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. 1 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 2 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 3 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. 4 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