Defining Motivation.
LO 7.1 Describe the three key elements of motivation.
Some individuals seem driven to succeed. The same student who struggles to read a textbook for more than twenty minutes may devour a Harry Potter book in a day or two. The difference is their level of motivation to read the material. As we analyze the concept of motivation, keep in mind that it varies both between individuals and within individuals at different times and in different situations.
We define motivation as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal.4 While general motivation is concerned with effort toward any goal, we’ll narrow the focus to organizational goals toward work-related behaviour.
Intensity describes how hard a person tries. This is the element most of us focus on when we talk about motivation. However, high intensity is unlikely to lead to favourable job-performance outcomes unless the effort is channelled in a direction that benefits the organization. Therefore, we consider the quality of effort as well as its intensity. Effort directed toward, and consistent, with, the organization’s goals is the kind of effort we should be seeking. Finally, motivation has a persistence dimension. This measures how long a person can maintain effort. Motivated individuals stay with a task long enough to achieve their goals, even when they encounter difficulties.
Early Theories of Motivation
LO 7.2 Evaluate the applicability of early theories of motivation.
The idea that motivation is a key factor in worker productivity was first highlighted by early studies examining the relationship between the physical environment and productivity. These studies, which took place between 1927 and 1932, are collectively referred to as the “Hawthorne studies.” The researchers originally intended to find the best temperature, lighting levels, and work pace to maximize productivity. The results were surprising. For example, when they increased the light level for the experimental group of workers, output rose for that unit and for the control group. But as they dropped the light level in the experimental group, productivity continued to increase in both groups. In fact, productivity in the experimental group decreased only when the light intensity had been reduced to that of moonlight, leading researchers to believe that something else influenced behaviour.
The researchers next isolated a small group of women assembling telephone relays from the main work group so their behaviour could be more carefully observed. Over the next several years, this small group’s output increased steadily,
and the number of personal and sick absences was approximately one-third that of the regular production department. It became evident this group’s performance was significantly influenced by its “special” status. The members thought they were in an elite group, and that management showed concern about their interests by engaging in experimentation. In essence, workers in both the illumination and assembly experiments were really reacting to the increased attention they received. That attention made them feel special and valued, motivating them to work harder. It was a radical insight at the time and it led to much more theorizing and research on worker motivation.
Two-Factor Theory
Believing an individual’s relationship to work is basic, and that the attitude toward work can determine success or failure, psychologist Frederick Herzberg wondered, “What do people want from their jobs?” He asked people to describe, in detail, situations in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. The responses differed significantly and led Herzberg to his two-factor theory—also called motivation-hygiene theory.9
two-factor theory
A theory that relates intrinsic factors to job satisfaction and associates extrinsic factors with dissatisfaction. Also called motivation-hygiene theory.
As shown in Exhibit 7-2, intrinsic factors such as advancement, recognition, responsibility, and achievement seem related to job satisfaction. Respondents who felt good about their work tended to attribute these factors to themselves, while dissatisfied respondents tended to cite extrinsic factors such as supervision, pay, company policies, and working conditions.”
Exhibit 7-2 Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers
To Herzberg, the data suggest that the opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, as was traditionally believed. Removing dissatisfying characteristics from a job does not necessarily make the job satisfying. Herzberg proposed a dual continuum: The opposite of “satisfaction” is “no satisfaction,” and the opposite of “dissatisfaction” is “no dissatisfaction.”
According to Herzberg, the factors that lead to job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Therefore, managers who seek to eliminate factors that can create job dissatisfaction may bring about peace, but not necessarily motivation. They will be placating rather than motivating their workers. As a result, Herzberg characterized conditions such as quality of supervision, pay, company policies, physical working conditions, relationships with others, and job security as hygiene factors. When they’re adequate, people will not be dissatisfied; neither will they be satisfied. If we want to motivate people in their jobs, Herzberg suggested emphasizing factors associated with the work itself or with outcomes directly derived from it, such as promotional opportunities, personal growth opportunities, recognition, responsibility, and achievement. These are the characteristics people find intrinsically rewarding.
hygiene factors
Factors—such as company policy and administration, supervision, and salary—that, when adequate in a job, placate workers. When these factors are adequate, people will not be dissatisfied or satisfied.
Like Maslow’s needs hierarchy and McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, the two-factor theory has not been well supported in research and has many detractors.10 Criticisms centre on Herzberg’s original methodology, and his assumptions such as the statement that satisfaction is strongly related to productivity. Subsequent research has tended to show that if hygiene and motivational factors are equally important to a person, both are capable of motivating people.
Regardless of the criticisms, Herzberg’s theory has been quite influential, and few managers are unfamiliar with its recommendations.”
McClelland’s Theory of Needs
You have one beanbag and five targets set up in front of you, each farther away than the last. Target A sits almost within arm’s reach. If you hit it, you get $2. Target B is a bit farther out, but about 80 percent of the people who try can hit it. It pays $4. Target C pays $8, and about half the people who try can hit it. Very few people can hit Target D, but the payoff is $16 for those who do. Finally, Target E pays $32, but it’s almost impossible to achieve. Which would you try for? If you selected C, you’re likely to be a high achiever. Why? Read on.
McClelland’s theory of needs was developed by David McClelland and his associates.11 It looks at three needs:
- Need for achievement (nAch) is the drive to excel, to achieve in relationship to a set of standards.
- Need for power (nPow) is the need to make others behave in a way they would not have otherwise.
- Need for affiliation (nAff) is the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships.
McClelland and subsequent researchers focused most of their attention on nAch. High achievers perform best when they perceive their probability of success as 0.5—that is, a 50–50 chance. They dislike gambling with high odds, because they feel no achievement satisfaction from success that comes by pure chance. Similarly, they dislike low odds (high probability of success), because then there is no challenge to their skills. They like to set goals that require stretching themselves a little.
Relying on an extensive amount of research, we can predict some relationships between achievement need and job performance. First, when jobs have a high degree of personal responsibility, feedback, and an intermediate degree of risk, high achievers are strongly motivated. They are successful in entrepreneurial activities such as running their own businesses, for example, and managing self-contained units within large organizations.12 Second, a high need to achieve does not necessarily make someone a
132
good manager, especially in large organizations. People with a high achievement need are interested in how well they do personally, and not in influencing others to do well. High-nAch salespeople do not necessarily make good sales managers, and the good general manager in a large organization does not typically have a high need to achieve.13 Third, needs for affiliation and power tend to be closely related to managerial success. The best managers are high in their need for power and low in their need for affiliation.14 In fact, a high power motive may be a requirement for managerial effectiveness.15
The view that a high achievement need acts as an internal motivator presupposes two cultural characteristics—willingness to accept a moderate degree of risk (which excludes countries with strong uncertainty-avoidance characteristics) and concern with performance (which applies to countries with strong achievement characteristics). This combination is found in Anglo-American countries
Fostering Workplace Motivation
LO 7.5 Assess the implications of employee job engagement for management.
Creating Job Engagement
When Joseph reports to his job as a hospital nurse, it seems that everything else in his life goes away, and he becomes completely absorbed in what he is doing. His emotions, thoughts, and behaviour are all directed toward patient care. In fact, he can get so caught up in work that he isn’t even aware of how long he’s been there. As a result of this total commitment, he is more effective in providing patient care and feels uplifted by his time at work.
Joseph has a high level of job engagement, the investment of an employee’s physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into job performance.78 Practising managers and scholars have become interested in facilitating job engagement, believing factors deeper than liking a job or finding the work interesting drive performance. Studies attempt to measure this deeper level of commitment.
The Gallup organization has been using 12 questions to assess the extent to which employee engagement is linked to positive work outcomes for millions of employees over the past 30 years.79 There are far more engaged employees in highly successful than in average organizations, and groups with more engaged employees have higher levels of productivity, fewer safety incidents, and lower turnover. Academic studies have also found positive outcomes. One study examined multiple business units for their level of engagement and found a positive relationship with a variety of practical outcomes.80 Another study reviewed 91 distinct investigations and found higher levels of engagement associated with task performance and citizenship behaviour.
What makes people more likely to be engaged in their jobs? One key is the degree to which an employee believes it is meaningful to engage in work. This is partly determined by job characteristics and access to sufficient resources to work effectively.82 Another factor is a match between the individual’s values and those of the organization.83 Leadership behaviours that inspire workers to a greater sense of mission also increase employee engagement.84
One of the critiques of engagement theory is that the construct is partially redundant with job attitudes like satisfaction or stress.85 Other critics note there may be a dark side to engagement, as evidenced by a positive relationship between engagement and work–family conflict.86 For instance, individuals might grow so engaged in their work roles that family responsibilities become an unwelcome intrusion. An overly high level of engagement can lead to a loss of perspective and, ultimately, burnout. Further research exploring how engagement relates to negative outcomes may help clarify whether some highly engaged employees might be getting too much of a good thing.
Motivating by Job Design: The Job Characteristics Model
LO 8.1 Explain the job characteristics model and the way it motivates by changing the work environment.
Increasingly, research on motivation focuses on approaches that link motivational concepts to the way work is structured. Research in job design suggests that the way the elements of a job are organized can influence employee effort. We’ll discuss the job characteristics model and investigate ways jobs can be redesigned. We’ll then explore alternative work arrangements.”
The Job Characteristics Model
Developed by J. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham, the job characteristics model (JCM) describes jobs by five core dimensions:1
Skill variety is the degree to which a job requires different activities using specialized skills and talents. The work of a garage owner-operator who does electrical repairs, rebuilds engines, does bodywork, and interacts with customers scores high on skill variety. The job of a body-shop worker who sprays paint eight hours a day scores low on this dimension
Task identity is the degree to which a job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work. A cabinetmaker who designs furniture, selects the wood, builds the object, and finishes it has a job that scores high on task identity. A job scoring low on this dimension is operating a lathe to make table legs.
Task significance is the degree to which a job is perceived to affect the lives or work of other people. The job of a nurse helping patients in a hospital intensive care unit scores high on task significance. Sweeping floors in a hospital scores low because, although cleanliness is very important to minimize disease transmission, many people do not think about how much sweeping floors contributes to that important outcome. In another example, a lawyer who actively prosecutes cases may feel more task significance than the clerk who merely checks court documents for spelling and grammar errors before they are submitted.
Autonomy is the degree to which a job provides the worker freedom, independence, and discretion in scheduling work and determining the procedures for carrying it out. A sales manager who schedules his own work and the sales approach for each customer without supervision has a highly autonomous job. An account representative who is required to follow a standardized sales script with potential customers while under supervision has a job low in autonomy.
In general, research concurs with the factors of the JCM, although studies have introduced potential modifiers. One study suggested that when employees were “other-oriented” (concerned with the welfare of others at work), the relationship between intrinsic job characteristics and job satisfaction was weaker. A few studies have tested the JCM in different cultures, but the results aren’t consistent. The fact that the JCM is relatively individualistic (it considers the relationship between the employee and her work) suggests job enrichment strategies may not have the same effects in collectivistic cultures as in individualistic cultures such as Canada.3 However, another study suggested the degree to which jobs offered intrinsic motivators predicted job satisfaction and job involvement equally well for U.S., Japanese, and Hungarian employees.4 Since these countries score differently on the individualism scale, this study suggests that the relevance of intrinsic motivators may be more strongly influenced by other, as yet unidentified, factors.
How Can Jobs Be Redesigned
LO 8.2 Compare the main ways jobs can be redesigned.
“Every day was the same thing,” Frank said. “Stand on that assembly line. Wait for an instrument panel to be moved into place. Unlock the mechanism and drop the panel into the Jeep Liberty as it moved by on the line. Then I plugged in the harnessing wires. I repeated that for eight hours a day. I don’t care that they were paying me 34 dollars an hour. I was going crazy. Finally, I just said… this isn’t going to be the way I’m going to spend the rest of my life. My brain was turning to Jell-O… so I quit. Now I work in a print shop and I make less than 15 dollars an hour. But let me tell you, the work I do is really interesting. The job changes all the time, I’m continually learning new things, and the work really challenges me!”
The repetitive tasks in Frank’s job at the Jeep plant provided little variety, autonomy, or motivation. In contrast, his job in the print shop is challenging and stimulating. Let’s look at some of the ways to put the JCM into practice to make jobs more motivating.
Job Rotation
If employees suffer from over-routinization of their work, one alternative is job rotation, or the periodic shifting of an employee from one task to another with similar skill requirements at the same organizational level (also called cross-training). Many manufacturing firms have adopted job rotation as a means of increasing flexibility and avoiding layoffs. Managers at these companies train workers on all their equipment so they can move around as needed in response to incoming orders. International evidence from Italy, Britain, and Turkey shows that job rotation is associated with higher levels of organizational performance in manufacturing settings.5 Although job rotation was originally conceptualized for assembly line and manufacturing employees, many organizations use job rotation for new managers and others to help them get a picture of the whole business.6
At Singapore Airlines, for instance, a ticket agent may take on the duties of a baggage handler. Extensive job rotation is among the reasons Singapore Airlines is rated one of the best airlines in the world.
The strengths of job rotation are that it reduces boredom, increases motivation, and helps employees understand how their work contributes to the organization, which increases task significance. However, it has drawbacks. Work done repeatedly may become habitual and routine, which makes decision making more automatic and “efficient.” Training costs increase because each rotation necessitates a round of training, and moving a worker into a new position reduces productivity for that role. Job rotation also creates disruptions when members of the work group have to adjust to new employees. And supervisors may have to spend more time answering questions and monitoring the work of recently rotated employees.
Job Enrichment
Job enrichment expands jobs by increasing the degree to which the worker controls the planning, execution, and evaluation of the work. An enriched job allows the worker to do a complete activity, increases the employee’s freedom and independence, increases responsibility, and provides feedback so individuals can assess and correct their own performance.
How does management enrich an employee’s job? Exhibit 8-2 offers suggested guidelines based on the JCM. Combining tasks puts fractionalized tasks back together to form a new and larger module of work. Forming natural work units makes an employee’s tasks an identifiable and meaningful whole. Establishing client relationships increases the direct relationships between workers and their clients (clients can be internal as well as outside the organization). Expanding jobs vertically gives employees responsibilities and control formerly reserved for management. Opening feedback channels lets employees know how well they are doing and whether their performance is improving, deteriorating, or remaining constant.
Another method for improving the meaningfulness of work is providing employees with mutual assistance programs.9 Employees who can help each other directly through their work come to see themselves, and the organizations for which they work, in more positive, prosocial terms. This, in turn, can increase employee commitment to the organization.
The evidence on job enrichment indicates that it reduces absenteeism and turnover costs and increases satisfaction, but not all programs are equally effective.10 A review of 83 organizational interventions designed to improve performance management found that frequent, specific feedback on solving problems was linked to consistently higher performance, but infrequent feedback that focused more on past problems than future solutions was much less effective.11 Thus, job enrichment can be effective when accompanied by practices—such as feedback—that support it. To some degree, its effectiveness also depends on the person. One study found employees with a higher preference for challenging work experienced larger reductions in stress following job redesign than individuals who did not prefer challenging work.
Relational Job Design
While redesigning jobs on the basis of job characteristics theory is likely to make work more intrinsically motivating, contemporary research focuses on how to make jobs more prosocially motivating to people. In other words, how can managers design work so employees are motivated to promote the well-being of the organization’s beneficiaries (customers, clients, patients, and employees)? This view of job design shifts the spotlight from the employee to those whose lives are affected by the job that employee performs.
One way to make jobs more prosocially motivating is to better connect employees with the beneficiaries of their work by relating stories from customers who have found the company’s products or services to be helpful. This also increases task significance. The medical device manufacturer Medtronic invites people to describe how its products have improved, or even saved, their lives and shares these stories with employees during annual meetings, providing a powerful reminder of the impact of their work. One study found that radiologists who saw photographs of patients whose scans they were examining made more accurate diagnoses of their medical problems. Why? Seeing the photos made it more personal, which elicited feelings of empathy in the radiologists.
Even better, in some cases managers may be able to connect employees directly with beneficiaries. Researchers found that when university fundraisers briefly interacted with the undergraduates who would receive the scholarship money they raised, they persisted 42 percent longer in their fundraising, and raised nearly twice as much money, as those who didn’t interact with potential recipients.15 The positive impact was apparent even when fundraisers met with just a single scholarship recipient.
Alternative Work Arrangements
LO 8.3 Assess how specific alternative work arrangements may motivate employees.
Another approach to motivation is to consider alternative work arrangements such as flextime, job sharing, or telecommuting. These are likely to be especially important for a diverse workforce of dual-earner couples, single parents, workers with ongoing health needs and/or disabilities, and employees caring for a sick or aging relative.
Flextime
Susan is the classic “morning person.” She rises at 5:00 a.m. sharp each day, full of energy. However, as she puts it, “I’m usually ready for bed right after the 7:00 p.m. news.”
Susan’s work schedule as a claims processor at Great West Life Assurance is flexible. Her office opens at 6:00 a.m. and closes at 7:00 p.m., and she schedules her eight-hour day within this thirteen-hour period. Because Susan is a morning person whose seven-year-old son gets out of school at 3:00 p.m., she opts to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. “My work hours are perfect. I’m at the job when I’m mentally most alert, and I can be home to take care of my son after he gets out of school.
Flextime has become extremely popular. According to a recent survey, 53 percent of U.S. organizations now offer some form of flextime.16 In Canada a similar survey found that 35 percent of organizations offered it. This is not just a North American phenomenon. In Germany, for instance, 73 percent of businesses offer flextime, and flextime is becoming more widespread in Japan as well.17 In Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France, by law employers are not allowed to refuse an employee’s request for either a part-time or a flexible work schedule as long as the reason is reasonable, such as to care for an infant.
Claimed benefits include reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, reduced overtime expenses, reduced hostility toward management, reduced traffic congestion around work sites on commute paths, elimination of tardiness, and increased autonomy and responsibility for employees—any of which may increase employee job satisfaction.
As for flextime’s actual record, most of the evidence stacks up favourably. It tends to reduce absenteeism and frequently improves worker productivity,20 probably for several reasons. Employees can schedule their work hours to align with personal demands, reducing tardiness and absences, and they can work when they are most productive. Flextime can also help employees balance work and family lives; it is a popular criterion for judging how “family-friendly” a workplace is. Finally, employees with ongoing health needs find that flextime enables them to schedule medical appointments and follow-up care without needing to take time off. It may thus make workplaces more approachable for people with disabilities, an underemployed and frequently financially disadvantaged group in Canada.
Job Sharing
Job sharing allows two or more individuals to split a traditional 40-hour-a-week job. One employee might perform the job from 8:00 a.m. to noon and another from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., or they could work full but alternate days. For example, top Ford engineers Julie Levine and Julie Rocco engaged in a job-sharing program that allowed both to spend time with their families while redesigning the Explorer crossover. Typically, one of them would work late afternoons and evenings and the other worked mornings. They agreed that the program worked well, although making the job-share work required a great deal of time and preparation.
Only 12 percent of large organizations offer job sharing, a significant decline from 18 percent in 2008.23 Reasons it is not more widely adopted include the difficulty of finding compatible partners to job-share and the historically negative perceptions of individuals not completely committed to their jobs and employers. However, decreasing job sharing for these reasons may be shortsighted. Job sharing allows an organization to draw on the talents of more than one individual for a given job. It opens the opportunity to acquire skilled workers—for instance, parents with young children and retirees—who might not be available on a full-time basis. From the employee’s perspective, job sharing can increase motivation and satisfaction.
An employer’s decision to use job sharing is sometimes based on economics and national policy. Two part-time employees sharing a job can be less expensive than one full-time employee, but some experts suggest this is not the case because training, coordination, and administrative costs can be high. Between 2009 and 2012 the Canadian federal government encouraged job sharing in order to minimize layoffs. During that period the number of federal workers engaged in job sharing increased from 27,000 to 165,104.24 Many German and Japanese25 firms have been using job sharing for the same reason. Germany’s Kurzarbeit program, now close to 100 years old, has kept employment levels from plummeting throughout the economic crisis by switching full-time workers to part-time job-sharing work.
Ideally, employers should consider each employee and job separately, seeking to match the skills, personalities, and needs of each employee with the tasks required for the job to look for potential job-sharing matches.
Telecommuting
It might be close to the ideal job for many people: no rush hour traffic, flexible hours, freedom to dress as you please, and fewer interruptions. It’s called telecommuting, or working at home at least two days a week on a computer linked to the employer’s office.27 (A closely related term—the virtual office—describes working from home on a relatively permanent basis.) While telecommuting would seem to mesh with a transition to knowledge work (which often can be performed anywhere), it has been a popular topic lately not for its potential, but rather for reconsideration. Recently, large companies such as Yahoo and Best Buy have eliminated this form of flexible work.28 Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has discussed how telecommuting may undermine corporate culture, noting: “People are more productive when they’re alone, but they’re more collaborative and innovative when they’re together.
While the movement away from telecommuting for some companies like Yahoo has made the headlines, it appears that for most, the movement continues to grow.
Statistics Canada reported that in 2008, 11.2 percent of employees and 60 percent of the self-employed worked from home at least one day a week. Taken together that means that 19 percent of the Canadian working population works from home some of the time.30 A significant subset of that group always telecommutes. Data from 2016 indicated that 7.5 percent of employed Canadians worked from home every day, although that number goes down to 6 percent when farmers are excluded.31 One recent survey of nearly 500 organizations found that 57 percent of organizations offered telecommuting, with 36 percent allowing employees to telecommute at least part of the time and 20 percent allowing employees to telecommute full-time, and these percentages have remained relatively stable since 2008.32 Organizations that actively encourage telecommuting are the Bank of Canada, Molson Coors, IBM, L’Oréal Canada, the City of Calgary, Resource Conservation Manitoba, the National Ballet of Canada, and a number of government agencies.
Employee Involvement
LO 8.4 Explain how employee involvement measures can motivate employees.
Employee involvement is a participative process that uses employees’ input to increase their commitment to organizational success. If workers are engaged in decisions that increase their autonomy and control over their work lives, they will become more motivated, more committed to the organization, more productive, and more satisfied with their jobs. These benefits don’t stop with individuals—when teams are given more control over their work, morale and performance increase as well.
To be successful, employee involvement programs should be tailored to country norms.40 The average Canadian worker is generally receptive to participative approaches as long as they perceive that management is sincere when seeking their involvement. Newcomers to Canada, however, may find the practice unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Recent immigrants from countries with high power distance may require additional reassurances about cultural appropriateness before embracing participative management styles. This idea is reinforced by a study of four countries, including the United States and India, that confirmed the importance of modifying practices to reflect national culture.41 While U.S. employees readily accepted employee involvement programs, managers in India who tried to empower their employees were rated low by those employees. These reactions are consistent with India’s high power-distance culture, which accepts and expects differences in authority. Similarly, Chinese workers who were very accepting of traditional Chinese values showed few benefits from participative decision making, but workers who were less traditional were more satisfied and had higher performance ratings under participative management.42 Another study conducted in China found that involvement increased employees’ thoughts and feelings of job security, enhancing their well-being.
Linking Employee Involvement Programs and Motivation Theories
Employee involvement draws on a number of the motivation theories we discussed in Chapter 7. Theory Y is consistent with participative management and Theory X with the more traditional autocratic style of managing. In terms of two-factor theory, employee involvement programs could provide intrinsic motivation by increasing opportunities for growth, responsibility, and involvement in the work itself. The opportunity to make and implement decisions—and then see them work out—can help satisfy an employee’s needs for responsibility, achievement, recognition, growth, and enhanced self-esteem. Extensive employee involvement programs have the potential to increase intrinsic motivation. And giving employees control over key decisions, along with ensuring that their interests are represented, can augment feelings of procedural justice.
