INVESTIGATION ... The results indicate that employee values and attitudes are ... such as encouraging other employees or helping others work on difficult tasks. ... 3. A sense of accomplishment: The degree to which the person feels the job gives ... important to the employees, they are motivated to perform on jobs so that ...
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYEE VALUES, ATTITUDES AND LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS IN EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION. AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION Dr. Mohammed S. Chowdhury Monroe College, Bronx, New York AND Mohammed Nurul Amin West Virginia University of Technology #PQ4546 ABSRRACT: This paper examines the relative influence of employee values, attitudes, and supervisory behaviors on employee motivation. Data were collected through selfadministered questionnaire from the employees working in two medium-sized hotels in New York City (N=140). A total of usable responses were obtained from an overall response rate of 78.2%. The results indicate that employee values and attitudes are instrumental in producing a strong employee intrinsic motivation while leaders’ behavior enhances employee extrinsic motivation. Generally speaking, employee motivation (extrinsic/intrinsic) can be enhanced by redesigning work along the key values and attitudes of the employees, and by emphasizing leadership behavior. A number of implications based on findings are discussed.
Introduction Employee values, attitudes, and leadership behavior play a very important role in enhancing employee work motivation and performance. Employee work values, attitudes and leadership behavior can carefully be adjusted to produce a strong impact on employee work motivation .It would, therefore, be interesting to examine the precise nature of their roles in influencing the intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation of employees. Individuals vary in their value systems. For example, achievement is a concern for the advancement of one’s career while concern for others may reflect caring, compassionate. Supervisory behavior may vary considerably in the same job situation. Behaviors such as encouraging other employees or helping others work on difficult tasks. A supervisory behavior may adopt democratic orientation or punishment when interacting with employees and thus may affect the work behavior. Though research on leadership styles, work values, and attitudes is concerned with finding the conclusions as to what specific leader behavior, work values and attitudes would produce a strong impact on employee work motivation and performance, no clear-cut conclusions have yet been rendered. It is, therefore, necessary to examine these issues, on a relative basis, which characteristics may act as more effective motivators in employee motivation and work performance.
With such an understanding, management would better be able to use available motivational tools for their maximum impact on employee work performance. Thus the objective of this study is to examine the importance of values, attitudes and leadership behaviors in employee work motivation and performance .To gain a deeper insight into the exact nature of such influence, the roles of employee values, attitudes and leadership behavior in influencing intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and performance are examined. Finally, the study explores the managerial implications of the findings and discusses the actions that might lead to improvements in employee motivation.
Values, Attitudes and Employee Work Motivation The following description relates to values, attitudes, and employee motivation. VALUES Values are enduring beliefs that a specific mode of conduct or end state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end state of existence (Rokeach, M 1973). Values are important because they affect how individuals behave on their jobs in terms of what is wrong or right. Some basic values, which are expected to affect the attitude and work motivation of an employee, would logically include: 1. Family: The extent to which the job offers family well-being to the employees 2. Recreation: The extent to which the job offers recreational facilities to the employees 3. A sense of accomplishment: The degree to which the person feels the job gives the person a sense of accomplishment after the job is done. 4. Advancing at the company: The degree to which the person feels the job will create opportunities for advancement 5. Financial security: The extent to which the job offers financial security to person. 6. Integrity: The extent to which the job provides information accurately and emphasizes impartiality and recognizes different points of view ATTITUDES Attitudes are not the same as values. Attitudes are evaluative statements –either favorable or unfavorable—concerning objects people, or events. The maintenance of work-related behaviors implies that the conditions of the job somehow provide the needs of the individuals, fostering a sense of satisfaction. It has been treated both as a general attitude and as satisfaction with five specific dimensions of job: pay, the work itself, promotion, opportunities, supervision and co-workers (Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969; Balzer and Smith et al, 1990). The combined effect of these factors produce for the individual some measure of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959). Definitions of these five dimensions of the job are given as under:
Definitions of key Job Dimensions Job Dimensions
Definition
Work Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee is satisfied with work, including opportunities for creativity and task variety, allowing an individual to increase his or her knowledge, changes in responsibility, amount of work, security, and job enrichment (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990; Smith et al, 1969) Pay Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee forms an attitude toward pay based on perceived difference between actual pay and the expected pay. Expected pay is based on the value of perceived inputs and outputs of the job and the pay of other employees holding similar jobs or possessing similar qualifications (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990) Supervision Satisfaction: The extent to which an employee is satisfied with his or supervision, as measured by consideration and employee-centered actions of the supervisor and the perceived competency of the supervisor by the subordinate (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990, Herzberg et al, 1957) Satisfaction with promotions: The degree to which an employee is satisfied with the Company’s promotion policy, including frequency of promotions, and the desirability of promotions (Balzer and Smith et al, 1990, Herzberg et al 1957) Co-workers’ Satisfaction: The work-related interaction and the mutual liking or admiration of fellow employees (Bazler and Smith et al, 1990, Smith et al, 1969, Alderfer, 1969) Overall Job Satisfaction: The extent to which an individual’s desires, expectations and needs are fulfilled by employment (Szilagi, Sims, and Terrill, 1977)
Leadership Behavior and Employee motivation Leadership behavior plays a very important role in enhancing employee job satisfaction, work motivation and work performance. The major type of supervisory behavior that has been identified as influencing work motivation and performance include positive achievement behavior and the behavior that is expected to lead to dissatisfaction include authoritarian or arbitrary and punitive behavior Positive achievement motivation behavior: In this case a supervisor attempts to create a positive work environment through encouragement, recognition and positive reinforcement of behavior.
Authoritarian: In this case a supervisor exercises autocratic control to ensure conformity to work methods they prescribe. Information from different studies on leader behavior indicates that autocratic behavior leads to dissatisfaction among employees (Fulk and Wendler, 1982; Podsakoff et al (1984), and Scriesheim, House and Kerr (1976) and demonstrating positive motivational behavior becomes instrumental in motivating employee work performance (Greene, 1976, Sims and Sizlagyi, 1978, House and Mitchelle, 1974, Chowdhury, 1997). The discussion of the effectiveness of employee values, attitudes and leader behavior indicates that while values and attitudes are relatively more instrumental in inducing intrinsic motivation, leadership styles can be more effective in enhancing extrinsic motivation, primarily because employee attitudes and leadership characteristics influence employee beliefs about obtaining intrinsic and extrinsic rewards respectively.
Intrinsic / Extrinsic Motivation and Work Performance Motivation is the process of arousing and sustaining goal-directed behavior. Of several work motivation theories, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation plays an important role in influencing employee work performance. It is a widely held view that in general, employees value both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards available in organizational settings. Most motivational theories indicate that to the extent that such rewards are important to the employees, they are motivated to perform on jobs so that such rewards can be achieved. Methods: On the basis of the preceding discussions, the following hypotheses are proposed: H1: The greater the extent to which the key values—integrity, recreation, financial security, family, advancing at the company, and a sense of accomplishment –are perceived to exist in the organization, the greater will be the employees intrinsic motivation. H2: The greater the extent to which key job attitudes—work, pay, promotion, supervisor, co-worker, overall job satisfaction –are perceived to exist in the organizations, the greater will be the employees intrinsic motivation. H3: The greater the extent to which positive achievement motivation behavior of the leader is perceived to exist in the organization, the greater the job satisfaction and extrinsic motivation. H4: The greater the extent to which arbitrary and punitive behavior is perceived to exist in the organization, the grater the job dissatisfaction and de-motivation of the employees.
The Data: Data were obtained through self-administered questionnaire from the employees working in three small hotel industries (N=140) employed in New York City. A total of usable responses were obtained for an overall response rate of 78.2%. Data Gathering Instruments: To measure values, the instrument developed by Gordon (1979) was utilized (110 rating of the original values). Scales in this instrument demonstrated alpha reliability coefficients higher than.90, indicating internal consistency. Supervisor behavior was measured through CPS by having employees report on their supervisors’ behavior. Chowdhury (2000) scaled supervisor behavior into two variables derived from items constructed by Kohli (1985) and House and Mitchell (1974) with eight items each. One scale was termed “Authoritarianism”, since it dealt with the Supervisors’ authoritative behaviors, such as,” My supervisor rules with iron hand”. The other was named “Positive Achievement Motivation Behavior such as,” My supervisor gives me recognition for improvement in my performance.” All supervisor behavior scales were keyed to 5-point Likert-type response modes from “very false” (1) to “very true (5). Two scales accounted for 66.7% of the total variance. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin Sampling Adequacy coefficient was .90, indicating “excellent” sampling adequacy (Norusus, 1994). Both scales had alpha reliability coefficients higher than .90, indicating strong internal consistency. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was used to measure job attitudes. The JDI was developed to ask employees to describe their work rather than how they feel about their work and therefore the form is based on characteristics of the job and not on the Employee’s emotions about the job (Bazler and Smith, 1990). The JDI measures were found to possess a high level of discriminant and convergent validity (Smith et al, 1969) Kerr (1985) reported content validity, notable construct validity and reliability. Internal consistencies were reported for each of these scales: work (.84), pay (.80), promotion (.86), supervision (.86), and co-workers (.88), overall job satisfaction (.85). Smith, Kendell and Hulin (1985) reported that JDI was highly correlated with leadership consideration and positive reward behaviors. To measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the instrument developed by Oliver and Anderson (1994) was utilized. Scales in intrinsic motivation (6 items) demonstrated adequate internal consistency (alpha .816) and for extrinsic motivation (3 items) alpha was .826. One item of intrinsic motivation is: If I were independently wealthy, I would still work for the challenge of it and one item of extrinsic motivation is: If it were not for money, I would not be in a job.
Model: The following regression models are used in this study: 1. Intrinsic Motivation = a1 + b1 Values + b2 attitudes + é1 2. Extrinsic Motivation = a2 + b3 Values + b4 Attitudes + b5Authoritarian + B6 Positive Motivation + e2 3. Job Attitudes = a3 + b7Authoritarian + b8 Positive Motivation + e3 Where the's represent constants, b's represent unknown parameters to be estimated, and e represents disturbance term.
Analysis of statistical results: The statistical results for each of the three models are shown below. H1 and H2: The results indicate (Table 1) a significant positive relationship between employees' values and their intrinsic motivation. Employees' attitudes and their intrinsic motivation are positively related; however, the relationship is not significant. Table 1 Output of Model 1: Unstandarized Coefficients B Constant Values Attitudes
7.859 0.325 0.062
STD Error 1.779 0.117 0.080
Standardized Coefficients
T values
Sig.
4.418 2.774 0.751
0.000 0.001 0.454
Beta
0.264 0.072
Dependent variable: Intrinsic Motivation R2: .10 H3 and H4: Contrary to expectations, authoritarian behavior is positively related to extrinsic motivation and positive achievement motivation behavior is negatively related to extrinsic motivation (Table 2). The relationship between supervisors' authoritarian behavior and employees' extrinsic motivation is significant. However, the relationship between positive achievement motivation behavior and extrinsic motivation
is more marginal. Values affect extrinsic motivation negatively. On the other hand, employee attitudes affect extrinsic motivation positively. In either case, the relationship is not found to be significant (see table 2 and correlation matrix in table 4). Table 2 Output of Model 2: Unstandarized Coefficients B STD Error Constant 5.223 1.687 Values -0.065 0.108 Attitudes 0.093 0.070 Authoritarian 0.140 0.042 PositMotiv -0.113 0.050
Standardized Coefficients
T values
Sig.
Beta -0.061 0.128 0.367 -0.234
3.097 0.604 1.328 3.338 -2.250
0.003 0.547 0.187 0.001 0.027
Dependent Variable: Extrinsic Motivation R2: .11 Statistical results on the effect of leadership style on employees' job attitude: Table 3 depicts the statistical results for model 3. This model uses employees' job attitudes as dependent variable, and supervisors' authoritarian behavior and positive motivational behavior as independent variables: The results indicate a positive relationship between supervisors' positive motivational behavior and employees' job attitude. A negative relationship is seen between employees' job attitude and supervisors' authoritarian behavior. However, this relationship is not significant. This relationship can also be seen in the correlation matrix in table 4. Table 3 Output of Model 3: Unstandarized Coefficients B Constant 18.024 AuthoBehav 0.040 Postmortem 0.013
Std. Error 1.373 0.057 0.072
Dependent variable: Job attitude R2: .10
Standardized Coefficients
T values
Sig.
Beta
-0.076 0.019
13.128 -0.696 0.177
0.000 0.488 0.860
The following is the correlation matrix, which shows the coefficient of correlation between the variables under consideration:
Table 4: Values Values
1.000
Attitudes
0.240
Attitudes
Intr. Motiv.
Extr. Motiv
Authori
1.000
Intr. Motiv 0.282** 0.135
1.000
Extr. Motiv 0.051
0.092
-0.100
Authorian 0.326
-0.067
0.119
0.229*
1.000
Pmotiv
-0.016
0.102
-0.075
0.468
0.163
PMotiv
1.000
1.000
** Correlation is significant at 1% level of significance * Correlation is significant at 5% level of significance
Discussion One of the main messages that can be drawn from this study is that while key values and job attitudes are more instrumental in affecting intrinsic motivation, leadership behavior, especially leaders’ authoritarian behavior tends to be more effective in enhancing extrinsic motivation. Generally speaking, employee motivation can be more strongly produced by redesigning work along key values and attitudes by emphasizing leadership behavior. The following implications may be drawn on the basis of the results: 1. The managers should constantly try to find what the employees want from their jobs and determine salient rewards based on their perceptions of the values. Instead of attempting to change what the employees want, managers should try to find what they want from their jobs. 2. Both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations of the employees should be monitored regularly, along with the key values, attitudes of the employees and leadership behaviors. 3.The immediate supervisor has an important role to produce extrinsic
reward structures based on the employee values and attitudes that will positively affect work motivation. The supervisors should, therefore, be aware of the nature of motivations as well as the tools to enhance employee’s extrinsic motivation.
Possible Limitations and Recommendation for Future Research Certain limitations should be noted: 1. The population in the sample comes from a specific type of industry, which is hospitality industry. It may not be truly representative of population in other industries. 2. The measures used are of the short paper-and-pencil variety, methods Variance could influence the results observed. Alternate modes of inquiry such as observation techniques could be employed in future investigations. 3. It would be worthwhile to develop more comprehensive measures of the supervisory behaviors investigated in general, and of punitive behavior, in particular. 4. Future research could explore if the impact of punitive behavior is moderated by the extent to which an employee and a supervisor are friendly and by an employee’s knowledge of the reasons for authoritarian behavior.
References: Anderson, E & Oliver, R.L. (1994),” An Empirical Test of the Consequences of Behavior and Outcome-Based Sales Control Systems,” Journal of Marketing, 58, 53-67. Alderfer, C.P. (1969),” An empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 142-75. Ajay, K. (1985). Some unexplored supervisory behavior and their influence on salespeople’s role clarity, specific self-esteem, job satisfaction and motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 424-433 Bazler, W.K. and Smith, P.C. et al (1990). Users manual for the job descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in general (JIG) scales. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Chowdhury, M (2000),” Gender and Race in Salespersons Evaluation: Are Supervisors prejudiced? Survey results from a multicultural sales force,” Association of management/International Management proceedings (Maximilian Publishers, West Virginia. Chowdhury, M. (1997), Motivating the Sales force: The Pygmalion Effect, UMI Dissertation Service Fulk, Janet and Eric Wendler (1982),” Dimensionality of leader-subordinate interactions: A path-Goal Investigation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 24164 Gordon, J.C. (1979), “ Superior-Subordinate Relationships in Managerial Development; UMI Dissertation Services Greene, C.N. (1976),” A Longitudinal Investigation of Performance Reinforcing Leader Behavior and Subordinate Satisfaction and Performance,” Mid-West Academy of Management proceedings, 157-85 Herzberg, F.B. mausner, and B. Snyderman (1959), The Motivation to Work, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc Herzberg, F., Mauer, B., Peterson, R.O. & Cap well, D. (1957). Job Attitudes: A Review of Research and Opinions, Pittsburgh: psychological services of Pittsburgh House, R and T. Mitchell (1974),” Path-Goal Theory of Leadership,” Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(Autumn), 81-97 J Kerr, B.A. (1985). The Ninth Mental Measurement Yearbook. In J.V. Mitchell Jr. (Ed), Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, pp 754-756
Norusus, M (1994). SPSS reference guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. Podsakoff, P.M., Todor, W.D., Grover, R.A. and Huber, V.L. (1984). Situational moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior. Paper presented at 44th annual meeting of national academy of management. Rokeach, M, The Nature of Human Value: New York Free Press, 1973 Schriesheim, C.A., Robert J. House, and S. Kerr (1976),” Leader Initiating Structure: A Reconciliation of Discrepant Research Results and Some empirical tests,” Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 297-321 Sims, H.P., & Szilagyi, A.D. (1978),” Causal Analysis of a Leader behavior over Three Different Time lags,” Eastern Academy of management Proceedings, 77-81 Smith, P.C., Kendal, L.M., and Hulin, C.I., (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Chicago: Rand McNally
