MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020621681

A Metamotivational Approach to Understanding Managers’ Beliefs About Motivationally Diverse Teams in the Domain of Regulatory Mode

2023· dissertation· en· W7020621681 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Diversity (politics)Extant taxonTask (project management)Team effectivenessDomain (mathematical analysis)Variety (cybernetics)Goal pursuit
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultivating effective teams requires managers to integrate the efforts of individuals who often vary in their backgrounds, skills, and identities. One way that team members can differ from each other is in their motivational orientation, or the reasons and ways that people pursue goals. Extant literature demonstrates that the complementary nature of two regulatory mode motivational orientations (locomotion and assessment) can benefit the performance of individuals and teams. Yet relatively little is known about what managers believe about how to manage this type of motivational diversity in teams. In this dissertation, I combine insights from the literature in motivation science, team management, and diversity to propose a novel perspective on managing motivation in teams. The first part of this dissertation (Studies 1-3) examines what people believe about the role of regulatory mode motivation in teams. Study 1 demonstrates that people, on average, recognize the differential benefits of locomotion and assessment for task performance. Using complementary methodologies, Studies 2 and 3 revealed that although people perceive motivationally diverse (vs. homogenous) teams as prone to conflict (Study 2), when prompted to describe their beliefs about motivation in teams they also recognize its potential benefits (Study 3). Following this, in the second part of this dissertation (Studies 4 and 5) I draw on recent advances in the management of team diversity to examine the strategies managers use when managing motivation in teams. In both hypothetical (Studies 4A and 4B) and consequential (Study 5) contexts, managers recognized the differential utility of different kinds of management strategies and were sensitive to intrateam dynamics in motivationally diverse and homogenous teams, but did not vary their use of different kinds of management strategies when managing motivational diversity in teams. By focusing on what managers themselves believe and do when managing motivational diversity in teams, this research offers a novel perspective on an understudied area of team management with implications for the theoretical and practical study of team management.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207