This document discusses how autonomous motivation as defined by self-determination theory can improve collaborative outcomes when creating technologically advanced solutions. It argues that individuals who are autonomously motivated through intrinsic desires and a sense of self-actualization are more likely to effectively collaborate. In comparison, controlled motivation using extrinsic incentives is less effective and can harm employee morale. The document also notes that while collaboration and motivation theories seem vaguely aligned, collaborative environments focusing on prosocial behavior can help intrinsically and extrinsically motivated individuals work towards shared goals. Effective leadership that inspires vision and trust is also important for supporting collaborative efforts.

1. Running head: MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 1
Motivation and Improved Collaborative Outcomes
William C. B. Harding
Grand Canyon University
February 17, 2016

2. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 2
Motivation and Improved Collaborative Outcomes
Effective collaborative and innovative engagements are built on the foundation of
autonomous motivation, which embraces an alignment of ideas from individuals who come from
multidisciplinary and diverse backgrounds, cooperatively involved in creating technologically
advanced solutions. Moreover, though motivation theory encompasses various concepts,
including amotivation (i.e., lacking the ability to recognize positive outcomes associated with
action), the focus of this paper will be on the use of motivational concepts that are associated
with self-determination theory (SDT). Accordingly, Deci and Ryan (2008a), infer that the
motivational theories characterized within SDT are autonomous, controlled, extrinsic, and
intrinsic motivation. Whereas, Deci and Ryan’s (2008b) discussion of autonomous motivation is
more closely aligned with the prosocial behavioral characteristics that promote an individual’s
freedom to choose, while exhibiting moral and ethical attributes towards other individuals. With
that in mind, it is postulated that individuals who display autonomous motivational behavior are
able to effectively collaborate technologically advanced innovation, resulting in better outcomes
and improved satisfaction, while realizing increased psychological well-being.
Conversely, though traditional collaborative theories focus on anticipating and resolving
interorganizational conflicts (Astley, 1984), this paper examines the desired motivational
concepts that reflect the constructive qualities of each collaborative participant. Additionally,
with consideration for realizing effective collaborations, the positive attributes associated with
psychoanalytic transference (i.e., improved collaborative bonds that support positive experiences
[Langs, 1977]) are embraced as foundational concepts that align the theories of autonomous
motivation and collaboration. Specifically, the foci of this paper are on the motivational

3. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 3
characteristics of participant independence, constructive results, and mutual accountability
within collaborative groups that are oriented towards a common goal (Gray, 1989).
Summary of Motivation Theory
Motivation theory encompasses a number of theoretical concepts (e.g., autonomous,
controlled, extrinsic, intrinsic), but when viewed through the lens of self-determination theory
(SDT), individual motivation is transformed into a cognitive process of self-actualization and
psychological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008a). That being considered, motivation theory is a
concept and process found within sociocultural environments, where an individual's behavior is
both externally and internally influenced, as exhibited through need and desire.
Furthermore, as is suggested within the Deci and Ryan (2008b) article, regardless of
potential influences from an individual’s cultural environment, autonomous motivation will
produce the greatest personal satisfaction while maintaining a healthy mind and body.
Accordingly, Chen and Jang (2010), infer that individuals who maintain constant awareness of
motivational types while embracing a vacillating balance between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivational influences, will experience a greater sense of well-being, where they have chosen to
be productive and socially responsible individuals.
Summary of Collaboration Theory
Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (1999) describe collaboration as concept that is not
focused on simple exchanges, such as guided by the injection of specific declarative instructions,
but as shared experiences between participants that are constructive and result in the creation of
knowledge. Furthermore, collaboration is both a conscious and unconscious process that
aggregates cognition with sociocultural development from the perspective of reaching a balance
between psychological and sociological constructs (Dewey & Small, 1897).

4. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 4
Correspondingly, Gajda’s (2004) proposal that “. . . collaboration is a journey, not a
destination” (p. 69) supports the idea that collaboration theory represents an understanding of
how individuals cooperatively engage in work to achieve a shared goal that embraces mutual
accountability. That said, collaboration across interorganizational environments (i.e., business
units, departments, and locations) empowers individuals to align on long/short term innovative
solutions and goals that could not be realized through individual convergent thinking (e.g.,
working alone or independently) (Gajda, 2004).
Comparison of Collaboration and Motivation Theories
There is a causal relationship between motivation and collaboration, where the success of
collaborative efforts are dependent on the motivational level of the participants who seek to
move from focusing on individual work to tasks that focus on common shared goals, where
making a difference is a driving factor. Specifically, effective collaboration cannot exist unless
participants, problem statement owners, and leadership are properly motivated to trust
collaborative processes, where job title and egos should be set aside (Ansell & Gash, 2008).
From those statements, an examination of collaboration with respect to motivation exposes that
effective collaboration cannot be realized unless participants are properly motivated (i.e.,
autonomous motivation). Correspondingly, the key or binding element that inspires successful
collaboration and encourages desired motivation, is skilled facilitation and mentoring, which
serves to promote attributes of professional growth.
Aligning the Theories of Collaboration and Motivation
The theories of collaboration and motivation appear to be only vaguely aligned, where
collaboration implies cooperative engagement and motivation is principally evaluated through
the lens of the individual. However, it is posited that within technologically innovative

5. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 5
environments, where sociocultural influences focus on developing prosocial behavior,
individuals who are both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated (i.e., autonomous) are able to
more easily align their goals within collaborative efforts. Similarly, individuals who seek to
collaborative from the perspective of increasing knowledge, where greater satisfaction is often
derived from the journey towards their goal, aspirationally align with the theory of autonomous
motivation and intrinsic desires.
Comparatively, controlled motivation approaches collaborative efforts from the
perspective of extrinsically influencing individuals to engage in alliances, such that avoidance of
punishment, guilt, and competition are the principle motivating factors. As is inferred by Kohn
(1999), incentivizing (i.e., negative and positive) collaboration among employees, where
individuals are manipulated into working together, may have worked during the industrial
revelation, but is an ineffective method, such that it eventually leads to failure and harm to
employee morale. Thus, from the perspective of collaboration “. . . the more artificial
inducements [that] are used to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what they are being
bribed to do.” (Kohn, 1999, p. 73)
All things considered, successful innovative collaboration focused on integrating
technology, with resultant long-term interorganizational alliances, can only be achieved when
individuals possess the self-realized freedom to choose and act on those choices in directly
connecting collaboration and goal related successes with personal satisfaction. Accordingly, it is
proposed that individuals who exhibit the characteristics of autonomous motivation, such as
those characteristics demonstrate the behavioral attributes of self-discovery and persistence, are
the individuals who are more apt to effectively collaborate in creating innovative and novel
technological solutions (Deci & Ryan, 2008a).

6. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 6
Conclusion
As discussed in this paper, there are effective methods for aligning collaboration theory
and motivation theory (i.e., autonomous motivation) in the creation of an amalgamated concept
for encouraging/motivating individuals to embrace the intrinsic and extrinsic influences that
result in cooperative collaboration. However, what was not discussed within this paper, was the
role that leadership/management plays in establishing a supportive and trusting foundation for
collaboration.
That being considered, leadership structures that are characterized as transformational,
motivate employees to exceed collaborative expectations through observable positive leadership
behaviors, where according to Grant (2012) those positive behaviors include the inspirational
expression of a clear vision, cultivation of trust, and conveyance of confidence. Inclusive of an
effective motivational structure is the exposure of individuals to the solution stakeholders, such
that the collaborative participants are able to develop/express empathetic behavior that aligns
with specific needs.
To summarize, this paper clearly defined the desired collaborative behaviors, preferred
outcomes, and the motivation theories (e.g., autonomous) that yield the greatest technological
and innovative outcomes, resulting in accountable alliances. Additionally, this paper touched on
the aspect of leadership within the scope of collaboration and motivation, where it is suggested
that further study needs to be conducted in order to determine the most effective
methods/concepts that result in leadership initiated engagements, which are supportive of
collaborative efforts.

7. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 7
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of
public administration research and theory, 18(4), 543-571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Astley, W. G. (1984). Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy of management
review, 9(3), 526-535. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4279700
Chen, K. C., & Jang, S. J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-
determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741–752.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-
being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human
motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychological, 49(3), 182-185.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
Dewey, J., & Small, A. W. (1897). My pedagogic creed (No. 25). EL Kellogg & Company.
Retrieved from https://books.google.com/
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher
education, 2(2), 87-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. American journal
of evaluation, 25(1), 65-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500105

8. MOTIVATION AND IMPROVED COLLABORATIVE OUTCOMES 8
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the
performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(2), 458-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0588
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Retrieved
from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=122117
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise,
and other bribes. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Retrieved from
https://dspace.library.colostate.edu/bitstream/handle/10217/18176/JOUF_JSA1997.pdf?s
equence=1&isAllowed=y#page=75
Langs, R. J. (Ed.). (1977). Classics in Psychoanalytic Technique. Jason Aronson, Incorporated.
Retrieved from https://rowman.com/isbn/146162780X