Motivation
The present study discusses the differences between workers’ motivation levels and performance in the conditions of forced and unrestricted distribution. Berger, Harbring, and Sliwka (2013) state that businesses often use some type of subjective ratings in order to determine whether their employees are performing well. These systems of appraisals in which the appointed supervisors rely on their opinions may be biased because they depend on the managers’ personality and the company’s earning system.
Therefore, some supervisors may be present lenient grades, while others may consider their profit over that of their subordinates. Berger et al. (2013) suggest an alternative method for evaluating employees – a forced distribution that presents a system in which each employee receives a certain rating that is granted based on the predetermined set. For example, 20% of all employees can be regarded as top workers, and 10% of all workers can be named as the least productive.
The introduction of the forced distribution and its specific outcomes for different environments interest the authors the most. First of all, they aim to discover the differences in the performance of workers under two systems. Second, the scholars consider whether the efficiency of employees changes in situations where one assessment type is replaced by another or where it stays the same throughout the experiment. Another research question is related to the supervisor’s pay and its impact on workers’ potential salary. In this case, Berger et al. (2013) aim to discover if the manager’s personality type can affect their rating outcomes.
Finally, the authors hypothesize that the opportunity to sabotage other employees may introduce problems to the workplaces with the forced distribution. Overall, these inquiries are important for businesses that consider forced distribution and its implementation or elimination with the desire to improve workers’ incentives and effectiveness.
Methodology
The authors conduct a number of experiments in order to answer all posed questions. For all parts of the experiments, Berger et al. (2013) conduct a single laboratory study in which they separate people into small groups and assign them with a set of tasks. In general, all groups consist of four people where one person acts as a supervisor, the person who rates the performance of others, and three employees, the individuals who complete tests. Each constructed setting as compared to a baseline setting where supervisors are not restricted in the way they choose to evaluate workers. Furthermore, each posed situation has multiple steps that are similar in each group.
The first part of each exercise is presented in the form of an ability test during which the subjects work on tasks that require some cognitive effort. Berger et al. (2013) provide an example of counting a particular number in blocks of numbers that are generated randomly. Then, the workers are introduced to the experimental blocks as well as points that are collected for each correctly solved block and subtracted for each wrong answer. Moreover, they learn about the final price-rate of their result and the ability to time-out during the exercise.
The second part of the experiment represents the actual workplace experience where instructions for rating are distributed among employees and supervisors. The authors separate the tasks into eight periods of work, each lasting for 2.5 minutes. Workers can see their final score at the end of the round, along with the rates of other participants in their respective groups. They also find out how many of the tasks were performed correctly and incorrectly by them and their coworkers.
At the end of each activity, the supervisor rates the performance of all employees. In the baseline group, supervisors can use a scale of 1 to 5, 1 denoting the best performance. In the forced distribution group, supervisors also use this system, but they need to choose one person with a rank of 1 or 2, one with a rank of 3, and one with the rank of 4 or 5. Moreover, some groups perform eight tasks twice, with two teams repeating the same system of rating and two using a different one. Finally, the authors present the ability to sabotage workers to some groups.
Key Findings
As a result of the mentioned above experiments, the scholars reveal a number of correlations. First of all, they confirm their initial idea that supervisors tend to be lenient towards employees in settings where the distribution of ratings is not enforced. Berger et al. (2013) note that more than half of all participants received a rank of 1 in baseline experiment groups. Interestingly, while the forced distribution teams showed a more balanced result due to the limited abilities of supervisors, the latter still showed their personal qualities by preferring to award the employees with a higher rank. In particular, they chose 1 over 2 and 4 over 5 in the majority of cases.
The performance in the teams also depended on their type of rating. For instance, groups with forced distribution had a higher level of competition that yielded significantly more right and slightly more wrong answers, showing an overall better result in comparison to baseline groups. Moreover, the effectiveness of employees in the forced distribution group was higher than that of the baseline workers in the majority of periods. To test the validity of the results, Berger et al. (2013) compared the participants across teams based on their productivity and found no substantial differences among them.
Next, the authors found that the unrestricted model of testing resulted in people with lower levels of performance receiving higher compensations in comparison to individuals with similar results in the forced distribution group. Moreover, the scholars discovered a correlation between supervisors’ personalities and their rating, dividing all managers into four general categories: altruists, selfish, envious, and equity-oriented.
Discussion and Limitations
The findings of this study show how one’s performance may be influenced by a system that has specific ranking regulations. One of the fascinating data sets is presented in experiments where people had to change their working environments during the trial. In the groups that started their tasks without forced distribution and then were introduced to the new system, participants’ performance was affected negatively. In turn, people’s productivity was high in teams where forced distribution was explained to the participants from the start. Moreover, people who started completing tasks under stricter rules continued to perform effectively even after their supervisors were given the option to rank without any restrictions (Berger et al., 2013). Thus, the time of the system’s installation also affects workers’ results.
This information can help businesses to assess whether a rigid ranking system will be effective in their workplace. Berger et al. (2013) suggest implementing forced distribution for new employees or other forms of compensation that are not tied to salary if workers have never experienced such strong competition. The main limitation of this study is that it does not replicate real0life work environments where people often interact with each other frequently.
The Connection of Key Findings to Class Material
The discussed study’s results are supported by other research on the topic of competition in the workplace. Azmat and Iriberri (2010) confirm that competition is highly critical for people and their performance. The authors find that students who see the results of their peers and compare their scores to those of others perform better than people who are not provided with relative feedback. Similarly, Falk and Ichino (2006) also note that any peer influence is an essential part of one’s work. For example, highly productive employees can impact others and improve their performance, while ineffective workers may lower the motivation of the whole team.
The issue of competitiveness having an adverse effect in different environments is discussed by Charness, Masclet, and Villeval (2013), who warn against using forced distribution in workplaces where sabotage may be seen as an option. The results of Berger et al. (2013) support this concept, showing that workers who were presented with an ability to sabotage others chose to do so twice as much in the teams with forced distributions than in baseline groups. Overall, the key findings show that some environments may benefit from rigid rating standards, but employers should evaluate their current environment before implementing a new structure.
Job Design
The project specificities at Crutchfield Chemical Engineering (CCE) show that this company has a modern job design. First of all, the members of different departments in CCE have a particular set of skills and are not limited by one task. For example, while most people in the Lumen teamwork on one project, they all perform a variety of duties – employees often work together to complement each others’ primary abilities and provide support in testing, marketing, and data gathering. Hal, Allen, and Max, while having some differences in responsibilities, were shown to present the products to the customer as a team where each worker interacted with the client.
Moreover, each employee at CCE has a significant level of autonomy, further suggesting that this company employs a modern job design (Amabile & Schatzel, 2007). Team members are assumed to fulfill their duties and create their personal schedules, which are then sent to their supervisor. Furthermore, group members regularly meet to discuss their projects and future concerns. Employees receive meaningful feedback in the majority of cases, thus knowing the actual outcomes of their performance.
Motivation and Creativity
The job design of CCE suggests that productivity and creativity of workers are directly tied to such factors as the level of autonomy, recognition of work, meaningful communication among the team, and the workers’ understanding of meaning in their work. The first behavioral mechanism that significantly affects the teams in the creation of intrinsic motivation. The employees of CCE are given significant freedom to explore the materials and projects on which they work.
Moreover, their duties are also highly flexible, allowing them to test the limits of their performance. According to Cassar and Meier (2018), the source of inspiration in such creative professions should come from the job itself – the interest in one’s duties greatly benefits the effectiveness of an employee. In CCE, most workers are expected to be interested in their respective projects. In the case, it is noted that the remaining specialists were chosen according to their professional skills and their qualities as the company’s best performing members (Amabile & Schatzel, 2007). Therefore, it can be assumed that most employees already possess the necessary level of intrinsic motivation. However, it could deplete if their needs are not met.
Here, the second behavioral mechanism of freedom and autonomy is essential. Creative occupations such as developers and technicians in CCE often require a high level of personal and professional freedom in order to perform well. In contrast, one can analyze narrow-skill jobs to argue that limited autonomy is beneficial for some workers but destructive for others. Gjedrem and Rege (2017) use retail as an example of an industry where the enforcement of rules for consultants is detrimental to encouraging them to connect with customers.
In the presented case, however, autonomy is much more valuable than in the mentioned above study. Retail consultants have a set of responsibilities that do not require any creative freedom. On the other hand, most workers in CCE have to complete a wide range of tasks that are directly linked to design, calculation, data analysis, and estimation. Thus, their personal schedules are valued by employees substantially.
Finally, the team members’ interaction with each other and their view of feedback, criticism, and communication is another mechanism that affects motivation. In CCE, team members work together on a single project, overseeing all its levels from creation to marketing. Therefore, they often interact with each other to assess whether the final product is working effectively and is marketable to potential clients. In this case, the importance of feedback greatly increases since the employees feel the need to communicate with each other and utilize the knowledge of the team. The supervisor’s mindset plays a particular role in forming the work process.
As Heslin, Vandewalle, and Latham (2006) find, the manager’s encouraging approach to the qualities of subordinates can improve their performance and foster a motivating environment. According to Yeager and Dweck (2012), inspired individuals who believe that their skills can be improved with effort have better productivity outcomes than people who feel as though their talents are inherent. As a result, the communication approaches in the team greatly affect their creativity.
The Effect of Behavioral Mechanisms on Teams
In the two teams (Lumen and Absorb), the mentioned above factors produce different results. In the Lumen team, workers are granted a high level of autonomy that is viewed as a necessary part of the process. The group’s members perceive creative freedom as an inherent trait of their job that is tied to their responsibilities and professionalism. Therefore, they utilize their time and create personal schedules that fit their needs.
However, they also communicate with other members about their plans to ensure that everybody is aware of other’s current tasks and locations. This allows the team to work together while having personal duties. Furthermore, the workers clearly understand the value of their input, which increases the level of their motivation. They brainstorm in meetings and interact with each other to find new solutions to arising problems. The mindset of the Lumen group is directed at delivering the best results both of the company and their own interest in the project. Finally, the supervisor of the team, Max, reinforces the positive view of criticisms and feedback, allowing other members to expand their skills and improve the final project.
In the Absorb group, the discussed behavioral mechanisms lead to the opposite outcomes. Firstly, the team leader, Chip, limits the members’ autonomy and creative freedom without explaining his personal actions and decisions. For instance, he often asks his subordinates about their schedules but does not contact them before leaving the workplace or event in the city. Moreover, Chip does not allow the members to provide conclusions to their research, insisting that higher management is responsible for such decisions.
As an outcome, the employees feel controlled and restricted, unable to exercise their professional knowledge and skills. Second, Chip also instills a culture of negative perceptions, failing to interact with the workers in a meaningful way. He does not deliver the same information to all members, thus encouraging them to speculate and doubt themselves. Third, the team lacks overall motivation because their work is not recognized in any way, and their value as employees is not made apparent.
Recommendations
In order to improve the situation in the Absorb team, Burge should focus on the education of the team’s leader, Chip. It is necessary to explain that the team members need autonomy in order to exercise their creativity. Furthermore, non-monetary incentives should be introduced to the team; for example, Lumen group members often have lunch together as a celebration of their work. According to Kosfeld and Neckermann (2011), such symbolic gestures are vital for fostering a positive climate. Next, the importance of open communication among the workers should be highlighted.
The chip should understand that his inability to deliver information to the subordinates affects their understanding of his attitude and creates a negative view of his comments. He should openly recognize their performance and create value in each task (Bradler, Dur, Neckermann, & Non, 2016). The team members should also be comfortable with criticizing his performance without feeling the fear of being fired. Overall, the teamwork of the Absorb group needs improvement, focusing on Chip’s failure to increase the motivation of his coworkers.
References
Amabile, T. M., & Schatzel, E. (2007). The Lumen and Absorb teams at Crutchfield Chemical Engineering. Harvard Business School, (804-118), 1-20.
Azmat, G., & Iriberri, N. (2010). The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7-8), 435-452.
Berger, J., Harbring, C., & Sliwka, D. (2013). Performance appraisals and the impact of forced distribution—An experimental investigation. Management Science, 59(1), 54-68.
Bradler, C., Dur, R., Neckermann, S., & Non, A. (2016). Employee recognition and performance: A field experiment. Management Science, 62(11), 3085-3099.
Cassar, L., & Meier, S. (2018). Nonmonetary incentives and the implications of work as a source of meaning. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 215-38.
Charness, G., Masclet, D., & Villeval, M. C. (2013). The dark side of competition for status. Management Science, 60(1), 38-55.
Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1), 39-57.
Gjedrem, W. G., & Rege, M. (2017). The effect of less autonomy on performance in retail: Evidence from a quasi-natural field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 136, 76-90.
Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D., & Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 871-902.
Kosfeld, M., & Neckermann, S. (2011). Getting more work for nothing? Symbolic awards and worker performance. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 3(3), 86-99.
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.