An empirical study of attitudes toward recognition among civilian municipal employees in a 'U.S.' city.

Godkin, Lynn ; Parayitam, Satyanarayana ; Natarajan, Vivek S. 等

INTRODUCTION

Civil servants with a motivation to public service fulfill a portion of their personal goals and needs through such service. (Heinrich, 2007) Despite that, the 2003 Report of the National Commission on the Public Service pointed to inadequate incentive programs as a significant cause of poor government employee performance. Recognition offered with little clear linkage to individual performance are less involving than those clearly resulting from performance (e.g., Lawler, 1992) though persons motivated by public-service norms may be less responsive to monetary bonuses than their counterparts outside public service. (Heinrich, 2007)

The economic downturn experienced in 2008 has forced calls for getting more done with fewer people in governmental entities across the US. This raises the issue of how non-financial incentives might lead to greater performance among those individuals. Walker and Boyne (2006) found support for the efficacy of non-financial incentives for improving local performance of government in the United Kingdom. Group incentives encourage information sharing among group members (Libby & Thorne, 2009) and increase productivity in situations positively affected by group interaction. (Che & Yoo 2001; Ravenscroft & Haka 1996) Because the majority of municipal employees are nonmanagerial, group incentives come into play.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF HYPOTHESES

This study examines organizational recognition as experienced by a group of civilian employees of a southern U.S. municipality.

Preference for Rewards

Miner (2005) suggests that job satisfaction is an outgrowth of achievement, recognition (verbal), the work itself (challenging), responsibility and advancement (promotion). The individual's basic needs will be satisfied when these are present and positive feelings will accrue as a result. Dissatisfiers or hygiene factors (Herzberg, 2003) can be alleviated only to a point. (Miner, 2005) Research indicates that even in identical situations individuals can choose different reward distribution patterns. (King & Hinson, 1998).

Equity Theory (Adams, 1963) is perhaps most applicable where pay-for-performance is the norm. However, where equality or need-based norms dominate, equity theory is less applicable. (Miner, 2005) In that context, persons approach equity in different ways. (Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles, 1987) The Benevolent is a giver and feels comfortable to outcome-input ratios that are lower than comparison persons. Equity Sensitive persons seek parity with comparison persons. The Entitled prefer outcome-input comparisons greater than those of comparison counterparts. (Miner, 2005) People from different backgrounds and operating in different contexts may develop different norms with regard to the appropriate distribution of rewards. Similarly, persons motivated by public-service norms may be less responsive to monetary bonuses than their counterparts outside public service. (Heinrich, 2007) Based on the above we suggest the following hypothesis:

H1: Type of recognition is positively related to preference for rewards

Source of Recognition

Equity Theory suggests (Adams, 1963) and research confirms (Miner, 2005) that people choose a wide range of comparisons to evaluate the efficacy of rewards received. The source(s) of recognition may be identified and used by municipal employees in this context. Therefore, we posit the hypothesis as follows:

H2: Type of recognition is positively related to the source of recognition.

Attitude Toward Recognition and Reward Preference

Chillemi (2008) contends that group rewards are optimal where individuals care about the well being of coworkers. Drake, Wong, and Salter (2007) have found that feedback and rewards affect feelings of empowerment. They concluded "that techniques that work to increase manager perceptions of empowerment may not work at lower organizational levels and, even if successful, the related increase in employee motivation may not be significant." (p. 71) Both group and organization-wide rewards can be effective, but employees must see the link between their actions, performance, and those rewards to be effective. (Lawler, 1992)

The performing municipal employee does not necessary have a high need for recognition or achievement. (e.g., McClelland & Burnham, 2003) They put their own achievement and recognition first. Those with a high need for Affiliation want to be liked and they aimed at attaining popularity. Individuals with a need for Power seek influence before other things. Therefore, we speculate the following hypotheses:

H3: Type of recognition is positively related to attitude toward recognition.

H4: The attitude towards recognition is positively related to preference for rewards.

Source of Recognition

From an analysis of the daily diary entries of 238 professionals, Amabile and Framer (2007) found that as "people perceive the work, and themselves, as having high value, their motivation will be high. Just as important, if they perceive a clear path forward, with little ambiguity about what will constitute progress, motivation levels rise." (p. 76) They identified two fundamental things contributing to work and performance: enabling people to move forward in their work and treating them decently as human beings. Specifically, praise without real work progress had little impact on the internal lives of workers. Conversely, good work progress with criticism about trivial issues engendered anger and sadness. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H5: The attitude towards recognition is positively related to source of recognition.

METHODOLOGY

Data collection

The respondents were the employees of a municipal government from across all the civilian departments. The sample size was 494 respondents.

Measures

Type of recognition

This is measured using eleven items. These are called recognition-worthy behaviors. The sample items include: "Exceptional performance on an on-going basis"; "General on-going contributions to my department/division"; "Extra responsibilities or special projects above and beyond my normal duties".

Attitude towards recognition

This is measured using five items on Likert's five-point scale. One of the sample items reads : "It is important to me to be recognized for my work".

Source of recognition

Source of recognition comes from six different people viz., immediate supervisor, department director, peers, city manager, public and mayor. This is measured using two items on Likert's five-point scale. One sample item is: "I believe that all staff should be equally rewarded".

Preference for rewards

This is measured using 13 items. The sample items include: "The opportunity to work on an interesting project outside of my department or division"; "An award, certificate, or gift from my department or division"; "A personal "thank you" or note from my director, manager, supervisor or co-worker".

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations are reported in Table 1.

Our initial analysis of descriptive statistics table suggests that there is no problem of multicollinearity, as Kennedy (1979) suggests that correlations of .8 or higher may be problematic. We also include a statistical check for multicollinearity, the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each independent variable. The largest VIF was less than 2, thus, more support that multicollinearity should not be a problem (Kennedy, 1979).

Multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses that type of recognition is positively related to preference for rewards, source of recognition, and attitude towards recognition. The results of regression analysis of type of recognition affects preference for rewards and attitude towards recognition affects source of recognition are presented in Table 2.

As shown in column1 of Table2, type of recognition (b=.785, p<.001) was a significant predictor of preference for rewards. Thus Hypothesis 1 is supported. The regression coefficient of attitude towards recognition to preference for rewards is (b=.053, p > .01) not significant. Thus, Hypothesis 4 is not supported. The model in column 1 explained 62.8 % of variance in the relationship and is significant (F= 211.26; p<.001).

Column2 of Table 2 shows the regression results of relationship between type of recognition and attitude towards recognition. The regression coefficient of type of recognition predicting the attitude towards recognition (b=.56, p > .10) was not significant and hence Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

The results of regression presented in Column 3 of Table 2 are particularly interesting. The regression coefficient of type of recognition predicting the source of recognition (b=.206; p < .001) was significant. Thus Hypothesis 2 is supported. Attitude towards recognition is also a significant predictor of source of recognition (b=.137; p < .01), thus supporting the Hypothesis 5. Empirical model and regression coefficients are summarized in Figure 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

DISCUSSION

Civil servants fulfill some of their personal goals and needs through their service. (Heinrich, 2007) This does not free city administrators from the responsibility to build in motivational programs into their operations. This paper considered attitudes of civilian municipal civilian employees in one US city to recognition on the job. The findings suggest: (1) the type of recognition is positively related to preference for rewards, (2) the type of recognition is positively related to the source of recognition, and (3) the attitude towards recognition is positively related to the source of recognition. A number of observations applicable to practice are in order.

Recognition is an important part of the municipal worker's job because their motivation goes beyond the rewards sought in other sectors. (e.g., Heinrich, 2007) As in other sectors, recognition needs to be clearly linked to performance over which the individual worker has control to be effective. (e.g., Lawler, 1992) City authorities would be wise to determine how satisfied employees are with their current recognition programs and implement those plans by design rather than default.

This analysis reveals that proximity to the source of recognition is important suggesting that the immediate supervisor's involvement in the evaluation and presentation of the reward would be important. Individual municipal employees closely identified with their immediate supervisors and departments. Persons involved in the work at hand can best evaluate the effort and ability necessary to produce desired outcomes. Therefore, recognition given by the ones who know best was appreciated most. Tangible and measurable tasks were seen as more worthy of reward than intangible tasks. Tasks associated with particular departments were seen of higher value and more worthy of recognition rather than those including multiple departments or the city at large. Tangible and extrinsic rewards were preferred over intangible and intrinsic rewards.

A related issue concerning dissatisfiers (hygiene factors) and motivators (Herzberg, 2003) is raised in the context of recognition programs. Dissatisfiers can only be alleviated to a point. (Miner, 2005) Similarly, individuals in identical situations can evidence different reward preferences. (e.g., King & Hinson, 1998) These things should be kept in mind where recognition is used to neutralize the effect of hygiene factors that are contributing to dissatisfaction.

Perhaps of greater interest is the suggestion by Miner (2005) that the needs for Achievement and Power (e.g., McClelland, 1965; McClelland & Winter, 1969) are amenable to educational processes. Miner (2005) suggests that needs for achievement and educative efforts would seem to have effect when:

* When the person has numerous reasons to believe that he can, will, or should develop the motive

* When developing the motive appears to be rational in light of career and life situation considerations

* When the individual understands the meaning and various aspects of the motive

* When this understanding of the motive is linked to actions and behavior

* When the understanding is closely tied to everyday events

* When the motive is viewed positively as contribution to an improved self-image

* When the motive is viewed as consistent with prevailing cultural values

* When the individual commits himself to achieving concrete goals that are related to the motive

* When the individual maintains progress toward attaining these goals

* When the environment in which change occurs is one in which the person feels supported and respected as an individual who can guide his own future

* When the environment dramatizes the importance of self-study and makes it an important value of the group involved in the change effort

* When the motive is viewed as an indication of membership in a new reference group (Miner. 2005, p. 52)

CONCLUSION

We investigated the relationship between rewards, recognition and employee behaviors in a Public Organization. Our findings indicate that type of recognition is positively related to preference for rewards and the source of recognition and Attitude towards recognition is positively related to source of recognition.

REFERENCES

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Amabile, T. M. & Kramer, S. J. (2007). Inner Work Life: Understanding the Subtext of Business Performance. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 72-83.

Che, Y., & Yoo, S. (2001). Optimal incentives for teams. The American Economic Review, 91(3), 525-541.

Chillemi, O. (2008). Competitive versus Collective Incentive Pay: Does Workers' Mutual Concern Matter? Economic Theory, 35, 175-186.

Drake, A. R., Wong, J., & Salter, S. B. (2007). Empowerment, Motivation, and Performance: Examining the Impact of Feedback and Incentives on Nonmanagement Employees. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 19, 71-89.

Fisher, J. G. Sprinkle, G. B. & Walker, L. L. (2008). Incentive Compensation: Bridging Theory and Practice. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 19(3), 35-40.

Heinrich, C. J. (2007). False or Fitting Recognition? The Use of High Performance Bonuses in Motivating Organizational Achievements. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(2), 281-304.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.

Huseman, R. C., Hatfield, J. D. & Miles, E. W. (1987). A new perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct. Academy ofManagement Review, 12, 222-234.

King, W. C. & Hinson, T. D. (1994). The influence of sex and equity sensitivity on relationships preferences, assessment of opponent, and outcomes in a negotiation experiment. Journal of Management, 20, 605-624.

Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C. & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and Outcomes of Empowerment. Group and Organization Management, 24 (1), 71-91.

Lawler, E. E. (1992). The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High Involvement Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Libby, T. & Thorne, L. (2009). The Influence of Incentive Structure on Group Performance in Assembly Lines and Teams. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 21(2), 57-72.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). Toward a Theory of Motive Acquisition. American Psychologist, 20, 321-333.

McClelland, D. C. & Burnham, D. H. (2003). Power is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review 81(1), 117-126.

Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and Leadership. Armonk: NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Ravenscroft, S. P. & Haka, S. (1996). Incentive Plans and Opportunities for Information Sharing. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 8, 114-133.

Report of the National Commission on the Public Service. (2003). Urgent business for America: Revitalizing the federal government for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An ''Interpretive'' Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation. Academy ofManagement Review, 15, 666-681.

Walker, R. M., & Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public Management Reform and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Assessment of the U.K. Labour Government's Public Service Improvement Strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 371-393.

Lynn Godkin, Lamar University

Satyanarayana Parayitam, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

Vivek S. Natarajan, Lamar University Table 1: Descriptive statistics Variables Mean St dev 1 Attitude towards recognition 3.39 0.55 1 Attitude towards rewards 3.03 0.58 0.23 *** Source of recognition 4.34 1.09 0.10 Type of recognition 6.11 1.70 0.135 ** Preference for rewards 6.73 1.94 0.14 ** Variables 2 3 4 5 Attitude towards recognition Attitude towards rewards 1 Source of recognition 0.11 1 Type of recognition 0.10 0.27 *** 1 Preference for rewards -0.05 0.226 *** 0.77 *** 1 *** p < .001; ** p < .05 Table 2: Results of hierarchical regression analysis predicting preference for rewards, source of recognition, and attitude towards recognition Attitude Preference for towards Source of Variables rewards (a) recognition recognition Type of recognition .785 *** .56 .206 *** (20.264; 0.000) (1.13; 0.256) (3.79; .000) Attitude towards .053 .137 ** recognition (1.36; 0.173) (2.558; 0.011) Source of recognition [R.sup.2] .628 .003 .064 Adjusted [R.sup.2] .625 .001 .059 F-Value 211.26 *** 1.295 11.244 *** df 2,407 1,408 2,407 (a) standardized regression coefficients reported, t-values and significance levels in parentheses *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05