A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University http://www.dau.mil MOTIVATING THE KNOWLEDGE WORKER David E. Frick Commonly accepted economic theory suggests that workers are rational actors and make decisions that will maximize expected outcomes. As such, managers should be able to influence behaviors to meet business goals by manipulating the expectations of outcomes. Conversely, social science practitioners suggest that workers often make decisions that are irrational. Knowledge workers are a growing sector of the workforce and are the backbone for entire federal agencies. The acquisition community falls within this category. Identifying factors that influence the performance of knowledge workers may be critical to maintaining high levels of organizational performance. This research focused on identifying the factors that encourage knowledge workers to maintain high levels of performance. Keywords: Motivation, Knowledge Worker, Performance, Human Capital, Merit Systems Protection Board image designed by Tia Gray » Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 2010 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2010 to 00-00-2010 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Motivating The Knowledge Worker 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION Defense Intelligence Agency Acquisition,Arlington,VA,22202 REPORT NUMBER 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Defense Acquisition University, 2010, See also ADA560048 14. ABSTRACT Commonly accepted economic theory suggests that workers are rational actors and make decisions that will maximize expected outcomes. As such, managers should be able to influence behaviors to meet business goals by manipulating the expectations of outcomes. Conversely, social science practitioners suggest that workers often make decisions that are irrational. Knowledge workers are a growing sector of the workforce and are the backbone for entire federal agencies. The acquisition community falls within this category. Identifying factors that influence the performance of knowledge workers may be critical to maintaining high levels of organizational performance. This research focused on identifying the factors that encourage knowledge workers to maintain high levels of performance. 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 21 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 & Positive Negative 369 A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University http://www.dau.mil “There is one right way to manage people—or at least there should be.” –Peter F. Drucker Conventional wisdom and commonly accepted economic theory suggest that workers are rational actors and make decisions that will maximize expected outcomes—maximize expected benefits or minimize expected harm. As such, managers should be able to influence behaviors to meet business goals by manipulating the expectations of outcomes. Etzioni (1971) argues that workers find this manipulation of behavior via incentives alienating and dehu- manizing. Conversely, social science practitioners suggest that workers often make decisions that are irrational (from an economic perspective) and are based on cognitive biases (Santaniello, 2008). These beliefs have been formed over the last 100 years in an envi- ronment that has been dominated by agricultural, manufacturing, and industrial workers. Knowledge workers are a growing sector of the workforce (Haag, Cummings, & Phillips, 2008). They are individuals valued for their ability to gather, analyze, interpret, and synthesize information within specific subject areas to advance the overall understanding of those areas and allow organizations to make better decisions. The knowledge worker is the backbone of many professions. Within the federal government, entire agencies are comprised mainly of knowledge workers. The members of the acquisition community principally fall within this definition. Creating environments to encourage high performance among knowledge workers is an area long neglected by researchers. To date, no published research exists on knowledge workers in the federal government. Even the term knowledge worker was not defined until 1999 (Drucker, 1999). As a consequence of this lack of evidence, the executive branch has been forced into making stra- tegic human capital decisions based upon theory and experiences that may not apply to the knowledge worker. Collins (2001) looked at high-performing companies to see if he could find patterns within the cultures of the respective workforces. His methodology was questionable and his conclusions were not particularly useful, but he did make two statements that are quite provocative: “…expending energy trying to motivate people is largely a waste of time” (p. 74) and “You cannot manufacture passion or ‘motivate’ people to feel passionate. You can only discover what ignites your passion and the passion of those around you” (p. 109). Public Service Motivation Theory (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000; Perry, 1996; Porter & Perry, 1982; Perry & Wise, 1990) sug- 370 gests that individuals who self-select into government service are Motivating the Knowledge Worker October 2011 motivated by a set of factors (self-sacrifice, desire to serve the pub- lic, desire to serve a higher power) that is more intrinsically centered than the set of factors that motivates private sector workers. Small contingency-based rewards, such as the insubstantial pay increases common in government pay-for-performance systems, tend to crowd out these intrinsic factors. Public administration literature also makes a distinction between employee motives and work motivation. Motives are the rewards that workers would like to receive for their jobs, while work motiva- tion is defined as the drive workers have to perform their jobs well within the rewards offered by the government and private sectors. Workers self-select into either the public or private sector based on whether the incentive structure is aligned with their individual values and motives (Rainey, 1982). A significant weakness in the civil service is the inability, in practice, of managers to weed out inferior performers. In 2008, the federal government only fired 11,165 employees (0.57 percent of the workforce) (Losey, 2009). Compare this with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) estimate that 3.7 percent of the federal workforce are poor performers (Office of Personnel Management [OPM], 1999, p. 1). For business, especially those in “employment at will” states, the process of eliminating substandard performers is significantly less arduous than in the civil service. The danger of frivolous claims of discrimination always remains, but on balance, business has a flexibility that the government does not have…in practice. Yes, the civil service rules do allow for removing nonper- formers, but the process is labor-intensive for supervisors, extremely drawn out, and subject to a number of administrative reviews that tend to encourage supervisors to use an alternate method for eliminating inferior performers—in other words, “passing the trash” (Shuger, 1999). Workforce mobility in the civil service is rooted in the “Peter Principle”—primarily centered on upward mobility. The way to get promoted is to find a job vacancy at a higher grade and compete against other applicants. In most hiring processes, performance evaluations are a consideration in the hiring decision. Some low- performing supervisors have been known to artificially inflate the performance evaluations of inferior supporters with the goal of passing the trash to someone else (Shuger, 1999; Peter & Hull, 1969). Yes, this is unfortunate and not in the best interest of the public good, but it happens at all levels. Additionally, the civil service exhibits a characteristic that many workers find invaluable, especially Baby Boomers and, to a lesser extent, “Gen X’ers”—job security (Alsop, 2008). Job security has a 371 value (Crewson, 1997; Houston, 2000). It is reasonable to concede A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University http://www.dau.mil to the employer, the taxpayer in the case of civil service, something of equal benefit for the benefit of job security. Historically, that has been a pay structure that has, arguably, lagged behind the free market. Job security is the tradeoff for a lagging pay policy. Pay for performance appears to be a technique to solve the “lagging pay” issue that does not have an equitable tradeoff for the employer (the people of the United States). Purpose of the Study The author designed a study to gather the opinions of a group of independently identified, high-performing federal civilian employ- ees from multiple agencies to develop a rank-ordered list of factors that may be most effective in establishing an environment that moti- vates high-performing knowledge workers to maintain high levels of performance. All participants in this survey appear to meet the definition of knowledge worker. Theoretical Framework No universally accepted model of motivation is inherent to a business environment. To facilitate a structured approach to the analysis of the various theories of motivation and the data collected from this effort, the author developed a two-dimensional model of the factors that motivate workers (Table 1). TaBLE 1. FRaMEWoRK axES Factor Description Logical Associated with a process either inductive or deductive. Elements tend to be more tangible than intangible. Cognitive. Emotional Associated with responses that are based upon intuition, prior learning, perceptions, and desires. Controlled Elements, decisions, or expectations can be formed by the individual. The world tends to be defined by internal filters. Uncontrolled Elements, influences, conditions, and constraints are established by either the environment or an outside actor. The world 372 tends to be defined by external filters. Motivating the Knowledge Worker October 2011 The horizontal axis represents the universe from a contextual viewpoint. The vertical axis takes the content viewpoint. Context, from the viewpoint of the worker, can be either controllable or uncontrollable. Content is either logical (tangible-cognitive) or emotional (intangible-instinctual). The four quadrants represent environmental and hygiene factors, contingent rewards, and rela- tionships. The central area is reserved for those theories or factors that have mixed characteristics or do not clearly fit into a quadrant (Figure). FiGuRE. THEoRETiCaL FRaMEWoRK C o n t e x t Environmental Hygiene Cognitive Evaluation Theory Confirmation Bias Theory Operant Conditioning Control Theory L Protection Motivation Theory Drive Reduction Theory o C Equity Theory Escape Theory g Expectancy Theory i o Investment Model Theory c Planned Behavior Theory a Theory of Reasoned Action n l Side Bet Theory Tournament Theory ERG Theory t Hierarchy of Needs Mixed e Theory X/Theory Y Two-factor Theory E m n o Acquired Needs Theory t t Affect Perseverance Theory i Attribution Theory o Consistency Theory Cognitive Dissonance Theory n Extrinsic Motivation Theory Intrinsic Motivation Theory Goal Theory Reactance Theory a Motivations Theory Self-discrepancy Theory l Opponent-process Theory Sixteen Desires Theory Contingent Rewards Relationships Un co n t r o l le d Co n t r o l led Significance of the Study As the U.S. economy and those government agencies that support the nation’s institutions become more dependent upon knowledge workers, the need to fully understand those conditions 373 A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University http://www.dau.mil that encourage continued high performance among knowledge workers becomes more important. This research identified a set of conditions that are effective in cultivating a state of positive motivation among knowledge work- ers of the federal workforce. Identifying those factors that this one specific subset of the workforce believes are most motivating may provide strategic leaders with the empirical information needed to make more effective decisions. Likewise, allowing managers to more effectively commit organizational resources will further the goal of improving overall performance of the entire workforce. Method—Highlights The target population was the 2009 Fellowship of the Council for Excellence in Government (CEG) of the Partnership for Public Service. This population, which represented a high-performing subset of the federal workforce, was selected for convenience. A precise definition of, and contact information for, the entire popula- tion was available to the author. There were 132 federal workers in the population. The sample was self-selected. All subjects were volunteers. Sixty-four members of the cohort agreed to participate in the study. The sample suffered from self-selection bias. A survey instrument was created for this study. A wide range of structured, demographic information was collected. Opinion ques- tions were open-ended, but included a forced distribution system. A number of uncommon demographic categories were included in the hope of serendipitous findings and to ascertain whether the sample was similar to the entire federal workforce or the general population. The author was able to infer that the subjects were high- performing by their participation in the highly competitive CEG program. The cost to the agencies to participate was $10,000 per participant. Replicating this study by assembling a similar group comprised only of high-performing workers in any other environ- ment would prove difficult. While this study may show clear preferences of the workforce, it was not able to show a causal relationship between identified factors and workforce performance. Questions self-report preferences; therefore, problems of self- report bias need to be taken into account, as responses may not be completely accurate (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991). Additionally, appropriate group norms in this research area to interpret measures 374 were not available. Motivating the Knowledge Worker October 2011 In-depth validity and reliability studies of the survey instruments were not conducted. The sample used in this study was relatively small and admit- tedly atypical of the entire federal workforce. Generalization to all federal knowledge workers or the acquisition workforce, in particu- lar, was not possible. Knowledge Worker Knowledge workers are generally professionals such as teach- ers, lawyers, architects, physicians, nurses, engineers, and scientists. As businesses increase their dependence on information technol- ogy, the number of fields in which knowledge workers must operate has expanded dramatically. The term was first coined by Peter Drucker in 1959, and later refined in 1999, as one who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace (Drucker, 1973, 1999). Some tasks that are performed by the acquisition community do not fall within the definition of knowledge work; however, those aspects that involve making judgments and trade-off decisions clearly do. Drucker (2001) added to the definition of knowledge workers by describing their fundamental tasks. To be sure, the fundamental task of management remains the same: to make people capable of joint performance through common goals, common values, the right structure, and the training and development they need to perform and to respond to change. But the very meaning of this task has changed, if only because the performance of management has converted the workforce from one composed largely of unskilled laborers to one of highly educated knowledge workers. (p. 4) Even if employed full-time by the organization, fewer and fewer people are ‘subordinates’—even in fairly low-level jobs. Increas- ingly they are ‘knowledge workers.’ And knowledge workers are not subordinates; they are ‘associates.’ For, once beyond the apprentice stage, knowledge workers must know more about their job than their boss does—or else they are no good at all. In fact, that they know more about their job than anybody else in the organization is part of the definition of knowledge work- ers. (p. 78) 375 A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University http://www.dau.mil Literature How do the best managers in the world build the foundation for a strong, high-performing workplace? No clear answer can be found. In 1975, 200 books were published on the topic of management and leadership. By 1997, that number had tripled (Buckingham & Coff- man, p. 53). A quick search today of the website Amazon. com with the keywords “management and leadership” yields over 350,000 results. With respect to people, Reiss (2000) suggests that there are 16 distinct basic desires that “make our lives meaningful.” He claims that everyone displays each of these desires either strongly, mod- erately, or weakly. If his hypothesis is valid, then there are a possible 43,046,721 distinct possible personality types, while Myers and Briggs claim 16 distinct personality types (Myers & Myers, 1995). A little closer to home, my own mother unhesitatingly classified workers into two distinct personality preferences. “There are two kinds of people—those who do the work and those who take the credit, ” she would often say. She did not realize she was quoting Indira Gandhi, who went on to add, “Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there.” But whether there are 2, 16, or 43 million different types of peo- ple, finding a single model to portray how all people are motivated has proven to be extremely difficult. Theories of Motivation Business is constantly looking for the best practice and often engages an expert to demonstrate the one best way. Drucker (2001) often spoke of the futility of management practitioners in finding the one right theory or the one right way to manage, and the belief that one exists. Basic assumptions about reality are the paradigms of a social sci- ence such as management. They are usually held subconsciously by the scholars, the writers, the teachers, the practitioners in the field, and are incorporated into the discipline by their vari- ous formulations. Thus, those assumptions by this select group of people largely determine what the discipline assumes to be reality. (p. 69) These assumptions underlie practically every book or paper on the management of people. 376