Role Structure and Non-monetary Compensation as Motivators of Recruiter Performance

1. Role Structure and Non-monetary Compensation as Motivators of Recruiter Performance Charles H. Noble, Ph.D. The University of Mississippi June 5, 2002

2. Goals of Study • To consider Navy recruiters as a form of salesperson and use that extensive literature to better understand recruiter role and compensation issues • More specifically, to consider role issues and both monetary and non-monetary incentives as drivers of effort and performance

3. Expected Outcomes • Findings should help the Navy better understand the motivations of recruiters and develop better methods of performance enhancement

4. Project Overview • Extensive literature review of diverse but related fields • Survey of a large sales organization with characteristics similar to the Navy recruiter environment • Use of a combination of established and newly developed measures • Structural equation modeling of conceptual framework

5. Background • The Sales Force literature has examined a rich array of salient variables: • Job satisfaction(Walker, Churchill & Ford 1977) • Effort(Brown & Peterson 1994) • Motivation(Campbell & Pritchard 1976) • In many respects, the Navy recruiter is and should be treated as a salesperson…

6. Role Theory • Focuses on interactions between senders and receivers of organizational roles • Role conflict and role ambiguity have received particular attention (e.g., Churchill, Ford & Walker 1990) • Useful in separating maleable and common job characteristics from deeply-ingrained personal traits – a “managerially-friendly” theory

7. Past Findings • Role Conflict job dissatisfaction, job-related tension, diminished group performance, weaker organizational commitment • Role Ambiguity  greater focus on personal (rather than group) concerns, lower group productivity, lower job satisfaction, increased tension

8. Past Findings (cont.) • Role Autonomy • “The extent to which a manager has freedom to make meaningful decisions and independently adjust behaviors in performing a role” (Noble and Mokwa 1999) • Suggests a high level of empowerment • Generally positively associated with job satisfaction

9. Incentives & Compensation • Complex compensation plans are common in the sales environment and have received significant research attention (Churchill, Ford & Walker 1993) • Non-monetary compensation (including compensation with indeterminate value) has been growing in popularity in recent years • Stock options popularized by the dot.com environment • Non-monetary compensation options need more rigorous exploration, both in the not-for-profit and corporate setting • A more scientific examination of non-monetary options is needed

10. Table:Forms of Compensation

11. Research Model Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Role Autonomy Financial Rewards    Status Rewards  Job Satisfaction Fringe Rewards Motivation & Effort Performance Personal Fulfillment Rewards Note: All paths predicted positive unless otherwise noted

12. Method • 300 mid-level sales managers surveyed • Corporate environment (rental cars) roughly equivalent to the Navy recruiter situation • Generally used Likert scales (1-7) for both established and new measures • Internally-distributed mail survey with no ability for a follow-up • Confidentiality assured and responses returned directly to researchers • 144 usable responses (48% response rate)

13. Analysis Strategy • Structural Equation Modeling using the SPSS system (“Amos”) • Confirmatory factor analysis (coefficient alphas) • Measurement model • Structural model • Overall fit • Examination of path coefficients (hypothesized variable relationships)

14. Preliminary Results

15. Scale Assessment (after purification) Note: The most generally accepted standard for acceptability is .700

16. Structural Equation Modeling • Maximum likelihood approach • Two-step (measurement / structural) method • Used mean aggregate scores per latent variable • Added additional paths suggested by modification indices and supported by the literature

17. Exceptional Structural Model Fit Statistics • 2 = 9.585, 7 df, p = .213 (lack of significance suggests acceptability) • 2 / df = 1.369 (below 2.0 suggests acceptability) • GFI* = .986 • AGFI* = .909 • CFI* = .992 * Values above .900 suggest strong model fit

18. Path Results* Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Role Autonomy Financial Rewards      Status Rewards P < .08  Job Satisfaction Motivation & Effort Personal Fulfillment Rewards Performance = non-significant = significant at p < .05 or better = added path significant at p < .05 or better *Summary of “Role Structure and Non-monetary Compensation as Motivators of Recruiter Performance,” Charles H. Noble, The University of Mississippi

19. Preliminary Findings • The model appears to be largely supported with the inclusion of certain additional paths • The complexity of the task of enhancing the motivation, performance, and satisfaction of Navy recruiters is highlighted • Specific findings and speculation…

20. Recruiter Motivation& Rewards • Of the four reward dimensions examined, personal fulfillment rewards had the strongest effects on motivation • “personal recognition from a top executive” • “the opportunity to pursue new challenges in the future” • “some distinction that makes you feel you are ‘the best’” • “a sense you have made a real difference in the company” • Contrary to the commonly held view that monetary incentives drive performance • In fact, the more financially-focused were subjects, the less satisfied they were with their jobs

21. Role Issues • Role Autonomy had no relationship to Motivation but was positively related to Job Satisfaction • Increased autonomy may not enhance “passion” for the job and perhaps not even short term performance • However, through enhancing job satisfaction, role autonomy should have the effects of enhancing chances for reenlistment and positive word-of-mouth for the recruiter position, among others

22. Role Issues (cont.) • Role Conflict, perceiving there are conflicting expectations from superiors and/or installed rules and regulations, is a strong force in the model • Both motivation and job satisfaction are reduced by role conflict • Clarifying expectations and allowing interactive recruiter feedback mechanisms may help alleviate this problem

23. Role Issues (cont.) • Role Ambiguity (uncertainty over responsibilities and expectations) has a negative effect on both job satisfaction and performance

24. Profiling the Successful Recruiter • The picture that begins to emerge from this study is one in which the successful Navy recruiter: • Seeks and values personal fulfillment over other forms of reward (perhaps an inherent personality trait?) • Receives clear expectations as to job responsibilities and how to accomplish those responsibilities within existing rules and chains of command (minimizing role conflict and ambiguity), and • Is, through environment or personality, a person who enjoys the pure act of “selling” rather than viewing this as a necessary evil associated with the job (as reflected in the centrality of the Motivation variable)

25. Enhancing the Performance of the Recruiting Force • More precise personality profiling in recruitment • Enhancing the frequency and quality of interactions with superiors to clarify role issues • Improving the sense of fulfillment recruiters feel from their jobs (Longer-term connections to recruits? (mentoring?). Higher-profile accolades from superiors?) • More complete exploration of the range of non-monetary compensation options (leave time, awards, promotions, etc.) that may enhance recruiter performance [note: the data gathered in this study will further explore these issues before project completion]