mohr LB.(1971). Organization technology and organization structure. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16,444-459.
Molleman, E., Broekhuis M, Stoffels, R., Jaspers, F., (2010). Consequences of participating in multidisciplinary medical team meetings for surgical, nonsurgical, and supporting specialties.
Medical Care Research and Review, 67(2), 173-193.
Molleman E., Broekhuis M. (2012). How working in cross-functional teams relates to core attributes of professional occupations and the moderating role of personality. Group
Dynamics, 16(1), 50-67.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
O’Leary, M., Mortensen, M., Woolley, A., (2011). Multiple Team Membership: a theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of
Management Review, 26 (3), 461-478.
Panteli, N., & Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision support systems, 39(4), 599-617.
Perreira, T. A., Innis, J., & Berta, W. (2016). Work motivation in health care. International
Journal Of Evidence-Based Health care, 14(4), 175-182.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Motivation in work organizations.
Richter, A., West M.A., Dick R., Dawson J.F. (2006). Boundary spanners' identification, intergroup contact and effective inter-group relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1252–1269
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 (1).
Sethi, R. (2000). Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: Its antecedents and effect on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science : Official Publication of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 330-344.
Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What is satisfying about
satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325–339.
Stroup, A. (2015). The prediction of academic performance from personality and aptitude variables. The Journal of Experimental Education, 38(3), 83-86.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776-793. Thylefors I, Price E, Persson O, von Wendt L. (2000) Teamwork in Swedish neuro-paediatric habilitation. Child Care Health, 26, 515–32.
Vallerand, R. (2000). Deci and ryan's self-Determination theory: A view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 312-318.
Van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D.(2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 119(1), 38–53.
Van Mierlo, H., Rutte, C. G., Vermunt, J., Kompier, M. A. J., & Doorewaard, J. A. M. C. (2006). Individual autonomy in work teams: The role of team autonomy, self-efficacy, and social support. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 281–299.
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, J.M ., Vliert, E. 2001. “Patterns of Interdependence in Work Teams: A Two-Level Investigation of the Relations with Job and Team Satisfaction.”
Personnel Psychology 54(1).
Wageman, R. (1995). Erratum: Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40(2), 367-367.
White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered —The concept of competence Psychological
Wilson, T., Holt, T., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Complexity and clinical care. BMJ, 323, 685– 688.
