Investigating the Linkage between Intrinsic Motivation and Project Team Satisfaction in Undergraduate Agricultural Leadership Students

Organizations have increased the amount of work that is completed by project teams over the past several decades. This trend is projected to continue into the foreseeable future. In response to this trend, the academic community has increased the number of project team based learning experiences for students in classes. The challenge has been that students do not always enjoy team projects; frequently students express a lack of satisfaction with the project as well as the project team. The aim of this research is to empower agricultural education faculty to make better pedagogical decisions regarding agricultural leadership student project teams based on student intrinsic motivation leading to increased team satisfaction. No empirical research exists evaluating the importance of individual intrinsic motivation on project team satisfaction within an academic agricultural leadership setting. The purpose of this study was to examine how undergraduate agricultural leadership students’ intrinsic motivation to complete a project influenced their project team satisfaction. Intrinsic motivation explained 49% of the variance in project team satisfaction scores. An implication of this finding is that to improve levels of satisfaction it is important to ensure the project is personally meaningful to the individual, thus increasing their intrinsic motivation. Group or team based work and interpersonal work situations are rapidly increasing (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Currently the use of teams within organizations is ubiquitous and this trend is only expected to increase into the future; it is only the organization that does not use teams that is the exception (Robbins & Judge, 2009). Employers consistently rank the ability to work with others and teamwork skills among the top five employee qualities (Espey, 2010). Consequently it is important that agricultural educators provide team-based educational approaches and help to ensure that students maintain a positive attitude toward teamwork (Lancellotti & Boyd, 2008). Agricultural leadership education and team related skills development are complementary disciplines (Kouzes & Posner, 2010). In fact, Kouzes and Posner (2010) suggested “build your own and your team members’ abilities to work with each other. Doing this well will have a direct impact on your personal and organizational success” (p. 64). Leadership, in its very definition is inextricably intertwined with working with others; Northouse (2013) defined leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5). 1 Kevan W. Lamm is a Graduate Student in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication at the University of Florida, 406 Rolfs Hall, PO Box 110540, Gainesville, FL, 32611, Email: kevanlamm@ufl.edu 2 Hannah S. Carter is an Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication and Director of the Wedgworth Leadership Institute for Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Florida, 121B Bryant Space Science Center, PO Box 112060, Gainesville, FL, 32611, Email: hscarter@ufl.edu 3 Marcus W. Melendez is an Assistant Store Manager with Kohl’s Department Stores, 1511 Baytree Road, Valdosta, GA, 31602, Email: marcuswm89@gmail.com Lamm, Carter, and Melendez Investigating the Linkage... Journal of Agricultural Education 104 Volume 55, Issue 3, 2014 Undergraduate agricultural leadership education represents a unique, and appropriate, context in which to study team related outcomes (Micari, Gould, & Lainez, 2010). Although there are strong indicators that project team learning is already employed, there are also indications that such educational approaches are not always with the most positive response from learners (Burdett & Hastie, 2009). Frequently students do not view group, or team based, projects positively (Espey, 2010). Reasons for disliking project teams included bad experiences in the past, social loafing, overly dominant personalities, apathy, or conflict (Espey, 2010). Nonetheless, team satisfaction has also been shown to lead to higher levels performance. For example, Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) found performance and satisfaction to be related based on their meta-analysis of group based learning. Motivating students has been the focus of numerous studies (e.g. Aarnio, Nieminen, Pyörälä, & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2010; Kember, Ho, & Hong, 2008; Turner & Herren, 1997); however, there is limited empirical research that specifically examines how undergraduate leadership student intrinsic motivation is related to project team satisfaction. Effective and efficient educational programs are one of the priority areas of the National Research Agenda: American Association for Agricultural Education 2011 – 2015 (Doerfert, 2011). To continue to be relevant, agricultural educators must be nimble and responsive to these trends. This includes providing appropriate educational programming to diverse audiences and learners (Doerfert, 2011). Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework for this study is based on the theory of intrinsic motivation (IM) in academic settings proposed by Elliot and Church (1997). There are a number of definitions of IM; however, for the purposes of this study IM in academic settings was determined to be most appropriate. According to Deci (1971), someone “is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity when one receives no apparent reward except the activity itself” (p. 105). In an agricultural education or classroom context “intrinsically motivated students want to learn because they are curious, seek knowledge, are interested in self-improvement, and learning gives them satisfaction” (Buckmaster & Carroll, 2009, p. 53). Biologically IM is the internal catalyst that drives the need for knowledge and skill attainment that are only beneficial at some future time (Baldassarre, 2011). In this regard IM is unique and distinct from extrinsic motivation (EM) (Deci, 1971). While both IM and EM are experienced by the individual through external stimuli the motivation process is different. Extrinsic motivation tends to be focused on tangible rewards, results, and immediate outcomes whereas IM tends to be focused on the learning process and potential future benefits (Baldassarre, 2011). In an agricultural education environment extrinsic motivation in the form of grades have been shown to be related to EM; however, undergraduate students have been found to have higher levels of IM when they are encouraged to develop mastery, or self-directed goals (Elliot & Church, 1997). Based on the literature there was strong support for the position that IM is a unique and measurable process experienced by individuals and that IM is conceptually unique and measurably different from EM (e.g. Baldassarre, 2011; Deci, 1971; Elliot & Church, 1997). Intrinsic motivation has been shown to be malleable at any given moment based on an individual’s state (Deci, 1971). This state level of IM has been shown to be conceptually unique from an individual’s predisposition towards trait levels of IM or EM (Baldassarre, 2011). Regardless of predisposition, whether IM or EM oriented in general, IM has been shown to be influenced by proximal events (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). For example, studies have shown that antecedent events, such as teacher intervention, can have a direct and significant impact on student IM (Deci, et al., 1999). High levels of IM in undergraduate students have been found to be positively related to performance and satisfaction on an individual task, even when the students’ performance was Lamm, Carter, and Melendez Investigating the Linkage... Journal of Agricultural Education 105 Volume 55, Issue 3, 2014 experimentally constrained (Freedman & Phillips, 1985). To the contrary, IM has been found to be negatively affected under conditions where individuals felt as though they were being monitored closely (Enzle & Anderson, 1993) or when tangible rewards were provided (Deci et al., 1999). The flexibility of state levels of IM has been well established within the literature (e.g. Enzle & Anderson, 1993; Deci et al., 1999). Teacher interactions that have been shown to directly improve student IM have included encouraging students to see the fun in the intended goal (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) or providing verbal rewards for goal achievement (Deci, et al., 1999). When IM is increased positive individual and organizational outcomes have been observed. For example, Antoni (2009) found that IM was positively related to increased social capital formation amongst organizational members; additionally, organizations benefited through increased membership participation when members joined for intrinsically motivated reasons. Oudejans (2007) found that IM was positively predictive of job satisfaction for individuals employed in public and private sectors. Benefits of increased levels of IM for individuals (e.g. Antoni, 2009; Oudejans, 2007; Williams & Deci, 1996); and organizations (e.g. Antoni, 2009; Gagne & Deci, 2005) have been examined; however, there is a lack of research examining how IM interacts with team satisfaction in undergraduate agricultural leadership students. The trend toward project teams in educational settings is based on a number of readily observable trends in the workplace (Burdett & Hastie, 2009; Robbins & Judge, 2009). Teams have been shown to be very positive within organizations. For example, Emery and Barker (2007) found team structures increased productivity and net profit. When aggregated, higher team satisfaction scores led to increased team performance (Lancellotti & Boyd, 2008). However, there are also studies that have found that teams can have a negative effect. For example, Robinson and Kraatz (1998) reported that individuals tended to engage in deviant workplace behaviors, such as lying, more frequently in a group setting when the group norm permitted such behavior. The relative