Knowledge is Power: What Makes Employees Share It?

Topic: Job Design, Motivation
Publication: Human Resource Management
Article: Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters
Authors: N.J. Foss, D.B. Minbaeva, T. Pedersen, and M. Reinholt
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 It’s no secret that knowledge sharing among employees is an absolute necessity for many organizations.  So what can organizations do to facilitate knowledge sharing among its employees?

Foss and colleagues (2009) recently showed that several characteristics of employees’ jobs predict employee motivation to share knowledge.  Foss et al. studied this phenomenon using a sample of 186 employees working in a large German manufacturing company. 

The authors studied three important job characteristics: autonomy, task identity, and feedback.  Autonomy refers to the amount of control employees have over work tasks, task identity refers to whether employees complete entire tasks from start to finish or pieces of tasks, and feedback refers to the amount and quality of feedback employees receive on the job. 

Foss et al. found that all three job characteristics predict employee motivation to share knowledge, albeit quite differently.  For instance, job autonomy predicted employees’ intrinsic motivation (e.g., enjoyable, stimulating) for sharing knowledge which was strongly and favorably related to (1) the amount of information received from others and (2) the amount of knowledge sent to others.  Feedback, on the other hand, was positively related to external motivation (e.g., rewards), which was actually unfavorably related to sending knowledge and unrelated to receiving knowledge.

Which Employees Set the Bar Higher?

Topic: Personality, Motivation, Goals

Publication: Personality and Individual Differences
Article: Individual differences in reactions to goal-performance discrepancies over time.
Authors: P.D. Converse, E. Steinhauser, and J. Pathak
Reviewed By: Benjamin Granger

 By nature, a goal creates a discrepancy between an employee’s current performance and some future state.  For example, though I have only written one and half sentences, my goal is to write a full review.  Thus, by setting this goal, I have created a goal-performance discrepancy for myself.  Research suggests that goal-performance discrepancies motivate employees to modify their goals (either up or down) and/or efforts toward attaining those goals (slack off or try harder).    

A recent study by Converse, Steinhauser, and Pathak suggests that several individual differences predict how individuals behave in response to goal-performance discrepancies (which comes in the form of performance feedback).  Converse et al.’s study was conducted on a sample of 90 college students taking an introductory psychology course.

Past research has found that, in general, individuals tend to set lower goals after receiving negative feedback (i.e., large goal-performance discrepancy) and set higher goals following positive feedback.  Converse et al. found that this trend is especially true for individuals with an internal locus of control (i.e., believe that they have control over outcomes).  Individuals with an external locus of control (believe that they have little control over outcomes) do not follow this pattern, as they tend to set slightly higher goals following negative feedback. 

Also, individuals high in self-efficacy tend to set higher goals for themselves, especially after receiving positive feedback.  Highly efficacious people have more confidence in their ability and thus are more willing to challenge themselves by setting the bar a little higher.  Finally, whereas conscientious individuals tend to increase effort following negative feedback, they may actually reduce effort following positive feedback.  Converse et al. speculate that conscientious individuals may allocate resources away from the goal and consciously juggle other goals and/or priorities, which is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Converse, P.D., Steinhauser, E., & Pathak, J. (2010). Individual differences in reactions to goal-performance discrepancies over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 138-143.

Beware the Turnover Bug: It’s Contagious!

Topic: Employee Satisfaction, Motivation, Turnover
Publication: Academy of Management Journal
Article: Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors 
influence quitting.
Author: W. Felps, T.R. Mitchell, D.R. Hekman, T.W. Lee, B.C. Holtman, W.S. Harman
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

There is a HUGE body of research literature on the predictors and causes of employee turnover (better grab two cups of coffee before reading all of these articles!).  Most of the research has investigated either individual-level explanations (e.g., low job satisfaction) or economic and organizational-level explanations (e.g., unemployment rates and demand for jobs in certain industries) of employee turnover. 

But, what about the social context that employees work in?  Do the behaviors and attitudes of coworkers influence employees’ decisions to quit their jobs?

In a recent study, Felps and colleagues (2009) hypothesized that employees’ decisions to quit ARE influenced by the attitudes and behaviors of their coworkers.  They tested this hypothesis by surveying employees working in two diverse organizations (a regional bank and a national hospitality company). 

In both samples, Felps et al. found that coworkers’ job embeddedness (how well employees feel that they fit in with their job and the community) predicted voluntary turnover 18 months later.  That is, employees whose coworkers reported low levels of job embeddedness were more likely to quit their job.

Felps and colleagues also found that low coworker job embeddedness leads to increased job search behaviors, which then leads to turnover.  In other words, employees whose coworkers report low job embeddedness, tend to engage in more job search behaviors (updating résumé, going on a job interview, etc.) themselves - which then makes them more likely to quit their current jobs.

All in all, these results suggest that employees look to their coworkers as sources of information when deciding whether to quit their jobs (or think about quitting).  In fact, the authors likened this phenomenon to a “contagious disease” which can spread throughout work units and entire organizations.  Managers and organizational leaders must be aware that employee turnover can quickly grow from a minor “flu bug” to the bubonic plague!

Felps, W., Mitchell, T.R., Hekman, D.R., Lee, T.W., Holtom, B.C., & Harman, W.S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 545-561.

A more personal “length of service award” makes a difference

Topic: Motivation, Rewards, Strategic HR, 
Publication: HR Magazine
Article:  Length-of-Service Awards Becoming More Personal.  
Author: R.R. Hastings
Featured by: Sarah Bowen

Length-of-service awards (the small gold pin or certificate at the bottom of your junk drawer) can be truly rewarding when managed in the proper way. However, when carelessness is evident in such gestures, employees do not feel valued. So, how can we make these gestures count?

Employees respond best when given the option to choose what kind of benefits to receive from their company.  And, yes, awards such as vacations to Hawaii or a new Rolex can increase an employee’s sense of pride in working for a company. Regardless of the price of the award, however, it is important to specifically address the employee on his/her anniversary through direct communication or a letter and also to share with the company the accomplishments of the individual. Employees respect the time and effort their company invests in recognizing individuals.

Managers should actively participate in recognizing employees and personally present their awards. When recognizing employees, specific achievements and accomplishments should be highlighted to distinguish employees and emphasize how they have contributed to the company’s mission. Awards programs do not have to be expensive. Bells and whistles aside, employees respect their employers for acknowledging their service to the company even if they simply receive a ‘thank you’—although a trip to Hawaii is always nice!

Hastings, R.R. (2009). Length-of-Service Awards Becoming More Personal. HR Magazine: SHRM’s 2009 HR Trend Book, 43-47.

Quarter past nine, I’m late again!

Topic: Compensation, Motivation, Rewards, Strategic HR
Publication: Research and Practice in Human Resource Management
Article: A Mathematical Model to Monitor Late Arrivals at Work.
Author: S.A. Oke, T.M. Ezenachkwu
Featured by: Sarah Bowen

In their recent article, Oke and Ezenachukwu embark on an ambitious journey to prove that timeliness is improved through rewards and recognition in the workplace.

The authors conduct their research in a beer and soft drink production company to test their model and assumptions.  Educational commitments, monotony of work, and poor welfare provisions were three key reasons workers gave as reasons for their tardiness.

The researchers proposed that work tardiness issues can be resolved through the use of rewards to employees who arrive early to work.  In order to alleviate lateness, the company implemented a computer system to supervise the arrival and departure times of workers and calculate the additional compensation for arriving early.  Adjusting for a variety of commuting differences, the results showed that most workers will arrive early to work when additionally compensated for their timeliness.

Maintaining proper records of employees’ daily arrival and departure times, informing employees about the program’s benefits, and giving feedback to employees and managers contributed to the effectiveness of this approach.  Electronic displays installed as part of this program served as reminders to employees about their responsibilities to the company and aided in motivating workers to achieve a better work culture.

In addition to directly affecting the bottom line, on-time arrival impacts the culture of the organization:  when workers arrive on time, a company acquires a more positive image and employees become more confident in management.

Oke, S. A. & Ezenachukwu, T. M. (2007). A Mathematical Model to Monitor Late Arrivals at Work by Junior Staff, Research and Practice in Human Resource 

Who is holding the glass ceiling in place?

Topic: Compensation, Organizational Justice, Motivation, Rewards
Publication: Journal of Human Resources
Article: Who is holding the glass ceiling in place? 
Author: N. Fortin
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

Many 21^st century women still earn less than their male counterparts.  However, this injustice may not be due fully to chauvinists and stereotypes.  In her article, The Gender Wage Gap among Young Adults in the United States: The Importance of Money versus People, Nicole Fortin investigates influences that women themselves exhibit which may contribute to their smaller paychecks.  As women more often choose to volunteer with organizations that are altruistic in nature, and tend to place more importance on workplace success rather than rolling in the dough, it is easy to follow Fortin’s argument that such noncognitive factors inevitably influence the gender wage gap. 

Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988/94, Fortin explores the possible impacts on the gender pay gap by examining four noncognitive functions:

·     The importance of money and work
·     The importance of people and family
·     Self-esteem
·     Locus of control (the extent to which a person feels they- rather than their environment        have control over their own success). 

In addition to human capital and cognitive factors, Fortin argues that these noncognitive qualities significantly influence the discrepancy in wages among men and women.  

Fortin finds that lower locus of control and higher importance of people and family tend to widen the gender wage gap, while higher self-esteem and importance of money and work tend to lead to more equitable wages for workers in their early thirties.  Although the research shows that the differences due to these noncognitive factors are largely insignificant over time, the importance of work and money should not be overlooked, as it plays the largest role of the four noncognitive factors.

Fortin, N. (2008, Fall2008). The Gender Wage Gap among Young Adults in the United States. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 884-918. Retrieved March 14, 2009, from Advanced Placement Source database.

What to do about the Failure-Focused Employee

Topic: Job Performance, Motivation
Publication: Human Performance
Article: Failure avoidance motivation in a goal-setting situation.
Author: S.R. Heimerdinger, V.B. Hinsz
Featured by: Benjamin Granger

Although it is known that employees who set specific and difficult goals tend to outperform those who set broad and relatively easy goals, different employees have differing motivational mindsets when they set their goals.

Some employees are motivated to learn and master skills.  Others are motivated to demonstrate their competence to others.  (“Those darn showoffs!”)  Interestingly, though, some employees are motivated, not by accomplishments, but to simply avoid failing.  In other words, when some employees set personal goals, they are focused on NOT FAILING as opposed to succeeding (e.g., “My goal is to NOT completely bomb this presentation!”).

This is known as failure avoidance motivation and despite being such an intriguing concept, it is somewhat unclear how it relates to performance.  So the question is: Are employees who set failure avoidance goals good performers?  Or are these failure avoidance goals detrimental to performance?

Heimerdinger and Hinsz (2008) investigated how and why failure avoidance motivation relates to performance.  The authors found that the motivation to avoid failure leads to a number of negative consequences.  Specifically, Heimerdinger and Hinsz found the individuals who are motivated to avoid failure tend to have less confidence in their ability (i.e., lower self-efficacy) and are also less likely to persist in the face of obstacles or difficulties (i.e., lower goal commitment).  Most importantly, they tend to be poor performers.

Want to Maximize Transfer of Training? Get Leaders Involved!

Topic: Leadership, Motivation, Training
Publication: International Journal of Training and Development
Article:  Leader influences on training effectiveness: Motivation and outcome expectations processes.    
Blogger: Benjamin Granger

Delivering employee training is one of the most frequently utilized and important Human Resource functions.  Although this is well-known, organizations often overlook the true goal of training.

So what is the TRUE goal of training?  Ultimately, organizations expect (and often assume) that employees who engage in training will transfer the trained skills into the actual workplace.  If employees don’t transfer the skills taught in training, then what good was the training?

Clearly, it’s important for organizations to develop an understanding of the factors that influence how well employees transfer trained skills into the actual workplace.  One potential factor that has not received much attention is the quality of the relationship between trained employees and their supervisors.  This exchange relationship between leaders and employees is often called Leader Member Exchange (LMX).  Researchers Scaduto, Lindsay, and Chiaburu (2008) set out to shed light on this issue by investigating the effects of LMX on the transfer of trained skills.

Scaduto et al. found that when the relationship between employees and their supervisor (as reported by the employee) is high in quality, employees report transferring trained skills to the workplace, maintaining those skills over time, and even utilizing those skills in work situations other than those specifically trained (Now that’s GOOD news!).  So it appears that when employees feel that their relationship with their supervisor is good (high LMX), they are more likely to benefit from training initiatives (and this in turn benefits the organization).

But WHY does the relationship between supervisors and employees matter for training?  Scaduto and colleagues further investigated two potential reasons why LMX predicts transfer of trained skills into the workplace: (1) increased employee motivation and (2) the expectancy of better outcomes.

In the name of the cubicle, the computer, and the conference call, Amen.

Topic: Motivation, Organizational Performance, Work Environment

Publication: Journal of Organizational Change Management

Article: Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Study.

Blogger: LitDigger

Much academic literature investigating workplace performance overlooks the element of employee spirituality, but Rego and Cunha (2008) recently dared to venture into this unfamiliar territory.  They found that workplace spirituality is related to employees’ organizational commitment.

No, we’re not talking about reciting the Hail Mary while you’re alone in your cubicle.  What Rego and Cunha mean by “workplace spirituality” concerns individual philosophy and values.  For example, you could be considered high on workplace spirituality if you feel as though you can connect personal meaning toward the work you do, or that you’re headed toward self-actualization and reaching your potential. 

Rego and Cunha’s workplace spirituality variable was made up of five dimensions: team’s sense of community, alignment with organizational values, sense of contribution to society, enjoyment at work, and opportunities for inner life.  They found that this variable was uniquely related to three types of organizational commitment.

Pay-for-performance: Helping those that help themselves?

Topic: Compensation, Motivation, Rewards
Publication: The Wall Street Journal
Article: When schools offer money as a motivator.
Blogger: James Grand

Long gone are the days when Mom and Dad would offer a few bucks for an “A” on your report card to buy some candy from the grocery store.  Now, the schools are starting to provide the incentives—and they aren’t just offering up bubble gum and lollipops.

A recent article from The Wall Street Journal (August 21, 2008) reported that a number of schools around the country are implementing new pay-for-performance (PFP) systems as means of encouraging high school students to enroll and pass Advanced Placement (AP) courses.  The performance rewards (in some cases, upwards of $1000) are given to the top performing students on the various AP exams.  With a great sigh of relief from its investors, longitudinal analyses of the PFP systems have shown mostly positive results—higher enrollment in AP classes, higher test scores and more graduating seniors moving on to college (whew).

But should schools (and other organizations, for that matter) be wary of the PFP reform?  Research from organizational psychology, management and education indicates that although PFP is generally linked to higher overall performance and satisfaction across a variety of domains, there are a number of consequences that should be carefully considered before they are used (Rynes, Gerhart, & Parks, 2005, provide an excellent review of the issues associated with PFP systems).  For example, there is evidence to suggest that PFP is more attractive to individuals’ with greater need for achievement and self-efficacy, which are often related to characteristics such as education level and even gender or race in many work domains.  Thus PFP systems have the potential to create discriminative compensation practices or entirely homogenous workforces if not carefully monitored.  Furthermore, in jobs/tasks where units of performance are not clearly established (i.e., subjective supervisor ratings, etc.), the benefits of PFP are often difficult to determine and may actually be detrimental.

Time will tell if PFP catches on in our nation’s schools—in the meantime, I suppose a bag of M&M’s never hurt anybody.

Singer-Vine, J. (2008, August 21). When schools offer money as a motivator. The Wall Street Journal. pp. D1.