How do you maintain the motivation of employees who do not get promoted?

One of the key challenges for managers is to determine what will motivate employees and then to apply appropriate policies. Motivation is concerned with how behavior gets started, is energized, is sustained, is directed, is stopped and what kind of subjective reaction is present in the organism while all this is going on (Jones, 1955). Work Motivation can be defined as a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration (Pinder, 2008)

There is a wide range of theory about what motivates people at work. While theories like Maslow’s & Herzberg’s have been successful in attracting the interest of managers, academics have generally preferred to work with cognitive theories such as the Goal-Setting and Expectancy theories, placing the emphasis on the conditions under which motivation occurs and how motivational decisions are made.

What do HR practitioners do in practice to motivate the employees who did not get promoted? Bonuses are often used when managers retrospectively decide to recognize an employee’s extra efforts, aiming at increasing employee motivation, enhancing engagement and improving performance. Bonuses have an ongoing motivation effect as bonuses have to be re-earned. Employee recognition schemes work also retrospectively, rather than aiming to directly incentivize future efforts. There are different versions such as day-to-day, public and formal/informal schemes. According to the 2009 CIPD reward survey, 31% of all employers use recognition schemes that are more popular among private sector organizations & large employers.

Other remarkable methods to motivate employees are the Horizontal Move (i.e. Australia, Greece, Cyprus), meaning to support the employee to identify other opportunities within the organization, but outside of their department or get people to work on special projects that they would have a particular interest in. Another alternative is the Relationship/Networking (i.e. U.S.) that provides exposure to senior executives & other key people to facilitate learning from others and promoting versatility. Furthermore, there is Detailed Career Mapping (i.e. U.S.) that helps employees to match their long-term professional goals with opportunities within the organization. Specific action steps can be set to properly develop and engage employees to achieve multiple career paths. Finally yet importantly, is the alternative of High Potentials Development Programs (HI-PO) (i.e. Switzerland, U.S.) that includes individual training customized to employees in order to broaden their areas of competencies to be in line with their future career growth.

There are certain key aspects of the motivation process when promotion is not attained. First, effective communication is of essential importance. Unfortunately, 1/10 employees feels fully informed by their supervisor about what is happening at work (CIPD 2009). In fact, a manager who fails to provide explanations for the delivery of the enactment of bad news is likely to lose authority & respect in the eyes of subordinates (Baron, 1993). Managers should try to reduce unpleasant feelings such as job dissatisfaction, frustration, and discomfort. Employees demand information pertaining to the details/rationale for not getting a promotion. Promoting their self-awareness makes them adapt more effectively, since cognitive elements such as perception & anticipation invariably intrude in any serious attempt to understand the situation.

In general, effective communication is interrelated to a healthy psychological contract both having an impact on job satisfaction. By the term “psychological contract”, we refer to an employee’s subjective understanding of promissory-based reciprocal exchanges between him/her and the organization. The crucial point is the interpretation process where the employee attaches meaning to the breach; perceived or actual breach makes no difference. The finding that a fair promotion system is one of the few determinants of motivation in the current HR systems suggests that employers expect equity in decisions related to promotion in order to maintain high motivation levels & career expectations. Cropanzano et al. (2001) concluded that justice matters to people to the extent it serves one out of four interrelated psychological needs i.e. control, belongingness, self-esteem, & meaningful existence.

The main question remains open: are people need-driven, goal-seeking creatures? In work settings, pay, promotion, recognition from one’s superior and a chance to show one’s skill are examples of goals that people may seek to satisfy their existence, relatedness & growth needs. A distinction shall be made here between intrinsic rewards (those provided by the individual – pay, promotion, job security) & extrinsic rewards (those provided by the organization – sense of achievement, a feeling of responsibility, job satisfaction); these two aspects are not mutually exclusive. Promotion acts as an incentive mechanism provided employees value the higher position. When promotion is not attained, it is necessary to establish new career paths in which employees are encouraged to acquire professional knowledge & skills and completely utilize their expertise other than simply pursue advancement in the organization ladder.

There are specific career management interventions that can be applied to support the “not promoted employees.” Firstly, the High Potentials (HI-PO) programming combined with key position analysis, succession planning analysis, labor market analysis. In addition, Assessment & Development Centres, Developmental work assignments and Personal Development Planning (PDP) can be applied. Furthermore, Career – Planning workshops and Career Counseling & Coaching can be utilized together with Mentoring Schemes. All these fall under a career guidance umbrella synonymous with a systematic programme of coordinated information & experiences designed to anticipate & facilitate selected knowledge & skills important to employees’ career management. Unfortunately, when it comes to career management interventions, often individual elements are introduced in isolation from each other; the issue of compatibility is crucial here and evaluation of the intervention shall be addressed.

Apart from the various interventions, we shall emphasize the role of intensive feedback, meaning to provide both formal and informal assessment & feedback to accelerate development. As former UCLA basketball coach John Wooden said: “a coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment.”  The hallmark of good coaching is performance feedback and the ultimate aim is performance not motivation. Unfortunately, increased motivation does not necessary lead to increased performance. Feedback comes under the umbrella of performance management, especially performance appraisal; still evidence is scarce, supporting association of such systems to organization’s productivity.

In conclusion, a framework of motivation that takes into account human cognition, human emotion, individual differences and adjusts career management interventions to these three factors can maintain motivation for those who did not get promoted but potentially will do in the future. We are lacking firm rules of thumb as to where in the cycles of experience related to the motivation to work emotionality resides. However, not getting a promotion very often results in job dissatisfaction; analyzing it in black & white offers a limited means of portraying what it can mean for those who experience it. Therefore, the major psychic challenge for working individuals will be to adjust their expectations about continuous upward mobility & career progress; managers have to support their employees and promote a coaching culture.

From an academic perspective, the recent resurgence of interest in need theories in an attempt to explore motivation on a global scale and the promising concept of goals and its link to emotion & personality provide potential for further research  on our topic question.  From a practical perspective, managers need to find solutions even if they seem to run ahead of theory & research evidence; since they are aware of the detrimental effects on motivation & performance of effort-reward imbalance, their only option is to improve equity in rewards, create flexible accommodated & promised career paths and support employees to gain specific work skills and experiences that are necessary to their career progress.

When it comes to motivation, the road of inquiry is open and it leads beyond the horizon…
(2nd Award - CyHRMA Competition 2010 Elena Maniatopoulou Hadjipanayi)

Evaluation of training

Introducing a new topic, concerning the evaluation of training we should make a reference to the Survey Report from CIPD (March 2005).

As explained, in order to conduct the particular survey and gather all the relevant information, 750 telephone interviews with people in employment (both public 7 private sector but not self-employed) were carried out across Great Britain, The sample was almost equally split between male and female respondents. Furthermore, the data were weighted to ensure more accuracy.

The 750 people who participated in this survey have all participated in a training activity at work in the twelve months before the survey. Some of the key findings of the survey follow:

1) 94% of the respondents believe the training they received had helped them do their job better. (So are we implying here a 94% successful transfer of training material in the job context? Is the perception of doing one’s job better synonymous to actually doing the job better? How do we evaluate the transfer?)

2) The most common forms of training received are training held in a meeting room/classroom and on-the-job training. But on-the-job training(OJT) is by far the most popular method, with a 54% of respondents rating it as their preferred method of learning. (What would be the reasons for this preference if we take under consideration the fact that probably on –the- job training is not conducted by professional trainers but by other colleagues and probably there is also a lot of “noise,” which does not facilitate training? Would the fact that training takes place in the actual work setting play a role in this preference?)

3) There remains inequality in learning provision. Those with higher levels of qualifications are more likely to receive training, as are those in younger age groups. (What are the reasons for this inequality? Who actually needs the most training, young or older employees? Is it a matter of age? Potential? Job design/duties? Would the appropriate approach/decision be based not on already obtained qualifications but on potential to evolve?)

In the question: How successful was the training? (Key finding 1) 50 % think the training received has been very successful, while a further 44% judge it to have been quite successful. Undoubtedly these striking results confirm the importance of training in the workplace and the value that employees place on training and development opportunities. However, we of course cannot help wondering, based upon which criteria their training was successful? Are employees in the position to evaluate the effectiveness of the training, or should this impression be combined with measurement of specific performance criteria, in order to gain validity? Probably one could argue that employees themselves are the most suitable people to evaluate a training programme, but on the other hand without having stated specific criteria, their opinion can be severely challenged.

This leads us to the second topic to discuss: Evaluation. 62% of respondents say that usefulness of the training has been discussed with them. Some respondents report difficulties in the practicalities of evaluation because the impact of training is often not directly measured. We should also state that, where discussions about the success of the training take place 51% take place with respondents’ line managers, 35% hold discussions with someone from the H/R department and 17 % with an external provider. Undoubtedly, when employees discuss their thoughts concerning the evaluation of the training programme with someone from the other interested parties, managers, H/R dpt or the external provider, they can reach more fruitful conclusions. Otherwise any kind of evaluation in my point of view would be rather subjective, and would score low in validity.

Some initial thoughts…

Stereotypes & Stereotyping

 Stereotypes are categories referring to people with some potential advantages for those involved in selection (Dewe et al. 2003). Of course, this is the case if the stereotype is accurate; otherwise potential disadvantages for those involved in selection processes may come up.

Several types of stereotypes exist, some of which are associated with: Gender, Race, Religion, Culture,Ethnicity, Age, Physical Apperance e.t.c.

There is evidence that gender stereotypes of occupational types do exist (Dewe et al. 2003)

An interesting article discussing Gender Stereotypes is: Gender and orientation stereotypes bias source-monitoring attributions by Richard L. Marsh and Gabriel I.Cook and Jason L.Hicks in Memory,2006,14 (2) 148-160 (www.psypress.com/memory).

This article discusses the results of four experiments that were conducted to determine whether gender stereotypes influence source-monitoring decision processes. In all experiments statements that were consistent with a male were more often correctly attributed to male source and less frequently correctly attributed to a female; the reverse was true for items traditionally associated with a female. The remarkable point is that both of these biases were reversed if participants believed the speaker was either a gay male or a lesbian female. All the previously mentioned effects persisted under divided attention during test, suggesting that they are caused by automatic influences.

Another interesting article on the issue of Gender stereotype is Understanding Criterion Choice in Hiring Decisions from a Prescriptive Gender Bias Perspective by Luzadis Rebekka, Wesolowski Mark, Snavely B.Kay from the Journal of Managerial Issues; Winter 2008, Vol.20 Issue 4, p.468-484.

As the author describes in the abstract, the current study investigated the hiring process by manipulating two conditions, job sex-type and candidate sex, in an attempt to better understand the impact of prescriptive gender bias on the process of criterion choice. Decision-makers’ first chose their preferred candidate and, second, provided a post-decision rationale for their choice. The post-decision rationale suggested a subjects’ prescriptive gender bias influenced subjects’ decision justifications. Decision-makers’ post-decision justifications were dependent upon candidate’s gender and job sex-typing. There are serious managerial implications as stated by the authors. Their findings suggest that “managers should be mindful during discussions of candidates in the selection process and should watch for changing criterion justifications, especially when discussing candidates whose demographic characteristics may be incongruent with traditional job sex-typing (p.14)”

“People involved in selection can, in the right circumstances, suppress any unhelpful stereotypes of applicants and base their decisions on job-relevant information (Dewe et al. 2003).” Should we attempt to replace the word “can” by the word “must”? Undoubtedly there are several gaps in the research on this area. Is gender balance in the marketplace what we are aiming at? Or should we simply dismiss gender and focus on other aspects?  Can we do that? The association of gender with certain traits and occupations starts from early childhood and is still present in most societies. But we always seem to focus on the differences among the 2 sexes, still we are all similar in many possible ways. Is the use of/focus on job-relevant information the answer to our selection associates issues?

Food for thought ...

Diversity Training

I would like to state a few points on the issue of diversity training derived from an article named Don’t derail your diversity training  by Jack Conrad  published in Employee Benefit News January 2009 p.15-16).

The previously mentioned article describes seven common traps that we should avoid when conducting diversity training.

7 Traps:

1. Focusing too little on emotions: Any kind of training that does not acknowledge/identify the emotional framework under training issues is considered to be almost useless.

2. Failing to engage white males:  Some diversity trainers do either consciously or subconsciously the mistake to present diversity as something other than white and male, such as women and racial/ethnic minorities.

3. Lacking a compelling business case: Undoubtedly diversity training does not guarantee superior business results. However, managing to attaining and most importantly retaining a diverse workforce can make an organization stronger

4. Not being compliance driven: Unless training efforts are compliance-driven, employees will miss incredible opportunities to explore creative and innovative approaches beyond what they are usually directed to do in the workplace.

5. Focusing on “fixing” white people: The conscious or subconscious approach toward diversity training is the idea of “fixing” white people; however all groups have difficulties understanding other groups and they often try hard to understand the diversity within their own groups.

6. Failing to engage senior management: This is the team that will influence the attitudes and commitment of managers that make the decisions around hiring, training and career development.

7. Conducting reactive, not proactive, initiatives: In most cases organization proceed with diversity training after employees have made complaints about discrimination against them. Being proactive with diversity training and careful with its implementation seems to be the best path to gain a competitive advantage.

Of course this is a narrow aspect of the issue but there are some interesting thoughts included

Organizational climate

The issue of the role of the organizational climate drew my attention. I found a very interesting article named: The Role of National Culture and Organizational climate in safety training effectiveness by Burke, Michael J., Chan-Serafin Suzanne, Salvador Rommel, Smith Alex and Sarpy Sue Ann in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 2008,17 (1), 133-152.

Using data from 68 organizations embedded within 14 nations, the authors examine hypotheses concerning the moderating roles of national culture and organizational climate on the transfer of training to the work context.

Hypothesis: As Organizational climate becomes more strategically focused on safety, the safety training – safety performance effect will increase.

Since the authors expected the existence of a positive correlation between the strategic focus of the organizational climate on safety and the effect of safety training on safety performance, the authors expected the same organizational context to be supportive of the transfer of acquired safety knowledge and skills to the job, translating into conditions that make it unlikely for individuals to have accidents/injuries in the future (p.141)

As the results section of the article describes:

The present results suggest that enhancing organizational safety climate will have a positive impact on the transfer of this training to the work setting in terms of reducing accidents and injuries. The latter point is important, as it implies that a positive organizational safety climate can, in some cases, counteract cultural values that possibly underlie the adoption of suboptimal resource practices (p.146).

I found the previously mentioned article quite interesting and I encourage all of you to check it out.