Abstract
The purpose of this chapter is to propose an approach to structure literature review along robust theoretical lenses leading to conceptualization of work motivation in case of temporary organizations. The chapter is in response to studies calling for a “seamless” theory of work motivation spanning across different management disciplines, without being confined to a specific theoretical stance. We use job design perspective from industrial/organizational psychology literature as a point of departure. We present a comprehensive review of these theories highlighting their premises. Then we focus on the literature on work motivation in case of temporary organizations. We map this literature to the theories in order to consolidate the theoretical corpus underlying work motivation. Various facets of job design that constitute motivating nature of work are identified.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
Understanding the people management aspects and how they affect outcomes has been studied extensively in case of temporary organizations such as projects (c.f., Keegan, Huemann, & Turner, 2012). Variables such as leadership style, personality, and project workers’ commitment for their effect on project success have been researched (Cohen, Ornoy, & Baruch, 2013; Müller & Turner, 2010). More notably, recent literature focused on understanding work motivation specifically in the context of temporary organizations (c.f., Sieler, Lent, Pinkowska, & Pinazza, 2012).
However, extant literature may have fallen short on consolidating the theories underlying work motivation in the case of temporary organizations. The theories on work motivation in case of industrial/organizational psychology are firmly established. However, such a comprehensive structure of theoretical corpus may not be available in the temporary organization literature. This limitation has led to a dialogue started by Locke and Latham (2004) who call for a seamless theory of work motivation that is able to integrate multiple theoretical lenses. This then calls for an approach where we do not demonstrate strong affiliation to any one specific theory to explain work motivation. Rather, we review a compendium of theories within the domain to explain the variable. However, we also need to balance our approach where our arguments are based on robust, established theoretical lenses which complement each other. Thus, the purpose of this study is to:
propose a comprehensive framework to structure work motivation literature in case of temporary organizations.
We have structured this chapter in the following way. The first section, Positioning the Research Study, justifies our approach to consider multiple theoretical lenses to explain work motivation in case of temporary organizations. We draw from the works of Sandberg and Alvesson (2011) who offer guidelines to develop a research problem for such studies. In the second section, Theory, we briefly introduce the theories of work motivation from I/O psychology literature. While work motivation has been explained from various points of view such as the need-based theories, and cognition-based theories, we have considered the job design perspective that explains work motivation as an outcome of specific job characteristics. The third section of the chapter, Work Motivation in Temporary Organizations, is where we present the literature review from the temporary organization domain. We structure the review around the theories of work motivation identified from the I/O psychology literature. This is followed by conclusion.
Positioning the Research Study: Application Spotting and “Moving” Between the “Boxes”
Sandberg and Alvesson (2011) examine the merits of two different approaches to formulate research questions which can be useful to state the research problem. At one end of the continuum is the “gap spotting” which can include incrementally extending an established theory or identifying significant gaps in the extant literature. Gap spotting may include confusion spotting (reconcile contradictions in the literature), neglect spotting (focusing on an underdeveloped area of research), and application spotting (identifying the shortcomings of a theory in a specific area and providing an alternative perspective to further our understanding of that theory). The purpose of such research is to reinforce or moderately revise the existing theories. On the other end of the continuum is “problematization.” In this, the research questions are posed such that they challenge the underlying assumptions of existing theories in a significant way. It may include questioning minor assumptions pertaining to the theory to overtly question the assumptions of the entire field.
In a follow-up paper, Alvesson and Sandberg (2014) discuss the merits and demerits of research problems that have become extremely “contextualized,” specific to (one) field without being relevant to other fields. Alvesson and Sandberg call such research studies as boxed-in research, where the research study can be limited or restricted by perspective (conforming and confining to specific theories/perspectives), domains (confining to specific topics without considering the cross-discipline influence on such topics), and methods (specific research methods being more prominently used than others to investigate research problems). Alvesson and Sandberg further present approaches to overcome these restrictions in three different ways—box changing, where the researcher has a primary point of reference (such as a theory) and the researcher considers new theories, ideas, or methods that significantly change the central elements in the existing thinking; box jumping—requires significant thematic, methodological, and theoretical considerations by embracing multiple theoretical, thematic, or methodological perspective by simultaneously working with two or more thematic or methodological perspectives; and box transcendence—working with very broad research questions that may not be confined to a particular field.
To explain the positioning of our research study, we consider these two criteria: (a) gap spotting versus problematization (which lie at the extreme ends of a continuum), and (b) box changing, box jumping, and box transcendence (which lie on a continuum).
The purpose of this research study is to demonstrate an approach to structure the literature on work motivation in temporary organizations by considering multiple theoretical perspectives. Our point of departure for this study is the lack of “consolidated” theoretical corpus. While we are not challenging the theoretical assumptions, we are extending the current theories on work motivation from I/O psychology literature to the realm of temporary organizations. This approach relates to “application spotting” as described by Sandberg and Alvesson (2011). In adopting this approach, it is obvious that we are considering multiple theoretical perspectives simultaneously while not confining the study to a particular research identity. This approach may connote to “box jumping” (as described by Alvesson and Sandberg (2014)).
The above discussion on the positioning of our research paper is summarized in Fig. 52.1.
Theory
There has been growing interest on what motivates project workers recently. Although the state of research is predominantly normative (connoting to practices), literature review reveals that these practices connote to major theories of work motivation. Various theoretical lenses such as socio-technical perspective (c.f., Schmidt & Adams, 2008), scientific management, job characteristic model (c.f., Beecham, Baddoo, Hall, Robinson, & Sharp, 2008; Björklund, 2010; Mahoney & Lederer, 2006), and intrinsic motivation perspective have been used to explain work motivation in temporary organizations. Table 52.1 summarizes the job design theories considered for the study and the corresponding basis for the work motivation item drawn from the theory.
Work Motivation in Temporary Organizations
We reiterate here that the focus of our chapter is to propose a theoretical framework to explain work motivation in temporary organizations. Therefore, specific characteristics of motivating nature of work are not discussed elaborately. However, we will present the major literature from temporary organizations that describe specific job characteristics which are motivating in the context of temporary organizations. We conducted an extensive literature review that is structured along the major theories of work motivation discussed above. We considered SCOPUS database to identify extant literature on work motivation in temporary organizations. In consonance with the purpose of this study, we restricted our review to scholarly articles that focused their discussion on the job design perspective to work motivation (in temporary organizations). The key strings used were “job design” and “project management”; “job design” and “temporary organization”; “job design” and “work motivation”; and “project management.” Articles from peer-reviewed journals, articles in press, conference proceedings, and book chapters were considered.
The literature on work motivation in temporary organizations, though “sporadic” in terms of not being able to offer integrative underlying theoretical lenses to explain motivating job characteristics, has been fairly extensive. Various facets of job such as financial incentives linked to performance (c.f., Armstrong, 2003; Rose & Manley, 2010, grounded in scientific management studies (Taylor, 1911)), task identity, task meaningfulness, and feedback on performance (c.f., Andersen, 2010; Schmidt & Adams, 2008) drawn from Tavistock Studies on socio-technical systems perspective (Cherns, 1976; Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Walker & Guest, 1952), task variety (c.f., Hiemgartner, Tiede, & Windl, 2011; Sieler et al., 2012), grounded in socio-technical perspective (Walker & Guest, 1952), work as intrinsically motivating, and job security as extrinsic motivator (c.f., Mahoney & Lederer, 2006; Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001; Schmidt & Adams, 2008), drawn from Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman’s two-factor theory (1959), task significance (c.f., Badir, Buechel, & Tucci, 2012; Procaccino, Verner, & Lorenzet, 2006; Schmidt & Adams, 2008) drawn from studies on job enrichment (Paul Jr et al., 1969; Paul & Robertson, 1970), skill variety, and task identity (Ling & Loo, 2015; Mahoney & Lederer, 2006), autonomy at work (c.f., Leung, Chan, & Dondyu, 2011), drawn from demand control model (Karasek, 1979; job characteristic model, Hackman & Oldham, 1976), personal growth and job enrichment (c.f., Li, Bingham, & Umphress, 2007, grounded in Naylor, Pritchard, and Ilgen’s resource allocation perspective, 1980), communication and collegiality between the project actors (c.f., Beecham et al., 2008; Nesheim & Smith, 2015; Zika-Viktorsson, Sundtrsom, & Engwall, 2006), grounded in distal motivation theory (Campbell, 1990; Kanfer, 1990), and access to work-related information, and informal communication among project actors (c.f., Björklund, 2010; Ling & Loo, 2015; Turner & LloydWalker, 2008), drawn from Morgeson and Humphrey’s extended job characteristic model (2006) (Fig. 52.2).
Future Direction
This chapter is a part of the larger research study that investigates the role of work motivation on project success. We hypothesize that a project worker’s commitment to the organization and profession mediates the relationship between work motivation and project success. In line with this research which requires a “construction” of our reality of work motivation and how it affects the project outcomes, while at the same time acknowledging that a certain reality exists independent of our knowledge, we adopt realism as our epistemological stance. Thus, we use mixed research methods, employing qualitative research techniques such as focus group interviews of project managers, and project management academicians to refine the operational definitions of our variables, and hypothesize the relationship between the variables. We use empirical approach, conducting a survey of project workers to test our hypotheses.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we build an interaction between established theories of work design from I/O psychology literature and those from the knowledge field of temporary organizations. It may be important to state that we are not merely “borrowing” literature from industrial/organization psychology and “domesticating” it to “fit” into the knowledge field of temporary organizations. Rather, we have genuinely attempted to build an interaction between the two domains of I/O psychology and temporary organizations by critically analyzing the theories and structuring the literature around these theories. It is expected that our work will lead to a comprehensive conceptualization of work motivation in temporary organizations that is grounded in multiple theoretical perspectives, and studies of similar nature will be undertaken in the future.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2014). Habitat and habitus: Boxed-in versus box-breaking research. Organization Studies, 35(7), 967–987.
Andersen, J. (2010). An empirical study of design management practices in collaborative design and construction projects—The roles, activities, and conceptions of design management across project stages, and within the building. Civil, and Process sectors of a construction company, PhD Thesis. School of Engineering, University of Queensland.
Armstrong, M. (2003). A handbook of human resource management practice (9th ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Badir, Y. F., Buechel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). A conceptual framework of the impact of NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: An alliance context. International Journal of Project Management, 30(8), 914–926.
Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., & Sharp, H. (2008). Motivation in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9), 860–878.
Björklund, T. A. (2010). Enhancing creative knowledgework: Challenges and points of leverage. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 31(3), 517–525.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Cherns, A. B. (1976). The principles of organizational design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792.
Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Baruch, K. (2013). MBTI personality types of project managers and their success: A field survey. Project Management Journal, 44(3), 78–87.
Emery, F. E., & Emery, M. (1976). A participative approach to democratization of work place, appendix. In F. E. Emery & E. Thorsud (Eds.), Democracy at work. Liden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55, 259–286.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
Hiemgartner, R., Tiede, L.-W., & Windl, H. (2011). Empathy as a key factor for successful intercultural HCI design. In A. Marcus (Ed.), Design, user experience, and usability. Theory, methods, tools and practice (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 6770, pp. 557–566). Berlin: Springer.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivational and individual differences in learning: An integration of developmental, differential, and cognitive perspectives. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 219–237.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–311.
Keegan, A., Huemann, M., & Turner, R. (2012). Beyond the line: Exploring the HRM responsibilities of line managers, project managers, and the HRM department in four project-oriented companies in The Netherlands, Austria, the UK, and the USA. London: Taylor & Francis.
Leung, M.-Y., Chan, I. Y. S., & Dondyu, C. (2011). Structural linear relationships between job stress, burnout, physiological stress, and performance of construction project managers. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(3), 312–328.
Li, H., Bingham, J. B., & Umphress, E. E. (2007). Fairness from the top: Perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organization Science, 18, 200–216.
Ling, F. Y., & Loo, C. M. (2015). Characteristics of jobs and jobholders that affect job satisfaction and work performance of project managers. Journal of Management Engineering, 31(3), 401–403.
Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory: Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 388–403.
Mahoney, R. C., & Lederer, A. L. (2006). The effect of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for developers on information systems project success. Project Management Journal, 37(4), 42–55.
Morgeson, F., & Humphrey, S. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WQQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1399.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 437–448.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, R. D. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic.
Nesheim, T., & Smith, J. (2015). Knowledge sharing in projects: Does employment arrangement matter? Personnel Review, 44(2), 255–269.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440.
Paul, W. J. Jr., Robertson, K. B., & Herzberg, F. (1969). Job enrichment pays off. Harvard Business Review, March–April 1969, 61–78.
Paul, W. J., & Robertson, K. B. (1970). Job enrichment and employee motivation. London: Gower.
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., & Lorenzet, S. J. (2006). Defining and contributing to software development success: Determining the process-related components affecting software developers’ perception of project success. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 79–83.
Rose, T. M., & Manley, K. (2010). Motivation toward financial incentive goals on construction projects. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 765–773.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap spotting or problematization? Organization, 18(1), 23–44.
Schmidt, B., & Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in project management: The project manager’s perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(2), 60–71.
Sieler, S., Lent, B., Pinkowska, M., & Pinazza, M. (2012). An integrated model of factors influencing project managers’ motivation—Findings from a Swiss Survey. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 60–72.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
Trist, E., & Bamforth, W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.
Turner, R., & LloydWalker, B. (2008). Emotional Intelligence (EI) capabilities training: Can it develop EI in project teams? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(4), 512–534.
Walker, C. R., & Guest, H. (1952). The man on the assembly line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundtrsom, P., & Engwall, M. (2006). Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi project settings. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 385–394.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dwivedula, R., Bredillet, C.N., Müller, R. (2017). Work Motivation in Temporary Organizations: A Review of Literature Grounded in Job Design Perspective. In: Benlamri, R., Sparer, M. (eds) Leadership, Innovation and Entrepreneurship as Driving Forces of the Global Economy. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43434-6_52
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43434-6_52
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43433-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43434-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)