relational job design and the motivation to make a difference l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 20

Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 98 Views
  • Uploaded on

Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference. Adam M. Grant amgrant@umich.edu Doctoral Student, Organizational Psychology University of Michigan. Acknowledgements of Impact. Impact Lab students Amy Bass Charlotte Burns Beth Campbell Grace Chen Keenan Cottone

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference' - laken


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
relational job design and the motivation to make a difference

Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference

Adam M. Grant

amgrant@umich.edu

Doctoral Student, Organizational Psychology

University of Michigan

acknowledgements of impact
Acknowledgements of Impact

Impact Lab students

  • Amy Bass
  • Charlotte Burns
  • Beth Campbell
  • Grace Chen
  • Keenan Cottone
  • Christy Flanagan
  • Molly Gannon
  • Alex Jaffe
  • Melissa Kamin
  • Claire Kemerling
  • Emily Kidston
  • David Lapedis
  • Karen Lee
  • Ginelle Nagel
  • Gina Valo
  • Sue Ashford
  • Jane Dutton
  • Richard Hackman
  • Fiona Lee
  • Brian Little
  • Joshua Margolis
  • Andy Molinsky
  • Lou Penner
  • Mike Pratt
  • Rick Price
  • Kathie Sutcliffe
  • Allison Sweet
  • Amy Wrzesniewski
  • Org psych/M&O faculty/students
  • QLIF, May Meaning Meeting
overview
Overview
  • The motivation to make a difference
  • How work contexts motivate people to care about making a difference
  • Field experiment evidence
  • Mechanisms and contributions
the motivation to make a difference
The Motivation to Make a Difference
  • Popular Press
    • Bornstein, 2004; Everett, 1995; May, 2003; Quinn, 2000
  • Organizational Missions
    • Collins & Porras, 1996; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003
  • Diverse Organizational Literatures
    • E.g., Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Marx, 1980; Meyerson & Scully, 1995
recent organizational research
Recent Organizational Research
  • Individual differences perspective on the motivation to make a difference
    • People who see work as calling want to make the world a better place; those who see work as a job/career do not (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997)
    • Benevolent employees are altruistic; entitled employees are more selfish (Huseman et al., 1987)
    • Some employees are self-interested; others are prosocially oriented (Penner et al., 1997; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004)
beyond individual differences
Beyond Individual Differences
  • Interdisciplinary evidence: Virtually all people have the capacity to care about others
    • Genetic capacity for empathy (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg, 2000)
    • Sociocultural values: benevolence (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001)
    • Natural selection favors helping ingroup (Burnstein et al., 1994)
    • In social and economic dilemmas, people cooperate (Axelrod, 1984) and help at a cost to themselves (Rabin, 1998)
    • People have basic motives to connect with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
work contexts
Work Contexts
  • Beyond “Which people care about others?”
  • To “When, and under what conditions, do people care about others?
  • Can work contexts motivate employees to care about making a positive difference in other people’s lives?
    • Look to the work itself– tasks and jobs
basic units of work
Basic Units of Work
  • Task
    • Assigned piece of work
  • Job
    • Collection of tasks designed to be performed by one employee (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Griffin, 1987)
  • Definition overlooks relational architecture of jobs
    • Jobs shape opportunities to interact and form connections with others
job design
Job Design
  • Task significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976)
      • Degree to which work affects the welfare of other people
      • Clues that jobs spark motivation to make a difference
  • What’s missing from task significance
    • How job structures shape opportunities for impact on others
    • How jobs shape connections with these others
relational job design
Relational Job Design
  • Job impact on beneficiaries
    • Domains: psychological, physical, financial
    • Dimensions: magnitude, scope, frequency
    • Regulatory focus: promotion/prevention
  • Contact with beneficiaries
    • Dimensions: frequency, duration, physical proximity, emotional intensity, breadth
  • When jobs are well-designed with attention to their relational properties, employees care about making a difference
predictions
Predictions
  • Jobs spark the motivation to make a difference when they provide opportunities for employees to have impact on, and build relationships with, beneficiaries
    • Job impact on beneficiaries  perceived impact on beneficiaries
    • Contact with beneficiaries  affective commitment to beneficiaries
    • Perceived impact on beneficiaries + affective commitment to beneficiaries = motivation to make a difference
field intervention
Field Intervention
  • Fundraising organization
  • University callers soliciting alumni donations
    • Donations provide student scholarships
    • Callers never meet scholarship students
  • Scholarship student agrees to meet with callers
intervention design
Intervention Design
  • 41 callers
    • 23 male, 18 female
    • Average tenure 9.17 months
  • Conditions stratified by tenure and gender
  • Control condition (n = 23)
    • Never meet student beneficiary
intervention condition
Intervention Condition
  • Intervention condition (n = 17)
    • Callers have ten minutes of contact with the student beneficiary
      • Callers meet in “break room” in groups of 4-8
      • Read a letter from student beneficiary (5 minutes)
      • Structured Q&A session, led by manager, with student beneficiary (5 minutes)
measures
Measures
  • Persistence behavior
    • Minutes on phone
  • Job performance
    • Number of pledges
    • Total donation amount
  • Baseline measures: 2 weeks before intervention
  • Dependent measures: 1 month after intervention
weekly minutes on phone

300

200

100

0

2 weeks before

intervention

One month after

intervention

Weekly Minutes on Phone

Intervention

Control

Cross-sectional analyses

2 weeks before:

no differences

One month after:

Intervention >

t (18.98) = 2.44,

p = .03

Longitudinal analyses

Control:

no differences

Intervention: increased,

t (15) = 4.64,

p < .001

weekly pledges

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

\

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2 weeks before

intervention

One month after

intervention

Weekly Pledges

Intervention

Control

Cross-sectional analyses

2 weeks before:

no differences

One month after:

Intervention >

t (39) = 2.13,

p = .04

Longitudinal analyses

Control:

no differences

Intervention: increased,

t (15) = 2.26,

p = .04

weekly donation amount

600

500

400

300

200

100

Weekly Donation Amount

Intervention

Cross-sectional analyses

2 weeks before:

no differences

One month after:

Intervention >

t (23.62) = 3.45,

p = .002

Longitudinal analyses

Control:

no differences

Intervention: increased,

t (15) = 3.45,

p = .004

Control

One month after

intervention

2 weeks

before

intervention

lab experiment
Lab Experiment
  • Editing task to examine mechanisms
    • Varied contact with beneficiaries and task impact on beneficiaries between subjects
    • Participants in the contact + high impact condition spent significantly more time on the task
    • Affective commitment to beneficiaries mediated the effect
conclusion
Conclusion
  • Contributions
    • Job design
    • Relationships as meaning and motivation
    • Self-interest
  • Your feedback on next steps?