An Empirical Test of Goal-Framing Theory Applied to Collective Performance: The

An empirical test of Goal-framing theory applied to collective performance: the

mediating role of social well-being and joint production motivation

Master Thesis

Student: Lina María Bernal Fuentes / Student No. 11710497

MSc. Business Administration, Strategy track

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Siri Boe-Lillegraven

University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business

Date: 22th June 2018, Final paper

Statement of Originality

This document is written by the student Lina María Bernal Fuentes, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Literature review ...... 7 Goal-framing theory ...... 7

Three overarching frames: hedonic, gain and normative ...... 9 Goal-framing theory application to pro-social, pro-environmental and collective behaviours

...... 10

Pro-social behaviours ...... 11 Pro-environmental behaviours ...... 11 Collective behaviours and organizational applications ...... 13 Well-being ...... 16

General definition ...... 16 The appearance of social well-being ...... 17 The conceptual framework ...... 20 Hypotheses development ...... 22 Part 1. Normative frame, joint production motivation and performance...... 22

Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, joint production motivation, and collective

performance...... 24

Methods ...... 27 Participants ...... 28

Materials and task ...... 29

Operationalization of variables...... 30

Independent variable – normative frame ...... 30 Manipulation check ...... 32 Mediator 1 – social well-being ...... 33 Mediator 2 – goal commitment ...... 34 Dependent variable – Contribution to collective performance ...... 37 Control variables ...... 38

Experiment 1 – control condition ...... 38

Experiment 2 – treatment condition...... 39

Pilot ...... 40

Data collection ...... 41

Results ...... 42 Part 1. Normative frame, goal commitment and contribution to collective performance ...... 45

Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, goal commitment and contribution to collective

performance...... 47

Part 3. Observations ...... 52

Discussion ...... 54 Theoretical implications ...... 54

Practical implications ...... 57

Future research ...... 58

Limitations of the study ...... 59

Conclusion ...... 60 References ...... 61

Abstract

This thesis tests the application of goal-framing theory in a collective setting and the mediating mechanisms of social well-being and joint production motivation. As proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011), first I test if there is a positive relationship between the normative frame and performance, and the mediating role of joint production motivation. Second, I propose using social well-being as a second mediating mechanism that appears from the normative frame and increases joint production motivation and performance. Through a between-subjects experiment (N= 84) implemented with students from the faculty of economics and business at the University of Amsterdam, I found that the normative frame did not lead to higher performance. However, the examination of the normative frame antecedents explains this unexpected result and provides empirical support for Lindenberg and Foss’s (2011) suggested steps to create collective production situations, which is consistent with goal-framing theory.

Furthermore, social well-being proved to be a tool that can support or diminish motivation and performance, and its effect largely depends on managers’ ability to manipulate it.

Keywords: goal-framing theory; normative frame; joint production motivation; social well- being; collective performance.

Introduction

Organizations’ ability to pursue goals is one of the most important factors determining high performance. This pursuit is a composite of individual-level goals and collective goals that coexist within organizations and should remain aligned to guarantee success (Gottschalg

& Zollo, 2007). Problems arise when people prioritize their individual goals over the firm’s interests. In this matter, goal-framing theory (Lindenberg & Frey, 1993; Lindenberg, 2000;

Lindenberg, 2001; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007; Lindenberg, 2008) states that managers can trigger or design frames (environments) within organizations that increase awareness about collective production and drive people’s motivation towards organizational goals achievement.

Goal-framing theory states that the normative frame, which focuses on safeguard collective benefits through goals like ‘behaving in the right way’, ‘doing the right thing’, and

‘contributing to collective benefits’ (Lindenberg, 2008), is the most adequate frame to guarantee value creation (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). This is because it prompts the appearance of pro-social behaviours, interest alignment, and, especially, joint production motivation (Foss

& Lindenberg, 2013; 2011). However, its stability can be easily threatened by the influences of alternative forces like the hedonic frame and the gain frame, which are focused on individual-level goals like “feeling good” or “improving one’s resource position”, respectively.

Lindenberg and Foss (2011) call manager’s attention to the importance of this issue and suggest different forms of goals alignment to maintain people’s motivation focused on collective production. In this matter, the hedonic frame is treated with special caution, because it is related with low levels of value creation and is recognized to be especially capable of displacing the normative frame (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Therefore, the authors limit the supporting role of the hedonic frame to the normative frame to the use of incentives in a modest, non-contingent manner and focused on group-level performance (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).

However, in the application of goal-framing theory to pro-social behaviours and pro- environmental behaviours, authors find that social influences and values coming from the hedonic frame can actually support the normative frame and make people endorse pro-social and pro-environmental behaviours (Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg, 2011; Keizer, Lindenberg, &

Steg, 2013; Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg, 2008; Lindenberg, 2006; Lindenberg & Steg, 2007;

Lindenberg & Steg, 2013; Steg & Vlek, 2009). These alternative ideas of using the hedonic frame to support the normative frame have not been considered yet in the ground of collective performance, as the theoretical and empirical works in this field are still very limited. In fact, in firm’s contexts, the main positive relation between the normative frame and the levels of performance still lacks empirical proof that will ensure the effectiveness of the goal-framing theory in competitive environments.

Therefore, this thesis aims to contribute to goal-framing theory by testing the effect of the normative frame on performance, and by suggesting an alternative way in which the alignment of the hedonic and the normative frame can generate a positive impact on performance. According to Lindenberg and Foss (2011), the normative frame is recreated by applying two of the four antecedents proposed: task transparency and teams structure and symbolic management. In a laboratory experiment, a frame manipulation is implemented to increase people’s motivation for collective production and therefore their levels of contribution to collective goals. Additionally, social well-being, as a kind of hedonic force, is proposed as an alternative mechanism to impact motivation for collective production. In opposition to what is claimed by goal-framing theory, social well-being as a hedonic element is expected to appear from the normative frame and cause a positive effect in people’s joint production motivation and performance.

The experiment delivered contradictory results in the relationship between the normative frame and motivation. The design of the normative frame was not able to positively

6 affect motivation neither production. However, overall this thesis contributed to goal-framing theory with evidence supporting Lindenberg and Foss’s (2011) propositions about the how task transparency, team structures and symbolic management configure the normative frame and interact between each other to preserve or not its stability. Symbolic management proved to be especially powerful in directing individual’s attention, and it can seriously hamper the stability of the normative frame if it deviates from collective goals. Social well-being proved to be a source of joint production motivation and indirectly affected the levels of performance, but managers should control it carefully if they want that this element positively affect the levels of collective production. Individual preference for a task, as an alternative variable, was able to positively affect the model and the levels of motivation and performance. Finally, some practical implications and paths of future research are proposed.

Literature review

Goal-framing theory

Goal-framing theory was developed in first place by Siegwart Lindenberg and was later elaborated and applied to organizational, prosocial and environmental contexts by Nicolai Foss and Linda Steg (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013; Lindenberg, 2000; Lindenberg, 2006; Lindenberg

& Steg, 2007; Lindenberg, 2008; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011; Steg & Vlek, 2009). With this theory, Lindenberg (2000) wants to give an explanation of the rationales behind people’s decisions. He states that people’s actions respond to a collection of inner beliefs and immediate conditions in which decisions are made. Those conditions affect people’s selective attention and determine what ideas influence people’s final actions the most (Lindenberg, 2000). The immediate conditions that influence actions are defined as frames (Lindenberg, 2000). Frames are packs of ‘circumstantial conditions’ driving people’s attention, beliefs, and knowledge

(Lindenberg, 2000). This means that different immediate circumstances lead to the creation of

7 different frames, which in turn allow the prevalence of different beliefs and therefore different actions. This is defined as framing process.

According to the theory, different frames can coexist and interact with each other depending on the external cues that are present in the environment (Lindenberg, 2000;

Lindenberg, 2008). The framing process creates two dimensions where frames operate: the foreground and the background. The foreground is the dominant dimension where a specific frame leads people’s attention, priorities and actions, and drives them towards a specific set of goals and related sub-goals (Lindenberg, 2000). The background dimension remains in the environment but becomes weaker than the foreground. It is still important because it contains a set of goals that can be relevant for the foreground and can deteriorate or enhance the prominence of a frame in the foreground if the environmental cues change (Lindenberg, 2000).

There are two characteristics of frames that allow them to operate in the two different dimensions, the salience and the porosity. The ‘salience of a frame’ refers to the level of strength that the frame has in order to be in the foreground or in the background (Lindenberg,

2000). The salience is lower the greater the distance of the product of a behaviour from the behaviour itself (Lindenberg, 2000). That means that the more time people need to wait to see the effect of an action, the less strong the frame leading the action is.

The second characteristic, the ‘porosity’, refers to the capacity of all frames to affect each other. Being porous means that each frame is exposed to the influence of the others

(Lindenberg, 2008). So, when a goal frame dominates the foreground, it pushes the other two to the background but without making them fade. Instead, the porosity allows the frames to remain active in the background and acquire relative strength depending on the situational triggers appearing in the environment. This idea suggests that mixed goals are present in people’s motivations and they affect constantly their willingness to engage in certain behaviours, which is a key point of goal-framing theory.

Lindenberg (2000) states that frames are composed of two types of goals, higher level goals and lower level goals. The high-level goal governs people’s beliefs and actions and has under its dominance a set of more concrete and related low-level goals. When the high-level goal becomes ‘focal’ or an ‘overarching frame’ (Lindenberg, 2008), the lower-level goals point to the same direction as the higher-level goal does. Those overarching frames are capable to prompt automatic reactions in people when facing specific external circumstances.

Specifically, in an organization, an overarching frame is able to organize people’s cognitions and evaluations, and they guide people’s responses in different types of situations.

Three overarching frames: hedonic, gain and normative

Lindenberg (2008) recognizes three main overarching frames: the hedonic goal-frame, the gain goal-frame, and the normative goal-frame. The hedonic goal-frame has lower-level goals focused on improving the way one feels at a specific moment. This frame has a high level of salience, operates in the short term and is focused on chasing opportunities for satisfaction.

Satisfaction is understood as part of individual’s physical well-being, like avoiding pain and seeking physical pleasure, or as part of individual’s social well-being, like improving self- esteem, looking for work motivation and behavioural approval (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011;

Ormel, Lindenberg, Steverink, & Verbrugge, 1999). The gain goal-frame drives people’s attention towards sub-goals that improve people’s resources. This frame has a medium level of salience and seeks to safeguard scarce resources by paying attention to opportunities to improve the resource position. Pro-competition incentives focused on personal gains can trigger this frame. Finally, the normative goal-frame has a low level of salience and has to do with the idea of ‘appropriateness’, like behaving in the right way, caring about group interests, and complying with social norms (Lindenberg, 2000; Lindenberg, 2008). This frame has a low level of salience and can be easily displaced by the influence of the other two.

The fact that each frame is associated with a different level of salience creates a sort of hierarchy. On the top of it is the hedonic goal-frame, then it follows the gain goal-frame, and finally, the normative goal-frame is at the bottom of the hierarchy. This means that if people want to focus on normative goals, they have to displace hedonistic and lucrative goals to the background. It also implies that people need to wait long periods of time to experience the positive or negative effects of this decision (Lindenberg, 2000). Therefore, the sustainability of the normative frame is weak and vulnerable to the effect of environmental forces.

The fact the frames are porous implies that they can influence each other while being in the foreground or in the background. These interactions and the possible alignment between frames can serve different purposes, for example in stimulating pro-social behaviours or group- oriented behaviours. The following section will explain the different applications of the goal- framing theory and the ways in which mutual support or alignments between frames have been proposed so far.

Goal-framing theory application to pro-social, pro-environmental and collective behaviours

Goal framing theory has been used to understand the roots and functioning of pro-social behaviours, pro-environmental behaviours, and collective (organizational) behaviours (Foss &

Lindenberg, 2013; Lindenberg, 2000; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011; Lindenberg & Steg, 2013;

Steg & Vlek, 2009). All these works highlight the role of the normative frame as the glue to stick people to productive behaviours and to reinforce a collective orientation even when people have incentives to look for their own benefit.

Pro-social behaviours

Lindenberg (2006) explains how pro-social behaviours are strongly linked to the creation of mental models, cognitive process and goals. Pro-social behaviours include actions as sharing knowledge, helping others, expressing solidarity, among others (Lindenberg, 2006).

Individuals’ actions are the result of a framing and cognitive process that connect the motives to realize an action with the final pro-social behaviour. The motives can be influenced by the person’s and other people’s expectations of the action or by predictions over the effect of an action. Therefore, all frames can lead to pro-social behaviours; however, the motives behind the behaviours are different and are related to a different level of social support (Lindenberg,

2006).

The two most remarkable contributions of the application of goal-framing theory to pro-social behaviours are first the recognition that the normative frame requires a strong level of relational signalling that approves or disapproves an action; and second, the recognition on that the hedonic frame can support the normative frame, appealing to the fear of not being socially approved (Lindenberg, 2006). In this case, the hedonic support takes the shape of social sanctions that individuals try to avoid and lead them to endorse a collective orientation.

Pro-environmental behaviours

In the field of pro-environmental behaviour, Lindenberg and Steg (2007) proved that mixed motives governed pro-environmental actions. People’s motivations to act pro- environmentally are heterogeneous and not constant. In the hedonic frame, Lindenberg and

Steg (2007) found that people engage in pro-environmental behaviours when they derive pleasure and satisfaction from it, and also when endorsing the behaviour is congruent with a personal value. Commonly this is called ‘having an emotional affinity with the environment’.

In the gain frame, the authors found out that people engage more often in environmental

11 behaviours when it brings positive consequences for themselves, for example saving money

(Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). But even though the gain frame has a role in conditioning pro- environmental behaviours, people are more willing to engage in them if they find an affective relation with the cause (hedonic reason). That suggests a stronger effect from the hedonic frame than from the gain frame in people’s environmental behaviours. Finally, regarding the normative frame, the main reason people acted pro-environmentally is due to the desire of behaving ‘appropriately’ and according to certain standards (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). This work is important because the authors conclude that environmental behaviours are mainly based and prompted by the normative frame, but it is fundamental to get the hedonic and the gain frames aligned in the background, so they don’t displace the normative frame from the focus.

Lindenberg and Steg (2013) propose two mechanisms to consolidate the influence of the normative frame and align the gain and hedonic frames with it. The first one is the signalling from leader figures and cross-norm activation, which states that other’s attitudes towards a norm affect one’s behaviour. The second mechanism is the moralization of behaviours which defines how important is to comply with a social norm or not (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). The proposal of these two mechanisms is important because they highlight the role of social forces in reinforcing the strength of the normative frame and therefore in the adoption of pro- environmental behaviours.

Social values can indirectly support the feeling of joint production and moral obligation

(Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). Interestingly, the authors did not deepen on the idea that individuals can also experience a sense of well-being when they act in a normative frame. This well-being can be the result of complying with social norms or from behaving accordingly to inner beliefs (to be environmentally friendly).

Collective behaviours and organizational applications

Regarding collective behaviours, Lindenberg & Foss (2011) introduce and elaborate on the concept of ‘joint production motivation’. Joint production motivation is defined as the

“human capacity to actively engage in collaborative activities, and it is based on the insight that the motivation to engage in them is strongly related with cognitions about tasks, interdependencies and common goals” (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011, 502). The authors categorize joint production motivation situations as settings with high a heterogeneity of efforts, that imply complementary resources and interdependencies (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). The perception that a common endeavour exists for a group of people triggers pro-social behaviours as sharing cognitions and information, exerting efforts to coordinate, willing to support peers, among others (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). As stated by the authors, the collaborative character of joint production motivation makes it appealing to organizations and a tool to effectively manage group-oriented behaviours.

Lindenberg & Foss (2011) explain that the interdependencies among tasks and people’s orientation towards a collective long run imply that joint production requires a strong degree of interest alignment (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trötschel, 2001; Lindenberg

& Foss, 2011). Then, individuals’ decisions to work for a collective goal can be prompted by a proper normative frame that emphasizes collective goal achievement.

Lindenberg & Foss (2011) proposed four mechanisms to establish that normative frame and therefore increase joint production motivation. The first one creates the setting in which people recognize that the situation is one of joint production motivation. This is ‘transparency of task and team interdependencies’. When employees perceive that tasks are designed to contribute to common goals and that everyone’s efforts are needed to succeed in the collective endeavour, their joint production motivation increase (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).

The second aspect, ‘cognitive and symbolic management’, directly support the normative frame and it refers to the importance of having a clear and shared vision on what is the goal, and to the role that leaders and peer’s play when promoting fair treatment and ensuring productive behaviours. The clearer the vision, and the more normative-directed the peers’ and leaders’ behaviours, the higher the support to the normative frame and therefore to joint production motivation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).

Third, ‘reward structures’ indirectly support the normative frame as they determine the set of productive or negative incentives that conduce people towards collective goals or individual goals. Rewards must be linked to joint outcomes and must be given in recognition instead of monetary rewards. They also must be non-contingent, otherwise, the gain or hedonic frame are triggered, and people perform tasks in the pursuit of personal interests (Lindenberg

& Foss, 2011).

Finally, a ‘knowledge-based authority structure’ is an organizational design that legitimizes the task and teams’ structures and interdependencies. This is a hierarchy that serves joint production purposes and is able to offer suitable solutions and guidance to achieve organizational goals. Therefore, an authority structure based on knowledge and legitimate expertise will strengthen the normative frame and therefore joint production motivation

(Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).

The benefits of raising joint production motivation in a collective context can be seen in terms of value creation (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Joint production motivation promotes the appearance of pro-social behaviours like knowledge sharing (Lindenberg, 2006) and affects the types of activities people are willing to engage in, the amount of effort they are willing to exert in a task, and how people strive to achieve coordination (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). All of this spurs productivity and innovation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). In ambiguous situations, having similar cognitions about tasks and the interrelations among them allow people to

14 respond faster and in a more coordinated manner, which reduces costs of planning and formalization (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). The fact that people align themselves to others’ behaviours through peer’s signalling also reduces opportunism and the need to exert control mechanisms over employees (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Therefore, the management of joint production motivation becomes relevant as it can increase goals attainment and therefore collective performance (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013).

The gain and the hedonic frame play an important role in maintaining the strength of the normative frame (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). The gain frame is associated with a medium level of value creation because contains strategic goals that look for economic benefit and improving the resource position (Lindenberg, 2000). In a competitive context, the gain frame plays a role in directing attention towards profit opportunities and performance improvement

(Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). For these reasons, firms should find ways to ‘obliquely’ align the gain frame with the normative frame, while taking care that the gain frame does not become more relevant than the normative frame (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). In contrast, the hedonic frame is associated with the lowest levels of value creation and with dubious effects on performance. Lindenberg and Foss (2013) state that “an organization which members take a myopic perspective and are predominantly hedonically oriented is not conducive to value creation” (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013, 92-93). The consequences of letting the hedonic frame comes to the foreground are that the “investments in human capital are not undertaken, helping behaviours do not thrive, and rewards that are not directly linked to efforts [become] useless”

(Lindenberg & Steg, 2013, 93).

Lindenberg and Foss (2011) propose few ways to make the hedonic frame a useful tool to support the normative frame. Individual rewards, for example, can be used to increase motivation, but they have to be non-contingent, modest and directed to group goals and not individual goals; they have to be given based on processes of cooperation and joint creation

15 and not only due to the final output (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). In the same way, sanctions are effective to monitor behaviour and ensure individuals’ contribution to collective goals, because people are going to avoid the unpleasant penalties by contributing to the group. In the application of this theory to value creation, Foss & Lindenberg (2013) recognize that the hedonic frame also includes goals as improving the self-esteem, reacting to perceived unfairness and seeking excitement. These goals can also increase joint production motivation while the person operates in a normative frame; however, this aspect was not further studied in their theoretical paper.

In conclusion, the review of the different applications of goal-framing theory in pro- environmental behaviours and pro-social behaviours offers ideas in which the hedonic frame turns to be beneficial for collective contexts, in contrast with the limited role assigned to this frame by Lindenberg and Foss (2013; 2011). More specifically, the role of social values and group-related feelings can have a positive effect on people’s willingness to engage in pro-social behaviours. Therefore, this brings up the idea that a different conception of the hedonic frame based on the idea of social well-being can increase people’s level of joint production motivation and therefore can positively affect collective performance. The following section explores the different conceptions of hedonism, and how they can be applied positively to goal-framing theory and collective performance.

Well-being

General definition

The concept of well-being has been broadly studied and deeply developed by many theorists (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Diener, 1984; Keyes, 1998; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, &

Ryan, 2000; Ryff, 1995; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Warner Wilson (1967) was one of the first authors defining well-being as state derived from demographic conditions. The author

16 defines major categories and subfactors that contribute to well-being including aspects such as: intelligence, socio-economic status, personality, values, environment and health. This definition of well-being as a function of certain external and internal conditions is later questioned by Diener (1984) and Houston (1981), who develop a different idea of well-being based on ideas of pleasure and pain. The fulfilment of needs lead to high levels of satisfaction and therefore to well-being (Diener, 1984; Houston, 1981). In the same line of thought, telic theories try to explain subjective well-being as the fulfilment of needs, goals and desires.

Diener (1984) and Austin & Vancouver (1996) state an idea of well-being based on people’s sensation of progress toward goals (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Diener, 1984).

These theories are important for the development of the concept of well-being because they find goals achievement to be strongly linked to the affection of individuals and therefore to their levels of satisfaction. Ed Diener (1984) finally defines well-being as a subjective construct with an important categorization: first, well-being as a normative external criterion

(as a virtue or quality) that defines what is a desirable thing; second, as a subjective idea defined by people that allow them to evaluate life in positive terms; and third, as an everyday speech about an ongoing dominance of positive affects over negative affects that entails pleasantness experiences (Diener, 1984). Thus, well-being is a subjective concept; it is a positive measure; and its measurement includes an assessment of the global state of an individual’s life (Diener,

1984).

The appearance of social well-being

Carol Ryff (1995) and Corey Lee Keyes (1995) make a step forward in this matter and define well-being as multidimensional construct composed of six elements: self-acceptance, positive relations, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life, and personal growth. This definition suggests an idea of well-being based on aspects from the social spectre of individuals

(positive relations) and based on aspects related with feeling self-competent and skilful when doing tasks (environmental mastery and personal growth). Building on this idea, Corey Lee M.

Keyes (1998) advances a model of social well-being defined as a conscious self-evaluation taking into account that individuals understand themselves as part of social structures that have collective goals. He narrows this construct to five main dimensions: social acceptance, social integration, social contribution, social actualization, and social coherence. Social acceptance is analogue to self-acceptance and refers to what idea of society someone forms in her mind from the character and qualities of general people. For example, if someone thinks that others are capable of good actions and kindness. People with high levels of social acceptance have a positive view of human nature (Keyes, 1998). Social integration refers to the quality of the individual’s relationship with the community. A person who normally presents a good level of well-being has a good relationship with the immediate community (Keyes, 1998). Social contribution is the assessment of the individual’s social value. If the person feels valuable to society and has something to offer, then she experiences a good level of social contribution.

This category is analogue to the idea of self-efficacy and the capacity to achieve objectives

(Keyes, 1998). Social actualization refers to the individual’s belief that society has a potential to be realized in the future and that she is going to be a beneficiary of that growth (Keyes,

1998). Finally, social coherence refers to people’s understanding of how society operates, how it is organized and what happens at a certain point in time. According to Keyes (1998), high measures of these aspects lead to a good social well-being.

The major distinction of Keyes’ approach (1998) is that it establishes that well-being is related with the individuals’ interrelations with a society. This social well-being can be applied to smaller scenarios like groups within organizations, and it is possible to argue that a big part of individual’s well-being and motivation is linked to healthy social relationships between the

18 person and the colleagues (social integration), and between the person and the task under her responsibility (social contribution).

Ryan and Deci (2000) through the Self-determination theory also explore how the sense of well-being is linked with the satisfaction of the psychological needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which are similar to Keyes’s categories of social contribution and social integration. Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan (2000) empirically show that the fulfilment of the needs of relatedness and competence lead to higher levels of daily well-being, which in turn affect positively the levels of long-term well-being

(Reis et al., 2000). Therefore, in scenarios of daily social interaction, the satisfaction of the needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy, leads to the realization of people’s well-being

(Reis et al., 2000).

For this thesis, the most remarkable contribution of this empirical work is that it proves that some individuals are more responsive than others to the variations of the factors that contribute to the daily well-being. The sensitivity of each person to the circumstances that affect well-being determines to what extent environmental clues make someone more (or less) inclined to behave accordingly to them. Therefore, the way people experience well-being is not homogeneous and can be affected by the overarching frame that dominates an environment.

This aspect is relevant because it determines that people can experience well-being in organizations from being in a normative frame similar to if they were in a hedonic frame.

Finally, Harter, Schmidt & Keyes (2003) explore in detail the role of well-being and its potential positive effect on organizational performance. The authors proved that workers that experience positive feelings (i.e. motivation or commitment) and have their social needs and affective needs satisfied, translate these emotions in higher business performance. The study confirms the direct link between the sense of well-being, motivation and performance.

The conceptual framework

In goal-framing theory, well-being is present in the hedonic frame (Lindenberg, 2000), and its strength is such that it can be “involved in almost everything people do” (Lindenberg,

2000, 187). Hedonic well-being can take the form of the realization of pleasures and sensorial goals like seeking satisfaction, avoiding pain, avoiding effort, among others (Foss &

Lindenberg, 2013). But, it can also appear from reactions in the normative or gain frame that derive in contentment or unpleasantness. The role of the hedonic frame proposed in this thesis is not a reinforcement in forms of incentives or rewards as proposed by Lindenberg and Foss

(2011), but it is a consequence of the normative frame. The normative frame entails the existence of a shared purpose within teams, and it is based in strong relational signalling and social forces (Lindenberg & Steg, 2013). Therefore, the common purpose, the social regulation and the opportunity to reinforce interpersonal relationships, make the normative frame a fertile ground for social well-being to raise. People can experience social well-being because they belong to a group and because they feel capable to contribute to collective outcomes (Keyes,

1998), or more precisely because they are immersed in a normative frame. The possibility of improving the social well-being in different frames allows the hedonic frame to co-exist in a normative situation without necessarily resulting prejudicial for performance. In such situation, the frames are not completely differentiated, and their different effects on people behaviours do not have to be incompatible with the idea of value creation.

As social well-being is based on the idea of being able to contribute to a group and being part of a collective, a high level of social well-being will increase the chances that people engage in collaborative activities inside their group (Keyes, 1998). This is because the group is configured around a shared goal, and because collaborating with others to achieve the goal improves and strengthen group members’ interrelationships. Goal-framing theory conceives motivation with a collective orientation, raising from the cognition of the collective tasks and

20 the interrelated activities. Therefore, an individual’s good level of social well-being can positively affect the levels of joint production motivation.

In this way, an individual that operates in a normative frame that belongs to a group and works with others for a collective outcome can find in the normative frame an ongoing source of satisfaction. In turn, the social environment can incentivize people to stay in the normative frame and find pleasure from it while they possibly also express this motivation in forms of cooperation, adaptability, extra efforts and proactivity. All of these are expressions of joint production motivation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011), and these behaviours can positively impact organizational performance. These ideas can be better understood in the following conceptual model (figure 1).

Social well-being Joint production

*Social contribution: motivation self-efficacy, being able to contribute to a team *engage in collaborative *Social integration – tasks with others feeling part of a group, because of the existence having good of a common goal and relationships team interdependencies

Normative Better collective frame performance

*The result of *Common goal coordinate efforts, *Interrelated tasks mutual support, (collaborative tasks) cooperation, *team existence coordination, less (teams structures) opportunism

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

It is important to clarify that the effect of this social well-being is not going to diminish directly the negative effects of hedonic goals proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011). The authors’ ideas of hedonic well-being are more focused on short-term sensorial satisfaction. The social well-being proposed here is focused on providing joy based on relationships and interactions which can go beyond instant pleasure.

I expect that individuals in a normative frame will get a satisfactory experience derived from the appraisal of themselves immersed in a collective context and contributing to a collective endeavour. This satisfaction raising from their social context will make them feel more motivated to participate in the joint production activities. The high motivation for performing collaborative activities will make them cooperate, be proactive, share knowledge, coordinate with each other, be helpful and exert extra efforts. These attitudes then will produce a higher collective performance.

Social well-being, analogue to the concept of employee “engagement” that is based on cognitive and motivational antecedents, can also contribute to improving collective performance. Finally, the total effect of the normative frame on social well-being and joint production motivation is expected to cause a better collective performance. The following section will establish the hypotheses of this conceptual framework.

Hypotheses development

This section is divided into two parts. The first part presents the model to test the relationships proposed by goal-framing theory, regarding the effect of the normative frame on collective performance, and the mediating effect of joint production motivation. The second part presents a model to test the effect of the normative frame on collective performance through the serial mediation effect of social well-being and joint production motivation.

Part 1. Normative frame, joint production motivation and performance.

In the context of collective production, the normative frame focuses on the efforts to particularly contribute to others and seek to the best result for collective goals (Lindenberg &

Foss, 2011). This frame is built on the cognition of a common purpose and in the interrelation of teams and tasks, and it is reinforced by the symbolic management of peers’ signalling

22 focused on collective production. This frame establishes the rules and procedures that people are supposed to follow and prevents them to pursue individual goals like improving the resources position and obtaining pleasure from a given situation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).

Therefore, the normative frame limits the appearance of non-productive practices like opportunism, while it reinforces the right type of cooperation to achieve joint endeavours

(Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). Therefore:

Hypothesis 1a. The normative frame has a positive effect on collective performance.

The normative frame creates the conditions in which collective production situations can appear. The cognition of being in a collective production situation and the behavioural reinforcement towards collective performance lead people to experience higher levels of motivation towards joint production (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). These high levels of motivation incentivize people to endorse behaviours like knowledge sharing, cooperation, altruism, proactiveness, willingness to help others, and additional efforts to find solutions to collective problems (Lindenberg, 2006; Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). At an organizational level, the normative frame and join production motivation could conditionate the tasks that individuals are willing to engage in and the effort and coordination that they exert to make those tasks. The net effect of this prosocial behaviours will be noted as higher collective performance. Therefore:

Hypothesis 1b. The normative frame has a positive effect on joint production

motivation

Hypothesis 1c. Joint production motivation has a positive effect on collective

performance

Hypothesis 1d. The normative frame has an indirect and positive effect on collective

performance, and this relation is mediated by joint production motivation.

This first model is represented in figure 2.

Joint Production motivation

Normative Collective frame performance

Figure 2. Model Part 1

Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, joint production motivation, and collective performance

In goal-framing theory, the hedonic frame is the frame that relates to people’s emotions and well-being. Goals in this frame are especially salient given that they impact people’s affections instantly. Lindenberg and Foss (2011) identify situations in which the hedonic frame can displace the normative frame to the background leading to negative consequences for the organization. For example, reward structures can look arbitrary if not managed properly, which lead people to feel mistreated and develop retaliation towards the organization (Lindenberg &

Foss, 2011). Codes of conduct and sanctions can be signified as unfair and have negative consequences that have to be avoided, pushing people towards a hedonic frame (Lindenberg &

Foss, 2011). Additionally, ambiguous authority structures can be understood an impetus of superiority which deteriorates relational bonds and undermines joint production motivation.

Taking into consideration this evidence, the authors suggest using those mechanisms with special care of not incentivising people to satisfy their hedonic goals.

However, the literature review also suggests that there are alternative ways to make people’s hedonic goals and well-being a positive support for the sustainability of the normative frame. Well-being is increased with the achievement of goals and progress in tasks (Austin &

Vancouver, 1996; Diener, 1984) which is why the normative frame is endorsed by

24 organizations. Those achievements generate pleasure and satisfaction at the same time (Austin

& Vancouver, 1996; Diener, 1984). Well-being is also the result of social interactions, which can be found in social settings but also in collective production situations based on a normative frame. Social interactions and peers’ relationships increase well-being in people (Ryff &

Keyes, 1995), which is also linked to the enjoyment that people experience when their contributions are qualified as useful and become relevant for a collective goal (Keyes, 1998).

Two aspects from the normative frame may have an effect on individuals’ levels of social well-being. First, the task transparency and team interrelations allow team members to recognized themselves as part of a collective effort with an objective of social contribution.

Therefore, individuals acting under a normative frame can experience higher social well-being because they feel useful and capable of contributing to a collective task. Second, by recognizing themselves as part of a collectively, individuals experience higher social well-being because the feel integrated within a team. In the same way, peer’s signalling and symbolic management provide a sense of approval and social support. Besides, the ongoing joint work towards the collective work produces social interactions that can strengthen the relationships between peers. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2a. A normative frame will have a positive effect on individuals’ social well-being

Social well-being rises with the awareness of oneself being involved in a social setting

(Keyes, 1998). The relationships with others, with the context, with oneself and with collective endeavours, determine the level of social well-being of one individual. Therefore, feeling confident of one’s role within a group, and being confident of one’s capacity to contribute to others and be useful, will produce a high level of well-being. The capacity to recognize oneself in such situation can affect individuals’ willingness and motivation to engage in collaborative

25 activities that are proper from joint production motivation (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011).

Therefore:

Hypothesis 2b. Social well-being will have a positive effect on joint production motivation.

As It was stated before, joint production motivation will make people focus on collective goals and will allow them to create a shared representation of actions, which will reduce their need of coordination (Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). People will engage in creative activities to achieve collective goals and will assist peers in dealing with ambiguous situations

(Foss & Lindenberg, 2013). Therefore, joint production motivation facilitates the appearance of actions that contribute to collective goal attainment:

Hypothesis 2c. Joint production motivation has a positive effect on collective performance.

Danna & Griffin’s (1999) review of the literature on well-being and productivity, found a link between peers’ working relationships with the existence of positive affects and well- being, which turns into better performance. This relation also works in the opposite sense, poor communication or negative stimuli from peers derives in poor well-being and this impacts negatively productivity. Therefore:

Hypothesis 2d. Social well-being has a positive effect on collective performance

Finally, according to Harter, Schmidt & Keyes (Harter et al., 2003; Ryff & Keyes,

1995), high levels of well-being leads to first higher motivation towards tasks, and second, it turns in higher collective performance due to better individual performance and overall better collective goal attainment.

Social well-being has an effect on motivation and productivity. Harter, Schmidt &

Keyes (2003) found that the presence of well-being in employees in form of positive relationships increases individual performance. People that get satisfaction from being in

26 charge of tasks that allow them to grow and feel well and productive show higher performance.

The authors state that employees emotional antecedent generates a positive affect, as commitment or motivation, and this leads to efficiency and creativity, and ultimately to better performance (Harter et al., 2003). Therefore:

Hypothesis 2e. The normative frame has an indirect and positive effect on collective performance, and this relation is mediated first by social well-being and second by joint production motivation.

Joint Social well- Production being motivation

Normative Collective frame Performance

Figure 3. Model Part 2

Thus, this model, represented in Figure 3, can be understood as a sequential mediation model, where social well-being and joint production motivation act as mediators of the relationship between the normative frame and collective performance.

Methods

The experimental study was a lab experiment using a one-way between-subjects design.

Due to the use of frames and priming, the between-subjects form is the best way to ensure the results in the treatment condition won’t be biased by participants' learning curves. The control condition was used to capture the level of joint production motivation in a neutral frame (where at least I could control that the elements of the normative frame were not present) and later it was used to contrast the changes in the motivation in the treatment condition due to the

27 intervention. The treatment condition consisted of implementing two of the four aspects that create the normative frame proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011), which were the peer’s signalling and the task transparency and team structures. This chapter explains in detail the experiment design for each of the conditions, the operationalization of the variables, and the procedures.

Participants

Participants in this experiment were master students from the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Amsterdam. Given that goal-framing theory is concerned with goal attainment and is applied to organizational performance and value creation (Foss &

Lindenberg, 2013), I focused on this type of population because they typically occupy the job vacancies in firms after graduation, and it is expected that business students and business professionals share a common background and have similar mental orientations. I decided not to approach firms directly because I had very limited access to contacts that could facilitate the experiment implementation and due to limited time for the data collection. Students were not offered any kind of individual incentive to participate in the experiment, since I did not want to activate any gain or hedonic frame in them before and during the experiment. Only a general

Amazon voucher of 30 euros was offered to be raffled among all participants (84 people).

Students were approached during the breaks of tutorial sessions to increase the chances that they were willing to participate. The classes were chosen randomly from general timetables of the master program of business administration of the University of Amsterdam having between

20 or 25 people. Once the classes were chosen, the professors were approached and asked for permission to perform the experiment. Participation was not mandatory, and students were offered the option to leave the room and take their break if they wanted to.

Materials and task

The task was designed to be performed in groups to simulate the collective setting in which goal-framing theory is applied. It consisted of filling a matrix with the outcome of sums of two-digits numbers just as the Figure 4 shows. Each piece of paper had three rows of matrices. Participants had to decide whether they wanted to attain their individual goal by filling one of the empty matrices, or if they also wanted to contribute to their team goal by filling the three empty matrices.

All groups had a team goal and each person had an individual goal. All the participants were informed about the two goals at the beginning of the experiment. The group goal consisted of filling 15 matrices, which meant that, in order to reach the team goal, each team member needed to fill the 3 matrices in his/her piece of paper. If this was not done for at least one team member, then the team goal was not going to be achieved. The individual goal was achieved by filling only 1 matrix.

Sums of two-digit numbers were chosen for the task in order to minimize effects of increasing efficiency and learning behaviour when doing an activity many repeated times

(Benndorf, Rau, & Sölch, 2014). In this way, I wanted to avoid that people obtained satisfaction for doing the task more efficiently and for getting used it. Two-digit sums were chosen for the task because of two reasons. First, summing numbers was a basic mathematical calculation for the level of education of the participants, therefore no previous knowledge was needed to participate. Second, making sums with two-digit numbers required more time and mental effort than just summing one-digit numbers, therefore the possibility that participants enjoyed the task was lower. In that way, with that real-effort task, I intended to increase the level of external validity of the experiment.

Figure 4. Calculations

Besides the piece of paper with the task, participants required a pen to make the calculations and an envelope only for the control condition. The envelope per person was given to each student at the beginning of the experiment.

Operationalization of variables

Independent variable – normative frame

The establishment of the normative frame was done using two of the four antecedents of the normative frame proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (2011). More exactly, the antecedents of ‘task transparency and team interdependencies’ and ‘symbolic management’ in terms of peer’s signalling were applied; the antecedents of ‘rewards structures’ and the ‘knowledge- based authority structure’ were not applied. The rationales for this decision are explained in the following paragraphs.

I used task transparency and teams’ interdependencies to set the field where joint production motivation can appear. Without this element, there cannot be a collective production (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). This antecedent activated people’s cognition about the existence of a collective effort, which is a fundamental part of goal-framing theory. Symbolic management took the form of peer’s signalling which offers a direct support to the normative frame and ensures that it does not decay easily. Symbolic management could also rise joint production motivation by a sort of contagion effect (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). So, individuals that express keen interest for the joint task influence others willingness to work and collaborate for the common objective.

Regarding the reward structures in goal-framing theory, these are advised to be used to indirectly support the normative frame. However, there is always a high risk that they end up strengthening the gain and the hedonic frame. Given the risk it represented and the fact that their role was to provide indirect support to motivation, in this experiment I didn’t base the normative frame in this antecedent.

Related to the knowledge-based structures, Lindenberg and Foss (2011) advice to use them to compensate the top-down authority structures that can hamper the effect of the normative frame. A top-down authority structure is reinforced by contractual agreements that may lead people to shrink or skip rules, which indirectly increases the salience of the hedonic or gain frame. Therefore, if organizations are too complex to prescind from the contractual agreements and their authority structure cannot be simplified, knowledge-based structures can compensate in favour of the normative frame (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). If the organization is small enough to avoid the top-down contractual authority structure, then flattening the organization is sufficient to protect the salience of the normative frame (Lindenberg & Foss,

2011). Therefore, due to the moderate size and scope of the teams used in this experiment, the knowledge-based antecedent was not applied.

The collective production situation was created by establishing a group setting and by operationalizing the antecedents of tasks transparency and team structure and symbolic management. First, groups were created to carry out a collective task. Knowing that group size affects the effectiveness and performance of teams due to lack of coordination, lack of leadership, loss of relational sense, problems of communication, among others, (Hackman &

Vidmar, 1970; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Mueller, 2012), the number of people per group was chosen with the purpose of creating a minimum need of coordination and communication among members without resulting in the inability to set an agreement. Hackman & Vidmar

(1970) found that for ‘intellective tasks’ (not manual or motor tasks), the ideal group size is

31 five people because the more people were added to the group beyond that number, the less comfortable people found them due to coordination and communication challenges.

Second, task transparency and team interrelations were achieved by asking participants to collect all the pieces of paper with the individual calculation within the group. In this way, people could observe if others decided to contribute to the team goal or not. Third, symbolic management in form of peer signalling was achieved by telling participants that they were allowed to talk along the experiment. In that way, communication and people’s attitudes created a contagion effect that was expected to impact each other’s frame, accordingly to

Lindenberg and Foss (2011). That implied that participants could agree on working all together to achieve the team goal. These two last elements made people aware of the need for all individual contributions in order to achieve the collective goal and allow them to influence each other’s decisions.

In this experiment, however, peer’s signalling was allowed to ‘run free’ in the treatment condition. It was not controlled because that implied first bringing extra people to the experiment that could exert the positive peer’s signalling, which was not feasible due to the people’s limited willingness to participate; or second, assigning to any team member the role of creating a positive signalling, which was difficult to control and ensure uniformity across all the groups. Still, even when the type of signalling was not controlled, I expected that the collective production situation and the awareness of the collective goal were going to induce the peer’s signalling towards the support of the collective goal.

Manipulation check

Six sentences of manipulation check were included to be sure that the operationalization of the normative frame was effective. The sentences were written following the example of manipulation check that Latham & Steele (1983) made in their experiment of goal setting and

32 performance. The measurement scale ranged from 1- completely disagree to 5- completely agree. The sentences were:

• The instructions were clear to me and I was aware of the difference between the

individual goal and the team goal.

• I felt that my effort was needed to achieve the team goal.

• I felt like it is appropriate to contribute to the team goal.

• Someone in the group showed special interest in completing the team task.

• Overall, I perceived that the other team members were motivated to achieve the

team goal.

• What I was doing was visible for the team.

Mediator 1 – social well-being

The concept of social well-being is defined by Keyes as “a self-appraisal of one’s circumstance and functioning with society” (Keyes, 1998, 122), and it is measured in different dimensions including: social integration, social acceptance, social contribution, social actualization and social coherence. Keyes (1998) proposes and test a social well-being scale to demonstrate the social structural sources of well-being. The scale was applied and adapted to different studies to test its validity, and in those occasions, its alpha reliability was 0.57, 0.84, and 0.86 (Keyes, 1998). The same scale was used in this experiment to measure the two dimensions pertinent to the context of this thesis. Those dimensions were social integration and social contribution. Social integration, defined as the “quality of one’s relationship with the society” (Keyes, 1998, 122), gave a measure to which extent people felt they had commonalities with others, and to what extent they felt a sense of belonging to the team. Social contribution, defined as the evaluation of the individuals’ social value as vital members of a group and the value of their contributions (Keyes, 1998), provided a proximate measure of

33 individuals’ perception of their capability to perform tasks and contribute to collective goals

(Keyes, 1998). Both dimensions were measured in a scale from 1- strongly disagree to 7- strongly agree. The sentences were the following:

Social Integration

• You didn't feel you belong to anything you'd call a team.

• You felt like you were an important part of your team.

• If you had something to say, you believe people in your team would have listened to

you.

• You felt close to other people in your team.

• You saw your team as a source of comfort.

• If you had something to say, you don't think your team would have taken you seriously.

Social contribution

• Your behaviour had some impact on other people in your team.

• You think you had something valuable to give to the team.

• Your activities did not produce anything worthwhile for your team.

• You didn't have the time or energy to give to your team.

• You thought that your work provided an important product for your team.

• You felt you had nothing important to contribute to your team.

Mediator 2 – goal commitment

Giving the scarce pool of empirical work in goal-framing theory, there is not an established scale that can be used to measure join production motivation as a dependent variable. Lindenberg & Steg (2013) made an attempt to explain the effect of the normative frame in terms of types of behaviour people adopted towards environmental issues. In Keiser,

Lindenberg, & Steg (2008) the environmental frames and their effects on people’s behaviour

34 were measured with factual observations of actions in a field experiment. None of these works precisely focused on joint production motivation, but they focused on the which antecedent frames lead to specific behaviour.

The literature of goal commitment and motivation offers an alternative way to operationalize joint production motivation. Meyer, Becker & Vanderberghe (2004) analysed, compared and integrated concepts of commitment and motivation. They defined work motivation as a “set of energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behaviour, and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration” (Meyer et al., 2004, 992). The authors highlight two main characteristics of this concept: first, it is an ‘energizing force’ that drives actions, and second, it has implications for the form, directions, intensity and duration of those actions.

Meyer et al. (2004) integrated the models of commitment and motivation and provided explanations on how the motivational process happens and can be reinforced in a working field.

One particular model of commitment was relevant in this case, goal commitment. According to the authors, goal commitment as many other forms of commitment appeared to have a moderating effect when achieving work motivation (Meyer et al., 2004). It had the ability to influence the attention people gave to the activities that served to achieve a goal, and therefore the amount of effort put to attain it (Meyer et al., 2004).

By comparing the definitions and the theoretical frameworks behind those two concepts, the authors came to the conclusion that both commitment and motivation were energizing forces, but commitment was a type of force that linked an individual to a specific sequence of behaviours. Therefore, motivation was a broader concept where commitment lied within (Meyer et al., 2004).

The definition of goal commitment used in Meyers et al. (2004) paper is the traditional concept of “one's attachment to or determination to reach a goal, regardless of the goal's origin”

(Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988, 24), except because in Meyer’s work the degree of commitment is affected by additional factors that conditionate attention, intentions of effort, and willingness to develop innovative solutions (Meyer et al., 2004). In this study, I focused on Meyer et al.

(2004) argument of this variable as a component of motivation, and how a positive or negative change in goal commitment will affect also the individuals’ motivation. Therefore, a proxy way to measure joint production motivation is by assessing the commitment people feel towards a collective goal.

There is not a unique way to measure goal commitment. Hollenbeck, Williams & Klein

(1989) developed a nine-item self-report measure of goal commitment that was widely used in subsequent empirical works. The coefficient alpha of reliability for the scale in this study was

0.76. The items were: (1) I am strongly committed to pursuing this GPA goal; (2) I am willing to put forth a great deal of effort beyond what I'd normally do to achieve this GPA goal; (3) quite frankly, I don't care if I achieve this GPA goal or not; (4) there is not much to be gained by trying to achieve this GPA goal; (5) it is quite likely that this GPA goal may need to be revised, depending on how things go this quarter; (6) it wouldn't take much to make me abandon this GPA goal; (7) it's unrealistic for me to expect to reach this GPA goal; (8) since it's not always possible to tell how tough courses are until you've been in them a while, it's hard to take this goal seriously; (9) I think this GPA goal is a good goal to shoot for (Hollenbeck et al., 1989). For example, Sue-Chang & Ong (2002), in their work on goal assignment and performance, measured goal commitment as a substitute of goal acceptance (Locke et al., 1988;

Sue-Chan & Ong, 2002) and adapted the seven points measure of goal commitment from

Hollenbeck et al. (1989). Sholihin, Pike, Mangena & Li (2011), in their study of goal-setting participation and goal commitment, also referred to Hollenbeck et al. (1989) to measure goal commitment. They used only three of the nine statements of the scale (items 1, 2 and 3).

Participants responded with a 7-point scale, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

This same scale was used to measure goal commitment except that term ‘GPA goal’ was changed for ‘team goal’ to adapt it to this context. The scale kept the same metrics used by Hollenbeck et al. (1989), a 7-point measurement scale from 1- strongly disagree to 7- strongly agree:

• I think the team goal was a good goal to strive for

• I was strongly committed to achieve the team goal

• I was willing to put effort beyond what I'd normally do to achieve this team goal

• Quite frankly, I didn’t care if I achieve the team goal or not

• There was not much to be gained by trying to achieve the team goal

Four items of the original scale were not adapted since they made reference to future expected outcomes which were out of the scope of the experiment. The items were: (5) it is quite likely that this GPA goal may need to be revised, depending on how things go this quarter;

(6) it wouldn't take much to make me abandon this GPA goal; (8) since it's not always possible to tell how tough courses are until you've been in them a while, it's hard to take this goal seriously; (9) I think this GPA goal is a good goal to shoot for.

Dependent variable – Contribution to collective performance

The instructions of the experiment explained to the participants which goal they would achieve by making one matrix or the three matrices (1 matrix = individual goal; 3 matrices = contribution to collective goal). Therefore, to measure the contribution to the collective performance I asked participants to report: 1) “how many matrices did you solve?”; 2) “did you contribute to the team goal? (YES / NO)”; and 3) these answers were cross-checked with the matrices done in the pieces of paper.

Control variables

Control variables were measured in order to be sure that they did not have an effect on the main relationships proposed in the model. Age and the current academic program were measured in order to confirm that the population had a similar background and experience.

This would prevent to have different results due to differences in capabilities and knowledge.

Gender was inquired to test if there could be a different level of behaviour in woman and man, probably due to a personal value.

Preference for the task or task affinity was measured with the sentence “I like doing the calculations”, which was rated in a likert type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The purpose was to determine if the enjoyable experienced derived from making an appealing task could have an effect on social well-being, goal commitment and in the contribution to collective performance.

Experiment 1 – control condition

The control condition set the baseline to compare the effect of the normative frame on social well-being, joint production motivation and collective performance. Because of this, the treatment condition was supposed to be as neutral as possible and free of environmental cues that could trigger a specific frame.

The experiment started by forming groups of five people and members were asked to sit beside each other. Even though the task was designed to be done in groups, the normative frame’s antecedents, task transparency and team interrelations and symbolic management, were avoided from the experiment to keep the ‘neutrality’ of the frame. Task transparency and team interrelations were avoided by telling the students to put the piece of paper with their calculation within an envelope once they were finished. In this way, participants could not observe directly if a team member decided to contribute to the team goal or not. Symbolic

38 management in form of peer signalling was avoided by telling the students to not talk along the experiment. In this way, it was prevented that attitudes from one participant affected the other people’s frame.

Instructions were explained in a general way and posted in a slide visible to all participants along the experiment. A round of Q&A was done before starting the activity to be sure that everyone understood the procedure. Participants started the activity at the same time and the experiment lasted around 15 minutes. No additional instructions were given in terms of how to solve the calculations.

After doing the activity and putting their results inside the envelopes, the participants received a questionnaire with 42 questions to solve regarding their level of motivation, commitment, social well-being and manipulation check. When they completed the questionnaire, the experiment finished.

Experiment 2 – treatment condition.

The treatment condition was designed to recreate a situation of collective production as proposed by Lindenberg and Foss (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). Therefore, the two antecedents of task transparency and team interrelations and symbolic management were introduced in the design.

Task transparency and team interrelation were achieved by removing the envelopes from the procedure and asking participants to collect all the papers within the group. Symbolic management in form of peer signalling was achieved by telling participants that they were allowed to talk along the experiment.

The rest of the experiment was carried out in the same way than in the control condition.

The experiment started by forming groups of five people and members were asked to sit beside each other. Instructions were explained in a general way and posted in a slide visible to all

39 participants along the experiment. A round of Q&A was done before starting the activity to be sure that everyone understood the procedure. Participants started the activity at the same time and the experiment lasted around 15 minutes. No additional instructions were given in terms of how to solve the calculations.

After doing the activity and putting their results inside the envelopes, they received a questionnaire with 42 questions to solve regarding their level of motivation, commitment, social well-being and manipulation check. When they completed the questionnaire, the experiment finished.

Pilot

Two pilots of the experiment were made to test if the task was clear; if the length of the experiment was adequate; and if effectively people found the task demanding enough to require effort. One of the pilots was done to test the control condition and the other one to test the treatment condition. The tasks for both pilots were done with matrices of 5x5 with two-digit numbers.

As it was expected, in the control condition one participant decided not to contribute to the collective goal. The reason for the behaviour was that the participant “didn’t enjoy making mathematical calculations”. The experiment was done with five people, three men and two women, and took around 20 minutes.

In the treatment condition, the pilot was done with a group of 4 people, all women.

Participants were allowed to talk, and their common agreement was to contribute to the team goal. When participants realized that the task was boring, they were inclined to change their minds and do just one matrix. However, I could observe that once one of them asked the others how many matrices they were doing, and the others replied “three” (the collective goal), the

40 participant stick to the initial idea and decided to make all the matrices and contribute to the collective goal. As I expected, the peer’s signalling supported the normative frame.

In the treatment condition, given that participants interacted with each other, the experiment took much more time compared to the control condition. The length was about one hour. In order to make feasible the implementation of the experiment during the tutorial breaks of the master’s classes, the matrices were reduced from 5x5 to 3x3.

Data collection

As it was expected, the participation in the experiment was not appealing to all students in the tutorials. Some students decided to leave the room and take the break and some others decided to participate. Due to these different dispositions, teams were formed with different numbers of people. Most of them had four or five people, and only one group was made of six people.

Even though the instructions indicated that the only possible outcomes were achieving the individual goal by making one matrix or achieving the group goal by making three matrices, some participants made two matrices and reported the output as a contribution to the team goal.

It was observed that for some cases the ‘willingness to contribute’ existed, but due to the time limit, people could only make two matrices. For other cases, people started the experiment committed to contributing to the collective goal, but they lost impulse in the way and reported only two matrices as a collective contribution.

The major unexpected result happened in the treatment conditions where people could observe other’s contributions to the collective goal and were allowed to talk. In four teams, members did not agree if they were going to contribute to the team goal or not. Some people decided to contribute to the collective goal, probably because either they acknowledge that they

41 belonged to a team, or they found intrinsic motivation in participating, or because that behaviour was congruent with a sort of personal value. Some others instead did not contribute.

In two teams, a negotiation between members was observed when they decided to contribute to the collective goal or not. In a participative way, all the team members agreed on

“doing just one matrix”. It was observed that the purpose of it was “not spending too much time on it”, or “not putting too much effort on the tasks”. In these cases, the common agreement made people feel comfortable with the decision of not achieving their collective goal. Their behaviour was aligned with the others within the team.

Finally, in one group an extreme negative peer’s signalling took place. In this case, half of the group wanted to contribute to the team goal, and half of the group did not want to exert effort in the task. After a discussion within the team, the first half of it changed their mind and decided to not contribute to the team goal. Even when some participants kept saying “I wanted to contribute to team goal at first, but…”, they still stuck to the team agreement. I concluded that peer’s signalling was highly effective in creating a uniform frame in all the participants, and in this case, the peer signalling did not contribute to stabilize the normative frame. After this observation, I expected an inverse relation between the normative frame (treatment condition) and joint production motivation and performance. The variables of manipulation check were going to be useful to analyse if the manipulation (in this case oriented towards individual performance due to the peer signalling) would correlate with lower levels of motivation and performance.

Results

In total, 84 students participated in the experiment. The control group had 45 participants and the normative frame condition had 39 participants. There were 48 female students (57.1%) and 34 male students (40.5%). There were 55 participants between 23 and 25

42 years old (65.5%); 18 students were less than 22 years old (21.4%) and 9 students were 26 years old or more (10.7%). Two participants did not report their age. Almost all the participants were master’s in business administration students 78 (92.9%). The data is presented in table 1.

Table 1. Demographic information

N Percentage N Percentage

Gender Current program Male 34 40,5% Master BA 78 92,9%

Female 48 57,1% Missing data 6

Missing data 2 2,4%

Treatment Age condition ≤ 22 18 21,4% Control group 45 53,6% 23 15 17,9% Normative frame 39 46,4%

24 23 27,4% Total 84 25 17 20,2% ≥ 26 9 10,7% Missing data 2 2,4%

Total 84

To assess the distribution of the goal commitment and social well-being variables, I calculated the values of kurtosis and skewness and analysed whether zero was within the bounds of the 95% confidence interval. For goal commitment, the bounds of skewness were (-

0.0079, 1.0276) and for kurtosis were (-1.3832, 0.6654); for social well-being, the bounds of skewness were (-0.5577, 0.4779) and for kurtosis were (-0.5889, 1.4509). This means that both variables were normally distributed.

The Cronbach’s Alpha score of the goal commitment scale was high (α = 0.788). The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all of the items have a good correlation with the overall score of the scale (all are above 0.30), and the Alpha if item deleted shows that the overall score would not change significantly if one item was deleted. The social well-being scale scored high in the Cronbach’s Alpha (α = 0.709) which means that the scale had high reliability. Two items (9 and 10) obtained scores below 0.30 in the corrected item-total

43 correlation, however, the overall Cronbach’s alpha changed less than 0.1 if the items were deleted, therefore I kept the items in the scale.

The mean, standard deviation and correlations of the variables are presented in table 2.

Social well-being was found positively correlated with goal commitment with a medium effect strength (0.407, p < 0.01). Performance was found positively correlated with goal commitment with a medium strength effect (0.399, p < 0.01) and with social well-being it showed a positive correlation with medium strength effect (0.233, p < 0.01). This is the first step to confirm that a relationship exists between the variables of the study, especially between the two mediators which confirm that both variables are associated. The strength of the correlations between variables is medium so multicollinearity is discarded. Later in this chapter, I will clarify if the relationships among these variables are causal relationships.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, reliability and correlations of variables Cronbach's M SD Alpha 1 2 3 4 1. Frame ------1 - - - 2. Goal Commitment 2.8946 1.3740 0.788 -0.247 1 - - 3. Social well-being 3.9587 0.9332 0.709 0.078 0.407** 1 4. Performance 1.8 0.941 -- -0.207 0.399** 0.233* 1 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

The analysis was divided into two parts. The first part is focused on the hypothesis

1a,1b, 1c, and 1d, which aim to test the effect of the normative frame on the contribution to collective performance and the mediation effect of goal commitment. The second part includes the sequential mediation effect of social well-being between the normative frame, goal commitment and the contribution to collective performance.

Part 1. Normative frame, goal commitment and contribution to collective

performance

In this part of the model, the independent variable was the normative frame (control vs.

treatment condition); the dependent variable was the contribution to collective performance

measures in the number of matrices made by each student; and the mediator was goal

commitment measured with Hollenbeck’s scale (1989). The control variables were gender, age,

and individuals’ preference for the task.

The PROCESS macro of Andrew Hayes (2012) was used to test the hypothesis of the

model. The tables 3a, 3b, and 3c show the coefficients of the regressions, levels of significance

and main effects. Figure 5 shows the summary of these results.

Table 3a. Results of the model Part 1 – H1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d Goal Commitment Contribution to collective performance Antecedent Coefficient SE P Coefficient SE P Frame a2 -0.5626 0.3173 0.2610 c1' -0,2689 0,1946 0,1711 Goal Commitment ------b2 0,2143 0,0685 0,0025 Constant i2 3.2448 2.8654 0.2610 i3 0,596 1,7369 0,7324 R2=0.0861 R2=0.2873 F(4,77)=1.8131, p=0.1349 F(5,76)=6.1280, p<.001

Table 3b. Control variables Part 1 - H1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d Goal Commitment Contribution to collective performance Coefficient SE P Coefficient SE P Age -0,0177 0,1043 0,8653 -0,0089 0,0627 0,8875 Gender 0,3106 0,6036 -0,4310 0,3678 0,1872 0,053 Preference for the 0,1978 0,1071 0,0686 0,1865 0,0658 0,0059 task

Table 3c. Effect SE p LLCI ULCI Direct effect c' -0,2689 0,1946 0,1711 -0,6565 0,1187 Total effect c -0,3895 0,2013 0,0567 -0,7904 0,0115 Effect Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI Indirect effect 1 a1b1 -0,1205 0,0941 -0,3460 0,0238 Indirect effect 1 = frame → goal commitment → contribution collective

performance

For this first part of the framework, the results indicate that 28% of the variation in performance can be explained by the relationships proposed in the model (R2=0.2873, F(5,76)

= 6,1280, p < 0.05).

The hypothesis 1a suggested that the presence of a normative frame was going to affect positively and directly people’s level of contribution to collective performance. The model showed that the manipulation of the normative frame did not make a significant effect in the level of contribution to the collective goal (c’ =-0,2689, p > 0.05). Therefore, this direct relationship cannot be confirmed and the hypothesis 1a is not supported.

The hypothesis 1b proposed that the existence of a normative frame was going to have a positive effect on people’s goal commitment. The results show that the manipulation of the normative frame did not increase the level of goal commitment in the students (a1 =-0,5626, p

> 0.05. S). Thus, the causal effect between those two variables is not confirmed and the hypothesis 1b cannot be supported.

The hypothesis 1c stated that the high level of goal commitment was going to affect positively people’s contribution to collective performance. The results show that indeed students who experienced a higher level of goal commitment contributed more to the collective goal than the ones that didn’t feel much commitment (b1 =0,2143, p < 0.05). Thus, this direct effect is positive and significant to support the hypothesis 1c.

Finally, the hypothesis 1d stated that the existence of a normative frame was going to indirectly and positively affect people’s contribution to collective performance, through goal commitment. Contrary to this expectation, the indirect effect was found to be negative a1b1=-

0,1205, but the analysis via confidence intervals showed that it was not significant CI=[-0.3460,

0,0238]. Therefore, the indirect effect is not confirmed and the hypothesis 1d cannot be supported.

Interestingly, the control variable ‘Task preference’ strong and significantly affected the level of contribution to the collective goal (Coefficient = 0,1865, p <0.05). When controlling for the frame manipulation and the levels of goal commitment, individual’s affinity for mathematical calculations explained 18% of the variance in the contribution to collective performance. This means that people made more matrices in the experiment in part because they enjoyed mathematical calculations.

Thus, in this particular model, only people’s preference for the tasks and the goal of commitment can explain the changes in the contribution to collective performance (Y).

Goal commitment

0.21** -0.56

-0.26 Contribution Normative to collective frame performance

Figure 5. Results Part 1 Significance ** = p < 0.005; Total effect (c) = -0.38, p > 0.05

Part 2. Normative frame, social well-being, goal commitment and contribution to collective performance

In this model the independent variable was the normative frame (control vs. treatment condition); the dependent variable was the contribution to collective performance measured in the number of matrices made by each student; the first mediator was social well-being measured with the social well-being scale of Keyes (1998); and the second mediator was goal commitment measured with Hollenbeck’s scale (1989).

The PROCESS macro of Andrew Hayes (2012) was used to test the hypothesis of this second model too. A sequential mediation model was applied to measure the main mediation

effects and the indirect effects between the four variables. The indirect effects were measured

with bootstrapping procedure N=5000 and 95% confidence level (Hayes, 2012).

The tables 4a, 4b, and 4c show the coefficients of the regressions, levels of significance

and main effects. Figure 6 shows the summary of this results.

Table 4a. Results of the model Part 2 - H2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e Contribution to collective Social well-being Goal Commitment performance Antecedent Coefficient SE P Coefficient SE P Coefficient SE P Frame a1 0.1310 0.2167 0.5474 a2 -0.6402 0.2927 0,0318 c1' -0,2922 0,1977 0,1437 Social well------d21 0.5930 0.1535 0,0002 b1 0,0812 0,11 0,4613 being Goal ------b2 0,1918 0,0752 0,0127 Commitment Constant i1 4.3769 1.9572 0.0282 i2 i3 0,3137 1,7837 0,8609 R2=0.0686 R2=0.2360 R2= 0,2925 F(4,77)=1.4174, p=0.2362 F(5,76)=4.6956, p<.001 F(6,75)=5.1667, p<.001

Table 4b. Control variables Part 2 - H2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 2e Contribution to collective Social well-being Goal Commitment performance Coefficient SE P Coefficient SE P Coefficient SE P Age -0.0541 0.0712 0.4495 0.0144 0.0963 0.8819 -0.0049 0.0631 0.9382 Gender 0.1688 0.2121 0.4287 0.0874 0.2870 0.7616 0.3584 0.1882 0.0697 Preference for 0.1383 0.0732 0.0624 0.1178 0.1008 0.2545 0.1797 0.0666 0.0086 the task

Table 4c. Effect SE p LLCI ULCI Direct effect c' -0.2922 0.1977 0.1437 -0.6860 0.1017 Total effect c -0.0390 0.2013 0.0567 -0.7904 0.0115 Effect SE LLCI ULCI Indirect effect 1 a1b1 0.0106 0.2740 -0.0454 0.0718 Indirect effect 2 a2b2 -0.1228 0.0900 -0.3392 0.0059 Indirect effect 3 a1d21b2 0.0149 0.0294 -0.0420 0.0674 Indirect effect 1 = Frame → SWB → performance Indirect effect 2 = Frame → Goal commitment → performance Indirect effect 3 = Frame → SWB → goal commitment →performance

In this second part of the framework, the results indicate that 29% of the variance in the

contribution to collective performance can be explained by the relationships proposed in the

model (R2=0.2925, F(6,75) = 5.1667, p < 0.05).

The initial part of the model, the hypothesis 2a, suggested that the presence of a normative frame was going to affect positively people’s level of social well-being. The model showed that the manipulation had no significant effect on students’ level of social well-being

(a1 =0.1310, p > 0.05). Therefore, this direct effect is not confirmed and the hypothesis 2a is not supported.

It was stated in the hypothesis 2b that people’s level of social well-being was going to positively affect the commitment they felt towards the collective goal. The results show that the level of people’s well-being positively affects the level of commitment towards the goal

(d21=0,5930, p < 0,05). Thus, the direct effect is confirmed and the hypothesis 2b is supported.

The hypothesis 2c stated that high goal commitment was going to lead people to contribute more to the collective performance. The table 4a shows that people with higher goal commitment decided to contribute more to the collective performance (b2=0,1918, p < 0,05).

Thus, the direct relationship is confirmed and the hypothesis 2c is supported

The hypothesis 2d suggested that people’s level of social well-being was going to translate into higher of contributions to the collective performance. No evidence was found to support this effect (b1=0,0812, p > 0.05), therefore the hypothesis 2d cannot be supported.

The last part of the model wanted to test if the normative frame was going to positively affect the contribution to the collective performance via social well-being and goal commitment. The first indirect effect followed the path: normative frame, social well-being and contribution to collective performance. This effect was positive and small but not significant (0.0106; CI=[-0.0454, 0.0718]). The second indirect effect followed the sequence: normative frame, goal commitment and contribution to collective performance. It was found negative but not significant either (-0.1228; CI=[-0.3392, 0.0059]). The third indirect effect followed the path: normative frame, social well-being, goal commitment and contribution to collective performance. This effect was found small and positive, but not significant (0.0149;

CI=[-0.0420, 0.0674]). The total effect of the model (c1 = c'1 + a1b1 + a2b2 + a1d21b2) was -

0.390, but it was not significant CI=[-0.7904, 0.0155]. The pairwise comparison between the indirect effects (a1b1 - a2b2; a1b1 - a1d21b2; a2b2 - a1d21b2 ) was analysed through bootstrapping confidence intervals also to see if there were differences between specific indirect effects, but all of the confidence intervals contained zero. Therefore, no specific indirect effect was statistically different than another indirect effect. Thus, the evidence does not show that the relationship between the normative frame and the contribution to collective performance was mediated by the people’s social well-being neither by the levels of goal commitment. The hypothesis 2e cannot be supported.

Additionally, the control variable ‘task preference’ resulted also quite significant for the variation in the collective performance. When controlling for the manipulation of the frame, social well-being and goal commitment, task preference was able to explain 17% of the variation of contribution to the collective goal (0.1797; CI=[0.0086, 0.0470]). Just as in the first model, people made more matrices in part because they liked doing mathematical calculations.

Thus, in this model, a partial mediation effect between social well-being, goal commitment, and performance, and people’s preference for a task explained the changes in the contribution to collective performance.

Social well-being 0.59** Goal commitment

0.13 0.19*

-0.64* 0.08 Frame -0.29 Contribution to (control/normativ collective e) performance

Figure 6. Results part 2 Significance ** = p < 0.005; Significance * = p < 0.05 ;Total effect (c) = -0.39, p > 0.05

The summary of the results for all hypotheses is presented in table 5.

Part 3. Observations

From the data collection observations, one aspect calls particularly the attention. In the model 2, the relationship between the normative frame and goal commitment resulted negative and significant (a2 = -0,6402, p <0.05). To understand this relationship, I combined the factual observations of the data collection with the quantitative data of the manipulation check.

In the treatment condition, letting the peer signalling ‘run free’ resulted in the creation of common agreements between students in order to achieve the individual goal and save effort.

These behaviours are congruent with the framework to manage joint production proposed by

Lindenberg and Foss (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011), which states that a sort of contagion effect among peers will make that one person’s behaviour affects the frame where other peers behave.

The Proposition 3b of Lindenberg and Foss (2011) states: “If employees clearly signal by their behaviour that they are not in a normative goal frame, the normative goal frame of their colleagues will be weakened” (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011, 510). The particular setting of the experiment served as a platform to test if at least there was a correlation between the negative signalling and the existence of a weak normative base to support joint production motivation.

Five variables of manipulation check were reviewed to test this relationship: 1) I felt that my effort was needed to achieve the team goal; 2) I felt that it is appropriate to contribute to the team goal; 3) Someone in the group showed special interest in completing the team task;

4) Overall, I perceived that the other team members were motivated to achieve the team goal;

5) What I was doing was visible to the team. Those variables were graded in a likert type scale from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree. These variables were expected to measure the perceived strength of the normative frame in the participants. Therefore, a high score in each of them would indicate that the antecedents of the normative frame were evident enough in the foreground to be reported by the respondents.

In this line of reasoning, the negative peer signalling observed in the data collection should be reflected in lower scores in the manipulation check variables. As the Table 5 shows, the mean for these variables was in the lower half of the scale (disagree). One of them, focused on measuring the character of the peer signalling (item 4), was especially low (1.79), which is congruent with the factual observations of the data collection.

Table 6. Correlations Normative frame precedents - Goal Commitment Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Goal Commitment 2,59 1 2. I felt that my effort was needed to achieve 2,74 0.439** 1 the team goal. 3. I felt that it is appropriate to contribute to 2,72 0.594** 0.750** 1 the team goal. 4. Overall, I perceived that the other team 1,79 members were motivated to achieve the 0.261 0.058 0.319* 1 team goal. 5. Someone in the group showed special 2,08 0.398* 0.291 0.251 0.291 1 interest in completing the team task. 6. What I was doing was visible to the team. 2,92 0.052 0.233 0.176 0.515** 0.156 1 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

This evidence on peer signalling could be correlated with the low level of goal commitment, and it would give a glimpse to understand the unexpected negative relationship that was found between the normative frame a goal commitment.

Table 6 shows the Pearson correlation between the manipulation check variables and goal commitment. Three variables show special medium and high correlation with the levels of goal commitment. Sentence number two (2) aimed to measure the level of task interdependence perceived by the student, and it showed significant, positive and medium correlation with the level of goal commitment (0.439). Sentence number three (3) aimed to measure if the team was perceived as the centre of the normative frame, and it showed a positive and strong correlation with goal commitment (0.594). Lastly, sentence number five (5) variable aimed to measure if the peer signalling was directed towards the team outcome or not, and it had a medium and positive correlation with goal commitment (0.398). These results mean that

53 the more people perceived the elements of the normative frame in the environment, the higher their level of commitment with the collective task could be. And in the same way, if the perceived strength of this normative cues in the environment was low, the lower the commitment with the collective goal was going to be. Thus, the evidence suggests that it is likely that Lindenberg and Foss’s (2011) proposition on about peer’s signalling and contagion effect is valid, and it gives a plausible explanation for the observed negative relationship between the normative frame and goal commitment.

Discussion

This thesis attempted to provide empirical evidence on the main relationships of goal- framing theory applied to collective production contexts. The first part of the analysis did not provide evidence to support the main proposition of the theory: the positive effect of the normative frame on performance and the mediation effect of joint production motivation. The possible explanations will be explored in this chapter. Additionally, this thesis aimed to introduce a plausible mechanism by which a normative frame could affect collective performance. This was done through the serial mediation effect of social well-being and joint production motivation. This second part provided evidence to support, not the full sequential mediation effect, but a partial mediation effect from social well-being to joint production motivation and performance. This rescues the possibility of using hedonic mechanisms, in form of social forces, to support joint production motivation and performance.

Theoretical implications

In the context of organizational performance, Lindenberg and Foss (2011) propose that a normative frame prompts joint production motivation and leads to higher performance. Two antecedents to create the normative frame and the cognition about the joint production were

54 manipulated or observed in the study: task transparency and team structures and peer signalling as symbolic management. The results provide support to the theory statements about how both mechanisms must be strong, aligned and effective, in order to create a normative frame for collective production. More specifically, peer’s signalling proved to be able to undermine the stability of the normative frame even against the effect of task transparency and team structure.

As Lindenberg, Foss, Keizer, and Steg proved (2013; 2011) when the violation of the normative frame becomes the rule, it influences the stability of other norms. In the experiment, the explicit disinterest of some participants to achieve the team goal led the rest of the people to pursue the individual goal in spite of being aware that there was a team goal and that they needed a joint effort to achieve it.

The role of the peer signalling results very interesting, because in the creation of the normative frame it was expected that the conditions of collective production and common purpose were going drive the peer signalling towards collective production. The fact that the negative peer signalling overcame these cues and drove the attention towards the individual goal may suggest that it has a special relevance in the establishment of the normative frame for collective production. Even if the theory predicts that a negative symbolic management (peer’s signalling) can threaten the stability of the normative frame, the empirical evidence suggests that its negative effect can be much more relevant that what it was already considered.

Joint production motivation can still affect collective performance even though the antecedents of the normative frame are not strong. The weak normative frame did not produce the expected effect on motivation either in performance. However, the relationship between motivation and performance remained important. This suggests that there could be alternative explanations affecting motivation or intervening in the normative frame-motivation relationship. One of them, for example, is the individual affinity for a task. In this case, the task affinity measured the individual’s ability to solve mathematical questions. This a proxy of a

55 sense of self-efficacy proposed previously by Locke & Latham (2002) in goal setting theory.

This element is able to determine the level of performance in spite of external factors like overarching frames. It suggests that goal-framing theory and alternative goal theories, as goal- setting theory, can complement each other in different levels (individual vs. collective) in the path of goal pursuit.

The second model showed an interesting aspect that goal-framing theory does not explore completely. It indicates that a normative frame can produce a negative effect on joint production motivation without implying low levels of social well-being. In results showed a significant relationship of both variables over commitment, even though the directions of the effects were opposite (positive for social well-being and negative for the normative frame).

The negative peer signalling noted in the experiment explains the negative effect of the normative frame on joint production motivation. However, the factual observations in the experiment made evident that team members were actually keeping a group agreement and following a norm of coordination. The social benefit of this agreement put people aside of the path of contribution to the collective performance. Psychological studies confirm that group- level norms and attitudes have a strong impact on behaviour when there is group identification or sense of social belonging to a group (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). Also, the agreement about norms within groups leads to a dominant behaviour from all group members (Argote, 1989).

This phenomenon supports Lindenberg and Foss’s (2011) idea that the hedonic stimuli, in this case, social well-being, can undermine collective performance. However, if social well- being and the group norms are directed towards collective production, it is likely that the indirect effect ends up being positive. Again, just as the peer signalling, social well-being should be controlled in order to guarantee this effect.

The non-significant relation between the normative frame and social well-being shows that this last element is independent of ideas like 'what is appropriate', 'doing the right thing' or

'doing what is best'. However, the positive relation and effect that social well-being produces on motivation and performance brings the possibility that this social force supports performance. This is congruent with the studies on subjective well-being and performance

(Harter et al., 2003; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Wright, Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007) that recognizes that employee’s well-being, social well-being, satisfaction and positive affects, have an effect on motivation and commitment and increase the opportunities of success for organizations (Harter et al., 2003; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Wright et al., 2007).

Practical implications

Findings suggest that managers should not only monitor but prevent the emergence of behaviours oriented against collective production. Prevention can be achieved by including people especially inclined to keep the norms or people that maintain a group orientation within teams. The experiment demonstrates that, if peer signalling is let run free in a group in a similar setting as this experiment, it will deviate from the normative frame because of ideas of reducing efforts or complying with group norms (gain and hedonic goal) result more appealing for the collective (Lindenberg & Foss, 2011). Therefore, if managers find the way to control this risk, joint production motivation can be better ensured.

Managers should also care about team structure as a composite of individuals because their task preferences (probably linked to their sense of self-efficacy) are going to affect their willingness to contribute to the collective performance. If team members perceived that they are not capable to contribute or if others are not capable to do it, their motivation for joint production motivation may fade. Therefore, the individual as a unit of measure of the team structure can also play a role in the construction of environments that strengthen joint production motivation.

Finally, managers may pay attention to social well-being as a tool to reinforce joint production motivation and therefore performance. The higher the social integration, the higher potential to obtain good results from it, as it is comparable with the sense of belongingness to a group (Keyes, 1998). If the internal norms of these groups are aligned with the organizational goals (Argote, 1989; Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004), the effect on performance will be positive.

If these conditions apply, managers count with a quite friendly tool to boost performance.

Future research

Further research could explore better the peer signalling effect and its relative strength with the cognitions of collective production when these two elements happen not to be aligned in the organization. As these opposite effects were not an expected outcome in this thesis, there was no opportunity to measure with enough accuracy each of the antecedents. Keizer et al.

(2008) already provide insights into the signalling effects in norm-guided behaviours, but it would be interesting to see this dynamic in an organizational field.

The significant relationship between joint production motivation and collective performance, even without the presence of the normative frame, suggests that alternative explanations can be reinforcing or mediating this relationship. As goal-framing strives to create value based on firm’s human resources and goal alignment, future research could strive to include in the theory factors like individual-level capacities, skills, or psychological orientations. As the task affinity variable proved, this individual level features can affect directly joint production motivation and performance.

Additionally, this empirical thesis includes social forces in goal-framing theory besides the ones already explored by Lindenberg (2008), for example, self-regulation. Social well- being is the variable used in this thesis, however as the analysis suggests, group norms and

58 individual psychological variables can play an interesting role in determining the strength of the frames. Further exploration of this aspect can complement goal framing-theory.

Limitations of the study

The study had some weaknesses that can limit the validity and demand further trials.

First, the unexpected results on peer’s signalling in the experiment erode the scenario to truly prove the effect of the normative frame on joint production motivation and performance. The pilot experiment showed that the peer’s signalling was going to play in favour of collective goals, and for this reason, no actions were taken to control the variable. A future empirical test can strive to control the peer signalling in order to find significant results for the normative frame-joint production motivation relationship.

Second, the small sample size of this study increases the variability of the results and the risk of including response bias. The more people can be incorporated in the two conditions of this experiment, the less variability will be obtained from the whole set of responses. Due to the limited time to perform the experiments and the low people’s willingness to participate, the sample size was just the enough to be able to obtain valid conclusions. Future trials of an experiment like this one should use bigger samples.

Third, the unexpected results from the manipulation of the framework required that observational data was analysed in order to understand the effect between the variables.

However, this kind of qualitative data may include observational bias as errors in the attribution of the effects to some factors, selective memory over specific facts, or overestimating the effects or interactions between variables. A future trial of this experiment can try to adopt measures to minimize the need to rely on observational data.

Fourth, the scale to measure joint production motivation was approximate to goal commitment as Meyers et al. (2004) suggested. However, the use of a customized scale could

59 work better to distinguish between motivation for collective production and commitment with the collective goal. A next study can benefit from using a more appropriate scale if available.

Finally, I consider that people’s low willingness to participate could have unconsciously conditionate people to contribute less to collective goal and spend less time doing the experiment. People that participated gave away part of their breaks and their time to collaborate with the task, which could have conditioned their disposition along the experiment.

I consider that even more ‘voluntary’ setting could serve as a better platform to really test the antecedents of the normative frame and the proposed relationships.

Conclusion

Goal-framing theory provides explanations to understand how collective production situations are built. The role of symbolic management is particularly important when normative frames for collective production situations want to be sustained. Social and individual aspects proved to be important factors affecting the level of joint production motivation and the level of contribution to collective performance. More specifically, social well-being and people’s affinity for a task demonstrated to affect joint production motivation and performance.

Managers that want to boost value creation based on firm’s human resources should take into account these factors as part of their organizational strategies.

References

Argote, L. (1989). Agreement about norms and work-unit effectiveness: Evidence from the field.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(2), 131-140.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and

content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338.

Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001). The automated

will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81(6), 1014.

Benndorf, V., Rau, H., & Sölch, C. (2014). Minimizing learning behavior in experiments with

repeated real-effort tasks.

Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis

of the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357-384.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 9(1), 1-11.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.

Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for strategy: A goal-framing perspective on

the drivers of value creation. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(2), 85-102.

Gottschalg, O., & Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and competitive advantage. Academy of

Management Review, 32(2), 418-437.

Hackman, J. R., & Vidmar, N. (1970). Effects of size and task type on group performance and

member reactions. Sociometry, 33(1), 37-54.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship

to business outcomes: A review of the gallup studies. Flourishing: Positive Psychology and the

Life Well-Lived, 2, 205-224.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation,

moderation, and conditional process modeling.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the

antecedents of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 18.

Houston, J. P. (1981). The pursuit of happiness Scott Foresman.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2011). The reversal effect of prohibition signs. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 681-688.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2013). The importance of demonstratively restoring order.

PloS One, 8(6), e65137.

Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science (New York, N.Y.),

322(5908), 1681-1685.

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121-140.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman,

D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley

Online Library.

Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation versus goal setting on

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26(3), 406-417.

Lindenberg, S. (2000). The extension of rationality: Framing versus cognitive rationality. L’Acteur Et

Ses Raisons.Mélanges En L’honneur De Raymond Boudon, Edited by J.Baechler Et Al., Paris,

Puf, , 168-204.

Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2‐3), 317-342.

Lindenberg, S. (2006). Prosocial behavior, solidarity, and framing processes. Solidarity and prosocial

behavior (pp. 23-44) Springer.

Lindenberg, S. (2008). Social rationality, semi-modularity and goal-framing: What is it all about?

Analyse & Kritik, 30(2), 669-687.

Lindenberg, S., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Managing joint production motivation: The role of goal framing

and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 500-525.

Lindenberg, S., & Frey, B. S. (1993). Alternatives, frames, and relative prices: A broader view of

rational choice theory. Acta Sociologica, 36(3), 191-205.

Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental

behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117-137.

Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2013). Goal-framing theory and norm-guided environmental behavior. In

C. M. van Trijp, H. (Ed.), Encouraging sustainable behaviour: Psychology and the environment

(pp. 37-54). New York: Psychology Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705.

Locke, E. A., Latham, G. P., & Erez, M. (1988). The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of

Management Review, 13(1), 23-39.

Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A

conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991.

Mueller, J. S. (2012). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 111-124.

Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Verbrugge, L. M. (1999). Subjective well-being and social

production functions. Social Indicators Research, 46(1), 61-90.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The

role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

26(4), 419-435.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Ryff, C. D. (1995). Psychological well-being in adult life. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 4(4), 99-104.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719.

Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behaviour in

bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(3), 246-258.

Sholihin, M., Pike, R., Mangena, M., & Li, J. (2011). Goal-setting participation and goal

commitment: Examining the mediating roles of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust in a

UK financial services organisation. The British Accounting Review, 43(2), 135-146.

Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and

research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.

Sue-Chan, C., & Ong, M. (2002). Goal assignment and performance: Assessing the mediating roles of

goal commitment and self-efficacy and the moderating role of power distance. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(2), 1140-1161.

Wilson, W. R. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67(4), 294.

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors

of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84.

Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive

well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 93.