Intrinsic Employee Motivation
An examination of the antecedents and consequences
University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization Master thesis. MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management.
September 1, 2010 NICOLINE BIRZA Studentnr: 1549871 Stadhouderslaan 56a 9717 AK Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6-22144460 e-mail: n.j.birza@student.rug.nl Supervisors University Drs. H. Grutterink Prof. dr. G.S. van der Vegt
Supervisor Organization Ir. S. Asijee
2
ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was the examination of antecedents and consequences of intrinsic employee motivation in work teams. Intrinsic motivation is that kind of motivation that is aroused by aspects related to the job itself, instead of any other reinforcement such as rewards. In this study, we investigated the relation between employees’ intrinsic motivation and their knowledge sharing, their relation with interpersonal trust, and how this expected relation was affected by the degree of task interdependence. These relations were tested among 90 members at a hydraulic engineering unit of a consultancy engineering organization. Data was collected by means of an online questionnaire. Analyses turned out that intrinsic motivation indeed is an important determinant of knowledge sharing in teams. Moreover, we found support for the positive relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic employee motivation. However, no evidence was found for the expected moderating effect of task interdependence on this relation.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION... 4 2. THEORETICAL SECTION ... 7 2.1 Intrinsic Motivation... 7 2.2 Knowledge sharing... 8 2.3 Interpersonal Trust ... 9 2.4 Task Interdependence... 11 3. RESEARCH METHODS... 13 3.1 Procedure... 13 3.2 Sample... 13 3.3 Measures ... 14 3.4 Data Analysis ... 15 4. RESULTS... 17
4.1 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics ... 17
4.2 Hypotheses testing ... 19
5. DISCUSSION ... 22
5.1 Main findings ... 22
5.2 Strengths and Limitations ... 22
5.3 Theoretical implications... 24 5.4 Future research ... 25 5.5 Conclusion... 26 REFERENCES... 27 APPENDICES... 32 Appendix A: questionnaire ... 32
4
1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, tasks in organizations become more and more complex (Zakarian & Kusian, 1999). Because individual employees can no longer solve such complex tasks alone, they need to work together to solve them. Therefore, organizations increasingly structure work around teams in which the combined knowledge of all individual team members should theoretically be able to complete the required tasks successfully. For example, in order for research and development teams to design new products they need to combine intellectual, academic, and analytical skills (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). As a result, teams are expected to improve quality, speed, innovation and customer satisfaction (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). However, despite the potential gains to be made from teams, successful team performance is not self-evident (Salomon & Globerson, 1989). Teams can only perform optimally when the expertise of all disciplines is combined (Lin, 2006). Research has shown that teams often perform less well than expected based on the accumulated knowledge of all the team members, because team members are reluctant to share their knowledge and expertise with one another (Lin, 2006; Hinds & Pfeffer, 2003; Stasser, Vaughan, & Stewart, 2000). For example, teams are much more likely to discuss information that members already hold in common than to discuss information held by members individually (Stasser et al, 2000). As a result, unique expertise often remains hidden to the rest of the team. In sum, knowledge sharing among the members of an organizational work team is crucial for team performance (Lin, 2006).
5 also plays a vital role in one of the most important theories about knowledge sharing: transactive memory theory. A transactive memory in a group involves the operation of the memory of the individuals and the processes of communication that occur within the group (Wegner, 1986). A group’s transactive memory includes all the knowledge of all the members of the group; it is a property of a group (Wegner, 1986). In order to succeed as a team, all members need to be able to rely on each other’s knowledge and trust that it is correct. This is called credibility of other’s knowledge (Lewis, 2003). Sometimes only one person possesses a specific piece of knowledge, and thus nobody can check this information, therefore team members can only trust that someone’s knowledge is credible. Consequently, trust is expected to be an important aspect in the development of intrinsic motivation.
One of the most evident features of teams is the fact that each team member is necessarily, at least to some extent, dependent on the other team members for the fulfilment of their tasks (Ilgen, 1999). We expect that the degree of task interdependence can affect the expected relation between interpersonal trust and employees’ intrinsic motivation, because task interdependence makes it even more crucial that one can rely on other people’s information. Task performance of people will decrease when they have to rely on others’ information which is not credible. Hence, we expect that task interdependence is especially important in teams where interpersonal trust is high.
6
FIGURE 1
7
2. THEORETICAL SECTION
2.1 Intrinsic Motivation
The term motivation is derived from the Latin word movere, which means to move. There are different views about the concept of motivation. According to Robbins (1993) it refers to the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organizational goals. Kanfer (1987) describes motivation as an individual’s internal state that influences the direction, intensity, and persistence of his/her behavior. Motivation is in Kanfer’s reasoning viewed as manifested in choices to invest time and effort in various activities. Atkinson (1964) argued that motivation represents those psychological processes that cause the arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary actions that are goal oriented. Although, several researchers created their own distinguishable definitions, Mitchell (1982) summarized that there are two points common to all of them. First, motivation has been cast as an individual phenomenon. Each individual is unique and all of the major motivational theories allow in one way or another for this uniqueness to be demonstrated. He recognizes that different people have different needs, expectations, values, attitudes, reinforcement histories and goals. Second, motivation usually is described as intentional. Implying that motivation supposedly is under the employee's control. Most of the behaviors that are seen as influenced by motivation, for instance the effort people show on the job, typically are viewed as actions the individual has chosen to do. In summary: motivation can be seen as an individual’s intentions.
8
2.2 Knowledge sharing
To be successful, teams need to create, acquire, integrate and use knowledge (Grant, 1996; Sambamurthy & Subramani, 2005). The best solutions to complex problems, the most innovative ideas, and the best performance are achieved when knowledge is shared with other team members (Lin, 2006). In this study we use the definition of Bartol & Srivastava (2002) who define knowledge as information, ideas and expertise relevant for tasks performed by individuals, teams and the organizations as a whole. This definition implies that knowledge exists within people. When one team member moves a part of his/her knowledge to another team member, we can speak about what is generally known as knowledge sharing (Bergman, Jantunen, & Saska, 2004). According to Nissen (2006) knowledge sharing can be conceptualized as a flow activity because it is the process through which individuals mutually exchange their knowledge and jointly create new knowledge. Knowledge sharing is a mutual exchange because every knowledge sharing process consists of bringing/donating knowledge and getting/collecting knowledge (Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). Knowledge sharing then can be defined as the transfer of employees’ work-related experience, expertise, know-how, and contextual information with fellow team members through informal and formal interactions (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002).
Intrinsic Motivation and Knowledge sharing. Research turned out that team members
are often reluctant to share their knowledge. For example Faraj & Sproul (2000) found that, although the location of the knowledge is known, or people know who need their information, knowledge will not always be shared optimally. It seems that the intrinsic motivation of team members is crucial for knowledge sharing with their fellow team members.
9 will judge this person as the one who boycotted the project, while he/she actually did what was the best for the organization. People often tend to believe what the majority believes, this is called groupthink. Then it will occur, that the whole team has the same, however incorrect, opinion (Janis, 1981). In sum, people need to be intrinsically motivated to share their unique knowledge, because by sharing their knowledge they risk losing team members’ faith. Based on the above, we expect that employees with higher levels of intrinsic motivation share more knowledge. Therefore, following hypothesis is stated:
H1: Intrinsic employee’s motivation will be positively associated with the amount of knowledge they share with fellow team members.
2.3 Interpersonal Trust
Trust is one of the most discussed topics in organizational sciences in the last decade of the twentieth century (Lin, 2006). Because traditional forms of management have been replaced by a teamwork approach that emphasizes coordination, sharing of responsibilities and the participation of the workers in the decision making processes, the role of trust in teams has become increasingly important. Multiple authors define trust as the willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, that is, as a measure of how much risk an individual is willing to incur in relationships (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies (1998) described interpersonal trust as confident positive expectations regarding others’ behavior. Kramer (1999) and Grovier (1994) have both pointed out that distrust is a lack of confidence in another party. Spreitzer & Mishra (1999) found that trust reflects a belief that another party is reliable. Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer (1998) have summarized these definitions; they underline people’s positive expectations and their willingness to become vulnerable as the two most critical elements. In their definition, trust is viewed as an attitude held by an individual in relation to another individual or group of individuals and it is applicable to work relationships in team contexts. In the continuation of this study, we will use this definition of interpersonal trust.
10 motivated. Furthermore, we expect that there is no distrust among people, and there is no reason for conflict, there is nothing to withhold a fruitful cooperation among team members. In that situation of interpersonal trust, people enjoy working in teams and we expect this to lead to higher intrinsic motivation.
Second, research on psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) also suggests that interpersonal trust is an important factor in the development of intrinsic motivation of team members because it generates a work environment in which every team member feels appreciated and safe. Psychological safety is a shared belief among individuals who work closely together (for instance in teams) that others’ perceptions of them will not be harmed if they report a mistake, ask for help, or seek for feedback (Edmondson, 1999). This shared belief is often tacit; this indicates that the team members know about each other that they can trust each other, without mentioning this explicitly. When it is clear to everybody that the other team members can be trusted, a climate of interpersonal trust is developed. When a climate of interpersonal trust is created, team members believe that they will not be humiliated or rejected by their peers for being themselves and it becomes easier for them to ask other people for help and people feel freer to give their opinions (MacPhail, Roloff, & Edmondson, 2009). Consequently, when team members feel that they are respected for who they are, a working atmosphere is created wherein people can execute their job without feeling pressure or fear. This all together will lead to higher intrinsic motivation; people can execute their job in the way they prefer and they dare to ask others for help when this is necessary. People can enjoy their work, since they can feel safe and appreciated. So, together this suggests that trust may increase the level of motivation.
11 external control or by receiving incentives. This means that intrinsic motivation is high in teams with levels of high interpersonal trust, since people perform well without being motivated by other things than the job self. Together, the above suggests that the interpersonal trust is an important predictor of intrinsic employee motivation; in the sense that more interpersonal trust will lead to higher intrinsic employee motivation. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated:
H2: Interpersonal trust will be positively associated with intrinsic employee motivation.
2.4 Task Interdependence
We can imagine that interpersonal trust is not equally important in all kinds of work teams, but that it becomes more important the more people need to rely on each other for their outcomes. In work teams, each member is necessarily, at least to some extent, dependent on the other team members for the fulfilment of their tasks (Ilgen, 1999). This so-called task interdependence is defined as a team member’s need for information, resources, advice, knowledge, physical assistance, and/or equipment from another team member to complete his/her task successfully (Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert, 2001). Task interdependence is a feature of the structure between team members. Accordingly, in teams with a structure of high task interdependence, individuals are highly dependent on each other and need each other to complete their own tasks. In teams with a structure of low task interdependence people need each other less for the fulfilment of their tasks.
12 because nobody knows whether it was performed in a good way. This will become unworkable, because people are dependent on other team members whose input is questionable. Working everyday with people who cannot be trusted and who make it impossible to do one’s own work in a proper way, will be frustrating. This frustration will lead to a decrease of intrinsic motivation (Dirks, 1999). This means that there is a positive relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation when task interdependence is high.
In contrast, in teams of low task interdependence, people do not really need each other to complete their own task. This implies that team members do not have to work together closely. A lower amount of cooperation is required compared to teams of high task interdependence, because people can fulfil their tasks on their own. In these situations, it is less important whether or not people can rely on each other’s input. Since people can perform their tasks individually, their colleagues’ errors have less impact on their own work. The information of others is not necessary in the completion of the own tasks and others do not need your information. In this case, it will not be frustrating that a fellow team member gives incorrect information, because others do not need that information in the completion of their own tasks, since they are not task interdependent. Therefore, we expect no relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation when task interdependence is low. In sum, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
13
3. RESEARCH METHODS
3.1 Procedure
The research setting for the empirical analysis of this studyis a consultancy engineering company. The company consists of 800 employees and has offices at six different places in The Netherlands: Deventer, Utrecht, Assen, Amsterdam, Eindhoven and Rotterdam. One specific unit is investigated in this study; hydraulic engineering. This unit exists since January 1 of 2010. Several hydraulic engineering groups of different locations have been merged; this resulted in one unit. The main idea behind this merger is a more joint execution of projects. Previously, it was not unusual that, for example Rotterdam and Deventer both were executing their own projects separately. Now, projects are performed jointly at the different locations, which implies that people have to work together.
Engineering and water treatment require much experience and a broad vision. The placement of a lock, dike, bridge, wharf, tunnel or dam often means an intervention in the landscape, what entails permits and procedures. The company wants to stand for ingenious design and advice. The consultants and engineers have to know what is going on. They anticipate to changing legislation, analyze the failure probabilities, think about smarter and better techniques, come up with cost-effective solutions and visualize the final state before the first shovel goes into the ground. This specific unit is investigated because advices and designs never can be made individually in this hydraulic engineering unit; knowledge and expertise of different people are necessary to come up with the best advice. Employees have to work cooperatively in teams all over the time.
The unit includes nine different teams with a total of 101 employees spread over four locations. Each of those employees was asked to participate in this study. All information for the study was gathered through an electronic survey. The workers received an e-mail explaining the purpose and the procedure of the research. The e-mail included a link to the questionnaire. Therefore, employees were able to complete the questionnaire online. Additionally, the anonymity and confidential treatment of the answers were guaranteed and participation was voluntary. The entire questionnaire and the explanation for the employees can be found in Appendix A.
3.2 Sample
14 was male and 13 (14.4%) was female. The age of the participants ranged from 23 to 64 years old, with an average of 42 years (SD = 11.07 years). These 90 respondents had different educational levels: 24 (26.7%) university; 46 (51.1%) higher vocational education; 17 (18.9%) intermediate vocational education; 1 (1.1%) lower vocational education; and 2 (2.2%) secondary education. At the time of the data collection 58 respondents (64.4%) had worked for more than 5 years for this company, 24 respondents (26.7%) had worked between 2 and 5 years for this company, and only 8 respondents (8.9%) had worked less than 2 years for this company.
3.3 Measures
Well-known multi-item scales that have been proven to be valid and reliable were used in the composition of the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of self-reported Likert-type items. Participants’ answers could range from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. Some questions were asked in a reversed way to alleviate bias.
Interpersonal trust. Interpersonal trust was measured with Lewis’ (2003) four-item credibility scale: “I trust that other members’ knowledge about projects is credible”, “I am comfortable accepting suggestions from other team members”, “I am not confident relying on the information that other team members brought to the discussion”, “I have not much faith in other members’ “expertise.” Three items of Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp (2005) were added to this scale. These items measure the believe that other team members think that you have enough abilities to perform well on the job: “My colleagues believe that I can handle demanding tasks”, “My colleagues believe in my ability to improve even when I make mistakes”, and “My colleagues express confidence in my ability to perform at a high level.” Cronbach’s α of these seven items was 0.78.
15 Intrinsic motivation. We measured intrinsic motivation with three items from Spreitzer (1995) “The work I do is very important to me”, “My job activities are personally meaningful to me”, and “The work I do is meaningful to me” and two items from Gould-Williams & Davies (2005) “I work hard because I want to”, and “I am very motivated in my present job”. Cronbach’s α for this scale was .84.
Knowledge sharing. We measured knowledge sharing with two items adapted from Lin (2006) “I will always make an effort to share knowledge with my colleagues”, and “I intend to share knowledge with colleagues who ask.” In addition, three items from Staples & Webster (2008) “People in this team are willing to share knowledge/ideas with others”, “People in this team with expert knowledge are willing to help others in this team”, and “This team is good at using the knowledge/ideas of employees”. For these five items Cronbach’s α was 0.83.
Control variables. We controlled for several variables that were perceived to be common predictors of intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing. We controlled for gender and age because past research has shown that these variables influence outcome variables as voluntary helping behavior, which may be closely related to intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing(Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003). Furthermore, we controlled for the educational level of the team members. We expect people with higher educational levels to have less routine jobs with more autonomy, what can lead to increased intrinsic motivation (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). A higher educational level often also refers to more knowledge; therefore, knowledge sharing as well can be influenced by educational level. Finally, we controlled for years of service. We can expect that people who have already worked for a long time at this company are more motivated than others, because people probably will not work many years for a company when they do not like the work they do. Moreover, more years of experience also contribute to more knowledge; this implies that the amount of knowledge sharing may also be affected by years of service.
3.4 Data Analysis
16 To measure the effects of interpersonal trust and task interdependence on intrinsic motivation a second analysis was executed. The control variables were added in the first step again, in the second step the variables interpersonal trust and task interdependence were included. To measure the interaction effect of task interdependence, it was necessary to perform a third step. The result of task interdependence (the moderator) multiplied by interpersonal trust (independent variable) was put in. This resulting product should not be standardized before the analysis would be made, otherwise it will not be the arithmetic product of task interdependence and interpersonal trust anymore (De Vries & Huisman, 2008)
17
4. RESULTS
4.1 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
18
TABLE 1
Statistics and Pearson correlations of the variablesª
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Age 41.99 11.07 2. Gender 1.14 .35 .02 3. Educational level 3.83 1.06 -.34 ** -.12 4. Years of service (current organization) 3.69 1.21 .61 ** -.08 -.38 ** 5. Task Interdependence 3.49 .71 .07 -.16 -.02 -.06 6. Interpersonal Trust 4.19 .53 -.03 .17 .05 -.22 * .01 7. Intrinsic Motivation 4.14 .61 .17 .10 .00 -.03 .15 .34 ** 8. Knowledge Sharing 4.30 .56 .05 .14 .21 -.15 .12 .52 ** .45 **
ªN= 90 for every variable
19
4.2 Hypotheses testing
Table 2 represents the results of our first regression analysis for the relation between intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing. In the first step, we controlled for age, gender, years of service at the current organization, and level of education. The first variables did not have a significant effect on knowledge sharing (∆R² = .10, ∆F = 2.38, n.s.). The second step showed that intrinsic motivation significantly contributes to the prediction of knowledge sharing (∆R² = .17, ∆F = 19.71, p < .05). Looking at the b-weight of intrinsic motivation showed that there was a positive relation between intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing (b = .24, t = 4.44, p < .01). These outcomes confirmed the first hypothesis that more intrinsic motivation was related to more knowledge sharing.
TABLE 2
Simple regression analysis of intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing
Model Variable 1 2
1. Age .11 .06
Gender .10 .07
Educational level .14 * .12 *
Years of service (Current organization) - .08 -.06
2. Intrinsic motivation .24 **
R² .10 .27
∆R² .10 .17 **
Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed. N = 90 for every variable. * p < .05
20 In table 3 the results of a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to examine the effects of interpersonal trust and task interdependence on intrinsic motivation are shown. By use of this analysis the second and the third hypothesis were tested. The control variables again did not significantly contribute to the prediction of intrinsic motivation (∆R² = .052, ∆F = 1.16, n.s). As predicted, the second step was significant (∆R² = .14, ∆F = 6.87, p < .05). As expected this was due to a positive relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation (b = 0.20, t = 3.34, p < .01). These results support H2 that there was a positive relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation. This means that more interpersonal trust was related to more intrinsic motivation.
TABLE 3
Multiple regression analysis of interpersonal trust and task interdependence on intrinsic motivation Intrinsic Motivation Model Variabele 1 2 3 1. Age .15 .16 * .16 * Gender .07 .05 .05 Educational level .04 .02 .02
Years of service (current organization) - .06 -.09 -.09
2. Task interdependence .09 .07
Interpersonal trust .20 ** .21 **
3 Task interdependence x Interpersonal trust .06
R² .05 .19 .20
∆R² .05 .14 ** .01
Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed. N = 90 for every variable. * p < .05
22
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Main findings
The aim of this study was to examine the role of intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing in work teams. The results of our questionnaire study among 90 employees of an consultancy engineering company showed that, as predicted, intrinsic employee motivation was positively associated with knowledge sharing. This means that the more intrinsically motivated people are, the more they are willing to share their knowledge with their fellow team members. This finding is in line with our reasoning described in the theoretical framework. Apparently, people really need to be willing to share their knowledge (Szulanski, 1996), and this willingness to share knowledge is aroused by factors inside the work. Furthermore, we found that interpersonal trust was positively associated with intrinsic employee motivation. This means that the more trust team members have in each other, the higher their intrinsic motivation will be (Sprenger, 2000). The confirmation of this hypothesis is in line with our theoretical framework where we stated that people need to be convinced of the credibility of others´ intentions and knowledge, before people will be intrinsically motivated. Also Deci & Ryan (2000) found that interpersonal trust is an important predictor of intrinsic motivation. They discovered that intrinsic motivation is likely to flourish in a context characterized by a sense of security and relatedness. Thus, when people feel related to others and they feel safe in their presence, their intrinsic motivation will increase.
Contrary to our expectation, task interdependence did not affect the relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation. One of the potential reasons for the lack of this effect may be that task interdependence was relatively high (M = 3.49) and their relation was strong. Because this relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation was relatively strong, task interdependence may not significantly add extra variance in intrinsic motivation. When the opposite had been the case, and interpersonal trust had been very low, we maybe had found a significant moderator effect of task interdependence. In that kind of situation people would have to work closely together with other people who they distrust. Maybe this would have resulted in a weaker relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic motivation.
5.2 Strengths and Limitations
Strenghts. A strength of this study is the high participation rate of the online
23 engineering unit. Of these people 90 filled in the entire questionnaire, this corresponds with a participation rate of 89.1%. Because of this high participation rate, we can properly generalize (Peter, 1979) the outcomes of this sample to the whole Business Unit.
Limitations. A limitation of this research is that we cannot say anything with certainty
about the causality of the relations we found. This is because the results in this study are based on correlations, which do not say anything about the direction of the relation. To overcome this problem we have based our hypotheses on previous research in the field. Literature about motivation described this aspect as an important precondition for knowledge sharing (Siemsen, Roth, & Balasubramanian, 2008). In turn, Lewis (1999) states that trust fosters the sort of enthusiasm that enlarge employees’ motivation.
24 Another limitation of this study is the fact that the data are collected by only one source; what makes our data mono/single-sourced (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Therefore, the results of our collected data may be affected by method variance. This means that unauthentic relationships may appear between variables because they were measured with a common method (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Our questionnaire was solely filled in by employees. However, it is not impossible that leaders, peers and subordinates have another opinion about someone’s knowledge sharing intentions and the degree of motivation someone has. Furthermore, the questionnaire was self-report. By completing the questionnaire, people were only asked for their own attitude towards different items. It is common that research participants want to respond in a way that makes them look as good as possible. Therefore, they tend to under-report behaviors considered as inappropriate, and they tend to over-report behaviors viewed as appropriate. The high scores on intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing in our study could have been influenced by self-report bias. Donaldson & Grant-Vallone (2002) found that self-report bias is particularly likely in organizational behavior research because employees often believe there always is a possibility that their employer could gain access to their responses, even though anonymity was guaranteed.
5.3 Theoretical implications
25 the influence of intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing. This makes that the present study adds significant meaning to the literature on the subject of intrinsic employee motivation. We examined whether the task itself can create motivation in people to share their knowledge. We can indeed conclude that intrinsic motivation is a good predictor of knowledge sharing. The more intrinsic motivation work teams possess, the more knowledge will be shared.
In addition, in this study we examined an antecedent of intrinsic motivation; interpersonal trust. This term has many different aspects as: competence, reliability, integrity, transparency, identification, and reputation (Pirson, 2007). However, our focus was on credibility; whether people believe that their team members’ information is reliable. We chose for this scale of interpersonal trust, because we expected this aspect to be the most important predictor of that kind of intrinsic motivation necessary to create a knowledge sharing culture (Wegner, 1986; Stasser et al, 2000). We discovered that credibility of information is an important aspect in the creation of intrinsic motivation within teams. Consequently, this kind of motivation is vital for knowledge sharing. That makes that we can conclude that there is an essential link between the three concepts interpersonal trust, intrinsic motivation, and knowledge sharing. This implies that in groups of high trust, intrinsic motivation was transformed into more knowledge sharing, in addition we suggest that in low-trust groups motivation will be converted into individual actions. Hence, when interpersonal trust is high, people will be intrinsically motivated in their jobs and they will strive to come together to the best solutions, what includes that their knowledge needs to be shared.
5.4 Future research
26 each other to achieve common goals. The contribution of every member to the group product is required, under these conditions interpersonal helping and coordination are encouraged because the more colleagues are enabled to perform well, the more they can contribute to the attainment of shared goals. We did not consider the role of goal interdependence in our study. Future research could consider if we had found a moderator effect when we did examine task and goal interdependence together as one moderator.
In our study, we found a positive relation between interpersonal trust and intrinsic employee motivation, and in turn between intrinsic motivation and knowledge sharing. Hence, we concluded that when interpersonal trust is high, people are intrinsically motivated in their jobs and they will strive with their fellow team members to the best solutions, what includes that their knowledge needs to be shared. It seems that in groups were interpersonal trust is low, there is no intrinsic motivation to perform as well as possible. This low intrinsic motivation of employees could result in a low amount of knowledge sharing. However, it is possible that there are teams, with little interpersonal trust, which share all the knowledge they have. Based on this study we cannot draw conclusions about this, because we did not examine the relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing. Future research has to turn out whether there exists a relation between interpersonal trust and knowledge sharing as well. In addition, a causality experiment is necessary to make clear how the different concepts are related. Since, we cannot say anything about the direction of the relation based on our regression analysis.
5.5 Conclusion
This study revealed that in teams, which have to work on very complex problems all over the time; intrinsic motivation is an important antecedent of knowledge sharing. Intrinsic motivation in turn is a result of the degree of interpersonal trust present within a team. Besides, the amount of knowledge shared was larger when the educational level of people was higher, and intrinsic motivation became larger as age raised. Based on the outcomes of the regression analysis we can argue that task interdependence does not affect the relation between interpersonal trust and task interdependence.
27
REFERENCES
Aeppel, T. 2002. On factory floors, top workers hide secrets to success. The Wall Street
Journal, 240: 1-2.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J.E., & Rapp, A.A. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90: 945−955.
Amabile, T.M. 1993. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3(3): 185-201.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. 2003. Managing Knowledge in Organizations: An integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes. Management Science, 49 (4): 571-582.
Atkinson, J.W. 1964. Introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Bartol, K.M., & Srivastava, A. 2002. Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of
Organizational Reward Systems. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(1): 64 – 77.
Bergman, J., Jantunen, A., & Saksa, J. 2004. Managing knowledge creation and sharing scenarios and dynamic capabilities in inter-industrial knowledge networks. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 8: 63–76.
Calder, B.J., & Staw, B.M. 1975. The Self-Perception of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 599–605.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56: 81-105.
Ciborra, C.U., & Patriota, G. 1998. Groupware and teamwork in R&D, limits to learning and innovation. R&D management, 28(1): 1-10.
Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-153.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. 1980. New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53: 39-52. Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A., & Taillieu, T. 2001. Trust within teams: the relation with
performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organisational
Psychology, 10(3): 225-244.
28 Dirks, K.T. 1999. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(3): 445-455.
Donaldson, S.I., & Grant-Vallone, E.J. 2002. Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2): 245-260
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 350-353.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. 1999. Self-categorization, commitment to the group and social self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 371-389.
Fang, S.C., Tsai, F.S., & Chang, K.C. 2005. Knowledge sharing routines, task efficiency, and team service quality in instant service-giving settings. Journal of the American
Academy of Business, 6(1): 62–7.
Faraj, S., & Sproul, L. 2000. Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Journal
of Management Science, 46(12): 1554-1568.
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. 2005. Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of HRM practice on employee outcomes. Public Management Review, 7: 1 – 24.
Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17: 109–22.
Grovier, T. 1994. An epistemology of trust. International Journal of Moral Social Studies, 8: 155-174.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfromance, 16: 250:279.
Hinds, P.J., & Pfeffer, J. 2003. Why organizations don’t “know what they know”: Cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. In M. S. Ackerman, M.S., Pipek, V. & Wulf, V. (eds), Sharing Expertise: Beyond Knowledge Management, 3– 26. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ilgen, D.R. 1999. Teams embedded in organizations. The American Psychologist, 54: 129– 39.
Janis, I.L. 1983. Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44: 238-251.
29 Kelman, H.C. 1958. Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of
Attitude Change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51-60.
Kramer, R. 1999. Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual review of Psychology, 50: 569-598.
Larson, J.R., Christenson, C., Abbott, A.S., & Franz, T.M. 1996. Diagnosing groups: Charting the flow of information in medical decision making teams. Journal of Personality and
Social Pyschology, 71: 315-330.
Lewicki, R.J., McAllister, D.J., & Bies, R.J. 1998. Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23: 438-458.
Lewis, J.D. 1999. Trusted Partners: How companies build mutual trust and win together. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
Lewis, K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88: 587–604.
Lin, H.F. 2006. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of Information Science, 332: 135-149.
MacPhail, L.H., Roloff, K., & Edmondson, A.C. 2009. Collaboration across Knowledge Boundaries within Diverse Teams: Reciprocal Expertise Affirmation as an Enabling Condition. In Roberts, L.M., & Dutton, J.E. (Ed.), Exploring Positive Identities and
Organizations: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation, Routledge.
Malhotra, Y., Galletta, D.F., & Kirsch, L.J. 2008. How endogenous motivations influence user intentions: beyond the dichotomy of extrinsic and intrinsic user motivations,
Journal of Management Information Systems, 25 (1): 267–299.
Mayer, C.M., Davis, J.H., & Schoorman, F.D. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-734.
McDermott, R. & O’Dell, C. 2001. Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1): 76–85.
Meyer, H.H. 1975. The Pay-for-performance Dilemma. Organization Dynamics, 3: 39-50. Mitchell, T.R. 1982. Motivation: New directions for theory, research, and practice. Academy
of Management Review, 7: 80-88.
Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G., & Mohrman, A.M., Jr. 1995. Designing team-based
organizations: New applications for kwowledge work, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.H. 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58: 20–38.
Nissen, M.E. 2006. Harnessing Knowledge Dynamics: Principled Organizational Knowing
30
Peter, J.P. 1979. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16: 6-17
Pirson, M. 2007. Facing the Trust Gap: Measuring and Building Trust in Organizations. University of St. Gallen Business Disertations, 1-255
Rentsch, J.R., & Woehr, D.J. 2004. Quantifying congruence in cognition: Social relations modeling and team member schema similarity. In Salas, E., & Fiore, S.M. (Eds.),
Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance
(11-31. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Robbins, S. 1993. Organizational Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Rousseau, M.T., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, S.B., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: Across-discipline view of trust, Academy of Management Review, 23: 393–404. Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in
task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 61-72.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. 1989. When teams do not function the way they ought to.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13: 89–99.
Sambamurthy, V., & Subramani, M. 2005. Special issue on information technologies and knowledge management, MIS Quarterly, 29: 1-7.
Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437-453. Siemsen, E., Roth, A.V., & Balasubramanian, S. 2008. How motivation, opportunity, and
ability drive knowledge sharing: The constraining-factor model. Journal of
Operations Management, 26: 426-445
Siero, F.W., Huisman, M., & Kiers, H.A.L. 2009. Voortgezette Regressie- en
Variantieanalyse. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Spreitzer, G.M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions,
measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 18: 1442-1465. Spreitzer, G.M., & Mishra, A.K. 1999. Giving up control without losing control: Trust and its
substitutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making, Group &
Organization Management, 24: 155-187.
Sprenger, R.K. 2002. Vertrauen führt- worauf es im Unternehmen wirklich ankommt. Frankfurt am Main, campus.
31 Stasser, G. 1992. Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. Simpson (Eds.), Group Process and Productivity (48–57). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 2003. Hidden profiles: A brief History. Psychological Inquiry, 14: 304-313.
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S.I., & Stewart, D.D. 2000. Pooling unshared information: the benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members.
Organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 82: 102-116.
Szulanski, G. 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 27–43.
Trafimow, D., & Sniezek J.A. 1994. Perceived expertise and its effect on confidence.
Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 57: 290-302.
Van den Hooff, R., & De Ridder, J.A. 2004. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6): 117-130.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M., & van de Vliert, E. 1998. Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group and Organizational Management, 23: 124-143.
Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M., & van de Vliert, E. 2001. Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 54: 51-69.
Van der Vegt, G.S., van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. 2003. Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 715–727.
Wegner, D.M. 1986. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen, B., & Goethals, G. (Eds), Theories of Group Behavior, 185-208. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wegner, D.M. 1995. A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social
Cognition, 13: 319–339.
Zakarian, A., & Kusian, A. 1999. Forming teams: An analytical approach. IEE Transactions, 31: 85–97.
32
APPENDICES
Appendix A: questionnaire
Beste medewerkers van de Business Unit Waterbouw,
Mijn naam is Nicoline Birza, ik ben 23 jaar en student aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Ik zit in de eindfase van mijn Master Human Resource Management. Om deze Master succesvol af te ronden voer ik een onderzoek uit. Mijn onderzoek vindt plaats bij de nieuwe Business Unit Waterbouw waar jullie onderdeel van zijn. De meeste mensen in Deventer zullen mij kennen, aangezien ik daar werk aan mijn onderzoek. Echter, de meningen van de mensen van de andere locaties zijn minstens zo belangrijk.
Mijn onderzoek gaat over intrinsieke werknemersmotivatie in teams. Dit is motivatie die wordt gecreëerd door aspecten die horen bij het werk dat je uitvoert. Ik wil deze motivatie meten aan de hand van een enquête. In de bijgevoegde enquête wordt u gevraagd om steeds een getal tussen 1 en 5 te kiezen dat uw mening het beste weergeeft.
Het onderzoek geeft inzicht in de werknemersmotivatie bij de Business Unit Waterbouw van Tauw. Vaak vinden mensen het leuk om te zien wat het resultaat is van het verstrekken van hun gegevens. Indien gewenst is het dan ook mogelijk het eindrapport via de mail te ontvangen. Voor mij zorgt uw medewerking ervoor dat ik zo snel mogelijk kan beginnen met het verwerken van de data. Ik wil u dan ook vragen om de vragenlijst zo spoedig mogelijk in te vullen.
Ik wil benadrukken dat er met alle gegevens vertrouwelijk zal worden omgegaan. Ik realiseer me dat ik geen alledaagse vragen stel. Onderzoek heeft echter alleen waarde wanneer je open en eerlijke antwoorden geeft. De antwoorden worden geanonimiseerd, waardoor deze nooit herleid kunnen worden naar individuele personen. Slechts de algemene uitkomsten worden gepubliceerd.
Mocht je nog vragen hebben aan mij, loop dan gerust even langs of stuur me een email. Ik ben te bereiken via nicoline.birza@tauw.nl.
Met vriendelijke groet,
33
Beste medewerker,
Op de volgende pagina begint de vragenlijst die hoort mijn onderzoek naar intrinsieke werknemersmotivatie in teams.
Het invullen van de vragenlijst duurt ongeveer 15 minuten. Het lijkt in eerste instantie misschien veel, maar u zult merken dat de vragen gemakkelijk zijn en dat u de lijst snel kunt invullen. Soms lijken vragen op elkaar. Toch wil ik u vragen om alle vragen goed te lezen en te beantwoorden. Vul het antwoord in dat u het meest van toepassing vindt. Bij twijfel kunt u het beste ingaan op het antwoord dat het eerste bij u opkomt.
Belangrijk is verder: Wanneer er in een vraag gerefereerd wordt naar een team, dient u de vraag te beantwoorden voor de adviesgroep waar u onderdeel van bent (management, afvalwaterbehandeling, natte waterbouw 1, natte waterbouw 2, droge waterbouw 1, droge waterbouw 2, waterkeringen, geotechniek of technologie). Met teamleden worden die mensen bedoeld die deel uitmaken van dezelfde adviesgroep als u.
Zoals reeds vermeld: met uw antwoorden zal strikt vertrouwelijk worden omgegaan.
34
Algemeen
Deze eerste vragen gaan over uw achtergrond.
1 Wat is uw geslacht? □ Man □ Vrouw
2 Wat is uw leeftijd? … jaar
3 Wat is uw hoogst voltooide opleiding? □ MAVO □ MBO
□ HAVO □ HBO
□ VWO □ Universiteit
5 Wat is uw huidige functie en hoe lang werkt u al in deze functie?
……… …...jaar ……. maanden
8 Hoe lang werkt u al bij Tauw? ………jaar …… maanden
9 Wat is uw standplaats?
………
10 Van welke adviesgroep binnen de Business Unit Waterbouw maakt u deel uit (secretariaat, afvalwaterbehandeling, natte waterbouw 1, natte waterbouw 2, droge waterbouw 1, droge waterbouw 2, waterkeringen, geotechniek of technologie)?
……….
35
Deze vragen gaan over de taken en vaardigheden van de adviesgroep en de teamleden. Geef het antwoord dat het meest van toepassing is. Bij twijfel kunt u het beste afgaan op het eerste antwoord
dat bij u opkomt.
Over de mate waarin de leden van uw adviesgroep verschillen in expertise en vaardigheden.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens
1 Voor een goede prestatie van ons team is het essentieel dat de teamleden verschillen in hun
kennis en vaardigheden 1 2 3 4 5
2 Elk teamlid bezit kennis over onderdelen van de teamtaak die geen enkel ander
teamlid heeft 1 2 3 4 5
Over hoe goed de teamleden elkaar aanvullen.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens 1 De leden van dit team vullen elkaars
kennis en vaardigheden heel goed aan 1 2 3 4 5
2 Sommige leden van dit team bezitten kennis en vaardigheden die andere leden nodig hebben
voor de uitvoering van hun werkzaamheden 1 2 3 4 5
3 De teamleden vullen elkaar aan wat betreft
kennis en vaardigheden 1 2 3 4 5
4 Sommige leden van dit team zijn goed in dingen
waar andere leden minder goed in zijn 1 2 3 4 5
5 Sommige leden van dit team zijn goed in dingen
waar andere leden behoefte aan hebben 1 2 3 4 5
6 De leden van dit team vullen elkaar geweldig aan 1 2 3 4 5
36
Over hoe u denkt dat andere teamleden uw kennis en vaardigheden inschatten.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens 1 De andere teamleden zijn exact op de hoogte
van mijn kennis en vaardigheden 1 2 3 4 5
2 De andere teamleden weten tot in detail
wat ik weet en kan 1 2 3 4 5
3 De andere teamleden hebben een accuraat
beeld van mijn kennis en vaardigheden 1 2 3 4 5
Over hoe u de kennis en vaardigheden van de andere teamleden inschat.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee Oneens oneens oneens eens eens 1 Ik ben exact op de hoogte van de kennis
en vaardigheden van alle teamleden 1 2 3 4 5
2 Ik weet tot in detail wat ieder teamlid weet en kan 1 2 3 4 5
3 Ik heb een accuraat beeld van de kennis en
37
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op een aantal kenmerken welke te maken hebben met
samenwerking binnen uw team. Geef voor elke uitspraak aan in hoeverre deze karakteristiek is voor uw
adviesgroep.
Over het samenwerkingsklimaat binnen de adviesgroep.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens 1 Wanneer je binnen dit team een fout maakt,
word je dat kwalijk genomen 1 2 3 4 5
2 In dit team kun je gemakkelijk problemen
en moeilijke onderwerpen ter sprake brengen 1 2 3 4 5
3 Leden van dit team wijzen andere teamleden
soms af omdat ze anders zijn 1 2 3 4 5
4 De leden van dit team voelen zich veilig genoeg
om risico’s te nemen 1 2 3 4 5
5 In dit team is het moeilijk om andere teamleden
om hulp te vragen 1 2 3 4 5
6 Niemand van dit team zou met opzet iets
doen dat de inspanning van anderen ondermijnt 1 2 3 4 5
7 In dit team worden de unieke vaardigheden
en talenten van elk teamlid gewaardeerd en benut 1 2 3 4 5
Over de betrouwbaarheid van de informatie van andere teamleden.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens 1 De leden van dit team gaan er vanuit dat de
informatie van andere teamleden betrouwbaar is 1 2 3 4 5
2 De teamleden baseren zich vol vertrouwen op
de informatie die ze van andere teamleden krijgen 1 2 3 4 5
3 In dit team kun je er nooit vanuit gaan dat de
de informatie die je van anderen krijgt correct is 1 2 3 4 5
4 De leden van dit team hebben weinig vertrouwen
38
Over het onderlinge vertrouwen dat taken goed worden volbracht
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens 1 Wanneer ik moeilijkheden heb op mijn werk,
zullen mijn collega’s mij proberen te helpen
waar mogelijk 1 2 3 4 5
2 Ik kan er op vertrouwen dat de mensen met wie
ik werk, mij helpen wanneer dat nodig is 1 2 3 4 5
3 De meeste van mijn collega’s kan ik vertrouwen; ze zullen dat doen wat ze hebben aangegeven
te doen 1 2 3 4 5
4 Mijn collega’s vertrouwen erop dat ik de taken die
ik moet doen met succes voltooi 1 2 3 4 5
5 Mijn collega’s vertrouwen erop dat ik mezelf
verbeter, ook al heb ik een fout gemaakt 1 2 3 4 5
6 Mijn collega’s denken dat ik de
mogelijkheden heb om te werken op een hoog niveau 1 2 3 4 5
7 Over het algemeen heb ik het gevoel dat ik mijn
collega’s volledig kan vertrouwen 1 2 3 4 5
8 Wanneer het mogelijk zou zijn, zou ik zorgen dat mijn collega’s geen enkele invloed hebben op de zaken die belangrijk zijn in het succesvol volbrengen
van de teamtaken 1 2 3 4 5
9 Ik vind het prettig om afhankelijk te zijn van mijn
teamleden om de teamtaken uit te kunnen voeren 1 2 3 4 5
10 Ik voel me prettig wanneer andere teamleden de verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor teamtaken,
ook al kan ik ze niet controleren 1 2 3 4 5
11 Ik heb het gevoel dat ik niet op mijn teamleden
39
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op een aantal kenmerken van de taken binnen uw adviesgroep. Geef voor elke uitspraak aan in hoeverre deze karakteristiek is voor uw team.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee oneens oneens oneens eens eens
1 De andere teamleden en ik zijn afhankelijk van elkaar voor informatie en middelen die we nodig
hebben om onze taken goed uit te kunnen voeren 1 2 3 4 5
2 Mijn taken zijn van dien aard dat ik gedwongen ben met anderen teamleden te overleggen en
samen te werken om goed te kunnen presteren 1 2 3 4 5
3 Ik heb een éénpersoonsfunctie; ik hoef nauwelijks met andere teamleden samen te werken om mijn
taken goed te kunnen doen 1 2 3 4 5
4 De taakverdeling tussen mij en mijn teamleden is zodanig dat ik van hen afhankelijk ben bij het
uitvoeren van mijn werk 1 2 3 4 5
5 De taakverdeling tussen mij en mijn teamgenoten is zodanig dat zij van mij afhankelijk zijn voor
het uitvoeren van hun werk 1 2 3 4 5
6 Mijn collega’s zijn afhankelijk van mijn hulp, aanwezigheid en adviezen om hun taken goed
uit te kunnen voeren 1 2 3 4 5
7 Ik ben zeer afhankelijk van de hulp, aanwezigheid en adviezen van mijn collega’s om mijn taken
40
De volgende vragen gaan over de manieren waarop u binnen het team feedback krijgt.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee oneens oneens oneens eens eens
1 We krijgen als team feedback over onze
teamprestatie 1 2 3 4 5
2 Als we niet goed presteren worden we als team
ter verantwoording geroepen 1 2 3 4 5
3 We krijgen regelmatig feedback over hoe goed
of slecht we als team gepresteerd hebben 1 2 3 4 5
4 Ik krijg als individu feedback over mijn
eigen prestatie 1 2 3 4 5
5 Als ik niet goed presteer word ik als individu ter
verantwoording geroepen 1 2 3 4 5
6 Ik krijg regelmatig feedback over hoe goed of
slecht ik gepresteerd heb 1 2 3 4 5
7 Als er problemen zijn binnen het team met betrekking tot de samenwerking, dan worden wij
hierop aangesproken 1 2 3 4 5
8 We worden regelmatig als team geïnformeerd over de manier waarop we met elkaar
samenwerken en omgaan binnen het team 1 2 3 4 5
9 We krijgen als team feedback over de manier
waarop wij tot een uitkomst zijn gekomen 1 2 3 4 5
10 Ik krijg als individu feedback over mijn
samenwerken met andere mensen 1 2 3 4 5
11 Als ik niet goed samenwerk met anderen word
ik ter verantwoording geroepen 1 2 3 4 5
12 Ik krijg feedback over hoe ik omga
41
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de kennis die gedeeld wordt binnen de adviesgroep. Geef voor elke uitspraak aan in hoeverre deze karakteristiek is voor uw team.
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee oneens oneens oneens eens eens
1 Ik verwacht dat ik kennis krijg die ik nodig heb 1 2 3 4 5
2 Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat mijn verzoek naar
bepaalde kennis, beantwoord zal worden 1 2 3 4 5
3 Ik ben er van overtuigd dat ik kennis bezit die
anderen in deze organisatie als waardevol ervaren 1 2 3 4 5
4 Ik heb de expertise om te voorzien in kennis die
waardevol kan zijn van de organisatie 1 2 3 4 5
5 Ik geniet ervan om kennis te delen van teamleden 1 2 3 4 5
6 Ik geniet ervan om collega’s te helpen door
middel van het delen van mijn kennis 1 2 3 4 5
7 Het delen van kennis met collega’s is plezierig 1 2 3 4 5
8 Ik zal altijd een poging doen om mijn kennis
met collega’s te delen 1 2 3 4 5
9 Ik probeer kennis te delen met collega’s
die daar om vragen 1 2 3 4 5
10 Mensen in mijn team zijn bereid om hun
kennis/plannen met anderen te delen 1 2 3 4 5
11 Mensen met unieke kennis in dit team,
zijn bereid om andere teamleden te helpen 1 2 3 4 5
12 Dit team is goed in het gebruiken van de
beste ideeën van teamleden 1 2 3 4 5
42
In ieder werkteam zijn wel eens meningsverschillen over de inhoud van het werk of botsingen tussen personen waarbij het niet over het werk gaat.
Zo goed als nooit af en toe Regelmatig Dikwijls Heel vaak
Hoe vaak……
1 …heeft u andere opvattingen over de uitvoering
van bepaalde taken dan uw teamgenoten? 1 2 3 4 5
2 …heeft u een andere mening over de organisatie
van het werk dan uw teamgenoten? 1 2 3 4 5
3 …heeft u visies op werk die verschillen van
die van uw teamgenoten? 1 2 3 4 5
4 …heeft u conflicten met uw teamgenoten over
wie wat moet doen binnen uw team? 1 2 3 4 5
5 …heeft u conflicten met uw teamgenoten over verantwoordelijkheden met betrekking tot
bepaalde taken? 1 2 3 4 5
6 …heeft u conflicten met uw teamgenoten over
de verdeling van middelen binnen het team? 1 2 3 4 5
7 …heeft u emotionele conflicten met andere teamleden? 1 2 3 4 5
8 …heeft u onenigheden met uw teamgenoten? 1 2 3 4 5
43
De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op uw algemene opvattingen over uw werk, en over de adviesgroep specifiek, die kunnen worden gezien als drijfveren om goed te presteren.
Geef voor elke uitspraak aan in hoeverre deze karakteristiek is voor uw team. Over uw drijfveren om hard te werken
Volledig Grotendeels Niet eens/ Grotendeels Volledig mee mee niet mee mee
oneens oneens oneens eens eens
1 Het werk dat ik doe is erg belangrijk voor me 1 2 3 4 5
2 Mijn werkactiviteiten zijn persoonlijk erg belangrijk
voor me 1 2 3 4 5
3 Het werk dat ik doe is erg zinvol voor me 1 2 3 4 5
4 Ik werk hard omdat ik dat wil 1 2 3 4 5
5 Ik ben erg gemotiveerd in mijn huidige baan 1 2 3 4 5
6 Ik mag de andere teamleden graag 1 2 3 4 5
7 Ik ben blij met mijn huidige teamgenoten 1 2 3 4 5
8 Ik wil graag verder blijven werken met dit team 1 2 3 4 5
9 Ik vind het geweldig om deel uit te maken van dit team 1 2 3 4 5
10 Ik zou graag deel uitmaken van een ander team 1 2 3 4 5
11 Ik pas uitstekend binnen dit team 1 2 3 4 5
12 Dit team is zeer belangrijk voor me 1 2 3 4 5
13 De andere teamleden hebben geloof
in mijn kunnen 1 2 3 4 5
14 Ik tel voor mijn gevoel echt mee in dit team 1 2 3 4 5
15 Ik voel me tevreden over mijn rol in dit team 1 2 3 4 5
Mocht u nog opmerkingen en/of vragen hebben over de vragenlijst of mijn onderzoek kunt u die hieronder plaatsen: ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ……… ………...
