Employee Motivation in the Event of Unexpected Change Master Thesis

(1)

Employee Motivation in the

Event of Unexpected Change

The roles of time and uncertainty in employees’

adaptability to change

Master Thesis

Author: Robin Vipp and Hampus Johansson Supervisor: Mikael Lundgren

(2)

(3)

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has made a major impact on organizations around the world since the outburst at the beginning of 2020. This has led the organization to let their employees work remotely from home. This situation has brought challenges for the employees which in turn have been forced to adapt to a new working environment. The uncertainty of the event may impact employee motivation. is to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings that supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. Specifically, this paper draws a link between current understandings of employee motivation, employees’ adaptability to change. In order to simulate the current situation of the Covid-19 pandemic, this paper invites the notion of time and uncertainty into the equation. This to be able to demonstrate and understand how a new phenomenon can affect employees' motivation when they work from home for an extended period. The model proposes time as a non-self-healing process that instead risks impairing motivation if (a) self-regulatory activities are supporting the current motivation, and/or (b) the employee denies the change. In other words, there is no indication that the old saying 'time heals all wounds' fits in this context. In addition, the model indicates that the uncertainties derived from unexpected events drive employee's individual restraining forces. This paper contributes to the existing literature on employee motivation which previously lacked a framework for how motivation can be affected through unexpected change and extended work from home. This framework can also be used for future research where it will benefit from empirical data to further strengthen or develop the model.

Key words

(4)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all those who supported and motivated (no pun intended) us during the execution of this master thesis.

First, we would like to thank our examiner Krister Bredmar. We are grateful for the valuable insights he provided us and the highly appreciated inputs, steering us into the right direction to refine our thesis. We would also like to thank our classmates for interesting and well needed comments during our seminars.

Secondly, we would like to direct our deepest gratitude to our supervisor Mikael Lundgren who, by being the commander of this inspiring master program. This program Leadership and Management in International Context have for sure contributed to our personal development.

Lastly, we would like to show our gratitude towards our beloved friends and family who tirelessly supported our endeavour when writing this thesis.

Thank you everyone!

(5)

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Narrative Review Process………9

Figure 2. The Self-Determination Continuum………...22

Figure 3. The Basic Understanding of Change……….24

(7)

Figure 5. The Relationship Between Constructs………..37 Figure 6. Conceptualization of Motivation in Times of Change…………..45

List of Tables

(8)

1 Introduction

The following chapter provides the background of this study and highlights the problem in which contemporary theories lacks the capacity to frame and understand a current phenomenon. Further, this chapter describes the aim and objectives for this and while providing the scope and delimitations that frames the scope of this study. Finally, the outline of this paper is presented in which all chapters are briefly summarized.

1.1 Background

The current Covid-19 pandemic has indisputably affected many communities and organizations around the world since its outburst at the beginning of 2020 (Toniolo-Barrios & Pitt, 2021). While the different impacts are highly diverse, a prominent commonality among all domains is the decrease of physical interactions between people. If concentrating on the organizational world during the pandemic, it is notable how many physical interactions suddenly became replaced by digital means. This is majorly due to restrictions given by the government or internal precautions taken by organizations to reduce the risk of spreading the virus (Bonacini et al., 2020). Even if the enabling mechanisms that facilitate non-physical interactions (eg. video conferences) have been available to companies long before the pandemic, the use of these resources has increased dramatically since the beginning of 2020 (Venkatesh, 2020). The increased use of digital communication tools and the way it facilitates connectivity between people has ultimately paved the way to sustain the business by having employees working remotely since regular offices are closed or prohibited to visit (Bonacini et al., 2020).

(9)

functionality in communication technology compared to before the pandemic (Susilo, 2020). These benefits have been embraced by some business leaders who are considering maintaining all or part of the new remote way of working even after the end of the pandemic (Bonacini et al., 2020).

However, the current situation has posed a number of challenges for the individual employee who has been forced to adapt to a completely new work environment. Kniffin et al. (2021) account for a set of interruptions that occur in the actual transition from normal work routines in the workplace when adapting them to a new home office. These increase stress and a reduction of employees’ production output. This is particularly visible in those cases they are forced to deliver according to what is normally expected. Furthermore, Mahesh and Kumar (2020) point to the difficulties of balancing work and private life when the line between them has become blurred. An example given is how employees no longer leave their homes for their regular offices. This removes the previous physical shift between private and work environments. Although the line between the two environments is an important part of distinguishing between private life and work, the work environment itself is likewise an important factor for the employee’s well-being (Herzberg et al., 1993). Kniffin et al. (2021) exemplify how home offices compete for space with the rest of the family or other private activities. In some cases, it is simply not possible for the employee to designate space specifically for work.

(10)

1.2 Problem discussion

The relationship between employee motivation and job performance is widely supported by scholars (Susilo, 2020; Hemakumura, 2020). Most managers today will argue that demotivated employees prevent a company from reaching its full performance capability (Hein, 2012). The plan to maintain home offices even after the pandemic may therefore seem contra-productive as the employees risk falling into a demotivational state and consequently decrease in productivity. Accordingly, it is important to understand how motivation is affected by working from home and how motivation can be maintained among employees by adapting to the new environment.

Contemporary research on human motivation divides motivational drivers into intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000). To simplify, individuals are either motivated by their own interests or by external rewards (Gagné & Deci, 2005). To better understand human motivation in business contexts, Fredrik Herzberg distinguishes between motivational and hygiene factors. The motivational factors (eg. Achievement, Recognition, and Responsibilities) will ultimately increase job satisfaction if improved. However, improving the hygienic factors (eg. working conditions, coworker relations, and policies and rules) will merely decrease job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993). This may help in understanding how moving to a home office might affect employee motivation in regard to changes in their work environment. How change impacts human motivation can also be understood from Victor Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory. Motivation to act is rooted in how people feel they are capable of performing and their level of confidence of a certain outcome (Tovmasyan & Minasyan, 2020). In a new uncertain setting, especially when physical interactions are exchanged for what is sometimes considered as ‘more efficient’ video calls, leaders’ capacity to recognize and develop employees and eventually increase their confidence will risk being reduced.

(11)

studied before and no frameworks made to explain this unique phenomenon have accordingly not yet been developed.

1.3 Purpose and Research question

Based on the previous problem discussion, the purpose of this paper is to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings that supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. Specifically, this paper draws a link between current understandings of employee motivation, employees’ adaptability to change. In order to simulate the current situation of the Covid-19 pandemic, this paper invites the notion of time and uncertainty into the equation. To achieve our goal, we need to seek answer to following question: What role does time and

uncertainty play in employees’ ability to adapt and stay motivated in the event of unexpected change?

1.4 Objectives of this study

The set objectives for our study are to: (i) Study employee motivation and employee adaptability to change in isolation. (ii) Answer our research question in 1.3. (iii) Construct a conceptual model by drawing links between current theories and our framed phenomenon 1.5 Aim and added value

The aim is to construct a model that illustrates how a new phenomenon can affect employees’ motivation when they face unexpected change for an extended period. The value of being able to anticipate possible fluctuations in employees’ motivation to work is based on the understanding that motivation boosts productivity. While business leaders need to know how to foster and maintain motivation among their employees, it is likewise critical to understand when and why motivation may fluctuate in order to prevent demotivation. Furthermore, this paper contributes to the existing literature on employee motivation which previously lacked a framework for how motivation can be affected through unexpected change and extended work from home. This framework can also be used for future research where it will benefit from empirical data to further strengthen or develop the model.

1.6 Scope and delimitations

(12)

are contributing to broader knowledge. Due to limited time for this project, it would have been impossible to include all concepts related to motivation, therefore, this study will majorly focus on four well-established theories that together covers the heuristic understanding of employee motivation, hence sufficiently meets the requirement to fulfill the purpose of this study. The conceptual model developed in this paper is based on deduced assumptions based on contemporary theoretical frameworks in order to explain the possible threats on employee motivation of a current phenomenon. Due to the conceptual nature of this study, no empirical data is used in an attempt to observe the real world, assumptions are made through deductive reasoning. It should therefore be emphasized that the propositions generated by this study should be tested at a later stage.

1.7 Thesis outline

(13)

and placement in the model. The chapter ends with a short explanation of the model. Chapter 6 concludes our conceptual research and argue for how this paper contributes to current theories. In addition, we provide research limitations and suggestions for future research.

2 Methodology

The following section describes this study’s methodological toolbox. The research approach is explained and how the conceptual model is intended to be constructed together with this paper’s analytical approach. The literature review is described in detail in two steps. One focused on the domain theory, while the other one is focus on the method theory used to acquire the literature pool for this paper. Finally, the study’s quality is treated in terms of validity and credibility.

2.1 Research approach

The methodological approach in this study took its stance in two major predicaments: (1) lack of frameworks and (2) the impossibility to gather data from the future. As far as we know, there are no current frameworks that can predict the causes and relationships between motivation, time, and uncertainty. By the second predicament, we acknowledge that the collection and use of empirical data would have enabled us to measure the current motivational state among employees. However, it would have been impossible to determine what this contemporary phenomenon means for individual employee motivation over a future time horizon. What we did uncover in our initial theoretical overview was that employee motivation and employee adaptation to change were discussed separately by scholars. Thus, our aim was to identify existing theories in these two separate fields of knowledge and link them together. This is possible without collecting empirical data by conceptualizing relations based on existing knowledge (Yadav, 2010; MacInnis, 2011; Jaakkola, 2020).

(14)

suitable approach in our endeavor. As noted by Jaakkola (2020), there is no shared understanding among scholars on how to construct a proper research design for a conceptual paper. However, the author proposes four common types of research designs in regard to conceptual research: Theory synthesis, Theory adaptation, Typology, and Model. Theory synthesis is used when knowledge is fragmented across multiple theories and literature streams. The goal is to achieve an integration between these by summarizing what is currently known (MacInnis, 2011; Jaakkola, 2020). Theory adaptation seeks to change the range of perspective in one domain by informing it with novel theoretical lenses. Typology aims to categorize and organize similar and overlapping concepts into distinct types of constructs (Jaakkola, 2020). Last, Model concerns “building a theoretical framework that predicts relationships between

constructs” (Jaakkola, 2020, p. 22). For example, Huang and Rust (2018) adopted this

approach in their research to understand how artificial intelligence (AI) might replace people in service-based professions. By synthesizing a literature pool from multiple disciplines, they were able to identify what human tasks could be replaced by AI and thus, owing to their conceptualization, it enabled them to predict the future. This paper sought an answer to ‘What

role does time and uncertainty play in employees’ ability to adapt and stay motivated in the event of unexpected change?’. Based on these four approaches, we argued that a conceptual

model would best suit our endeavor towards understanding and illustrate the relations between employee motivation and employee adaptation.

2.2 The conceptual model

The model in this paper needed to be able to predict the causes and relationships between motivation, adaptation, time, and uncertainty. The aim was therefore to illustrate the connections between these variables. Jaakkola (2020) stresses three considerations that must be taken into account when constructing a model. First, what is the phenomenon we seek to understand by this model? Second, what domain theories will be used? A domain theory (Lukka & Vinnari, 2014, p. 1309) is “a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area

situated in a field or domain”. In other words, what theories will we use to address the key

elements in our chosen phenomenon? Third, what method theories will be used? (Jaakkola, 2020). A method theory is “a meta-level conceptual system for studying the substantive issue(s)

of the domain theory at hand” (Lukka & Vinnari, 2014, p. 1309). In other words, what theories

(15)

influences caused by an unexpected change. Hence, theories in employee motivation were used as domain theories to serve as a foundation in our model. Theories concerning employee adaptation were used as method theories in order to understand how employees’ responses to change may influence their motivation to work.

(16)

2.2.1 Our analytical process

The final model is partially determined by the given literature pool but also highly dependent on us as researchers. As MacInnis (2011, p. 140) noted; ”conceptualization is a process of

abstract thinking involving the mental representation of an idea.”. Therefore, while the

conceptual review will be presented and argued for in 2.3, we here present our analytical stance in this thesis. As mentioned, a clear and “good” conceptualization relies on the researcher’s ability to demonstrate “how” concepts are related and “why” these are suggested to influence another. Further, deductive reasoning is the key when establishing relationships between constructs, meaning drawing conclusions from what is already known in current literature (Patton, 2002). In this paper, we did this by first discussing the current theory, then deducing a proposition in connection to that discussion. Hence, in accordance with the studies conducted by Huang and Rust (2018) and Roy et al. (2004), the relationship between these was consequently established through deductive reasoning. The theories used in this study are reviewed and presented narratively. Narrative reviews are reviews that present a topic of interest in a broader sense in order to invite novel perspectives. Hence, this paper aims to provide an overview rather than being comprehensive (Gregory & Denniss, 2018). The aim of this paper is to identify new links between constructs, the focus is not to systematically review the current literature in detail. Therefore, we argued that this approach allowed us as researchers to be flexible with our design as there is no standard procedure for conducting narrative reviews (Gregory & Denniss, 2018). The narrative review was however influenced by Hulland (2020, p. 31) and Gregory and Denniss (2018, pp. 895-896) suggested structures. First, we search for and defined our domain and method theories. Second, we critically analyzed and discussed them narratively. Third, we generated propositions (ie. “insights”) based on our discussion. Fourth, we constructed a model based on our proposals that can be studied in future research, see figure 1.

(17)

2.3 Literature review

In addition to a researcher’s analytical abilities mentioned in 2.2.1, another great challenge in a conceptual paper is to gather, review, and present a thorough and honest image of the intended domain and scope of interest (Hulland, 2020). By thorough, the author implies that the researcher does not miss any important or vital theories that would have been of great value in the study. By honest, the author stresses the importance of not overlooking contradicting and instead shines a light on them to deliver an authentic depiction of the contemporary literature.

2.3.1 Domain theory

(18)

Table 1. Coverage of Chosen Work Motivation Theories

2.3.2 Method Theory

(19)

organizational perspectives (eg. organizational resilience and preventative measures). We identified, in particular Vohs and Schmeichel (2003), Vohs and Baumeister (2016) regarding Self-regulation, Jundt et al. (2015) and Park and Park (2019) regarding adaptive performance and adaptability, and Duchek et al. (2020) and Park and Park (2021) regarding resilience. While Lewin (1947), Kübler-Ross (1968), and Rashford and Coghlan (1989) all involve reactions and Sherman and Garland (2007) and Robbins and Judge (2017) involve employee restrainment. 2.4 Ensuring validity and credibility

(20)

in providing an honest depiction of our review as we present the theories to allow the reader to follow our reasonings (Hulland, 2020). Also, as the aim was to link two constructs, not to systematically review these two theoretical fields, we argue that the risk of bias will not impact the result of this study (Gregory & Denniss, 2018).

3 Understanding motivation

This chapter discusses employee motivation. It begins with defining motivation based on a managerial and a behavioral perspective. This chapter then successively builds up an understanding of employee motivation by first discussing motivational drivers, then continue a discussion on how motivation is maintained.

3.1 Defining motivation

This paper is built on our pre-assumption that motivation is somewhat exclusively positive in its nature. In this sense, motivation is an important component in our society, individual-, and organizational life to develop, improve, and advance. Attempts to frame motivation have been made by many scholars who seem to share our pre-assumptions of motivation as such. For example, from a managerial perspective, Robbins and Judge (2017, p. 247) define motivation as “the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort

toward attaining a goal”. From a behavioral aspect, motivation could be understood as the

force “that gives impetus to our behavior by arousing, sustaining, and directing it toward the

attainment of goals” (Wortman et al., 1999, p. 364). What is apparent in how scholars

understand motivation is their emphasis put on individuals’ goal-directed behavior. Cook and Artino (2016) dissect motivation even further into four distinct components: (1) motivation is a process; (2) motivation is goal-oriented; (3) motivation deals with initiation of activity; and (4) motivation deals with the continuation of activity. The two latter (ie. 3 and 4) are explicitly directed towards, with the intention to reach, desired goals. Based on the given definitions we will hereinafter refer to motivation as a process in which individuals are putting considerable additional effort in order to achieve a particular objective. However, the cues and incentives for what drives motivation will be dealt with in the following sections.

3.2 Human motivational drivers

(21)

from home during the Covid-19 pandemic and he is skimming through his email. It is with a vague interest that he chooses to respond to the most urgent emails, the rest he re-marks as unread. Edwin does his absolute bare minimum yet balancing his efforts to not risk losing his job. At the same time, Anna, who is a colleague to Edwin, sits in her apartment on the other side of the town. Today, she got up extra early to check off as many work tasks as possible. She makes several calls to the company’s customers while answering questions from her colleagues in the company’s internal work chat. Edwin and Anna differ considerably in how much energy they put into their work, but how can this difference be explained in theory? Motivational psychologists believe that individuals are encouraged to work when there is a motivating incentive to do so.

(22)

and others” (Abulof, 2017, p. 508). Hence, its simplicity becomes its weakness, but also its

biggest strength. We may argue that humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, but we should perhaps accept that these needs are neither universal (Tay & Diener, 2011) nor sequential (Deckers, 2018). If we look at the initial case with Edwin and Anna, we cannot yet explain why Anna seems to be more motivated to work. However, we may assume that Anna satisfies her need or at least striving towards needs satisfaction when performing her job. Edwin on the other hand seems to lack motivational drivers as he manifests a lukewarm strive to ‘work hard’. Given the attributes of human needs of satisfaction, we propose the following proposition:

Proposition 1: Humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, however, needs are

not universal.

3.2.1 The “when” in human motivation

In organizational research, the relationship between employee motivation and job performance is widely supported by scholars (Susilo, 2020; Hemakumura, 2020) as well as the link between employee motivation and increased employee’s well-being (Steers et al., 2004). As noted, the wide spectrum of potential needs that drives individual motivation cannot be covered by solely applying Maslow’s (1943) model. Accordingly, other attempts have been made to propose additional motivational drivers such as David McClelland’s (1965) need for achievement (n Ach) in which some people “achievers” are motivated by independently controlling objects, plans, and other individuals. As these people are ultimately focused on increasing their own self-esteem by practicing their skills, it is arguably just one component of Maslow’s higher levels of motivational drivers, namely self-fulfillment needs. However, it is not in vain as researchers approach the various components of human motivational drivers. With these, it is possible to better understand and connect particular motivational drivers to work from home environments. In the case of Edwin and Anna, how much feedback do for example Anna get from her colleagues by continually having contact with them through their internal work chat in comparison to Edwin? Does Edwin feel excluded, at least not involved in the group? and what motivational needs are missing in Edwin’s case?

(23)

to actualize their inherent potential (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This includes constant learning and development of oneself, which in turn can be integrated into a meaningful sense. As a result, the individual can grow as a person and create personal meaning. Internalization aims at the individual’s orientation to interact and feel connected to their surroundings (Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). To realize this growth, individuals are assumed to “actively interact with their

environment and to engage in activities that support their development and connectedness with others” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.10). Hence, instead of statically responding to the

surroundings, individuals actively seek interactions to engage with and potentially even participate in shaping their environment. Last, the pursuit of prosperity (ie. well-being) arguably speaks for itself, humans want to feel happy about their situation and where they are in life. However, it should not be overlooked as it is an important component within SDT when understanding human motivational drivers (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Based on above discussion, we propose:

Proposition 2: Humans are motivated to act when they believe the action serves their

psychological growth, internalization, and well-being.

3.2.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

We now recognize individuals’ inherent strive towards psychological growth, internalization, and well-being. These three inclinations are acted simultaneously in an environment that bidirectionally facilitates or limits this natural progression (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). The two “forces” could be understood from an SDT perspective as internal and external motives that influence human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). On one side it recognizes the dominant role of intrinsic motivation and on the other side the conditions under which extrinsic motivation may serve human motivation (Heyns & Kerr, 2018). Intrinsic motivation derives from an individual’s own will of performing one particular activity and the satisfaction that comes from successfully fulfilling it. Deci and Ryan (2000) discovered that people find certain activities inherently interesting and enjoyable and therefore participate in these activities without being dependent on extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation on the other hand is stimulated when humans are engaged in an activity “for reasons other than the

behavior being inherently interesting and enjoyable” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.1197).

(24)

2000; Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). We will revisit this continuum with a more thorough discussion in 3.3.3.

Over the years, several studies (as noted by Benabou and Tirole, 2003) have shown that extrinsic motivation in the form of contingent rewards (eg. rewarding someone for participating or reaching a goal) in some cases conflicts with intrinsic motivation. People who are rewarded for their efforts are significantly less interested in taking part in the same task at a later stage without a promise of new rewards. In contrast, people who never received a reward for performing the same task are more open to taking part in the same activity at a later stage. It is also recognized that people who are initially motivated in performing an activity by an external reward, entail a greater risk of losing compliance over an extended period (Benabou & Tirole, 2003). Based on this discussion, we can assume that intrinsic motivation is the most effective force in regard to individuals’ perceived motivation, we propose:

Proposition 3: Intrinsic motivation surpasses extrinsic motivation regarding its

effective influence on human motivation.

3.2.3 The need for satisfaction

The conflicts between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation underpin the concept of SDT which argues that “humans are optimally motivated and experience well-being when they have three

basic psychological needs satisfied: the need for autonomy, the need for competence, and the need for relatedness” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.1196). The first need, ‘need for

autonomy’ is defined as an “individual’s inherent desire to act with a sense of choice and

volition and to feel psychologically free” (Ibid., p.12). Hence, autonomy refers to our ability to

(25)

challenges in which they can extend their physical and psychological skills” (Van den Broeck

et al., 2016, p.12). As people are having confidence and the perception of being able to perform a pleasing result, they are more likely to remain motivated to proceed (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The need for relatedness refers to our connection to other people and our sense of security with that connection (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000). The third need is the need for relatedness. People satisfy their needs for relatedness when they “experience a sense of communion and maintain

close and intimate relationships.” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.12). In other words, humans

are motivated as we feel we are a part of a community and that we are all cared for. As SDT assumes that the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is innate, these do not develop as a result of a certain type of experience as suggested by some researchers (eg. Vroom, 1964). These inherent needs are instead something that is constantly present regardless of whether the person is aware of them or not. Consequently, motivational drivers should not be a discussion about how strong they are, but to what extent an individual’s needs are satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In Anna and Edwin’s case, we may assume that it is not the variation they experience in their work that is predictive in their psychological well-being, but to what extent they feel that their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is satisfied. Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 4: Motivational drivers are related to the extent people perceive an activity

serves their need for satisfaction.

3.2.4 When extrinsic motivation works

Recognizing intrinsic motivation as the conquering force between internal and external drivers, people are still motivated by extrinsic stimuli. Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory suggests that “the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation

that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual” (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p. 267). Further, the expectancy theory describes

motivation as a process of cognitive considerations concerning internal efforts, results, rewards, and perceived value. The model implies that people are motivated because they believe that their effort will lead to the desired reward (Vroom, 1964). Quick (1988) provided a simplified yet useful description of human motivation through the lens of the expectancy theory: “Human behavior, expectancy theory explains, is a function of two factors: the

perceived value of the reward that certain behavior yields [and] the expectation in the doer that certain behavior will yield that reward.” (p. 30). What people expect from their effort

(26)

be noted, however, is what is considered ‘sufficient’ is on the other hand highly objective (Quick, 1988). We will return to the expectancy theory in 4.6.1 where we present a more detailed discussion on how uncertainty might have a negative impact on motivation, but for now we propose:

Proposition 5: Employees are extrinsically motivated to perform if they believe that their

effort will be sufficiently rewarded.

3.3 What keeps us motivated?

In the previous section, we presented the basics of what has been understood by scholars as human motivational drivers. These have been broadly explained as external and internal influences (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000; Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). We have understood that motivation is most likely driven by the individual’s self-actualization, which is considered to be intrinsically motivated. But since there are indications that: (1) people are likewise driven by external factors (Vroom, 1964; Quick, 1988), and (2) the long-term effect on motivation varies depending on the origin of the driver (Van den Broeck et al., 2016), we here seek answers to how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relates to the retention of motivation. Hence, in this section, we dig deeper into ‘what keeps us motivated’. We are also looking for answers to what factors in a remote work environment prevent or enable motivation to be maintained. As a starting point of our discussion, we begin with Herzberg et al.’s (1993) two-factor theory. We consider this to be the most reasonable port for our endeavor as his theory together with Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is the most widespread and discussed concepts of human motivation (Kanfer & Cheng, 2016).

3.3.1 The importance of hygiene

(27)

automatically become dissatisfied (Herzberg et al., 1993) as traditionally assumed, but rather perceive a lack of satisfaction (Lambert, 1980). On the other hand, he proposes hygiene factors (see table 2) as a separate continuum to prevent the development of dissatisfaction. Simply put, “the motivator factors all involve psychological growth [...] the hygiene factors involve

physical and psychological pain avoidance.” (Sachau, 2007, p.380). Consequently, hygienic

factors only act as custodians while their absence leads to employee dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993; Lambert, 1980). Motivators and Hygiene factors conclusively become two unconnected dynamics that serve employee motivation independently of each other.

Motivators Hygiene factors

Achievement Company policy and administration

Recognition Supervision-technical

Work itself Salary

Responsibility Interpersonal relationship-supervision

Advancement Working conditions

Table 2. Motivators and Hygiene factors. Adopted from Motivation to work by Herzberg et al. (1993).

(28)

two. However, despite the fact that motivators are the only force that can drive and motivate people over an extended period, hygiene factors are the fundamental base on which motivation can rely upon. To put into context, in those cases where a decrease in motivation has been reported during the pandemic, people might have suffered by the absence of hygiene factors. Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 6: Hygiene factors are necessary components for the retainment of

motivation.

3.3.2 What makes humans motivated in the long run?

Another approach to the question ‘what keeps us motivated’ is to study employee turnover. Employee turnover refers to the rate of employees that leave an organization being replaced by another person. The close relationship between motivation and satisfaction is demonstrated (Herzberg et al., 1993; Sachau, 2007), as well as the relationship between satisfaction and employee turnover (Ramlall, 2004). By studying the determinants behind why employees stay in an organization, we can arguably deduce the facilitating elements to motivation through perceived satisfaction and thereby encompass what keeps us motivated. Samuel and Chipunza (2009) studied how intrinsic and extrinsic motivational variables influenced employee retention. Their results showed that employees stay in the organization due to a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic variables: “training and development; challenging/interesting work;

freedom for innovative thinking; and job security” (p.514). These variables are strikingly

similar to Herzberg et al.’s (1993) motivators. Accordingly, as these are both found in employees’ motivational drivers and reasons to stay in an organization, we argue that these are strongly associated with keeping employee motivation alive. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 7: Motivators are related to long-term employee motivation.

3.3.3 The detrimental effects of extrinsic motivation

(29)

into a continuum of four types (see figure 2) of extrinsic motivations accordingly: External regulation; Introjected regulation; Identified regulation; and Integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Figure 2. The Self-Determination Continuum. Adapted from The “What” and “Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the

Self-determination of Behavior by Deci & Ryan (2000).

(30)

personal beliefs and values. Efforts put into an activity are not only considered to help the surroundings but serves as a self-fulfilling activity (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

It is clear from this continuum that external and introjected motivation is characterized by the feeling of being controlled (ie. “has to”) and is less related to autonomous motivation. In terms of maintaining motivation, the controlled influences held by these will consequently impede the individuals’ basic needs of autonomy. The feeling of pressure initially acting as motivators is considered to be detrimental in the long run. Identified and integrated regulation is however considered to be internalized by the individual causing a synergy between the external forces and the individual’s beliefs and values. As these external motivators better cope with personal need satisfaction, these are regarded to endure extended periods of time. In other words, despite its external nature and its limited effectiveness on motivation (Deci et al., 1999), extrinsic motivation is able to generate long-lasting effects on motivation if internalized by the individual. Based on this discussion, we add two new propositions:

Proposition 8: Extrinsic motivation, by nature, has a detrimental effect on long-term

motivation.

Proposition 9: Extrinsic motivation is related to long-term motivation if the reason “why”

to perform a particular activity is internalized by the employee.

4 Unexpected change

The following chapter begins by presenting change and time. This is followed by a presentation of the antecedents of individual change reaction theories. The main theme of this chapter concerns how, why and if employees adapt to change. In this includes employee adaptation, employee resistance and uncertainty. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion on the devastating effects of uncertainty.

4.1 Change and time

Bareil et al. (2007) notice the absence of scientific research regarding the employee situations in change as most of the current literature is focuses on how change management should prevent change or transition disasters. However, change in isolation as a phenomenon has been considered since the Greek philosophers speculated around change. Heraclitus once said: “No

(31)

[constant] process (Paton & McCalman, 2008) or as a realization by a “caused occurrence” through intentional manipulation (Kostman, 1987). It is present from the most visible and tangible to the most ethereal and impalpable (Mathur, 2013). Another understanding of change is that “change happens when something starts or stops, or when something that used to happen

in one way starts happening in another. It happens at a particular time, or in several stages at different times.” (Bridges, 1988, p. 25). Ford and Ford (1994) represented this view with a

simple model where change occurs between something and the result of the change, see figure 3. This implies that change is limited between its beginning and its ultimate end. However, this model does not account for time as an irreversible ongoing force that constantly pulls change away from “something”. Change is accordingly a phenomenon related to time. Time is a “linear continuum divisible into uniform units that are all equivalent to each other. Time is

independent of the objects and people who experience it. Time can be measured objectively and is reversible since it is simply an abstract dimension.” (Van den Ven & Poole, 2005, p.

1388).

Figure 3. The Basic Understanding of Change. Adapted from Logics of Identity, Contradiction, and Attraction in Change by

Ford and Ford (1994).

In this paper, we regard change as something that is everywhere and is constantly occurring. That is, change is either intended, unintended, or uncontrolled. Change is also inseparable from time, which could be translated as a ”timeless interplay of the forces of creation and

destruction” (Sherman & Garland, 2007, p. 54).

(32)

employee motivation when the expected becomes unknown? In the previous chapter, we have discussed what drives employee motivation and what motivational incentives that determine long-lasting motivation. However, these discussions assume that incentives and motivational drivers are given and do not account for any cognitive deliberations. In this chapter, we bring in the psychological process employees experience when perceiving critical changes and how these are reacted upon in terms of acceptance (adopting) or denial (resistance) behaviors. We also invite the notion of the human ability to choose their level of engagement in an activity based on what they expect as an outcome (Vroom, 1964). This adds a novel perspective to eg. Maslow (1943) and Herzberg et al. (1993) who put the emphasis on human needs as a prominent motivational driver.

4.2 The antecedents of individual change reaction theories

Humans maintain an inherent need to both understand and connect their surroundings to their own frame of reference. Experiencing new situations caused by change may contradict that need and therefore induce exhaustion as the individual attempts to make sense of the new situation (Sparr, 2018; Iuliana, 2020). However, what is “one’s world” and the “real world” is explained as disparate realities in which humans are incapable to separate. One’s world hence becomes what people react and take action upon (Westenholz, 1993). How humans feel and react to change has been regarded in writings for thousands of years. Already in the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah’s own experiences of critical change was described. Elrod and Tipped (2002) summarized the sixth chapter of the Old Testament:

The chapter begins by recording the prophet’s sense of shock and denial, then his moving through the emotions of awe and guilt, followed by redemptive bargaining, and the working depression as he faces the reality of the true cost of his commitment, to the final acceptance of his prophetic task. (p. 275).

(33)

From a change managerial perspective, the last step is particularly important. When the new (desired) state is reached, the driving force must refreeze the new setting, meaning anchoring the new state as “the new normal”. This prevents the restraining force to push back to the former state (Robbins & Judge, 2017). The shift from status quo to a new state will consequently induce an emotional expense for the opposing force. Employees’ motivation is therefore more or less affected by the change process. However, Lewin’s (1947) model suggests that despite its chaotic transition, following his three-step model, the final stage is associated with compliance between the two forces. Hence, there are reasons to believe that if working from home becomes the new normal, the restraining force will eventually decrease. It should be noted that Lewin’s model is a tool to understand how managers (normally the driving force) should deal with change (Elrod & Tippet, 2002; Burnes, 2020). The aim of our presented framework is not to provide managerial implications or how to best manage change processes. Still, Lewin’s model is a necessary cornerstone toward understanding how change may stir up individual emotions.

4.2.1 React to change from an employee perspective

(34)

tend to cope with change rather quickly. Individuals identified as masters of change are however people who regard change as something that develops themself. Self-improvement is hence often aligned with their self-actualization (Ibid.). By this, we may recognize that people react differently to change. Hence, the employees’ perception and assessment of their work environment influence how they evaluate organizational actions which then defines their satisfaction at work (Cullen et al., 2014). What is important to note here is that Iuliana’s (2020) three categories do not account for eventual post reactions or self-exhaustions that could indicate future restrainments, only that “victims of change” will persist in their restraining behaviors.

4.3 The psychological change processes

The model of grief is one of the most widely accepted theories concerning change and human adjustment (Downe-Wamboldt & Tamlyn, 1997; Friedrich & Wüstenhagen, 2017). It was originally developed as a description of the grieving process people experience when faced with a terminal illness. However, despite its original purpose, the model has also been used to describe other critical changes in human lives (Elrod & Tippet, 2002). Levinson (1976) argued that all change is related to loss. For change to take place, it must be done at the expense of the past. From a business perspective, change can involve loss of knowledge, routines, and security (Ujhelyi et al., 2015). Kübler-Ross (1969) illustrates five stages of grief that an individual may experience after facing a critical event, these are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. The stages are as follows: (Denial) The person is in denial towards the news and refuses to believe or validate its authenticity. (Anger) Individuals often build resentment and frustration towards the one who initiated the change. (Bargaining) The person accepts the situation but still tries to bargain for more time or different outcomes. (Depression) The person gets depressed and agonizes about the poor current condition, often by claiming a better past. (Acceptance) Sooner or later the person accepts the inevitability of the new reality. This stage is crucial for an individual’s ability to both learn from the process and accept the new current state (Friedrich & Wüstenhagen, 2017).

The model of grief has been criticized over the years, which Corr (2020) recently noted in his review. The most widespread and notable criticism is whether step-based models, by their nature, are generalizable. He concludes that “all individuals need not experience all five stages,

nor need they be experienced in an orderly or fixed sequence” (p. 317). Another question that

(35)

practitioners, it lacks empirical evidence for describing how people react to change in business contexts (Corr, 2020). However, a recent conceptualization claims that there are many reasons to assume that the model is applicable to organizational change. Employees are in fact passing through different stages of grief but not necessarily the ones provided in the Kübler-Ross model (Friedrich & Wüstenhagen, 2017).

We acknowledge that Kübler-Ross’s (1969) model is more than 50 years old, and many other attempts have been made to illustrate the grieving process after she first published her model. However, little has been added to the main elements of the process. For example, Rashford and Coghlan (1989) presented an updated model for business contexts including denying, dodging, doing, and sustaining. The first stage in their model (denying) overlaps Kübler-Ross’s first stage, the individual refuses to believe that the change will have an effect on them. The second stage (dodging) is a combination of Kübler-Ross ́s anger and bargaining stage. Dodging occurs when all signs indicate that the change will be realized. It is characterized by anger, decreased motivation, or employees refusing to work. Employee efforts are focused on preventing the change rather than accepting the new fact. The third stage (doing) is entered when the restraining force has been heard, the frustration fades as an agreement of proceeding with the change has been reached between the counteracting forces. The fourth and last stage of Rashford and Coghlan ́s (1989) model is ‘sustaining’ where the authors stress the importance of anchoring the change. Similar to the last stage of Lewin’ (1947) three-step model, the authors recognize the risk of turning back into old habits if not integrating the new change as the new normal (Rashford & Coghlan, 1989). What strikes us is that regardless of what labels researchers within change management put on the different stages, the level of employee performance and motivation during a change process always follows the same curve. The initial shock and denial of a change are followed by a decrease in energy and motivation as the individual turns their focus on restraining activities. But as soon as the individual is moving towards some kind of acceptance and the uncertain becomes known, the level of energy and motivation will ultimately increase (Lewin, 1947; Kübler-Ross, 1969; Rashford & Coghlan, 1989; or see Elrod & Tippet, 2002 for an extensive review of change models). Based on above discussion, we propose:

Proposition 10: The level of acceptance to change is closely related to employees’ level

of motivation.

(36)

Tiong, 2005; Cullen et al., 2014) given by the organization to aid the individual in their process to understand their surroundings is a strong determinant of how individual employees will adapt. The more support that is given to the employee, the greater likelihood for the employee to accept and adapt after a change has occurred.

4.4 Adapting to change

The ability to adapt ”is an individual’s ability to change without great difficulty and be able to

fit into new conditions. Adaptation means a continuous change in response to new situations.” (Wulandari et al., 2020, p. 859). Humans are constantly looking for answers to

what occurs in their surroundings. By mapping and organizing their environment, humans can create an understanding (ie. “make sense”) of how their surroundings mold together and functions. To achieve mastery, individuals are constantly exploring their world until it is mentally categorized and understood. These activities, which include exploration, interpreting, mapping, and organizing, belong to the human behavioral category of adaptation (Ashford, 1986) and are referred to by several scholars as resilience (Duchek, 2020; Park & Park, 2021; Kuntz, 2017).

Resilience is defined by Duchek et al. (2020, p. 388) as “the ability to anticipate potential

threats, to cope effectively with unexpected events, and to learn from these events”. Hence,

(37)

4.4.1 Adaptability and adaptive performance

So far we have investigated how employees react to change and their psychological change process. We have also noted the diversity of employee reactions to change. Regardless of how carefully an organization implements strategies to better cope with the change, it all comes down to the individual’s resilient adaptabilities (Marks, 2006; Iuliana, 2020; Park & Park, 2021). Hence, there is a growing consensus among scholars that the key factor whether employees will adapt to [any] type of change involves their individual’s adaptability (Marks, 2006; Bartunek, et al., 2006; Park & Park, 2019; 2021).

Ahearne and colleagues conducted a study on employees’ long-term adaptability to change. Their study showed that strategic change (ie. planned change) not surprisingly had an initial detrimental effect on employee performance. As we will discuss more thorough in 4.6, change is closely related to uncertainty and uncertainty is related to restrainment. However, what was a more remarkable finding was that some employees recovered relatively quickly while others did not. Contradictory to what the researcher initially had assumed, employees who had the most prominent drop in performance were those who quickly recovered from a change event and ultimately showed a higher performance output than before the change. In contrast, the employees who did not show any significant drop in their performance output never recovered to their former performance level (Ahearne et al., 2010). An explanation for this is found in the employee’s individual goal orientation. Goal orientation refers to “the clusters of actions

undertaken in the pursuit of achievement goals in specific situations.” DeShon & Gillespie,

(38)

conditions are not necessarily the ones who are best in coping with change. Instead, people with previous experiences of change are better prepared and resilient to change. We can therefore conclude that the ones who are able to make sense of their new environment by previous experiences (ie. frames of references) or hold high learning abilities are those who have the highest capability of coping with change. Based on these discussions, we propose:

Proposition 11: Knowledge or previous experience of change events

facilitates employees adapting activities in the event of unexpected change.

Park and Park (2021) recognized the broad set of studies of employees’ adaptability, however, the phenomena has been labeled differently:

Researchers have used various terms to describe employees’ abilities and behaviors, as they face unexpected changes. These terms and concepts include proactivity, resilience, role flexibility, workforce agility, and learning agility (p. E2).

Instead of the spread set of terms and concepts that basically describe the same characteristics, the authors use an umbrella term that recognizes all these concepts. Park and Park, (2019) define adaptive performance as:

Flexible work behaviors that help employees adapt to change by demonstrating excellence in problem-solving, uncertainty/stress/crisis control, new learning, and adaptability related to people, culture, and their environment (p. 298).

Therefore, individuals with a high level of adaptive performance are more likely to challenge the status quo, indicating less restraining behavior (Costanza et al., 2016). In other words, how effective employees adapt to change is highly determined by their own flexible work behaviors which are all performance directed (Park & Park, 2019; 2021).

Proposition 12: Employees’ flexible work behaviors facilitate employees

adapting activities in the event of unexpected change.

4.4.2 Self-regulation activities

(39)

extrinsic stimuli (eg. Maslow, 1943; Deckers, 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2000). We argue that self-regulation theories add a parameter of being able to regulate oneself to establish motivation in a non-motivative setting: “Self-regulation is the dynamic process by which people manage

competing demands on their time and resources as they strive to achieve desired outcomes, while simultaneously preventing or avoiding undesired outcomes” (Neal et al., 2017, p. 3).

Individuals that are currently demotivated may instead be motivated to adapt to external conditions. The Self-regulation Theory focuses on “the ways individuals direct the course of

their development as they select and pursue goals and modify goal pursuit based on personal and environmental opportunities and constraints” (Newman & Newman, 2020, p.213). Hence,

the self-regulation theory proposes that internal motivation to reach one’s desired outcome facilitates self-regulation and should therefore not be confused with motivation as defined in 3.1.

Self-regulation theory defines the human ability to change and adapt habitual and unreflective responses. It describes how humans choose to act more in line with their long-term goals and values, rather than falling for the impulsive and ill-considered (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003). This fills a gap in Iuliana’s (2020) different levels of reaction which supposes that employees instinctively act on their reactions. In theory, self-regulation means that an individual distorts the meaning of a response, for example by remaining in discomfort and letting the uncomfortable feeling “disappear”. Instead of having to either reflexively act on it or vice versa - replacing an automatic way of behaving towards a more adaptive alternative (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003; Vohs & Baumeister, 2016). However, self-regulation is not an inexhaustible resource, but something that requires a lot of energy to function. After a long period of adjusting our responses, individuals often end up with a reduced ability to exercise self-regulation, eg. resisting demotivation (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003). A component of self-regulation theory includes self-control and habits. By acting habitually “people efficiently capitalize on

environmental regularities, even ones of which they may not be consciously aware” (Vohs &

Baumeister, 2016, p.107). Hence, the change that takes place in the employee’s life from no longer performing their normal transition from their home to a different work environment can affect the person’s positive experience of the situation (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003; Vohs & Baumeister, 2016).

(40)

upon an inner human drive to function. It becomes a sort of meta-motivation - humans may therefore be motivated by motivating themselves. However, as Vohs and Schmeichel (2003) noted, long-term exercising of self-control is associated with self-exhaustion. Therefore, we think it is reasonable to argue that individuals’ acceptance to change is the single most effective way to adapt to change and ultimately become motivated to work. Hence, we provide following proposal:

Proposition 13: Motivation through self-regulation has a positive effect on an

employee’s adaptation to change during a limited period of time.

4.5 Resistance to change

Openness to change is rare, in the matter of fact, change is often met with resistance. In organizations, the resistance often resides within the individual but may also occur on a group level (Tan & Tiong, 2005). Employees’ unacceptance of a new situation is one of the key reasons behind decreasing productivity after a change has occurred. Therefore, several scholars stress the importance of leadership when coping with employee resistance to change (Oreg, 2003; Bordia et al., 2004; Sherman & Garland 2007; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Here, we discuss resistance from the individual perspective. Resistance could be explained by fear of the unknown and the inherent need for security (Sherman & Garland, 2007; Robbins & Judge, 2017). When something unexpected or uncertain occurs, people tend to fall back into their pre-programmed patterns, by relying on what they know and are capable to make sense of. The response of reacting with resistance towards change is explained as the “fear of loss” of security or “fear of the unknown” (Ujhelyi et al., 2015).

(41)

situation. For example, people who are obliged to work from home might oppose tasks that are not considered “as usual” (Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Following an unexpected change, affective resistance tends to fade over time but has a lasting reduced effect on their functioning (ie. motivation) at work (Oreg, 2003; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Likewise is behavioral resistance to change a matter of habituation of the employee, and there is no evidence of any lasting negative effects on their functioning at work. However, cognitive resistance is shown to be the most hazardous to employee satisfaction and there is no evidence that this type of resistance naturally fades over time (Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Employees who manifest cognitive resistance are consequently more susceptible to fall into a demotivational state.

Wulandari and colleagues demonstrated a relation between previous job experiences and how employees tend to cope with change. Employees with limited or no previous job experience often behave reactively to change. This reactive behavior causes stress, fatigue, and frustration when facing change. On the other hand, employees who have a set of previous job experiences tend to regard change as a natural part of life. Instead of restraining change, they usually perceive change as an opportunity to evolve by learning, exploring, and develop themselves (Wulandari et al., 2020). This discussion has revealed three types of resistance, cognitive, affective, and behavioral. What is common between these is that they all reduce the level of satisfaction. We previously illuminated the close relationship between motivation and satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993; Sachau, 2007). Hence, it is logical to assume that restrictive behavior reduces employee motivation. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 14: The level of denial (or resistance) to change is closely related to

employees’ level of motivation.

4.6 The devastating effects of uncertainty

We have so far recognized that humans react differently to change, but a recurring theme in the literature is employee resistance due to their lack of knowledge or experience. Uncertainty is defined as “an individual’s inability to predict something accurately”, this could be due to lack of information or contradictory information (Boardia et al., 2004, p. 508). In an event of unexpected change, employees have reduced opportunities to prepare, nor knowing what the future holds. Normally, employees tend to extract cues from their surroundings to make sense of their surroundings. In unexpected, unplanned or critical change, these options may arguably be reduced. Lack of experience or external information creates uncertainty and confusion (Cullen et al., 2014). Hence “change involve the emotions of the employees as they feel

(42)

information’ about the present and the future undermines employees’ ability to control, make sense of, or influence these events. This in turn leads to anxiety, psychological strain, learned helplessness, and lower performance (Boardia et al., 2004).

4.6.1 Expectancy theory and uncertainty

Applying the expectancy theory, we can uncover that uncertain outcome does not only impact employees’ psychological well-being. Earlier we proposed, based on the expectancy theory, that ‘Employees are extrinsically motivated to perform if they believe that their effort will be sufficiently rewarded’. Here, we add a layer to our understanding of employee motivation. The expectancy theory suggests (Gagné, 2014) that the motivation we feel is reliant on three expectancies. First, the expectancies that “a given level of effort will result in a desired level of

performance” (Ibid., p. 201), this is referred to as expectancy. Second, expectancies that

“reaching a given level of performance will result in a given reward” (Ibid., p. 201), this is referred to as instrumentality. And third, it is the “affective value of the reward obtained” (Ibid., p. 201) which is referred to as valence. Motivation ultimately becomes the product of these three. Vroom (1964) demonstrates the relationship between these expectancies by a simple equation:

𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝑥 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑥 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ( 1 )

If any of these are low, so is motivation. However, if any of these are zero, there are no incentives for motivation to arise (Vroom, 1967; Quick, 1988). So, what happens when the environment changes and the expected becomes harder to predict? From this model, we can assume that uncertainties derive from novel work situations which may negatively affect motivation. Employees that are not familiar with for example new work routines might struggle to determine the desired level of performance.

(43)

(Gagné, 2014). Expectancy theory could help us understand why for example Edwin from our fictional case in chapter 3 lacks the motivation to work and only performs on his bare minimum to secure his job. First, he might not believe that he will be recognized for his performance even if he puts in his maximum effort. Second, he might not think that even if he receives a good performance appraisal, there will be no reward for his extra effort. Third, even if Edwin is rewarded for his efforts, he might not believe the reward is attractive to him. If we add the element of uncertainty into the new remote work setting, a fourth reason becomes apparent. Quick (1988, p. 31) argued that “uncertainty about one’s ability to meet a manager’s

expectations may cause demotivation - that is, a lack of expectancy to succeed”. Edwin might

simply worry about his own ability to adapt to new routines imposed by the environment and therefore ‘turn off’ his motivation to work. Based on above discussion, we propose:

Proposition 15: The uncertain outcomes of change have a negative impact on motivation.

5 Constructing the model

Throughout our theoretical discussion, 15 propositions were established upon which the conceptual model will be built. This chapter presents and discusses the conceptual model by first, arguing for the link between these constructs. Second, arguing for how proposition 1 to 9 from the motivation chapter contributes to the final model. Third, arguing for how proposition 10 to 15 contributes to the final model. Last, presenting and briefly explains the final model.

5.1 The links between constructs

Employee Motivation in the Event of Unexpected Change Master Thesis