Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation1 - University of Houston

DRAFT DRAFT

REWARDS, MOTIVATION, AND IT REQUIREMENTS CREATIVITY

RANDOLPH B. COOPER C.T. Bauer College of Business

University of Houston Houston, TX 77204-6282

[email protected] Ph: 713-743-4732 Fax: 713-743-4940

BANDULA JAYATILAKA School of Management

State University of New York at Binghamton Binghamton, NY 13902

April 24, 2002

Abstract

This paper models the impact of rewards on the creativity of groups determining IT requirements. A model is developed, which employs extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as mediators of the relationship. Hypotheses based on the model are tested via a laboratory study that employs small groups of senior MIS undergraduates. Each group's task is to develop IT requirements aimed at enhancing university administrative systems. Rewards are in the form of class credit and money. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are captured via post-task questionnaires, while the creativity of requirements documents is evaluated by expert judges as well as decomposition methods. Results of the experiment suggest that, in the context of IT requirements determination, extrinsic motivation can enhance creativity while obligation motivation can reduce creativity. The first finding is in contrast to that typically found in the literature, while the second finding has not been examined in the literature. In addition, intrinsic motivation due to task enjoyment was found to increase creativity. Finally, interesting impacts on creativity were discovered when members within a group varied in terms of their extrinsic and intrinsic motivations.

Acknowledgments We thank Tim Goles for his valuable contributions early on in our work. In addition, we thank Wynne Chin, Rudy Hirschheim, Surinder Kahai, Julio Peixoto, and Richard Scamell for their valuable contributions. Finally, we thank the SE, the AE, and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation1.doc 04/24/02 11:14 PM

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Though creativity can be important in all aspects of IT development (Couger 1996; Glass 1995), IT

effectiveness is becoming increasingly dependent on the infusion of creativity within requirements

determination (Ocker et al. 1995-96; Galleta, et al. 1992), and effective requirements determination "may

be the single most important and difficult part of the software development process" (Guinan, et al. 1998).

This is especially true, for example, when developing IT in order to facilitate radical organizational

change associated with reengineering; for it is only through creative thinking that the novel, non-

analytical solutions required for such change can be developed (Couger et al. 1993; Davenport 1993). IT

projects that enable significant organizational change must deal with the interaction of technical, personal,

political, and social issues (Barley 1986; Markus and Robey 1988). However, even if these issues are

effectively dealt with, successful IT-facilitated organizational change can only result from significant

creativity in IT requirements determination (Cooper 2000). For it is during this process that the new

organization is identified.

Creativity does not spring naturally from the interaction of individuals in organizational settings

(Staw 1990). And managing IT development creativity can be a complex process, that results from

manipulating a variety of individual and group factors (Cooper 2000). One important and potentially

controversial factor involves the impact of rewards on individuals taking part in IT development.

Traditional IT literature guidance suggests that performance bonuses will increase system quality, while

the creativity literature suggests that such bonuses can actually decrease creativity (Cooper 2000). In an

attempt to shed some light on this controversy, this paper examines relationships among rewards,

motivation, and creativity in the determination of IT requirements.

The development of large-scale IT typically involves groups of individuals working together (Guinan

et al. 1998). However there is comparatively little research focusing on the creativity of groups, with

many group creativity implications drawn from individual creativity findings (e.g., Amabile 1988;

Woodman et al. 1993). Much of the research that does look specifically into group creativity, employs

non or quasi-experimental and survey techniques, and focuses on organizational climate issues such as the


2

impacts of individuals' autonomy, degree of cooperation, degree of structure, etc. (Abbey and Dickson

1983; Amabile et al. 1996). Of the relatively small set of experimental studies of group creativity1, issues

examined include the effect of: the type of leader support (e.g., Redmond et al 1993); group member size

and diversity (Nemeth and Kwan 1985; Thornburg 1991); group member interpersonal behaviors, such as

the discounting others members' contributions (Smith 1993; Weaver 1993); group support systems (Ocker

et al. 1995-96; Satzinger et al. 1999), and time pressure (Kelly and Karau 1993; Kelly and McGrath 1985;

Karau and Kelly 1992).

Our study differs from prior group research in that it examines the influence of rewards on extrinsic

and intrinsic motivation, and the resulting impacts on creativity. In addition, extrinsic motivation is

examined in terms of the traditional influence of reward instrumentality and also in terms of perceived

obligation. Finally, our study differs from prior IT creativity research in that it is one of the few focusing

on the problem of IT requirements determination (see Ocker et al. 1995-96 for another).

A model of group creativity is next developed, focusing on how rewards affect the creativity of IT

requirements determination via impacts on extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Based on this model,

hypotheses are proposed and then tested via a laboratory study employing small groups of senior MIS

undergraduates.

2 HYPOTHESIZED MODEL

Though creativity is a function of individuals' domain-relevant knowledge and technical skills (e.g.,

IT knowledge, business knowledge, and systems analysis skills) as well as creativity-relevant cognitive

skills and personality traits (e.g., cognitive flexibility and curiosity), the motivation of group members is

key (Amabile 1990; Barron and Harrington 1981; Woodman et al 1993). Task motivation reflects inner

drive and determines what individuals will do. Such motivation affects creativity by influencing the use

of individuals' knowledge and cognitive and technical skills, thereby affecting the degree of exploration

1 There are many studies that have examined the relationship between group attributes and the quantity or quality of ideas or products produced (see Brophy 1998 for a review). However, attention is focused here only on studies that have examined the creativity or originality of ideas or products.


3

and the likelihood that alternative (and potentially more creative) response possibilities will be examined

(Amabile 1988). Rewards, such as monetary bonuses, affect group creativity by acting on members'

motivation, as opposed to their knowledge, skills, or traits (Deci and Ryan 1985; Amabile 1996).

Therefore, the impact of rewards on creativity can be fruitfully studied through their effects on

motivation.

2.1 Individual Motivation

"If one were to choose a single term for what most people mean by motivation, it would probably be

the verb 'to want' " (Higgins and Kruglanski 2000a). It is motivation that converts cognition into action

(Sorrentino and Higgins 1986)2. Theories that examine this conversion process commonly involve

anticipatory thought and take the form of expectancy models (Bandura 1986; Bowditch and Buono 1990;

Higgins and Kruglanski 2000b; Naylor, et al. 1980).

For example, Atkinson (1957) describes an individual's motivation to perform a task as being a

function of:

Motivation to perform a task = Sni = 1 ƒ(Motivei x Expectancyi x Incentivei)

where Motivei is a relatively stable energizing drive (e.g., maximizing satisfaction associated with

achievement or minimizing pain associated with humiliation), Expectancyi is the subjective probability

that the task will be followed by outcomei, and Incentivei is the relative attractiveness or unattractiveness

(i.e., valence) of outcome i. In addition to task choice, motivation is crucial to the "vigor of the (task

activities) … and for its tendency to persist over time" (Atkinson 1957). Therefore, faced with a choice

between task A and B, an individual will tend to choose A if the motivation associated with A is larger

than that associated with B. The energy or vigor associated with task A activities would then be a

positive function of task A motivation.

2 We are excluding from discussion "preconscious" translations from cognition to action, such as are associated with habits and other automatic responses (e.g., Mischel and Shoda 1995 in Higgins and Kruglanski 2000a; Zajonic 1980b in Higgins and Kruglanski 2000a; Cooper and Bhattacherjee 2001).


4

Individuals' motivations have been described as coming from both extrinsic and intrinsic sources

(Deci and Ryan 1985). Though some theorists are unclear whether extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are

conceptually distinct3, recent work supports the distinction and its importance for creativity (Amabile et

al. 1994; Amabile 1988; Woodman, et al. 1993). Atkinson's model described above focuses on an

individual's general evaluation of motive and incentive associated with task outcomes. In contrast, Staw's

(1977) expectancy model differentiates between extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes and adds the potential

value associated with task behavior for its own sake. From Staw's perspective (see Figure 1):

Motivation to perform a task = ƒ( Sni=1 P1P2(EVi) + Sn

i=1 P3(EVi) + IVbeh + P1(IVacc) ) where: EVi = extrinsic valence associated with extrinsic outcome i IVbeh = intrinsic valence associated with task behavior IVacc = intrinsic valence associated with task accomplishment P1 = probability that task behavior will lead to task accomplishment P2 = probability that task accomplishment will lead to extrinsic outcomei P3 = probability that task behavior will lead directly to extrinsic outcomei. Here, extrinsic outcomei can be monetary rewards, desirable working conditions, recognition, etc. These

outcomes can result from task accomplishment. For example, monetary bonuses and recognition may

result from an individual successfully developing a new information system. P1P2(EVi) represents the

expected valence associated with behaviors that lead to task accomplishment that in turn results in

extrinsic outcomei. Extrinsic outcomei can also result from task behaviors alone. For example, an

individual might earn a salary or recognition for merely attempting to develop a new information system.

P3(EVi) represents the expected valence associated with behaviors that directly result in extrinsic

outcomei. These valences involve Atkinson's notions of motive and incentive, and are related to how well

the outcomes are perceived as satisfying the individual's needs. For example, Maslow (1954) recognizes

an individual’s need for self-esteem, which can be satisfied by recognition from an individual’s

supervisor.

3 For example, some researchers operationally define intrinsically motivated behaviors as those that occur in the absence of extrinsic motivators (e.g., Lepper et al. 1973).


5

Need satisfaction can also come from outcomes intrinsic to task behavior. For example, enjoyment

of task behaviors, autonomy in carrying out task behaviors, and opportunities for individual or

professional growth that can be derived directly from task behaviors have been found to be important for

creativity (Elam and Mead 1990; Ryan and Grolnick 1986; Amabile 1988). These outcomes are

independent of any rewards or recognition by others, and help to satisfy individuals’ needs for pleasure,

self-determination, and self-efficacy, respectively (Bandura 1986; Deci and Ryan 1985). IVbeh represents

the expected intrinsic valence associated with such behavior. In addition, need satisfaction can come

from outcomes intrinsic to task accomplishment. For example, accomplishment of the task independent

of any rewards or recognition by others, can satisfy an individual’s need for self-efficacy. That is, an

individual may enjoy the challenge associated with successfully creating information systems solutions

that satisfy conflicting user requirements. P1(IVacc) represents the expected intrinsic valence associated

with behaviors that lead to task accomplishment.

In summary, the choice of task and the energy put into task-related activities are affected by an

individual's level of motivation for the task. This motivation is a function of expectations linking task

behavior to task accomplishment and extrinsic outcomes combined with the valences (degree of need

satisfaction) associated with the outcomes. In addition, this motivation is affected by intrinsic valences

associated with the task itself - its behaviors and its accomplishment.

Staw's model focuses on an individual's tasks. However, the model can be augmented to reflect an

individual's motivation to perform group tasks (Shamir 1990). First, the definition of P1 can be expanded

to include the probability that the individual's effort will result in the group's task accomplishment. This

expectation would be affected by an individual's evaluation of other group members' abilities as well as

group leadership, group cohesiveness, and group effectiveness. Second, when considering extrinsic

outcomes directly affected by an individual's task behaviors (via P3), social acceptance of an individual by

the group can be included since it often depends on social judgments about the individual's contributions

and adherence to norms, which typically relate to behavior independent of accomplishment.

2.2 Group Motivation


6

Many authors refer to a general notion of group motivation and its positive impact on group

productivity (e.g., Weingart 1992; Morris and Hackman 1975). However, as is exemplified above,

motivation is typically defined as an individual-level construct. Given the group focus of this paper, a

question remains as to whether and how motivation can be included in group-level analyses. Aggregation

of individual-level measures to form or reflect group-level constructs can be appropriate when the

individual-level measures demonstrate a shared understanding among group members about some group

or contextual aspect or characteristic. This approach has been used to reflect group aspirations (Zander

and Medow 1963), collective self-esteem (Crocker and Luhtanen 1990), and group potency (Guzzo et al.

1993).

However, we are not interested in a shared understanding among group members. Rather, we are

interested in an aggregate measure reflecting the level of motivation (i.e., time, attention, and energy:

Naylor et al. 1980) group members are willing to devote to a group task. It appears that an appropria te

measure may depend on the type of group task. Steiner (1972) indicates that different tasks may require

different uses of member capabilities. The final products of (a) additive tasks come from the sum or

average of member contributions, (b) disjunctive tasks come from the most competent member's

contributions, and (c) conjunctive tasks come from the least competent member's contributions. For

example, if three gymnastic teams have four members each with the following scores: Team A - 8.5 8.6

9.0 9.8,Team B - 8.7 8.9 9.3 9.7, Team C - 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.3, then Team B wins if additive, Team A wins if

disjunctive, and Team C wins if conjunctive (Parks and Sanna 1999). This typology suggests that for

disjunctive tasks, the motivation of the most competent member is a reasonable group-level measure, for

conjunctive tasks the motivation of the least competent member is a reasonable group-level measure, and

for additive tasks the average motivation among members is a reasonable group-level measure.

We will focus on groups that tend to be additive in nature. That is, groups in which greater effort of

one member can overcome lesser effort of another. Such an IT requirements group might consist of

members from one department, where either there is little unique knowledge (e.g., most knowledge is

known by at least two members) or unique knowledge of one member is relatively easily attainable by


7

other members through other sources (documentation, etc.). This is in contrast to an IT requirements

group characterized as conjunctive, where each member represents a different and important stakeholder

constituency (e.g., a different department) and has unique knowledge that is inaccessible by other

members from other sources.

An individual's motivation reflects the amount of personal time, energy, and abilities he/she is willing

to devote to a task. The effective employment of these resources on a group task depends on group

characteristics such as the coordination of member efforts and the task strategy employed (Hackman and

Morris 1975). However, when such group characteristics are held constant and we measure the

motivation of an IT requirements group by the average of its members' motivations, we expect a group to

be more productive than another group of the same size with lower average motivation. This is

reasonable with additive groups of the same size because if one member is less willing to be involved

than the average (i.e., has lower than average motivation) this lack of involvement can be compensated by

another member who is more willing to be involved than the average.

Though using average motivation to characterize additive groups of the same size is reasonable it

would be simpler if, within a group, each member had the same level of motivation. Average motivation

would then reflect the motivation of each individual. One result of equal motivation levels is that the

choice of a group measure no longer depends on whether the group's tasks are disjunctive, conjunctive, or

additive. In fact, group members' motivations can move toward equality by reducing social loafing and

free riding as well as via perceptions of equity (Parks and Sanna 1999). Social loafing is a reduction in

individuals’ participation when they feel that their contributions cannot be identified and/or evaluated

(Williams et al. 1981; Harkins and Jackson 1985); this can cause a significant disparity in effort among

group members. However, when requirements groups meet frequently and work face-to-face,

contributions of each member are identified and evaluated by the other members, thereby reducing social

loafing (Wageman and Baker 1997). Similarly, free riding is a reduction in individuals’ efforts, and

occurs when members feel that their contributions are not critical to group performance (Kerr 1983).

Making each member feel that his or her input is important in terms of group performance can mitigate


8

free riding (Weldon and Mustari 1988). Since the importance of each member's input is most evident in

requirements groups characterized above as conjunctive (each member representing a different and

important stakeholder constituency), free riding can be reduced due to the obvious importance of

individuals' inputs. Equity theory is based on the notion that people are generally averse to inequity

(Adams 1965; Walster, et al. 1973). For example, when a reward is shared equally among group

members, each member will calculate the ratio of his or her expected return divided by his or her

individual effort. This ratio is compared to perceptions of other members' ratios, and the individual's

motivations will be adjusted to achieve parity. Therefore, in a requirements group where members work

face-to-face and share rewards equally, individual members will tend to adjust their individual

motivations to equalize their efforts.

Based on these social forces, employing average motivation to reflect the degree to which group

members will devote time, attention, and energy to requirements determination groups' tasks is reasonable

even for groups that are less additive in nature. However, group members still can have unequal

motivations due, e.g., to failure to reduce free riding. Therefore, along with average motivation, we will

employ the variance in motivation among group members in subsequent analyses in order to help identify

the impacts such variation may have.

In summary, additive tasks are those in which the efforts of one member can substitute for the lack of

effort by another. With such tasks, group motivation can be characterized by average member motivation

and associated variance. Average motivation is determined by members' anticipatory expectations of

extrinsic and intrinsic outcomes that can accrue, and the resultant satisfaction of needs. The application

of time, energy, and abilities by group members are different in nature depending on whether motivation

is intrinsic or extrinsic.

2.3 Effects of Intrinsic Motivation on Creativity

Intrinsic motivation arises from positive reactions to qualities of a task itself; intrinsically

motivated individuals engage in a task primarily out of their own interest in it (Lepper, et al. 1973).

"Virtually all theorists concerned with intrinsic motivation have described that phenomenological state as


9

marked by both deep involvement and playfulness" (Amabile 1996). Because they enjoy the task itself

and the process of searching for new solutions, intrinsically motivated individuals (1) devote more

attention to a task for its own sake rather than as a means to an end and (2) have a willingness and ability

to explore alternative cognitive pathways (to step away from a problem to see the non-obvious sides of

issues) in problem solving. Therefore intrinsically motivated individuals will be more likely to explore

and find creative solutions (Newell et al. 1962; Crutchfield 1962; Staw 1990; Woodman, et al. 1993). We

focus on intrinsic motivation due to task behaviors because intrinsic motivation derived from task

accomplishment can serve to concentrate individuals' attention on the ends of the task (i.e.,

accomplishment) rather than the means. And it is a primary focus on the means (i.e., the task behaviors)

that provide opportunities for exploration and creativity.

The capacity for cross-fertilization of ideas and thorough problem exploration makes groups

potentially more creative than individuals (King and Anderson 1990; Staw 1990). However, key to such

cross-fertilization and exploration is intrinsic motivation. Only when one is willing to devote time and

attention to the task for its own sake and is willing to explore alternative cognitive pathways (i.e., other

points of view), can one take full advantage of group creativity. Therefore, though there is little research

relating the intrinsic motivation of groups to creativity, it is reasonable to employ individual-level

research regarding this linkage to support group-level hypotheses.

Intrinsic motivation can come from an individual's drive to satisfy his/her need for self-

determination (Deci and Ryan 1985). When self-determined, one acts task behaviors out of choice rather

than obligation or coercion, and one therefore experiences an internal perceived locus of causality, with

the task being free of strong external control (Deci and Ryan 1985). Self-determined individuals perceive

autonomy in the day-to-day conduct of their tasks, with a sense of ownership and control over their work

and ideas; this provides increased behavioral freedom and an ability to explore and find creative solutions

(Amabile, et al. 1996). Higher levels of perceived self-determination have been positively associated


10

with behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation (Zuckerman, et al. 1978; Swann and Pittman 1977)4 and

have been positively associated with individuals' creativity (Amabile, et al. 1996; Amabile 1988; Ryan

and Grolnick 1986). This leads to the following hypothesis (illustrated as H1 in Figure 2):

H1: Increasing average self-determination will increase group report creativity.

Enjoyment of task behaviors is an intrinsic outcome that provides an individual with the sense of

engaging in play rather than work, and helps satisfy an individual’s need for pleasure (Higgins and

Kruglanski 2000a; Staw 1977). When task behavior is fun to perform, the resulting increased intrinsic

motivation provides for greater energy and exploration of the problem space, and thereby has a positive

impact on creativity (Elam and Mead 1987, 1990). Individuals' perceived task enjoyment have shown

positive associations with behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation (Sansone et al. 1989; Harackiewicz

et al. 1984; Ryan, et al. 1983) and with individual creativity (Amabile, Hennessey, Grossman 1986; Elam

and Mead 1990). In addition, perceived task enjoyment has been employed as a surrogate for intrinsic

motivation (Sansone et al. 1989; Sansone 1986). This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Increasing average enjoyment with the task will increase group report creativity.

Interest is an outcome resulting from an individual being curious about or otherwise stimulated by

features of a task, and plays an important directive role, in that people naturally approach activities that

satisfy their need for stimulation (Amabile 1996; Deci and Ryan 1985). When this interest is directed at

task behaviors, individuals are likely to pay more attention to the behaviors for their own sake, rather than

as a means to an end. This can result in a greater degree of exploration of the problem space and thus

greater creativity. Higher levels of individuals' task interest have been found to be positively associated

with behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation (Harackiewicz et al. 1984; Ryan et al. 1983) and

positively associated with creativity (Amabile 1996). The opportunity for professional growth has been

4 Behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation are typically determined by allowing subjects free time after they engage in an interesting experimental task (such as doing word puzzles). During this period, the amount of time subjects spend on tasks similar to the experimental task (e.g., word puzzles) is recorded, with more time spent implying more intrinsic motivation in the experimental task.


11

identified as a potentially interesting aspect of task activities and therefore important for intrinsic

motivation and creativity (Amabile 1988). This leads to the following hypothesis):

H3: Increasing average opportunities for professional growth will increase group report creativity.

2.4 Effect of Extrinsic Motivation on Creativity

Extrinsic motivation arises from sources outside of the task itself, such as monetary reward and

supervisor recognition. In general, extrinsic motivation tends to decrease individuals' creativity (Amabile

1988). This occurs because an extrinsically motivated individual's attention is centered on the extrinsic

goal rather than on the task itself or on task-relevant aspects of the environment. As a result, such

individuals tend to exhibit functional fixedness and other forms of cognitive rigidity. This narrows their

focus of attention to the task as originally defined and they tend to rely on common, well-worked

algorithms that they have learned for doing the particular task (Staw 1990; Hogarth 1987; Woodman et al.

1993). In addition, extrinsically motivated individuals may be reluctant to take risks, since such risks can

generally impede attainment of the extrinsic goal (Amabile 1996).

There is very little research linking extrinsic group motivation to creativity. However, as

described in regard to intrinsic motivation, the willingness to devote time and attention to the task for its

own sake and to explore alternative cognitive pathways facilitates creativity in groups. In contrast,

extrinsic motivation encourages individuals to treat task behaviors as means to ends and reduces the

exploration of alternative cognitive pathways. Therefore, it is reasonable to employ individual-level

research relating extrinsic motivation to creativity to support group-level hypotheses.

There are important exceptions to the negative relationship between extrinsic motivation and

creativity. Extrinsic motivation can provide individuals the focus and energy necessary for completing a

creative product when there are important "tedious hurdles", such as assuring technical correctness,

careful validation, and communication of ideas (Amabile 1988; Amabile 1996). That is, extrinsic

motivation can help motivate individuals to perform portions of tasks that are not themselves intrinsically

interesting. When the task is developing and reporting IT requirements, technical correctness, careful


12

validation, and careful communication of ideas can be very important, and are typically less intrinsically

interesting than interviewing, analyzing, etc. This need to effectively perform the less interesting

activities can mitigate the potentially negative impact of extrinsic motivation on creativity during IT

requirements determination. In the experiment reported here, there was little opportunity for subjects to

do the work necessary (documenting current systems, interviewing individuals, etc.) to assure technical

correctness or careful validation. However, the careful communication of ideas was paramount, since

group reports were the basis for group reward evaluation. A second exception relates to the interaction of

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation can enhance creativity if an individual's initial

intrinsic motivation is low, can inhibit creativity if an individual's initial intrinsic motivation is moderate,

and may not affect creativity if an individual's intrinsic motivation is initially high (Amabile 1996). For

the development of this paper's hypotheses, we will assume that intrinsic motivation is at least moderate.

Given the preceding discussions, it is not clear whether extrinsic motivation will result in a

negative or positive impact on group report creativity. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H4: Increasing average levels of extrinsic motivation will affect (either increase or decrease) group report creativity.

Cognitive evaluation theory suggests that extrinsic motivation occurs when behaviors are

perceived as instrumental in getting rewards (Deci and Ryan 1985).5 That is, when P1 and P2 or when P3

in Figure 1 are greater than zero, there tends to be a restriction of behavioral freedom, which can decrease

creativity. From this perspective, non-contingent rewards (rewards given with P1, P2, and P3 equal to

zero) should have no impact on individuals' perceived instrumentality, and therefore should not result in

extrinsic motivation. However, this has been contradicted by some findings that creativity-reducing

extrinsic motivation can be fostered even when rewards are received prior to task engagement (Amabile,

et al. 1986; Hennessey and Amabile 1998). This, combined with findings that individuals' self-

5 Rewards can also be perceived as informational, whereby reward receipt conveys information about the recipient's competence and self-determination (Deci 1975; Deci and Ryan 1985). This informational aspect of rewards can mitigate the instrumental aspect's impacts, by, e.g., increasing intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 1985). However, as in the current experiment, when resultant feedback comes after task performance, the expected reward can be perceived only instrumentally (Amabile 1996).


13

evaluations can decrease creativity (Szymanski and Harkins 1992), suggests that obligation may play an

important role in extrinsic motivation.

Cialdini's (1993) proposes that there is a very powerful rule of reciprocation that influences

individuals' behaviors. This rule is pervasive in all human societies (Gouldner 1960), and suggests that

we feel obligated to the future repayment of favors, gifts, etc. This sense of obligation has been credited

with the notion of being human (Leakey and Lewin 1978), with enabling the division of labor thereby

facilitating the human adaptive ability (Tiger and Fox 1971), and with facilitating "sophisticated and

coordinated systems of aid, gift giving, defense, and trade…" (Cialdini 1993). Therefore, because

"…human societies derive a truly significant competitive advantage from the reciprocity rule….they

make sure their members are trained to comply with, and believe in it." (Cialdini 1993). We will call

motivation resulting from this perceived obligation "obligation motivation". Obligation motivation is a

special form of extrinsic motivation, since it arises from sources outside the task itself. With obligation

motivation, rewards are received prior to task engagement with no "strings attached. However

individuals feel pressure to behave in ways they believe the reward-givers expect them to behave. This

results in individuals' focusing their behaviors in accord with others' expectations, and can have effects

similar to the extrinsic motivation described earlier. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H5: Increasing average levels of obligation motivation will affect (either increase or decrease) group report creativity.

2.5 Effect of Rewards on Extrinsic Motivation

In discussions above, cognitive evaluation theory was employed to help understand extrinsic and

obligation motivation. Key to this theory is that the more an individual perceives his/her behavior as

being instrumental in obtaining a reward, the greater the degree of extrinsic motivation. In addition,

Cialdini's (1993) work suggests that the more an individual perceives a reward as being independent of

his/her behavior, the greater his/her degree of obligation motivation. This leads to the following

hypotheses:

H6: Average extrinsic motivation will increase as rewards are tied to task accomplishment.


14

H7: Average obligation motivation will increase as rewards are independent of task accomplishment.

2.6 Impact of Motivation Variance on Creativity

Hypotheses one through five propose monotonically increasing or decreasing relationships between

average motivation and group creativity. In addition, variation in motivation among members of a group

may affect creativity. When determining the impact of this variance, the shape of the monotonic

relationships can be important. For example, H1 through H3 propose that average intrinsic motivation will

increase creativity. The typical assumption (and one employed here) is that each individual's motivation

is equally weighted when determining the average. However, there may be circumstances when equal

weighting may not be appropriate. Implications of unequal weighting are illustrated in Figure 3a. The

bold curve represents a positive and marginally decreasing relationship between motivation and

creativity. This reflects an unequal weighting, where individuals with higher motivation do not fully

compensate for individuals with lower motivation. This effect is illustrated with two group members. If

the first has a motivation equal to 1 and the second a motivation equal to 9, then an equal-weighting

average motivation of 5 will result in the equally-weighted creativity level illustrated. In contrast, if

higher motivation has a smaller weight than lower motivation, then the resultant creativity would be lower

as illustrated. If there were no variance (both members had a motivation of 5), then both equally and

unequally-weighted averages would result in the same creativity. In general, with the relationship

depicted in Figure 3a, greater variance in motivation (ceterus paribus) will result in lesser creativity.

Though non-linear relationships have been proposed relating individual or average motivation to

productivity (e.g., Naylor, et al. 1980), we were unable to find research addressing the impact of

motivation variance on group productivity or creativity. However, based on the creativity literature there

is reasonable support for such impacts. Intrinsic motivation is hypothesized to positively affect creativity.

Key to this effect is that intrinsically motivated individuals are interested in the task for its own sake and

will therefore be more willing to explore alternative cognitive pathways. If group members have

equivalent problem spaces (or "network(s) of possible wanderings": Newell and Simon 1972), then a


15

group member with high intrinsic motivation might be able to compensate for another member with low

intrinsic motivation. However, it is unlikely that both individuals share the same problem space, since

from the perspective of creativity, spaces are affected by the diversity among individuals in terms of their

fields, functional backgrounds, culture, education, leisure time pursuits, etc. (Cooper 2000). And it is this

diversity that is crucial to group creativity, making the creativity potential of groups greater than that for

individuals (Staw 1990; Payne 1990; King and Anderson 1990). Therefore, it would seem that the

amount of diversity lost by decreased participation of one member might not be overcome by the extra

effort associated with an increase in participation by another other member. This would result in the

relationship depicted in Figure 3a, with a diminishing marginal impact of intrinsic motivation creativity,

and leads to the following hypothesis:

H8: Variance in intrinsic motivation will decrease group report creativity.

Extrinsic motivation is hypothesized to impact creativity either negatively or positively. Key to the

negative relationship is the notion that such motivation restricts the behavioral freedom of individuals to

pursue alternative cognitive pathways, focusing their attention toward achieving externally-specified

goals. The issue here is similar to that associated with intrinsic motivation: whether group members with

more freedom (less extrinsic motivation) can compensate for those with less freedom (more extrinsic

motivation). The arguments surrounding variance in intrinsic motivation suggest that members with more

freedom will not be able to fully compensate for those with less freedom due to the decrease in problem

space diversity. This leads to the relationship depicted in Figure 3b, and to the following hypothesis:

H9a: For a negative relationship between extrinsic motivation and creativity, variance in extrinsic motivation will decrease group report creativity.

In contrast, key to the potential for a positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and creativity

is the necessity for technical correctness, careful validation, and careful communication for IT

requirements determination. Extrinsic motivation helps provide the focus and energy necessary in

completing such tedious hurdles. As stated earlier, the experiment undertaken here did not require a great

degree of technical correctness nor careful validation. However, careful communication is necessary in


16

order to receive rewards associated with task accomplishment. The question, then, is whether increased

focus and energy of one member can compensate for the lack of focus and energy in another member.

Unlike the problem space arguments presented above, there is no reason to believe that such

compensation will not occur. In fact, in reference to clear communication, over compensation might

easily occur. For example, if one individual in a group is motivated to generate the written document

based on input from others, there is a better chance that the document will appear as a cohesive integrated

whole rather than a patchwork that is often associated with multiple authors. This would result in the

positive relationship depicted in Figure 3c, with an increasing marginal impact of extrinsic motivation

creativity, and leads to the following hypothesis:

H9b: For a positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and creativity, variance in extrinsic motivation will increase creativity

Since obligation motivation is similar to extrinsic motivation in terms of the restriction of behavioral

freedom, and perhaps energy and focus for tedious activities, we also have the following hypotheses:

H10a: For a negative relationship between obligation motivation and creativity, variance in obligation motivation will decrease group report creativity.

H10b: For a positive relationship between obligation motivation and creativity, variance in obligation motivation will increase group report creativity.

3. METHOD

An experiment was employed to test the above hypotheses. Subjects for the experiment were

recruited from two semesters of classes to participate in single sessions. Prior to that time, two surveys

were administered and a pilot study was performed. Subjects for the surveys and pilot study were similar

to those in the experiment. Survey and pilot study subjects did not participate in the experiment.

The theoretical model presented in Figure 2, was analyzed using Partial Least Squares (PLS)6, a

multivariate analysis technique for testing structural models that allows the simultaneous analysis of

multiple criterion and predictor constructs (Wold 1985; Barclay et al. 1995). PLS is especially good when

there are not many data points, since it can be used when there are as few as 5 data points for each path


17

leading to the construct that has the most incoming paths (Falk and Miller 1992).7 In PLS, construct

indicators may be modeled as reflective or formative (Fornell and Bookstein 1982), with reflective

indicators determined by the construct they represent and formative indicators determining the construct

they represent (Chin and Gopal 1995). The reward and variance constructs are modeled using formative

indicators; indicators for all other constructs are reflective. Many of the reliability and validity

discussions below are supported by PLS analyses.

3.1. Experimental Subjects

One hundred and thirty-five senior-level undergraduate students enrolled in a Systems Analysis and

Design class at a large urban university were subjects in the laboratory experiment. The experiment

spanned two semesters, with sixty-six students participating in the first semester and sixty-nine

participating in the second semester. Subjects were drawn from three sections of the class each semester,

and were randomly assigned to 45 groups of mixed gender, each group consisting of three students.

3.2. Experimental Procedure

The experimental procedure was as follows. All subjects attending an experimental session (typically

9 subjects) initially met together in one room. At this time, they were told that the object of the study was

to identify things that can affect IT requirements determination by groups. Each student was then

provided with a copy of the general instructions (see Appendix A.1). The experimenter read the

instructions along with the subjects and asked for questions. Subjects were not told that the experiment

concerned creativity. This is in accord with Amabile (1996), and is probably more reflective of IT

requirements tasks in general. Subjects were then told that they would have sixty minutes to complete

their requirements task, after which they would return to the meeting room and fill out a questionnaire

regarding their group experiences. Subjects were then randomly assigned to groups and roles, then

groups were randomly assigned to treatments and rooms. Each student was provided with an individual

6 PLSGraph version 2.91.03.04 was employed in the study. 7 This assumes, as is true here, that all formative constructs have less indicators than the incoming paths to the construct with the most paths.


18

instruction sheet (see Appendix A.2 for an example) which indicated the nature of his or her reward, role,

and room. Each group met in its assigned room for sixty minutes; the experimenter notified each group

when there were fifteen minutes remaining. Each room contained chairs, one table, and a chalkboard.

3.3 Task

Torrance (1965) suggests product improvement as an appropriate test for creative behavior. Amabile

(1996) indicates that the task should (1) be heuristic - open ended enough to permit considerable

flexibility and novelty in response, (2) result in an observable product or response that can be recorded

and later judged on creativity, and (3) be feasible in the sense that virtually all subjects in the study can

produce something that can be assessed by judges.

In accord with these directions, the task for each group involved solving problems with administrative

information systems. Each subject in a group was randomly assigned to represent one of three

stakeholders. Working and non-working student representatives were given the following set of problems

with "working" or "non-working" appropriately included:

1. Classes desired by working/non-working students are not available because they are already closed

2. Classes desired by working/non-working students are not available because they are not offered 3. Classes desired by working/non-working students are in conflict with each other since they are

offered at the same day and time 4. After registering for a class, working/non-working students are dropped from the class because it

is cancelled by administration, e.g. due to too few students taking the class 5. Classes desired by working/non-working students are offered at inconvenient days and/or times.

Faculty representatives were given the following set of problems:

1. Assigned classes are scheduled for inconvenient days and/or times for faculty members. 2. Assigned classes will require too much work on the part of faculty members. 3. Assigned classes do not interest faculty members. 4. Assigned classes are not appropriate because the faculty member does not understand the material 5. Assigned classes result in an overload of work to the faculty member due to large class sizes 6. Required equipment and material for the assigned classes are not available

These problems were identified earlier via a questionnaire that asked twenty-one senior-level students in a

Systems Analysis and Design class to identify (1) problems associated with registering for classes from

the perspective of a student, (2) problems associated with getting assigned to classes from the perspective

of a faculty member, and (3) problems associated with providing classes from the perspective of the


19

University administration. Each group handed in a report that described IT requirements in terms of IT

functions (what the IT should do) and how those functions help solve the student and faculty problems

(see Appendix A.3).

3.4 Operationalization, Reliability, and Validity of Creativity Construct

There are two major schools of thought on the measurement of written creative products. The first

attempts to decompose a product into creative attributes such as flexibility (the variety of different

categories into which responses can be classified), originality (the statistical infrequency of responses),

elaboration (amount of detail of responses), and fluency (the number of relevant responses) (Torrance

1965, Guilford and Merrifield 1960). This approach focuses on the importance of divergent thinking in

creativity. The second school takes a more holistic approach, asking individuals to judge the creativity of

products by responding to a single creativity question (Amabile 1996) or by combining judgements on,

for example, two questions that represent important components of creativity, such as novelty and value

(Massetti 1996). When compared to the decomposition approach, the holistic approach more adequately

captures:

"…the elements of creativity as it is generally defined in the literature: novelty combined with appropriateness, value, or usefulness. (The decomposition approach) is also problematic because of its low ecological validity … (subjective) assessment is much closer to real world judgments of creativity in the classroom, the corporation, or the art gallery. In addition, it is unlikely that in real-world situations, where high levels of creativity are desired, anyone knows a priori what behaviors to reward as creative." (Hennessey and Amabile 1998)

Rather than choose one approach over the other, and since there is some agreement that creative output

has both a quantitative (e.g., number of ideas) and qualitative (e.g., novelty or value) components

(Wierenga and van Bruggen 1998), this study employs both approaches. Details concerning their

employment follow.

Decomposed Measures. Decomposition of the groups' reports into flexibility, originality, fluency,

and elaboration requires the creation of a response framework. Since the reports are essentially free form,

a way to parse each report into individual responses is needed, so that the flexibility, etc. of the responses

can be compared across groups. The response framework employed in this study (see Appendix C)


20

largely resulted from the evaluation of pilot study group reports. The experimenters categorized the

suggested IT functions into four major (Level 1) categories: Teaching, Enrollment, Scheduling, and Non-

Faculty Resource Allocation. Level 1 categories were further subdivided into the following Level 2

categories: Teaching - Class Administration and Instruction; Enrollment - Student Guidance, Rule

Enforcement, and Other; Scheduling - Faculty Data Captured, Student Data Captured, Scheduling

ProcessClass, and Data Captured; Non-Faculty Resource Allocation - Resource Allocation and Resource

Control. Each of these Level 2 categories was further subdivided. For example, Faculty Data Captured

within Scheduling (see Appendix C.2.C) resulted in the levels shown below:

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 Scheduling Faculty Data Captured

Current and Future Faculty Preferences

• General Teaching Interests • Days and Times • Workload and Maximum

Number of Students per Class • Specific Classes

Current Faculty Competency

• Credentials • Student Evaluations • Faculty Evaluations of their

Competency • Experience • Seniority

Though the vast majority of items within this response framework were developed using data from the

pilot study, as the groups surfaced new ideas each semester within the current experiment, they were

added to the framework.

This framework was employed in the following ways in order to determine scores for group reports.

Assume for this discussion that a group's report only consisted of the following:

"An IT should enable faculty to enter data concerning the days they would like to work, the specific classes they would like to teach, and their competency".


21

This is parsed into the three underlined elements. Flexibility is measured as the variety of responses at

Level 3.8 In this case, "days they would like to work" as well as "classes they would like to teach" fall

under the Level 3 topic of Current and Future Faculty Preferences while "competency" falls under the

Level 3 topic of Current Faculty Competency. Since the group's report contained information associated

with two Level 3 topics, their flexibility score is two. Originality is measured for each response as one

over the total number of times that specific response was offered by all group reports. Assume that "days

they would like to work" was suggested by four other groups, "classes they would like to teach" was not

suggested by any other group, and aspects of "competency" was suggested by 2 other groups (one group

suggested "credentials" and one suggested "seniority"). Then originality for each of this group's

responses would be 1/5, 1, and 1/3, respectively. An originality score for this group would then be

determined by summing across its separate response originality scores, thus equaling 1.53. Elaboration

for a response is measured by how deep it is, in terms of the number of levels. Elaboration scores for this

group would be four for "days they would like to work", four for "classes they would like to teach", and

three for "competency". An elaboration score for this group would then be determined by summing

across the separate response elaboration scores, thus equaling 11. A fluency measure was not included

because we excluded responses that were not relevant. Nonrelevant responses included those that we

could not understand as well as those that solved problems not assigned to the groups.

The validity of the decomposition measures of creativity is dependent on the reasonableness of the

response framework. In accord with Szymanski and Harkins (1992) and Bartis et al. (1988), the number

of framework categories employed preserved the range of responses but collapsed repetitions. For

example, "allowing faculty to input their availability" and "having faculty provide convenient days and

times" were deemed repetitious, and were placed into the same category: faculty preferences - days and

times.

8 Level 3 was chosen because very few responses (1% ) went only to Level 1 or 2, while many (10% of responses) were at level 3. Therefore, Level 3 was employed to get a good feel for response variety without excluding a significant number of responses; that is, employing Level 3 allowed an evaluation of 99% of the responses.


22

Reliability of the decomposition measures can be ascertained by the reliability with which the group

responses were placed within the response framework. This study's experimenters independently placed

group responses into the framework. Based on Cohen's kappa (Liebetrau 1983), there was significant

agreement in group response placement (kappa = .656, p < .01). This value of kappa represents very

good agreement (excellent agreement is obtained with kappa = .7: Fleiss 1981). When there were

disagreements, the experimenters discussed the discrepancies and jointly agreed on the response's

placement.

Subjective Judgement Measures. In accord with suggestions by Massetti (1996) and Amabile

(1996): (1) Each judge was provided with an instruction sheet (see Appendix D) and a commonly

formatted word-processed copy of the group reports, with spelling and grammatical errors corrected. (2)

The judges were all professionals within the University administration, and chosen due to their familiarity

with the problems and potential solutions facing the students. (3) Judges were asked to work

independently from each other and to evaluate each report in terms of creativity, novelty, and usefulness

on seven point scales. The endpoints of the scales were Not Creative/Novel/Useful and Extremely

Creative/Novel/Useful. (4) Judges were asked to use their own subjective definition of creativity. They

were asked to evaluate novelty in terms of the degree to which they believe that the group's solutions are

new and unusual. They were asked to evaluate usefulness in terms of the degree to which they believe

that the group's solutions will help solve the associated problems. (5) The reports were in a different

random order for each judge, and the judges were asked to evaluate creativity, novelty, and usefulness

relative to all the other groups, rather than on some absolute standard. In order to facilitate this relative

evaluation, judges were asked to read all solutions for at least the first five groups (approximately 20% of

the groups) before judging any group.

Though eight judges were used each semester, half were different individuals. Therefore, their

responses were standardized (Chin et al. 1996) and combined such that each group had one measure for


23

creativity, one for novelty, and one for usefulness9. By definition, inter-judge reliability is equivalent to

construct validity since creativity is defined as that which is agreed among judges to be creative (Amabile

1996). Recent research has demonstrated that acceptably reliable assessments can be obtained with as

few as 3 judges for verbal and problem solving tasks (Amabile 1996). We employed 8 judges each

semester. Based on the Spearman-Brown prediction formula (Nunnally, 1967), the inter-judge reliability

for the first semester is .84 for creativity, .81 for usefulness, and .84 for novelty; that for the second

semester is .88 for creativity, .87 for usefulness, and .86 for novelty. These data demonstrate very good

reliability for the subjective judgment measures.

3.5. Operationalization, Reliability, and Validity of Reward Construct

Hypotheses six and seven require the differentiation between rewards tied to task accomplishment

and rewards independent of task accomplishment. Rewards can have negative impacts on creativity if

they are perceived as not being generous or equitable compensation for the task (Amabile 1996; Abbey

and Dickson 1983). Therefore, the ranges of extra credit points as well as extra monetary rewards were

determined based on responses to a survey of thirty-six senior-level undergraduate students enrolled in a

programming class

Negotiations with the instructors teaching classes from which student participants were drawn

resulted in the following combination of extra credit and monetary reward conditions:

1. Task Independent Condition - Guaranteed receipt of 3 extra credit points independent of the quality of work.

2. Task Accomplishment Conditions a. Accomplishment Only - Guaranteed receipt of 1 point independent of the quality of work,

with the potential of receiving 1 or 2 more points depending on the quality of work. b. Accomplishment Plus Competition - Guaranteed receipt of 1 point independent of the quality

of work, with the potential of receiving 1 or 2 more points depending on the quality of work. In addition, each group member receives $30 if the work is judged to be the best quality relative to ten other groups.

9 The mean and standard deviation were determined for each judge's creativity evaluations. Each judge's standardized evaluation for a group's creativity was determined by subtracting the mean from the group's score and dividing the result by the standard deviation. The combined creativity score for a group was determined by summing the group's standardized scores from each judge. This procedure was used for determining combined usefulness and novelty.


24

Based on cognitive evaluation theory (Deci and Ryan 1985), extrinsic motivation should be manifest

in both task accomplishment conditions. Cognitive evaluation theory also suggests that when a monetary

prize is added, greater extrinsic motivation should result because of the competitive aspect of the reward;

that is, behavioral freedom is further diminished because merely doing well is not enough, one also has to

win. Therefore, the reward construct consists of 2 dummy indicators that represent three different

conditions: one reflects the task independent reward condition and one reflects the task accomplishment

plus competition reward condition.

To test if participants distinguished among the reward conditions, they were asked how many extra

credit points they were guaranteed to receive and whether, in addition to extra credit, they were eligible to

receive a monetary prize. The correlation between the first question and the task independent dummy

indicator was significant (r = 0.65, p < .01); the correlation between the second question and the task

accomplishment plus competitive reward dummy indicator was significant (r = 0.93, p < .01). This

indicates that participants perceived significant differences among the reward conditions.

3.6 Operationalization, Reliability, and Validity of Motivation Constructs

All motivation constructs were measured using the post-task questionnaire (see Appendix B). Where

possible, construct indicators were based on prior research. Enjoyment indicators were based on Ryan et

al. (1983), Amabile et al. (1986), and Sansone et al (1989). Self-determination indicators were based on

the KEYS instrument, which has been used to examine individuals' perceptions of organizational factors

that affect creativity (Amabile et al 1996).10 Extrinsic motivation indicators were based on items in

Amabile et al. (1994). Indicators concerning professional growth and obligation motivation were created

specifically for this study because they appear not to have been examined via questionnaire in previous

work.

PLS enables the assessment of measurement components by providing principal components factor

loadings of indicators. The factor loadings provided by PLS analysis and presented in Table 1 indicate

10 We thank professor Amabile and the Center for Creative Leadership for allowing us access to the KEYS instrument.


25

adequate reliability of indicators for all extrinsic and intrinsic motivation constructs except self-

determination. Extrinsic motivation, obligation motivation, enjoyment, and professional growth

constructs had factor loadings greater than 0.7, demonstrating that less than half of any indicator’s

variance was due to error. In addition, the composite scale reliabilities (an internal consistency estimate

similar to Cronbach’s α) for these constructs exceeded the recommended cut-off of 0.7 (Fornell and

Larcker 1981). Finally, average variance extracted by these constructs from their indicators exceeded the

recommended cut-off of 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

The indicators of all motivation constructs demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity

according to a criterion similar to a multi-trait/multi-method analysis (Carmines and Zeller 1979).

Specifically, from Table 2, we can see that the constructs shared more variance with their indicators than

with the other constructs.

3.7 Operationalization of Controls

The model subjected to statistical analysis initially included two control constructs that account for

peculiarities associated with the experimental implementation. One represented a potential semester

effect and the other the impact of time pressure. Since neither had significant impacts they were excluded

from further consideration. Note that the dropping of time pressure does not imply that time has no effect

on creativity; rather, it indicates that the 60 minutes allowed for the task was adequate.

Rewards can have negative impacts on motivation if they are perceived as not being equitable

compensation for the task (Abbey and Dickson 1983; Amabile 1996). Therefore, a control construct, with

paths to all intrinsic and extrinsic motivation constructs was included in the model. This construct was

formed by a single item in the post-task questionnaire that asked if the reward offered was reasonable for

the activity performed (See Appendix B).

3.8 Operationalization and Verification of Experimental Conditions

Information regarding initial intrinsic motivation and the degree to which the task is perceived to be

heuristic were gathered to verify experimental conditions. The creativity literature suggests that there

must be at least a moderate amount of initial intrinsic motivation (e.g., in terms of potential enjoyment)


26

associated with a task in order for creativity to occur and for rewards to have a potentially detrimental

effect (Amabile 1996). Though many experiments determine this motivation prior to task engagement,

we can infer the degree of initial intrinsic motivation from our post-task questionnaire. Since all

experimental conditions involve the imposition of extrinsic and obligation motivators on the groups,

intrinsic motivation as measured by the enjoyment construct indicators, should be no more than its initial

level in all conditions (Deci and Ryan 1985). If these lower levels indicate a moderate degree of intrinsic

motivation, then we can infer that the initial levels were at least moderate. In fact, average individual

enjoyment is 5.67, which is significantly greater (p < .001, se = .057, n = 135) than the scale midpoint of

4, allowing the inference that there was at least a moderate degree of initial intrinsic task motivation.

The creativity literature also indicates that, in addition to being of intrinsic interest, the task must be

heuristic rather than algorithmic in nature (Amabile 1996). For example, Hennessey and Amabile (1998)

suggest that experiments demonstrating effects of extrinsic motivators contrary to typical creativity

research findings may be due to the employment of algorithmic rather than heuristic tasks. Heuristic

tasks are perceived as complex, difficult, or unfamiliar (Amabile 1996), for which there is no clear and

readily identifiable path to a solution (McGraw 1978). Therefore, included in the post-task

questionnaire were three items representing the heuristic task construct, which focused on whether

subjects felt that there was a clear and readily identifiable path to a solution (see Appendix B). The

average for this construct is 4.03, which is significantly greater than 3.5 (p < .001, se = .022, n = 135),

indicating that the task is perceived as moderately heuristic.

4. HYPOTHESIS TESTING

Figure 4 contains the results of PLS analysis of the model developed in this study. PLS generates

estimates of standardized regression coefficients for the paths in a model’s structural component. In order

to determine the significance of these paths, jackknifed standard error estimates for the paths are obtained


27

using the blindfolding procedure.11 An omission distance of 11 was used in the blindfolding procedure.

Figure 4 also shows R-square for motivation and creativity constructs, which is the proportion of variance

of a construct explained by constructs having paths leading to it. This analysis leads to the following

hypothesis evaluations

The impact of intrinsic motivation on creativity was demonstrated by two out of three hypotheses. H1

and H2 were supported, with both self-determination and enjoyment increasing creativity. Though H3 is

not supported, the path from professional growth to creativity was significantly negative. Extrinsic and

obligation motivation both significantly affected creativity (supporting H4 and H5), but in opposite

directions. H6 is partially supported. It posits that extrinsic motivation will increase as rewards are tied to

task accomplishment. The path from reward to extrinsic motivation is significantly positive and the

dummy indicator for task independent reward is negative. This supports H6, indicating that extrinsic

motivation is higher for the task accomplishment reward than for the task independent reward. However,

the dummy indicator for task accomplishment plus competition is also negative, suggesting that this

condition reduces extrinsic motivation when compared to task accomplishment alone. This impact does

not support H6. H7 is not supported, with rewards independent of task accomplishment having no

significant impact on obligation motivation. H8 is partially supported. It posits that variance in intrinsic

motivation will decrease creativity. This relationship was found for enjoyment; however the impact of

variance in self-determination was not significant. In addition, for reasons described in the next section,

the variance associated with professional growth was not included in the intrinsic motivation variance

construct. H9b and H10a were supported and in accord with the findings associated with H4 and H5. That

is, average extrinsic motivation has a positive impact on creativity, and the associated variance also has a

positive impact; average obligation motivation has a negative impact on creativity, and the associated

variance also has a negative impact.

11 See Sambamurthy and Chin (1994) for a description of the blindfolding procedure.


28

5. DISCUSSION

Six hypotheses were fully supported, two were partially supported, and two were not supported by the

PLS analyses. Discussions below help understand issues surrounding the partially and non-supported

hypotheses. In addition, two supported hypotheses, relating to obligation and extrinsic motivation, were

bi-directional and are also discussed below. Finally, though reward reasonableness was included as a

control construct, it seems to have more significant impacts than reward condition, and is therefore

addressed here.

5.1 H3 - Professional Growth and Creativity

The professional growth construct was hypothesized to positively impact creativity, since elements of

a task that make it intrinsically interesting should cause subjects to be more willing to explore alternative

cognitive pathways and thereby find creative solutions. The construct's items attempted to determine

whether subjects found the task interesting by asking them whether the group activity provided a valuable

experience for their careers, would help in professional activities, and taught valuable lessons. While it

may be reasonable to presume that answers to such items by people working by themselves on tasks

would reflect interesting aspects of the tasks themselves, in this case, we have individuals' responses to

group activities. Therefore, it could be that what subjects found interesting and useful for professional

growth were aspects of the group process itself, rather than the IT requirements task. To test this focus on

group process, the professional growth construct is correlated with a post-task questionnaire item that

asked whether "the group activity experience taught me a lot about working in groups". The correlation

was significantly positive (r = 0.70, p < .01), supporting a group process focus for the professional

growth construct. With such a focus, subjects' attentions are drawn away from exploration of elements of

the IT requirements determination task and toward group process elements. This may reduce individuals'

willingness to explore alternative cognitive pathways associated with the requirements task, and thereby

reduce their potential to find creative IT requirements solutions. It is therefore reasonable that, though a

greater interest in group process may result in creative solutions to the group process issues, this interest


29

also can lead to decreased creativity associated with the IT requirements task. For these reasons,

professional growth variance was excluded from the intrinsic variance construct.

5.2 H4 & H5- Extrinsic Motivation, Obligation Motivation, and Creativity

Though extrinsic motivation generally decreases creativity due, e.g., to increased functional fixedness

and cognitive rigidity, there are certain contexts in which extrinsic motivation can increase creativity. For

example, when a task has tedious aspects that are less interesting and enjoyable, extrinsic rather than

intrinsic motivation can provide the necessary focus and energy. Such a tedious activity required by

groups here involves the careful written communication of IT requirements. It appears in this case that

extrinsic motivation played such a positive role in groups, providing the focus and energy to effectively

document their requirements.

We suggested that obligation motivation would have effects similar to extrinsic motivation, given its

similar impacts on individuals' behavioral freedom. However, obligation motivation had an impact on

creativity opposite that of extrinsic motivation. This may be due to the relative lack of focus associated

with obligation motivation. While the instrumentality of behavior can be relatively obvious with extrinsic

motivation (i.e., attempting to achieve a specific goal), obligation motivation provides a more ambiguous

pressure on individuals to behave in ways they believe reward-givers want them to behave. Without the

focus provided by extrinsic motivation, only the negative aspects of obligation motivation (e.g., cognitive

rigidity) seemed to come to through.

5.3 H6 - Reward and Extrinsic Motivation

We proposed that rewards tied to task accomplishment will increase extrinsic motivation and that

rewards that include both task accomplishment and competition will have an even greater impact on

extrinsic motivation. These hypotheses were based on cognitive evaluation theory (Deci and Ryan 1985),

which suggests that extrinsic motivation increases to the degree to which individuals feel that specific

behaviors are instrumental in receiving rewards. The theory indicates that individuals perceive behavioral

instrumentality when rewards are tied to task accomplishment, i.e., when doing well is required. In

addition, even greater behavioral instrumentality is perceived when rewards are tied to a competition with


30

others, because winning as opposed to just doing well is required. With this in mind, we envisioned a

reward hierarchy, with task independent rewards, task accomplishment rewards, and task accomplishment

plus competition rewards leading to increasing extrinsic motivation. Though the data supported

increasing extrinsic motivation between task independent and task accomplishment reward conditions, the

task accomplishment plus competition condition ran counter to the theory, as it decreased extrinsic

motivation.

Some of this contrary impact may be due to peculiarities present in the experimental context.

Participating students are used to having their exam grades determined based on their performance

relative to others in their class. Once exam scores have been determined, a mean adjustment is typically

employed, which raises everyone's grades. In this light, the students may have interpreted the competitive

aspect of the task accomplishment plus competition condition as making it easier to get the reward. With

only a task accomplishment reward being offered, they may have thought it possible for no group to

receive the reward. In contrast, the competition guarantees that at least one group will receive the reward.

This may serve to decrease rather than increase the perceived instrumentality of behavior in the task

accomplishment plus reward condition.

5.4 H8 - Intrinsic Variance and Creativity

Partial support of this hypothesis was reflected in the negative relationship between enjoyment

variance and creativity. Variance associated with professional growth was excluded due to its earlier-

described elimination as an intrinsic construct. Variance associated with self-determination had a non-

significant impact on creativity. Though this could be do to many reasons, it may have occurred because

of the relative unreliability of this construct, which was described earlier.

5.5 Reward Reasonableness and Motivation

In contrast to the weak impact of reward conditions on motivation, there seems to be consistently

stronger effects associated with reward reasonableness. Since all reward conditions included some kind

of reward, it appears that variations in perceptions of reward reasonableness, rather than the reward

condition, had more influence on motivation. In general, Abbey and Dickson (1983) and Amabile (1996)


31

have noted a direct impact of reward reasonableness on motivation. The potential for such impacts in our

study can be seen in the survey (administered to students who did not participate in the experiment) that

was used to determine the levels of extra credit and monetary rewards. For example, over 20% of the

respondents indicated no difference between rewards (extra credit or money) that would entice them to

participate and rewards that would make them work hard. If the rewards were enough to have them sign

up for the experiment, additional compensation would presumably not affect how these individuals

performed. This would suggest that for many subjects there may be a threshold, which when met, would

get them involved and greater compensation (within the limits of the study extra credit and monetary

rewards) would have no more motivation impacts. It is possible that different subjects offered the same

reward would have significantly different perceptions of reward reasonableness, and that these

perceptions could have more of an impact on motivation than the types of rewards themselves.

6. CONCLUSIONS

We conclude this paper with discussions concerning implications for research and management.

6.1 Implications for Research

Extrinsic motivation stemming from behavior being instrumental in getting rewards has typically

been found to negatively impact creativity. However, our results suggest that when employing groups to

determine IT requirements, extrinsic motivation can enhance creativity when there are tedious aspects to

the task, such as the effective communication of a requirements report. In contrast, feelings of obligation

were found to be important in reducing creativity. As compared to extrinsic motivation, it would seem

that rewards resulting in obligation contribute to the negative control aspects typically associated with

extrinsic motivation without providing an accompanying focus and drive that can induce individuals to

overcome tedious aspects of a task.

Intrinsic motivation, measured in terms of task enjoyment, resulted in a positive impact on creativity;

this is in line with findings in the creativity literature. In addition, we found that care must be taken when

translating questionnaire items from individual to group level analysis. For example, though professional


32

growth items may have been reasonable indicators of intrinsic task interest at the individual level, when

employed at the group level, we found that interest in group processes may have confounded the measure.

Variance in motivation can affect group creativity. Variation among group members in terms of their

intrinsic motivation (enjoyment) resulted in decreased creativity. This was in accord with our

expectations that greater application of time and energy by some members would not offset the loss of

problem space diversity resulting from less participation by others. Variation among members in terms of

obligation motivation had a negative impact on creativity. This was in accord with our expectation since

there was a negative relationship between obligation motivation and creativity. With such a relationship,

members with more freedom to explore the problem space (less obligation motivation) were unable to

compensate for the loss of problem space diversity resulting from less participation by members having

less freedom (greater obligation motivation). Variation among members in terms of extrinsic motivation

increased creativity. This was in accord with our expectation, since significant benefits can be derived

from having the member with the greatest extrinsic motivation take on the tedious task of writing the

requirements document.

The importance of reward reasonableness and the lack of significance associated with the reward

conditions were surprising. Reward reasonableness had important positive impacts on all intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation constructs. This suggests that rewards affect motivation to the degree that they are

perceived to be reasonable.

Though much was learned, there is much more to do. For example, it would be helpful to get a better

understanding of the relationships among rewards and extrinsic as well as obligation motivations. Culture

may play an important role, since what individuals deem to be reasonable rewards as well as the whole

notion of obligation may vary across cultures. It would also be interesting to understand the process

whereby variance in motivation within a group affects creativity, and what conditions contribute to more

or less variance. It would be helpful to revisit intrinsic motivation associated with task interest. For

example, cognitive evaluation theory suggests that such interest is due in part to an individual's need for

competence. "When people are free from the intrusion of drives and emotions, they seek challenges that


33

are suited to their competencies, that are neither too easy nor difficult." (Deci and Ryan 1985). This

"optimal challenge" provides individuals with opportunities to stretch their abilities with good chances of

success, thereby promoting greater perceived competence. Therefore, questionnaire items that focus on

the existence of such optimal challenges may help identify intrinsic interest in the task itself. Finally, it

should be noted that the study's results are based on individuals who will likely become IT staff. Given

differences found between IT staff and IT users in terms of time orientation, problem solving mode,

culture, etc. (Gingras and McLean 1982; Schein 1996), it would be worthwhile to include non-IT

personnel in experimental groups in order to determine if the same results are obtained.

6.2 Implications for Management

Though our results are preliminary, the following are interesting issues to consider. It seems as

though the traditional IT guidance in terms of rewards may be reasonable for promoting creativity in

groups that determine IT requirements. For example, Gray et al. (1989) and Hussain and Hussain (1988)

suggest a monotonically increasing relationship between extrinsic rewards, such as bonuses, and IT

development quality. Our study suggests that such a relationship might also hold for the creativity of

groups involved in IT requirements determination, especially when there are significant tedious elements

to the determination task. Care must be taken, however, to minimize feelings of obligation that may

result due to rewards or other organizational conditions.

Though not considered by the IT literature, it may be very important whether IT development

personnel view extrinsic rewards as reasonable. Our study suggests that reasonableness may have an

important indirect relationship with creativity. In addition, perceptions of reasonableness by individuals

provided with the same rewards can vary significantly and can have significant associated impacts on

creativity.

Finally, motivation variance among group members can have significant impacts on creativity. Such

variance had negative impacts when associated with intrinsic and obligation motivation. In order to

overcome such impacts, managers may want to decrease motivation variance by, for example, reducing

free riding and social loafing.


34

4/24/2002 11:14 PM Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation1.doc 35

Figure 1. Determination of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation

Task Behavior Task Accomplishment

Extrinsic Outcomes

Intrinsic Outcomes (Beh)

Intrinsic Outcomes (Acc)

P3

P1 P2

Intrinsic Motivation

Anticipatory Thought Process from Staw

(1977)

P= 1 P= 1

Evaluations of outcomes in

terms of satisfying individual

needs


Figure 2. Hypothesized Impact of Rewards and Motivation on Group Creativity

Obligation Motivation

Creativity

Professional

Growth

Enjoyment

Extrinsic

Motivation

Reward

H6 + H4 ? H5 ? H10 ? H7 -

Obligation Variance

Intrinsic

Variance

H1 + H2 + H3 + H8 -

Independent -

Accomplishment& Competitive

+

Self-

Determination

H9 ?

Extrinsic Variance


Figure 3a. Positive and Diminishing Marginal Impact Figure 3b. Negative and Increasing Marginal Impact Figure 3c. Positive and Increasing Marginal Impact

Figure 3. Impact of Motivation Variance on Creativity

Equally- Weighted Average



Motivation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Person 1 Person 2

Equally-Weighted Creativity

Unequally-Weighted Creativity

Creativity




Creativity




Creativity


Figure 4. PLS Results (All paths not denoted as "ns" are significant at p < 0.01. Paths denoted by "ns" have p > 0.05)

Obligation Motivation

(.08)

Creativity (.43)

Professional

Growth (.07)

Enjoyment

(.07)

Extrinsic

Motivation (.10)

Reward

.29

.13 .73 -.70 -.63

.26 .45 .27

Obligation Variance

Intrinsic

Variance

Reward

Reasonableness

.39 .23 -.53 -.12

Independent

-.80

Accomplishment& Competitive

-1.15 .28

Self-Determination

Enjoyment

1.05

ns

ns

.53

Extrinsic Variance

Self-

Determination (.18)


Table 1: PLS Construct Indicators, Factor Loadings, Average Variances Extracted, and Composite Scale Reliabilities for Reflective Constructs

Construct

Indicators

Range of Factor Loadings

Average Variance Extracted

Composite Scale Reliability

Creativity

Expert Judges Report Decomposition

0.759 to 0.868

0.679 0.927

Extrinsic Motivation

Questionnaire Items (See Appendix B)

0.706 to 0.962 0.838 0.954

Obligation Motivation Questionnaire Items (See Appendix B)

0.892 to 0.943

0.830 0.951

Professional Growth Questionnaire Items (See Appendix B)

0.914 to 0.954 0.851 0.945

Self-Determination

Questionnaire Items (See Appendix B)

0.455 to 0.690 0.433 0.662

Enjoyment Questionnaire Items (See Appendix B)

0.711 to 0.916 0.661 0.886

Time Questionnaire Items (See Appendix B)

0.702 to 0.869 0.602 0.818

Table 2: Average Variance Extracted by PLS Constructs (diagonal elements) and Shared Variance between Constructs (off-diagonal elements) for Reflective Constructs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Creativity 0.686

2. Instrumental Motivation 0.020 0.834

3. Obligation Motivation 0.073 0.699 0.770

4. Professional Growth 0.023 0.000 0.014 0.876

5. Self-Determination 0.002 0.006 0.003 0.448 0.722

6. Enjoyment 0.169 0.162 0.094 0.003 0.102 0.347

7. Time 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.602


References Abbey, Augustus and Dickson, John W. "R&D Work Climate and Innovation in Semiconductors",

Academy of Management Journal, 26,2 (1983), 362-368. Adams, J.S. (1965) "Inequity in Social Exchange", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology", 2:267-

299. Ahituv, Niv; Igbaria, Magid; Sella, Aviem "The Effects of Time Pressure and Completeness of

Information on Decision Making", Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(2), Fall 1998, pp. 153-172.

Amabile, T.M. Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity, WestviewPress, Boulder Colorado, 1996.

Amabile, T.M. " Within you, without You: The Social Psychology of Creativity and Beyond", in M.A. Runco and R.S. Albert (eds), Theories of Creativity, Sage, 1990, pp. 61-91.

Amabile, T. M. "A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations", in Barry Staw and L.L. Cummings (editors), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 10, JAI Press Inc., 1988, pp. 123-167.

Amabile, T. M.; Conti, R.; Coon; H.; Lazenby, J.; Herron, M. "Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity", Academy of Management Journal (39:5), 1996, pp. 1154-1184.

Amabile, Teresa M.; Hill, Karl G.; Hennessey, Beth A.; Tighe, Elizabeth M. "The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5 (1994), 950-967.

Amabile, T.M.; Hennessey, B.A.; Grossman, B.S. "Social Influences on Creativity: The effects of Contracted-for reward", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1 (1986), 14-23.

Atkinson, J.W. (1957) "Motivational Determinants of Risk-Taking Behavior", Psychological Review, 64:369-372.

Bagozzi, R.P. An examination of the validity of two models of attitude. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 3 (1981), 323-59.

Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive theory, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.

Barclay, D.; Higgins, C.; and Thompson, R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 2 (1995), 285-309.

Barley, L.R. "Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments", Administrative Science Quarterly (31), 1986, pp. 78-108.

Barron, F.B. and Harrington, D.M. "Creativity, Intelligence, and personality", Annual Review of Psychology, , V32 (1981), pp. 439-476.

Bartis, Scott; Szymanski, Kate; and Harkins, Stephen G. "Evaluation and Performance: A Two-Edged Knife", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,2 (1988), 242-251.

Besemer, Susan and O’Quin, Karen “Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Test of a Judging Instrument”, Journal of Creative Behavior, V20 #2, (Second Quarter 1986), pp. 115-126.

Bowditch, James L. and Buono, Anthony F. A (1990) Primer on Organizational Behavior, Second Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons

Brophy, Dennis R. "Understanding, Measuring, and Enhancing Collective Creative Problem-Solving Efforts", Creativity Research Journal, 11(3), 1998, 199-229.

Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. Reliability and validity assessment. Sage University paper series on quantitive applications in the social sciences (Vol. 07-017). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1979.

Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. "The Self-Attention Induced Feedback Loop and Social Facilitation", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17 (1981), 545-556.

Chin, Wynne "The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling", in George Marcoulides (editor), Modern Methods for Business Research, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum


Associates, 1998, 295-336 Chin, W., & Gopal, A. Adoption Intention in GSS: Relative Importance of Beliefs. Database, 1995, 26(2

& 3), 42-63. Chin, Wynne; Marcolin, Barbara L.; Newsted, Peter R. "A partial least squares latent variable modeling

approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a monte carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study", in Janice DeGross, Sirkka Jarvenpaa, and Ananth Srinivasan (editors), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, 1996, 21-41.

Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: Science and Practice, Third Edition, Boston: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1993.

Cooper R.B. "Information Technology Development Creativity: A Case Study of Attempted Radical Change", MIS Quarterly, 24(2), 2000, 245-276.

Cooper, R.B. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2001) "The Effect of Automatic Responses to Authority on Information Technology Use", Data Base, 32:36-50.

Couger, J. D. Creativity & Innovation in Information Systems Organizations, Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company, New York, 1996.

Couger, J. D.; Higgins, L. F.; McIntyre, S. C. "(Un)Structured Creativity in Information Systems Organizations", MIS Quarterly (17:4), 1993, pp. 375-397

Crocker, J. and Luhtanen, R. (1990) "Collective Self-Esteem and Ingroup Bias", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:60-67.

Crutchfield, R. "Conformity and Creative Thinking", in H. Gruber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer (editors), Contemporary Approaches to Creative Thinking, New York: Atherton Press, 1962.

Davenport, T. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology, Harvard Business School Press, 1993.

Deci, Edward L. and Ryan, Richard M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, New York: Plenum Press, 1985

Eisenberger, Robert and Cameron, Judy "Detrimental Effects of Reward: Reality or Myth?", American Psychologist, V51 N11 (November 1996), pp. 1153-1166.

Eisenberger, Robert and Cameron, Judy "Reward, Intrinsic Interest, and Creativity: New Findings", American Psychologist, V53 N6 (June 1998), pp. 676-678.

Elam, J. and Mead, M. "Can Software Influence Creativity?", Information Systems Research (1:1), 1990, pp. 1-22.

Elam, J. and Mead, M. "Designing for Creativity: Considerations for DSS Development", Information and Management (13), 1987, pp. 215-222.

Fleiss, Joseph L. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981 Flora, S.R. (1990) "Undermining Intrinsic Interest from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist", Psychological

Record, 40, 323-346. Fornell, C., and Bookstein, F. Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer

exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 4 (1982), 440-452. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 18(1), 39-50. Falk, R. J. & Miller, N. B. A Primer for Soft Modeling, Akron, OH:University of Akron Press, 1992. Galletta, D.F.; Sampler, J.L.; Teng, J.T. "Strategies for Integrating Creativity Principles into the System

Development Process", Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Volume IV, 1992, Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 268-275.

Gingras, Lin and McLean, Ephraim R. "Designers and Users of Information Systems: A Study in Differing Profiles", Third International Conference on Information Systems, 1982, 169-181.

Glass, Robert L. Software Creativity, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995 Gouldner, A.W. "The Norm of reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement", American Sociological Review, 25

(1960), pp. 161-178. Gray, P.; King, W.R.; McLean, E.R.; Watson, H.J. MOIS: Management of Information Systems, New


York: The Dryden Press, 1989. Guilford, J.P. and Merrifield, P.R. The Structure of Intellect Model: Its Uses and Implications, Los

Angeles: University of Southern California, 1960 Guinan, Particia J.; Cooprider, Jay G.; Faraj, Samer (1998) "Enabling Software Development Team

Performance During Requirements Definition: A Behavioral Versus Technical Approach", Information Systems Research, 9: 101-125

Guzzo, R.A.; Yost, P.R.; Campbell, R.J.; Shea, G.P. (1993) “Potency in Groups: Articulating a Construct”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87-106.

Hackman, Richard J. and Morris, Charles G. (1975) "Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration", in L. Berkowitz (editor), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 8, New York: Academic Press, 45-99.

Harackiewicz, J. "The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic motivation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1979), 1352-1363.

Harackiewicz, J.; Manderlink, G.; Sansone, C. "Rewarding Pinball Wizardry: Effects of Evaluation and cue value on Intrinsic Interest", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 2 (1984), 287-300.

Harkins, S.G. and Jackson, J.M. (1985) "The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11:457-465.

Hennessey, Beth A. and Amabile, Teresa M. "Reward, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity", American Psychologist, V53 N6 (June 1998), pp. 674-675

Higgins, E. Tory and Kruglanski, Arie W. (2000a) "Motivational Science: The Nature and Functions of Wanting", in E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski, Motivational Science: Social And Personality Perspectives, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 1-20.

Higgins, E. Tory and Kruglanski, Arie W. (2000b) "Bridging the Gap between Knowing and Doing", in E. Tory Higgins and Arie W. Kruglanski, Motivational Science: Social And Personality Perspectives, Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press, 147-149.

Hogarth, R. Judgement and Choice, Second Edition, Chapter 8, John Wiley and Sons, 1987. Hussain, D. and Hussain, K.M. Managing Computer Resources, Irwin, Homewood, Ill., 1988. Karau, S.J. and Kelly, J.R. "The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance and

interaction", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28 (1992), 542-571. Kelly, Janice R. and Karau, Steven J. "Entrainment of Creativity in Small Groups', Small Group

Research, 24, 2 (1993), 179-198. Kelly, J.R. and McGrath, J.E. "Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction

of four-person groups", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (1985), 395-407. Kerr, N.L. (1983) "Motivation Losses in Small Groups: A Social Dilemma Analysis", Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 819-828. King, N. and Anderson, N. "Innovation in Working Groups", in M.A. West and J.L. Farr (editors),

Innovation and Creativity at Work, Wiley, 1990, pp. 81-100. Leakey, R. and Lewin, R. People of the Lake, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978. Lepper, M.R., Greene, D., and Nisbett, R.E. (1973) "Undermining children's intrinsic interest with

extrinsic reward: A test of the overjustification hypothesis", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

Liebetrau, Albert M. Measures of Association, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1983. Markus, M.L. and Robey, D. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in

Theory and Research", Management Science (34:5), May 1988, pp. 583-598. Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper & Row. Massetti, B. " An Empirical Examination of the Value of Creativity Support Systems on Idea

Generation", MIS Quarterly, V20 N1 (1996), pp. 83-97. McGraw, K. "The Detrimental effects of reward on performance: A Literature Review and a prediction

model", in M. Lepper and D. Greene (editors), The Hidden costs of Reward, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1978.


Naylor, James C.; Pritchard, Robert D.; Ilgen, Daniel R. A Theory of Behavior in Organizations, New York: Academic Press, 1980.

Nemeth, C.J. and Kwan, J.L. "Originality of word associations as a function of majority versus minority influence", Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 (1985), 277-282.

Newell, A.; Shaw, J.; and Simon, H. "The processes of creative thinking" in H.Gruber, G. Terrell, and M. Wertheimer (editors), Contemporary Approaches to Creative thinking, New York: Atherton Press, 1962.

Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Ocker, Rosalie; Hiltz, Starr Roxanne; Turoff, Murray; Fjermestad, Jerry "The Effects of Distributed

Group Support and Process Structuring on Software Requirements Development Teams: Results on Creativity and Quality", Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3), Winter 1995-96, pp. 127-153.

O'Quinn, K. and Besemer, S.P. "The Development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale", Creativity Research Journal, 2 (1989), 268-278.

Parks, Craig D. and Sanna, Lawrence J. (1999), Group Performance and Interaction, Boulder Colorado: Westview Press.

Payne, R. "The Effectiveness of Research Teams: A Review", in M.A. West and J.L. Farr (editors), Innovation and Creativity at Work, Wiley, 1990, pp. 101-122.

Redmond, M.R.; Mumford, M.D.; and Teach, R. "Putting creativity to work: Effects of Leader behavior on subordinates Creativity", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55 (1993), 120-151.

Richards, T. "Brainstorming: An examination of idea production rate and level of speculation in real managerial situations", R&D Management, 6 (1975), 11-14.

Ryan, R.M. and Grolnick, W.S. "Origins and Pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences in children's perceptions", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (1986), 550-558.

Ryan, R.M.; Mims, V.; Koestner, R. "Relation of Reward Contingency and Interpersonal Context to Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Test Using Cognitive Evaluation Theory", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 4 (1983), 736-750.

Sambamurthy, V., & Chin, W. The effects of group attitudes toward alternative GDSS designs on the decision-making performance of computer-supported groups. Decision Sciences, 1994, 25(2), 215-241.

Sansone, Carol "A Question of Competence: The Effects of Competence and Task Feedback on Intrinsic Interest", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51:5 (1986), pp. 918-931

Sansone, Carol; Sachau, Danial A.; Weir, Charlene "Effects of Instruction in Intrinsic Interest: The importance of Context", Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 57:5 (1989), pp. 819-829.

Satzinger, John W.; Garfield, Monica J.; Nagasundaram, Murli "The Creative Process: The Effects of Group Memory on Individual Idea Generation", Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 1999, pp. 143-160.

Schein, Edgar H. "Culture: The missing concept in organization studies", Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 1996, 229-240.

Shamir, B. (1990) "Calculations, values and Identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation", Human Relations, 43: 313-332.

Smith, B.L. "Interpersonal behaviors that damage the productivity of creative problem solving groups", Journal of Creative Behavior, 27 (1993), 171-187.

Sorrentino, R.M. and Higgins, E.T. (1986) "Motivation and Cognition: Warming Up to Synergism", in R.M. Sorrentino and E.T. Higgins (editors), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Guilford Press: New York, vol 1: 3-19.

Staw, B. M. “An Evolutionary Approach to Creativity and Innovation”, in Michael West and James Farr (Editors), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, John Wiley and Sons, 1990, pp. 287-308.


Staw, Barry M. (1977) "Motivation in Organizations: Toward Synthesis and Redirection", in Barry M. Staw and Gerald R. Salancik (editors), New Directions in Organizational Behavior, Chicago, Il: St. Clair Press, 55-96.

Steiner, Ivan D. (1972) Group Process and Productivity, New York: Academic Press. Swann, w.B. and Pittman, T.S. "Initiating play activity of children: the Moderating influence of verbal

cues on intrinsic motivation", Child Development, 48 (1977), 1128-1132. Szymanski, Kate and Harkins, Stephen "Self-Evaluation and Creativity", Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 18,3 (1992), 259-265. Tabachnick, Barbara G. and Fidell, Linda S. Using Multivatiate Statistics, third edition, New York:

HarperCollins Publishers, 1966. Torrance, Rewarding Creative Behavior: Experiments in classroom creativity, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

1965 Thornburg, T. "Group size and member diversity influence on creative performance, Journal of Creative

Behavior, 25 (1991), 324-333. Tiger, L. and Fox, R. The Imperial Animal, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. Wageman, R. and Baker, G. (1997), “Incentives and Cooperation: The Joint Effects of task and reward

interdependence on group performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 139-158. Walster, E.; Berscheid, E.; Walster, G.W. (1973) "New Directions in Equity Research", Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 25: 151-176. Watson, W. and Behnke, R. "Group identification, independence, and self-monitoring characteristics as

predictors of leaderless group discussion performance", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20 (1991), 1423-1431.

Weaver, W. Timothy “Anatomy of a Creative Problem Solving Meeting”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol 27, No.4 (fourth Quarter 1993), pp. 236-269.

Weldon, E., & Mustari, E. L. (1988) "Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 330-351.

Weingart, Laurie R. (1992), "Impact of Group Goals, Task Component Complexity, Effort, and Planning on Group Performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5): 682-693.

Wierenga, Berend and van Bruggen, Gerrit H. "The Dependent Variable in Research into the Effects of Creativity Support Systems: Quality and Quantity of Ideas", MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 1998, pp.

Williams, K.D.; Harkins, S.; Latane, B. (1981) "Identifiability as a Deterrent to Social Loafing: Two Cheering Experiments", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40: 303-311.

Wold, H. Systems analysis by partial least squares. In P. Nijkamp, H. Leitner, and N. Wrigley (eds.), Measuring the Unmeasurable . Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985.

Woodman, R. W.; Sawyer, J. E.; Griffin, R. W. "Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity", The Academy of Management Review (18:2), April 1993, pp. 293-321.

Zander, A.W. and Medow, H. (1963) "Individual and Group Levels of Aspiration", Human Relations, 16: 89-105.

Zuckerman, M.; Porac, J.; Lathin, D.; Smith, R.; and Deci, E.L. "On the importance of self determination for intrinsically motivated behavior", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4 (1978), 443-446.


Appendix A.1: General Instructions To Students

General Instructions Students are faced with problems when attempting to register and take classes at the University of Houston. These problems may be different depending on whether a student is also working at a job. For example, non-working students may have trouble getting classes because the ones they want are not being offered. Working students may have trouble getting classes because the ones they want are being offered at the times they have to go to work. In addition, faculty members have problems with classes they are assigned. For example, they may be assigned classes for which they do not understand the material. You will be assigned to a group; each group will consist of 3 students. One of you will represent faculty, and will be provided with a list of faculty problems that need to be solved. One will represent working students, and will be provided with a list of working-student problems that need to be solved. One will represent non-working students, and will be provided with a lis t of non-working-student problems that need to be solved. The task for your group is to develop Information System Specifications to help solve these problems. Please do not attempt to solve problems other than the ones you are given. Due to budget constraints, additional faculty, TAs, classrooms, etc. cannot be provided. However, the University administration has suggested that an Information System might help that can perform activities such as scheduling classes, assigning classrooms, allocating equipment and material, etc. Your group's task is to provide the administration with a list of Information System functions (what the Information System should do) in order to help solve the student and faculty problems. Remember, your solutions MUST BE information system solutions. Therefore, for example, having the University provide more classes is NOT an appropriate solution because it means that additional faculty must be hired. HIRING MORE FACULTY IS NOT AN INFORMATION SYSTEMS SOLUTION.

Deliverables Please hand in the following in the ‘Group Report’ forms provided to you. 1. Information Systems Functions: Describe what the Information System should do. Provide enough detail

to resolve potential conflicts among non-working students, working students, and faculty. 2. Problems: Specifically relate how the Information System functions help solve the problems of non-working

students, working students, and faculty members that were provided to you in the individual instruction sheets. 3. Prioritization: Due to budget constraints, the University administration may not be able to implement all of

your described functions. Therefore, prioritize the Information System functions in order of their importance. You will have 1 hour to complete your answers. Please be sure that your answers are appropriate, have the right level of detail, and are complete.

Please do not discuss any part of this exercise with any other students until we announce in class that the exercise is over. (Thanks!!)

Note: The Third Deliverable (Prioritization) was not examined in this paper


Appendix A.2: Example of Individual Instruction Sheet to Students

WORKING STUDENTS Important: Though you may discuss these instructions, please do not show these instructions

to other members of your group

In class, it was announced that you could earn from 1 to 3 extra credit points. HOWEVER, Each member of your group WILL receive 3 extra credit points. Your receipt of these 3 points is guaranteed (you will get the 3 points no matter what), and does NOT depend on the quality of work that you do. Students who are attending the university and are working at a full-time job are faced with problems when attempting to register and take classes at the campus. You represent these working students in the group activity you are about to perform. Other members of YOUR group represent faculty members and part-time students. The following lists the problems faced by the working students you represent: 1. Classes desired by working students are not available because they are already closed 2. Classes desired by working students are not available because they are not offered 3. Classes desired by working students are in conflict with each other since they are offered at the same

day and time 4. After registering for a class, working students are dropped from the class because it is cancelled by

administration, e.g. due to too few students taking the class 5. Classes desired by working students are offered at inconvenient days and/or times.

You are assigned to room number


Appendix A.3.1 : Group Report Format

Room # _______________ Group Report Date _______________

1. Information Systems Functions: What should the Information System do? Provide enough detail to resolve potential conflicts among non-working students, working students, and faculty. (If you need more space, please write on the back of the sheets) Information Systems Function # 1- This Information Systems function should: ___________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Information Systems Function #2- This Information Systems function should: ____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________

£ £ £ £


Appendix A.3.2 : Group Report Format

Room # _______________ Group Report Date _______________

2. Problems: Specifically relate how the Information System functions help solve the problems of non-working students, working students, and faculty members that were provided to you in the individual instruction sheets. (If you need more space, please write on the back of the sheets)

Information Systems Function # ____ reduces the following problem: ________________________ for //non-working students//working students//faculty//. (Circle ONE) by doing, performing, etc. the following: ___________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________

Information Systems Function # ____ reduces the following problem: ________________________ for //non-working students//working students//faculty//. (Circle ONE) by doing, performing, etc. the following: ___________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________

£ £ £ £

Enter Information Systems Function number from the first page of your group report.

Enter the specific problemas provided to you in your instruction sheet.

Circle whether the function helps solve problems for non-working students, working students, or faculty.


Appendix B: Post-task Questionnaire Items By Construct

Reference R, A1, S R, A1, S S K K K A2 A2 A2 K K K

Intrinsic Motivation Enjoyment 1. My own interest motivated my work during the group activity. 2. I enjoyed the group activity. 3. The group activity seemed like fun Self-Determination 1. During the group activity, I felt a sense of control over our work and ideas 2. During the group activity, I felt considerable pressure to meet someone else’s specifications on

how to do our work. (reverse coded) 3. During the group activity, I had the freedom to help decide how we were to carry out our task. Professional Growth 1. The group activity provided a valuable experience for my career. 2. The group activity experience will help in my professional activities when I graduate. 3. The group activity experience taught me some valuable lessons.

Extrinsic Motivation Extrinsic Motivation 1. During the group activity, I was motivated by the opportunity to receive a reward. 2. The opportunity to receive a prize made me work hard 3. The opportunity to receive a prize was imp ortant to me during the group activity. Obligation Motivation 1. I felt that it was important to do a good job because of the extra credit I was guaranteed to

receive. 2. I felt compelled to perform well because of the extra credit I was guaranteed to receive. 3. During the group activity, I felt that I should work hard due to the extra credit I was guaranteed

to receive.

Control and Experimental Conditions Time Pressure 1. There seemed to be too little time for my group to do a good job. 2. There seemed to be unrealistic expectations for what we could achieve during the time allowed. 3. We felt a sense of time pressure during the group activity. Heuristic Task (items asked in terms of algorithmic task, and reverse coded) 1. The solution to the problem was obvious. 2. The steps required in order to arrive at a solution to the problem were easy to determine. 3. The solution to the problem was easy to determine. Reward Reasonableness 1. The reward offered is reasonable for this activity.

Notes: All items were responded to on a seven-point Likert scale, from Completely Disagree (1) to Completely Agree (7). References:

A1: Amabile, et al. 1986 A2: Amabile, et al. 1994 K: Keys Instrument - Amabile et al. 1996 R: Ryan et al. 1983 S: Sansone et al. 1989


Appendix C.1: Level 1 - Response Framework

Appendix C.2.A: Response Framework - Teaching

D Non-Faculty

Resource Allocation Process

C Scheduling

B Enrollment

A Teaching

A

Teaching

1

Class Administration

2

Instruction

1. Facilitate student-faculty interaction a) via internet 2.Provide (local) class content a) via internet b) via TV/video 1. Asynchronous 2. Realtime 3. Computer Based Faculty Training 4. Provide computer equipment for students to work at home 5. provide internet access to classes offered by other universities

1. Student Evaluation a) Programmed grading. b) Exams & homework over Internet. c) Online Grade Sheet 2. Predict student "failure" & auto send warning via email. 3. Student TAs build Web sites for Professors/classes


Appendix C.2.B: Response Framework - Enrollment

B

Enrollment

1

Student Guidance

2

Rule Enforcement

1. Enforce student program: a) pre and co- requisites b) maximum semester hours c) Classification (e.g., year, major) 2. Enforce registration procedures: a) Registration time by

classification and major b) penalty for repeated requesting

& dropping of classes c) d) Don't allow time conflicts. e) Don't allow students to sign

up for more than one section of the same course.

f) Payment for classes 3. Enforce Class Requirements: a) Max # of Students b) Allocate % of (give preference

to) working and/or nonworking students in classes

1) need employment verification.

c) Allocate % of (give preference to) seniors in classes

d) Allocate % of (give preference to) majors in classes

e) Dynamic lock on class size until all sections have equal enrollment

1. Inform regarding class status: a) closed/open b) risk of closure (# of spaces left) c) risk of cancellation (# of spaces taken) 2. Inform regarding student program status: a) classes for major. b) pre & co- requisites c) max semester hours 3. Suggest class substitution when: a) classes aren't offered. b) classes are closed c) Students are dropped 4. List classes: a) not available. b) available within student's hour preference c) Sections times & days offered based

on input class list d) available in future e) Advertise low enrollment classes 5. Provide professor info: a) difficulty b) exam type c) student interaction d) Do NOT link professors to courses 6. Suggest Campus Substitution when classes: a) aren't offered. b) are closed c) are cancelled 7. Facilitate Communication among students (e.g., via Web Board) to: a) take classes together b) Swap (closed) classes with each

other c) Get enough students to open a closed

class section.

3

Other

1. Closed Classes a) Have waiting lists b) Notify students via email if

they get into class. c) Automatically register into

Internet course 2. IS interface a) Increase computer resources

to allow more telephone users at a time

b) Allow online enrollment 3. Cancelled Classes: a) Notify students when cancelled 4. Delay Enrollment until Minimum # of Students sign up a) Automatically enroll

students


Appendix C.2.C: Response Framework - Scheduling

C

Scheduling

1 Faculty Data

Captured

2 Student Data

Captured

3 Scheduling Process

1. Scheduling Criteria to Consider a) Current & Future Student preferences &

requirements: 1) Classes/degree plan 2) Day/time 3) student preferences have priority over faculty

preferences b) Historical Student preferences & requirements 1) enrollment per class time/day 2) prerequisites enrolled in prior semester 3) # of Juniors going to be Seniors, etc. 4) Required/core courses passed c) Current & Future Faculty Preferences: 1) interests 2) day/time 3) workload & max # students/ class 4) specific classes d) Current Faculty Competency 1) credentials 2) student evaluations 3) faculty evaluation of their qualifications 4) Experience 5) Seniority e) Consider class resource requirements f) Increase class day & time variety 1) especially for co-requisites 2) especially for required courses 3) especially for courses commonly taken together g) Cut electives first rather than core or required

courses

h) Class workload 1) Match professors for workload sharing 2. Computer Scheduling Process: a) Batch: Final schedule based on student reaction to

prelim schedule b) Dynamically reassign faculty & classes during

registration. 1) List all classes and offer class if more than, e.g.,

10 students enroll 2) Based on # of students on waiting list for closed

classes 3) Reschedule cancelled classes to different times c) Allow faculty to swap classes with each other d) Rotate instructors' class teaching assgnments e) Fix schedule for 2 years 3. Human Decision Authority: a) Schedule created by faculty committee or

department b)Dynamic Reallocation c) Faculty choose own classes

1. Current & Future Student Preferences & Requirements:

a) Classes/ degree plan b) days & times c) Major 2. Historical Student

Preferences & Requirements:

a) enrollment per class time & day

b) prerequisites enrolled/ passed in prior semester

c) Required/core courses passed in prior semesters

3. Student Resources

required (e.g., computer lab)

1. Current & Future Faculty Preferences: a) general teaching interests b) days & times c) workload & max #

students per class d) specific classes 2. Current Faculty Competency a) credentials b) student evaluations c) faculty evaluations

of their competency d) Experience e) Seniority

4 Class

Data Captured

1. Workload 2. Resource

requirements


Appendix C.2.D: Response Framework - Non-faculty Resource Allocation

D Non-Faculty

Resource Allocation Process

1.Reservatn system 2. Allocate based on number

of students taking class a) classrooms b) Teaching Assistants

c) other resources

1. Track resources 2. Assign resource

responsibility 3. Reorder Resources

1 Resources Allocated

2 Resource Control


Appendix D: Judges' Instruction Sheet

Instructions for Group Evaluations

BACKGROUND: Undergraduate Seniors in the College of Business Administration were put into groups of three students each, and asked to provide information systems solutions to help solve one or more of the following 11 problems.

1. Classes desired by working/non-working students are not available because they are already closed.

2. Classes desired by working/non-working students are not available because they are not offered.

3. Classes desired by working/non-working students are in conflict with each other since they are offered at the same day and time.

4. After registering for a class, working/non-working students are dropped from the class because it is cancelled by administration, e.g. due to too few students taking the class.

5. Classes desired by working/non-working students are offered at inconvenient days and/or times.

6. Assigned classes are scheduled for inconvenient days and/or times for faculty members.

7. Assigned classes will require too much work on the part of faculty members.

8. Assigned classes do not interest faculty members. 9. Assigned classes are not appropriate because the

faculty member does not understand the material. 10. Assigned classes result in an overload of work to the

faculty member due to large class sizes. 11. Required equipment and material for the classes

assigned to faculty are not available.

Each group has proposed solutions to one or more of the above problems. Groups have indicated which problem or problems each solution is proposed to help solve. We would like you to evaluate their solutions in terms of Creativity, Usefulness, and Novelty. Please use your own subjective definition of Creativity. Usefulness should be evaluated in terms of the degree to which you believe that their solutions will help solve the associated problems. Novelty should be evaluated in terms of the degree to which you believe that their solutions are new and unusual. Each solution has the following format: This IS function should: This reduces the following problem for by doing, performing, etc. the following: Most groups have included a number of solutions in the above format. For each group, please evaluate the group's overall Creativity, Usefulness, and Novelty, considering all of their solutions together. When doing this evaluation, please judge each group's Creativity, Usefulness, and Novelty relative to all the other groups. PROCEDURE 1. In order to get an initial feel for relative Creativity, Usefulness, and Novelty, please read all of the solutions for at least the first

5 groups before doing any evaluations. Then, go back to Group 1, and evaluate all groups in terms of Creativity, Usefulness, and Novelty

2. Please do your evaluations in Group Number Order (evaluate Group 1, then Group 2, etc.). 3. Please do NOT talk to your colleagues about this exercise until after all of the evaluations have been returned.

Proposed solution is described here.

One or more of the 11 problems that the solution is to solve are described

Whether the problem solved is for working students, non-working students, and/or faculty is indicated here.

More detail concerning the solution may be provided here.

Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation1 - University of Houston

Documents

Transcript of Extrinsic & Intrinsic Motivation1 - University of Houston