Chapter 9 Group Motivation

Two Fundamental Questions

We can see that two fundamental questions need to be confronted by anyone who hopes to motivate a group to collaborate:

1. How can we induce any single individual to act in any particular way?
2. How can we induce many individuals to act together?

Society can function only if people are motivated to collaborate in groups. Getting people to do that, however, can be extremely difficult. As Garrison Keillor would put it, it’s a persistent question, and it’s one which can tire people out if they persist in trying to answer it. One of Keillor’s “Guy Noir” episodes illustrates this reality.

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

In the middle of all this, the band director is wearing earplugs to avoid having to listen to his students. “Earplugs; they’re a blessing,” he claims, as a noisy motorcycle nearly flattens him. “I’m going to retire in two weeks to Wyoming,” he continues, where “the only horns are on the cattle and the only winds are in the trees.”

As far as musical performance is concerned, the band director lets his students play three-minute concerts because he can’t get them to concentrate any longer than that. (The idea of making things short by eliminating repetition is, Keillor writes, revolutionary in Washington).

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

Persuasion and Influence

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

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

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

People’s physical condition. Obviously, if a group task is physically demanding, those who possess strength or stamina will be better able to participate than those who don’t. If the middle school students were hot or exhausted, they’d be less likely to cooperate in getting anything done together. The wise grandmother of one of the authors of this book always used to advise other parents, “If your kids aren’t cooperating, feed them.”

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

Lest we conclude that motivating people to collaborate is a hopeless enterprise, we can look around us any day and see that, although it isn’t easy, it is possible. Tyler and BladerTyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L. (2000). Cooperation in groups. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. pointed out that intentional actions, policies, and practices can often influence people’s dispositions, and through them shape cooperation. We’ll consider some such actions, policies, and practices later in this chapter. Above all, we’ll see that adopting a flexible attitude can help us influence people to adopt the motivation to collaborate.

Theories of Motivation

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

Content theoriesTheories of motivation which focus on factors which motivate behavior by rewarding or reinforcing it. of motivation focus on the factors which motivate behavior by rewarding or reinforcing it. Process theoriesTheories of motivation which analyze the interaction of factors which motivate behavior. attempt instead to determine how factors which motivate behavior interact with each other.

Content Theories of Motivation

Several content theories of motivation were developed in the middle to late years of the 20^th century. Probably the most well-known today is Maslow’s need hierarchy, with its five levels, which we reviewed earlier in this book.

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

A third content theory is Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theoryFrederick Herzberg’s content theory of motivation, which posits two kinds of rewards as part of motivation.. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. Herzberg classed rewards as either “motivators” or “hygienes.” He held that motivatorsIn Herzberg’s two-factor theory, factors which contribute to satisfaction, but which when absent don’t cause dissatisfaction.—including achievement, recognition, responsibility, and the opportunity to advance within a group—are factors which contribute to satisfaction, but which when absent don’t cause dissatisfaction. In other words, we appreciate them but can do without them. HygienesIn Herzberg’s two-factor theory, factors which don’t create satisfaction when they’re present, but which lead to dissatisfaction if they’re absent., on the other hand—such as money, status, and job security—don’t create satisfaction when they’re present, according to Herzberg, but do lead to dissatisfaction if they’re absent. In a sense, thus, they’re what people consider to be basic minimal needs and can go only as far as preventing dissatisfaction.

Two more content theories of motivation have been identified by more contemporary authorities. Kenneth ThomasThomas, K.W. (2000). Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy and commitment. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. drew a distinction between extrinsic rewardsRewards originating in the external environment.—those which come from the external environment—and intrinsic rewardsRewards which arise from within an individual or group., which come from within an individual or group.

Thomas believed that intrinsic rewards are more likely to motivate people and identified four kinds of intrinsic motivators. The first is a sense of meaningfulnessThe idea that what a person or group is doing is worthwhile., which is the idea that what a person or group is doing is worthwhile. The second is a sense of choiceThe feeling that a person or group can make decisions about how to behave., which is the feeling that the person or group can make decisions about how to behave. The third is a sense of competenceThe belief that a person or group is behaving capably., which is the belief that the person or group is behaving capably. The fourth motivator is a sense of progressThe feeling that a person or group is accomplishing something., which is the feeling that the person or group is actually accomplishing something.

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

Interestingly, Reiss asserted that 14 of the 16 desires are similar to those found in animals and are likely to be genetically determined. He also suggested that people’s motivations differ substantially from individual to individual and group to group because each person’s ranking of the 16 desires is unique.

Process Theories of Motivation

Theorists who espouse process theories of motivation are more interested in what starts, sustains, and stops behavior than they are in the things that motivate the behavior in the first place. We’ll consider four kinds of process theories in this section.

Fruits of Motivation

We’ve already established that motivation is a necessary condition to the functioning of any individual or group. If we have it, we possess the capacity to take action.

So, what action might we take? Three possibilities stand out, each of them either for better or worse. First of all, we may comply with other people’s wishes, rules, or expectations. We may be motivated, for instance, to obey traffic signals and “no trespassing” signs.

Second, we may produce outcomes or create resources for a group. Motivated members of a political party, for example, may prepare or distribute flyers or make phone calls supporting the party’s candidates.

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

Notice that motivation, wherever it comes from, provides a capacity for action but doesn’t guarantee it. In other words, it’s a necessary but not a sufficient condition for getting things done. In the next section we’ll take a look at ways to both produce motivation and ensure that people take action based on it.

Requirements for Motivating Action

According to behaviorism, it’s unnecessary to pay attention to people’s interior statesThoughts, feelings, and sentiments within people. (Behaviorists hold that motivation can be explained and promoted without reference to interior states). in order to motivate them to do things. Emery Air Freight’s approach, with its predetermined regimen of consequences for its employees’ behavior, was consistent with this belief.

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

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

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

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

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

Motivation Strategies

Let’s take a look at four strategies for motivating people in groups. Three of the strategies are based in longstanding organizational research, whereas one is a broader approach to motivation in general.

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

1. Allow all members of the group to set goals together, rather than imposing goals upon them. Research indicates that people who get to participate in developing their own goals become more satisfied during the performance of their tasks than those who don’t. If your student group is supposed to deliver a presentation together, you should all meet at the start of your assignment and decide what you plan to accomplish.
2. Establish goals which are specific. Broad or unclear goals are unlikely to cause people in a group to focus their attention and energy well. Instead of saying, “Let’s all pitch in and give our presentation 10 days from now,” it’s better to decide which person will talk about which subjects in the presentation, for how many minutes, and with how many handouts or projected images.
3. Establish the highest possible goals. You’ve perhaps heard the adage “Shoot for the moon; even if you miss, at least you’ll hit the stars.” The saying isn’t astronomically accurate, of course, since the stars are a lot farther away than the moon. The principle is a good one, though, since research shows that the more difficult the goals, the more effort people will put into achieving them, as long as they accept the more difficult goals in the first place.

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

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

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

A Prevalent Theory

In addition to setting goals that are specific, challenging, and jointly developed, how we try to get people to work together with others depends on our view of what makes people decide to do so. A prevalent theory, which Tom TylerTyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. contends has been especially influential in the past few decades throughout American society, has been that people collaborate for instrumental reasonsReasons for action which rest on an analysis of costs and benefits to the individual.. What this means is that they weigh costs and benefits and choose what they feel will be most advantageous to themselves. Their amount and quality of participation in a group then depends on “material exchangesTransfers of reward back and forth between a group’s members.”—transfers of rewards back and forth between the group’s members.Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lange, P.A.M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564–596). New York: Guilford. If these transfers don’t favor them as individuals, they will simply abandon the group.

If we operate according to this theory, there are many implications. First, we may want to spend considerable effort to decide on incentives to offer group members. Second, we may feel we need to be continually vigilant to make sure our incentives are working. Third, we may need to watch people carefully to see who is pitching in sufficiently. And fourth, we may want to create sanctions that we can impose upon people who don’t comply with the group’s rules and directions.

The Role of Social Links

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

According to this alternative theory, people will be best motivated to collaborate on the basis of social linksLong-term connections based on attitudes, emotional connections, shared identities, and other human commonalities.. These are defined as “long-term connections based on attitudes, emotional connections, shared identities, common values, trust in the motivation of others, & joint commitment to fairness.”Tyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tyler’s book Why People Cooperate presents the results of his studies in business, legal settings, and political organizations as evidence that people are often willing to give up the opportunity for personal gain in order to contribute to the welfare of a group as a whole. Specifically, Tyler’s research with groups in more than 15 countries showed that “in none of the countries were people’s behaviors consistent with a narrow self-interest model.”Tyler, T.R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

The proponents of this theory believe that using a combination of incentives or punishments—“carrots” and “sticks”—is not always going to produce collaborative behavior in a group. It’s very possible, for instance, for group members who are treated this way to do just enough to get exactly the incentives they’ve been promised rather than to go beyond the call of duty for the sake of the group as a whole.

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

Strategies to Promote Collaboration

Indeed, fighting successfully in a war requires total and complete collaboration on the part of soldiers. In Shakespeare’s Henry V, prior to the Battle of Agincourt, King Henry rallies troops in the famous “St. Crispin’s Day Speech.” In the speech, he refers to “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers—for whoever sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother.” As a result of his speech, the English soldiers fight valiantly, and ultimately they defeat the French and win the battle.

What can we learn from Shakespeare’s account, as well as from the thoughts of modern theorists, to promote collaboration within a group? Here are several strategies which researchers now believe can be successful:

• Appeal to Members’ Social Links

  Appeal explicitly to members’ social links, including their belief in and reliance on each other, rather than only to their narrow self-interest.

  As Tyler and BladerTyler, T.R., & Blader, S.L. (2000). Cooperation in groups. Philadelphia: Psychology Press]. wrote, “Social motivations lead not only to compliance, but to voluntary deference to rules and to more general willing cooperation.” We don’t have to say that our fellow group members are brothers and sisters, even metaphorically, but we can remind them of their mutual reliance.

• Identify and Revisit Values and Goals

  Ensure that the group identifies and periodically revisits its values and goals by means of full participation of its members. Heath and SiasHeath, R.G., & Sias, P.M. (1999). Communicating spirit in a collaborative alliance. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 356–376. pointed out that leaving someone out of these processes at any time can weaken that person’s social links with the group and thereby make it less likely for the person to work on behalf of its purposes later on.

• Create Relational Contracts

  Besides adopting formal written agreements, create “relational contractsInformal statements of knowledge and other strengths that group members pledge to contribute to the group’s work..”Baker, G., Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K.J. (2002). Relational contracts and the theory of the firm. Quarterly journal of economics (117), 39–84 These are informal statements which rest on mutual trust and describe the knowledge and other strengths that various group members will bring to bear in conducting the group’s work. For instance, in a group planning a community bazaar, one person might pledge to prepare banners because he or she possesses artistic talent. This pledge would not be part of the group’s initial goal-setting process. Neither would it last beyond the completion of the bazaar. Still, it would help carry the group successfully through one of its important activities.

  Because relational contracts are tied to particular situations and circumstances, they are more flexible than formal, permanent agreements. At the same time, it’s important to take into account that they are also harder to enforce because of their very informality.

• Think Big and Long Term

  Ask group members to think big and think long-term. BurkeBurke, W.W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3^rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. wrote that group members should engage in “systemic thinkingA process whereby group members “think big” and long-term by conceiving of themselves as an enduring and organic totality..” He meant by this that they should regard their group as an enduring and organic totality, rather than simply as the sum of many individuals at a particular time.

  King Henry said this when he told his soldiers of the lasting importance of their combined actions:

  “This story shall the good man teach his son,

  And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by

  From this day to the ending of the world,

  But we in it shall be remembered”

  In the same spirit, Burke urged groups to build and maintain an organizational memoryA mechanism, in digital or hard-copy form, for retaining information about a group’s activities over extended periods.—a record, preferably in hard-copy or digital form, of the history of the group. Such a record will tend to promote cohesion and identity in a group. It should also help integrate new members into the group as they join it.

How Feedback and Assessment Differ

FeedbackCommunication with another person or persons in response to a message or with respect to an impression you have of the person(s). is a general term which simply means communicating with someone in response to a message from that person or with respect to a perception you have about him or her. In day-to-day conversations, it may be a straightforward descriptive comment about facts that happen to catch your attention, like “It looks like you just got a haircut.” In a group, an example of feedback might be something like “You’ve completed your part of the project now.”

AssessmentA variety of feedback which expresses judgment about the value, significance, or merit of someone else’s nature or behavior., on the other hand, is one variety of feedback. It is an expression of judgment about the value, significance, or merit of a person’s nature or behavior. Instead of just describing someone’s haircut or indicating that the person has finished a project, an assessment might be more like “Your haircut looks great” or “It’s about time you finished your part of the project.”

When you transmit any message to other people, and particularly if you share an impression or perception about them, you’re asking them to enter a communication transaction with you. They’re going to have to focus on your message and use mental energy to decide how to respond. When, then, should you ask people to make this kind of effort by giving them feedback? What kind should you give? And how much? Answering these questions constitutes a normal part of everyday human life with people with whom we interact routinely, but it’s a particularly challenging part of working in a group with people whom we may not know as well as we do our family or close friends. Offering assessment can be even more difficult, since it puts us at risk of making a mistake or upsetting other people.

One source of group motivation is a sense of movement and growth. Therefore, among the most useful tools in preparing to provide feedback and assessment are benchmarksQualitative or quantitative descriptions of a group’s initial conditions to be used later for comparative purposes.. These are qualitative or quantitative descriptions of a group’s initial conditions to be used later for comparative purposes. For example, a newly-formed student group might make a list of how many and which books they have read by a particular author or on a particular assigned topic.

Effective Feedback and Assessment in a Group

Feedback and assessment should be planned and delivered carefully and intentionally. If they are to motivate people in a group, they should possess the following characteristics:

1. Relevance. The feedback or assessment should deal with actions the group has decided to take, values the group wants to embody, and especially goals the group has set for itself.
2. Frequency. People are busy and are bombarded with messages all day long, every day. In order to maintain a sense of purpose and focus with regard to their group’s activities, members need to be reminded regularly of what and how they’re doing.
3. Simplicity. The more direct and readily understandable the feedback and assessment, the better. In the 1960s, a whimsical bumper sticker said “Eschew obfuscation”—which means “avoid unclear communication.” Keep things simple.
4. Candor. People generally appreciate honesty. In order to improve what they’re doing in a group, give them forthright information about where they stand.
5. Civility. Too much candor can turn into rudeness. Politeness in feedback and assessment makes them easier to accept.
6. Specificity. Everyone in the group needs to understand the message as close to the same way as possible. Do your best, therefore, to be precise and to avoid ambiguity.
7. Eclecticism. Especially in large organizations such as schools and corporations, surveys and polls used as assessment tools can become tedious and burdensome. It’s a good idea to invest time in developing creative new ways to monitor a group’s stature and progress.

Subjects of Effective Feedback and Assessment

In order to assist and motivate group members, it’s important to select the proper items to collect and express feedback and assessment about. Here are some possible topics about which feedback can be given:

1. Group configuration/patterns. Are the boundaries of your group clear? Have those boundaries changed, or are they the same as when the group was formed? Hartley and DawsonHartley, P., & Dawson, M. (2010). Success in groupwork. New York: St. Martin’s Press. also suggested asking which members occupy positions of status at the center of the group and which members are on its edge.
2. Actions taken by the group. Does everyone agree on what the results of your group’s decisions are? Have you kept track of what you’ve done with lists or other records?
3. Relationship of actions to goals. Which of your group’s actions have been guided by its a priori goalsGoals established intentionally and explicitly by a group when it is established., i.e., the ones it established intentionally and explicitly at the outset of its activities? What ad hoc actionsBehaviors of a group which were not mandated when the group originated but which respond to specific unanticipated circumstances., if any—that is, ones in response to specific unanticipated circumstances—have you taken since originating the group?

Other topics which your group should consider pertain to assessment, including the following:

1. Adequacy of communication processes. To what degree are your group’s members satisfied with the quantity and nature of communication among yourselves? What communication practices do you especially appreciate, and which would you prefer to change?
2. Adequacy of progress toward goals. To what degree are your group’s goals being met? If your group’s level of progress isn’t what you hoped for initially, are you nevertheless comfortable with the lesser results, perhaps because you encountered tougher-than-expected challenges along the way?
3. Group members’ individual satisfaction/mood. Unhappy or disgruntled members don’t add to the motivational spirit of a group. Try asking the simple question, “So, how are you feeling?” at the conclusion of every major group task. Probing individuals too often about how they’re feeling about your group’s activities can be distracting, and it can even cause doubts to expand. If you don’t check often enough, however, small areas of disagreement or dissatisfaction can grow to damaging proportions. A plan for frequent, regular assessment will help group members feel supported rather than importuned by assessment of their satisfaction.
4. The group’s satisfaction with itself. Does your group’s “self-portrait” change with time? This sort of question can be posed in efficient, uncomplicated ways. In addition to asking individual members, “So, how are you feeling?”, it’s possible also to ask, “So, how do you think our group’s doing?” Even fanciful questions like “What kind of animal are we?” or “What kind of plant?” can quickly help ascertain how positive your group’s climate and outlook may be.
5. External views about the group. To remain motivated to collaborate, groups can benefit from asking for perspectives on their activities from outsiders. A fresh view will often raise thoughtful new questions for your group itself to consider.

As Mitchell Caplan’s quotation at the beginning of this section indicated, success in groups does depend at least in part on drawing upon the strengths of their members. Feedback and assessment make it possible to determine whether those strengths are being properly exploited and maximized for the benefit of the group.

Additional Resources

Many organizations employ professional speakers whose chief function is to motivate groups in business, education, and other areas of society. See what you can learn by visiting and assessing the opportunities offered by the following websites associated with organizations of this sort:

• http://publicspeakers4hire.com
• http://www.speaking.com/: “Speakers’ Platform”
• http://www.motivational-celebrity-speakers.com/ (sports figures and celebrities)
• http://premierespeakers.com/women_motivational_speaker (women)
• http://nsb.com/speakers (Canadian motivational speakers)

Warren Bennis and Patricia Biederman’s book Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration, published in 1997 by Perseus Books, describes an impressive example of successful creative collaboration by a small group of employees in Lockheed Martin Corporation during World War II. Lockheed’s “skunkworks”—an unstructured, independent offshoot of the parent company—encouraged collaboration among engineers and others to produce innovative new products in a very short time.

The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington strives to provide its students with a fully collaborative learning environment built around “learning communities.” Visiting the college’s campus or its website (http://www.evergreen.edu) will reveal some of the principles and practices underlying Evergreen’s collaborative philosophy.

Many pairs of musicians have created famous and popular musical compositions. Read about these partnerships to see how well they were able to collaborate and what they felt made their collaboration successful:

• W.S. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan
• Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein
• Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel
• John Lennon and Paul McCartney

Carolyn Wiley of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga published an article in the International Journal of Manpower, “What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys” (1997—volume 18, issue 3), in which she claimed that employees overwhelmingly chose “good wages” as their top motivator. Although wages seem to be purely extrinsic, Wiley contended that they communicate what an organization values and that they affect employees’ emotional and psychological wellbeing. Reading Wiley’s article should give you a potentially new perspective on what motivates people to put forth effort in the business world.

Many theorists believe that what motivates people is culture-specific. Asians, in particular, are held to behave according to Confucian principles and collectivist motives. The chapter “The nature of achievement motivation in collectivist societies” in Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (1994; Cross-cultural research and methodology series, Vol. 18; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications) offers an explanation of this viewpoint.