Employee Motivation in the Event of Unexpected Change
Transcript of Employee Motivation in the Event of Unexpected Change
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 Examiner: Krister Bredmar Term: VT21 Subject: Degree Project Level: Master Course code: 4FE41E
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
Employee Motivation, Work from home, Long-term adaptation, Time,
Outcome uncertainty, Change process, Covid-19.
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!
Robin Vipp & Hampus Johansson
Table of contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem discussion ........................................................................... 3
1.3 Purpose and Research question ....................................................... 4
1.4 Objectives of this study ..................................................................... 4
1.5 Aim and added value ........................................................................ 4
1.6 Scope and delimitations .................................................................... 4
1.7 Thesis outline .................................................................................... 5
2 Methodology ........................................................................................... 6
2.1 Research approach ........................................................................... 6
2.2 The conceptual model ....................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Our analytical process ............................................................... 9
2.3 Literature review ............................................................................ 10
2.3.1 Domain theory ......................................................................... 10
2.3.2 Method Theory ........................................................................ 11
2.4 Ensuring validity and credibility .................................................... 12
3 Understanding motivation .................................................................. 13
3.1 Defining motivation ........................................................................ 13
3.2 Human motivational drivers ........................................................... 13
3.2.1 The “when” in human motivation ........................................... 15
3.2.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation ........................................... 16
3.2.3 The need for satisfaction ......................................................... 17
3.2.4 When extrinsic motivation works ........................................... 18
3.3 What keeps us motivated? .............................................................. 19
3.3.1 The importance of hygiene ..................................................... 19
3.3.2 What makes humans motivated in the long run? .................... 21
3.3.3 The detrimental effects of extrinsic motivation ...................... 21
4 Unexpected change .............................................................................. 23
4.1 Change and time ............................................................................. 23
4.2 The antecedents of individual change reaction theories ................ 25
4.2.1 React to change from an employee perspective ...................... 26
4.3 The psychological change processes .............................................. 27
4.4 Adapting to change ......................................................................... 29
4.4.1 Adaptability and adaptive performance .................................. 30
4.4.2 Self-regulation activities ......................................................... 31
4.5 Resistance to change ...................................................................... 33
4.6 The devastating effects of uncertainty ............................................ 34
4.6.1 Expectancy theory and uncertainty ......................................... 35
5 Constructing the model ....................................................................... 36
5.1 The links between constructs .......................................................... 36
5.2 Modelling motivation ..................................................................... 38
5.3 Modelling adaptation ..................................................................... 41
5.4 The model explained ....................................................................... 43
6 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 46
6.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 46
6.2 Research Limitations ...................................................................... 47
6.3 Theoretical Implications ................................................................. 47
6.4 Managerial Implications ................................................................ 48
7 List of References.................................................................................... I
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
Figure 4. The Relationship Between Time and Change……………………37
Figure 5. The Relationship Between Constructs…………………………..37
Figure 6. Conceptualization of Motivation in Times of Change…………..45
List of Tables
Table 1. Coverage of Chosen Work Motivation Theories…………………11
Table 2. Motivators and Hygiene Factors…………………………………..20
1
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).
While remote work is a well-established way of working in modern companies, the amount of
employees working from home has never been this extensive. In addition, the move from the
company’s regular offices to home offices has entailed an unplanned and unexpected change
for all parties involved (Bonacini et al., 2020). As to date from the outburst of the pandemic,
researchers have accordingly shown interest in what effects this relocation ought for companies
and the employees. At an organizational level, it has been noted that operational costs related
to physical transfers, conferences, etc. have mostly decreased (Mahesh & Kumar, 2020).
Meetings via video link have in some cases proven to be more effective compared to previous
physical meetings as small talk has decreased while focus is directed to the main objectives
(Venkatesh, 2020). Another major insight is that managers now experience an overall increased
2
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.
Previous studies show that people that only work from home face a greater risk of becoming
demotivated in comparison with employees who solely work at the workplace (Tovmasyan &
Minasyan, 2020). Raišienė and colleagues found that personal preferences, previous
experiences, and habits were determinants of how remote work affected employee motivation.
However, a common factor regardless of employee characteristics showed that employee
motivation could increase if working remotely from home up to two days a week (Raišienė at
al., 2020). We can conclude that employees who previously did not expect a home office
environment are exposed to critical challenges du to an unexpected change. This in turn induce
negative impacts on job satisfaction and ultimately employee motivation (Iuliana, 2020). To
summarize, this pandemic has brought a new phenomenon into the business world which
entails uncertainty and a shift in motivational influences caused by an unexpected change.
3
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.
However, we argue that studying; what drives motivation?; what keeps us motivated?; and how
change impacts motivation? in isolation is not sufficient to fully understand the future potential
threats this unexpected event and situation might have on employee motivation. To adequately
frame the new phenomenon brought by the pandemic it is required to involve the components
of time and uncertainty. We argue that the most optimal way to accomplish this task is to
construct a conceptual model in which links are drawn between current theoretical
understandings and the present phenomena. No comparable shift, to our knowledge, has been
4
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 Research in the field of human motivation is comprehensive and the number of models to
explain what drives motivation has grown extensively over the past century. This might imply
that contemporary research to some extent has matured and, in several cases, even reached a
consensus. However, some motivational frameworks are overlapping while other frameworks
5
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 In order to give the reader a sense of structure and the content of this master thesis, we will in
this section provide an outline of the study. This master thesis is based on current knowledge
about motivation and adaptation to change. Chapter 1 begins with an introduction of the subject
where the background is discussed, followed by a discussion of the problem. We present the
purpose of this study and the research question that will guide this study. We further introduce
the reader with the objective, aim, and added value together with our scope and delimitations
for this study. In chapter 2 we present our research design and the methods used to answer our
research question and ultimately fulfill the purpose of this study. We describe how our
conceptual model is constructed followed by a detailed layout on how we framed the literature
pool used in this study. In addition, we provide a description on how we ensure validity and
credibility for our study. In chapter 3 we first define motivation, then we successively present
and build up a framework for employee motivation used for this study. First, we focus on “what
drives employee motivation”, then we focus on “what keeps employees motivated”. The
chapter generates 9 propositions that are used to build the final model. In chapter 4 we elaborate
on “how employees may react to change” and “how change impacts motivation”. We begin by
introducing time and change. Thereafter we discuss how employees react to change, how
employees accept and adapt to change and also how employees may deny and resist to change.
The chapter ends by connecting expectancy theory (motivation) to the constructs discussed in
chapter 4. This chapter generates 6 new propositions that are used to construct the final model.
Chapter 5 begins with drawing links between the different elements presented in the theoretical
framework. Then we discuss the 15 previously generated propositions from chapter 3 and 4
while mounting these into the model. Every proposition is described by its purpose, effects,
6
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).
The purpose of conceptualizations is to integrate or suggest new relationships between previous
constructs (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015) by combining and assimilating evidence from previous
research (Hirschheim, 2008). This implies that conceptual models are not fully detached from
reality but places the researcher in the center of collecting, analyzing, and deducing novel
connections between these constructs (Yadav, 2010). Empirical data still has an indirect
association to conceptualizations as it is based on conclusions derived from previous empirical
findings (Jaakkola, 2020). Hence, we argued that a composition of not yet linked theoretical
understandings which supported us in simulating potential future outcomes was the most
7
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
will be used in order to understand the relationship between the phenomenon and the domain
theory? As elaborated in the introductory chapter, this pandemic has brought a new
phenomenon into the business world which entails uncertainty and a shift in motivational
8
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.
Palmatier et al. (2018) list three ways of presenting a conceptual work: narratively, tables, or
figures. Narratives discuss the result in pure text, tables organize different works and are
helpful when summaries or comparisons are made together with the text. However, figures are
both mentioned by Palmatier et al. (2018) and Hulland’s (2020) to be most suitable when
illustrating conceptual relationships between constructs. Therefore, the final model in this
research is illustrated with a figure that takes several parameters into account that was
uncovered in the literature. The system of relationships depicts our view of how these are
interconnected and may help to better understand the complexity of employee motivation and
what effects we propose if one motivational influence moves along its continuum (Jaccard &
Jacoby, 2010). Further, the key is to explain “how” concepts are related and “why” these are
suggested to influence another part of the construct (Patton, 2002). The model presented in this
paper is based on 15 proposals deduced from our review and discussion of reviewed domain
and method theories. This method was first proposed by Meredith (1993), however, a similar
approach was implemented by a highly cited study conducted by Roy et al. (2004). They were
studying the nature of innovation in supply chain relationships in which they argued for a
conceptual model based on their theoretical framework. By analyzing their conceptual model,
they ultimately generated 9 propositions for future research. Accordingly, we were inspired to
follow the same route for our endeavor. First, we illustrate the very fundamental ideas of
external and internal motivation and how these are related to the level of an individual’s
perceived motivation. Then we added time and change as two independent mediators in which
motivation to a-motivation and restrainment to adaptation are represented as an outer
devastating atmosphere. The whole model is relying on the critical foundation of hygiene
factors which implies that if these are taken away, motivation is most likely to fade. The model
consequently illustrates different theoretical understandings which are, from our knowledge,
never linked before. As mentioned, this system of relationships depicts our view of how these
are interconnected (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010), it is therefore suggested that the generated
propositions should be tested in future studies (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015).
9
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.
Figure 1. The Narrative Review Process
10
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
To orient us in the broad field of motivational concepts, we began with an initial search using
the database Business Source Ultimate (BSU). BSU includes over research articles from more
than 3000 journals in the field of business and economics. We limited our search to only include
full-text articles from scholarly (peer-reviewed) Journals, and to only show articles written in
English. No specific timespan where selected. The search string was as follows: work
motivation [OR] employee motivation [OR] organizational motivation. To focus on previous
reviews of employee motivation a complementary string connected with “[AND]” was
included: literature review [OR] review of the literature [OR] overview [OR] systematic review
[OR] meta-analysis. This yielded a result of 169 articles. After reading through the abstract of
each of them, we could conclude that the two latest reviews on employee motivational theories
were a minor review by Isac (2016) and an extensive review by Kanfer and Chen (2016). These
reviews were carefully read through in which we selected four concepts to be used as a
foundation for our presented domain theory: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943),
Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000) and (Deci et al., 1999), Two-factor
theory (Herzberg et al., 1993), and Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). These are both
established and highly cited theories and together cover the overall understanding of employee
motivation. The choice is motivated by Isac’s (2007; 2016) framework of content and process
theories regarding motivation and Kanfer and Chen’s (2016, p. 7) model of socio-
environmental and intra-individual influences, the coverage is illustrated in table 1. Thus, the
selected domain theories for this study fulfill the purpose of depicting employee motivation.
11
Table 1. Coverage of Chosen Work Motivation Theories
2.3.2 Method Theory
To frame our method theory that aims to explain how employees respond to change, our initial
search string in BSU was simply: employee* [AND] react [AND] change. We limited our
search to only include full-text articles from scholarly (peer-reviewed) Journals, and to only
show articles written in English. No specific timespan where selected. Based on this
delimitation, our search generated 126 hits. By examining the search results, we were able to
detect two prominent researchers in relation to change (Lewin, 1947) and adoption to change
(Kübler-Ross, 1968). According to Kübler-Ross (1968), facing critical changes involves
restrainment, adaptability, and resilience, therefore, new keywords such as self-regulation,
adaptive performance, restrainment, adaptability, resistance to change, resilience, and adaptive
were tested. However, some of these keywords generated a too broad search result and were
removed in the final search string. Further, the keywords to frame the phenomena to which
employees are reacting to, we detected: change, organizational change, unexpected change,
sudden change. A refined and definite search string based on collected keywords was
ultimately set to: react [OR] self-regulation [OR] adaptive performance [OR] restrainment
[OR] individual resilience [OR] personal resilience [OR] adaptability. To fit the topic of this
study these were limited to; sudden change [OR] unexpected change [OR] organizational
change (American-English) [OR] organisational change (British-English). The search string
generated 448 hits. The exclusion criteria were set to focus on the individual employee,
therefore we excluded; Management perspectives (eg. sensemaking and change leadership) and
12
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 Assessing a conceptual paper is complicated as there is no widely accepted understanding of
how it should be assessed. The generally accepted tools and guidelines made to assess empirical
studies are seldom applicable to conceptual papers (ie. non-empirical work) (Jaakkola, 2020).
Therefore, Hulland (2020) stresses the importance of explaining the research process and
clearly show how and why the researcher arrives at a particular conclusion. This should be
done with “honesty”, meaning reviewing and clearly show that the researcher acknowledges
the strengths and weaknesses of a particular theory. In this study, we did this by providing a
detailed research approach and narratively describe the concepts and create arguments based
on the included theory. In regard to the theory, MacInnis (2011) argued that the most
provocative ideas come from the practitioner community. He indicates that what is written in
practitioners’ literary work is seldom entirely rooted in scientific research. Therefore, we only
included scientific articles or literature based on research. In our conceptual review, we limited
our search to only include peer-reviewed articles. Also, in those cases, we follow citings from
other articles, we always made sure to cross-check them towards Ulrischsweb. Ulrichsweb is a
database where the user can check if a journal applies "peer review". The use of peer-reviewed
articles compared to practitioners’ literature provides higher credibility and enables a platform
for trustful scientific communication (Kelly et al., 2014). Another criterion is to provide a
thorough review, and including “relevant” literature (Hulland, 2020). Therefore, the choice of
a particular set of models included in this study may be questioned. As mentioned, the included
domain theory is motivated by Isac’s (2007; 2016) framework of content and process theories
regarding motivation and Kanfer and Chen’s (2016, p. 7) model of socio-environmental and
intra-individual influences. These two models depict the most fundamental cornerstones of
motivation in which the chosen domain theories are covered by Maslow (1943), Deci and Ryan
(1985; 2000), Herzberg et al., (1993), and Vroom (1964). We are aware that the choice of
conducting a narrative review both in regard to the domain and method theories has a high
probability of being biased (MacInnis, 2011; Yadav, 2010). Therefore, we put extra emphasis
13
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
Edwin has just turned on his laptop in his home kitchen after taking a
morning lie-in. His management has ordered him and his colleagues to work
14
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.
The drivers for human motivation could be understood from a plethora of theoretical
understandings. A recurring element among scholars is however the individual strive towards
one’s satisfaction of needs that acts as a sort of leverage for human motivation. We can see
how these discussions already surfaced in the paper A Theory of Human Motivation by
Abraham Maslow (1943). His model, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, demonstrates how human’s
basic needs such as Physiological needs (eg. food and water) and Safety needs must be met
before an individual’s motivation increases to make people ‘climb’ onto the next levels of the
hierarchy, these are, belongingness and love needs, followed by esteem needs and ultimately
self-actualization. Although there is empirical evidence that the satisfaction of Maslow’s
hierarchical needs contributes to individuals’ well-being (Tay & Diener, 2011), his model has
been widely criticized by scholars. For example, Wahba and Bridwell (1976) exposed the
model’s insufficiency to explain motivational drivers. The sense of well-being is simply not
sufficient in itself to motivate people. Maslow’s (1943) model has also been criticized for its
inability to universally describe human motivators in various cultural settings (eg. Tay &
Diener, 2011), what motivates Swedish people is not necessarily equivalent to what motivates
Cambodian people. In addition, a recent revision of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that
different levels are overlapping and could motivate humans independently from any other
levels (Deckers, 2018). This implies that humans do not need to satisfy the lower levels of
human motivation before reaching for higher levels of satisfaction. Despite the criticism,
Maslow’s model continues to appear among both scholars and practitioners since it is claimed
to explain human nature as “something that most humans immediately recognize in themselves
15
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?
The most extensive framework that covers motivational needs is the Self-Determination
Theory (SDT). SDT is based on the assumption that humans have a natural tendency or urge
to constantly strive towards psychological growth, internalization, and well-being (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). With psychological growth, SDT assumes that individuals have an active strive
16
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).
Extrinsic motivation however extends over a continuum of four external influences, reaching
from being solely controlled by external incentives to be integrated into an individual’s
personal endorsement. The type of extrinsic motivation and whether it controls or supports the
need for autonomy will impact the lasting effect of that motivational driver (Deci & Ryan,
17
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
make our own choices. Despite its individualistic perspective, it should however not be
confused with independence. The need for autonomy does not suggest that we need to be
independent of other people but being able to make our own decisions with people around us
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Heyns & Kerr, 2018). When Anna (in our introductory case) is assigned
a task by her leader, she may execute that task in a non-independent manner. But if she sees
the value in performing the task and is volitionally engaged in it, she will also satisfy her need
for autonomy. Edwin, on the other hand, may be independent in his duties without fulfilling
his need for autonomy and therefore lacks the fundamental elements that drive motivation. The
second need, ‘need for competence’ refers to humans’ desire to feel that they are capable of
controlling an outcome through their own skills, knowledge, and expertise (Deci & Ryan, 1985;
2000). People satisfy their need for competence when they “explore and actively seek out
18
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
hence becomes a determinant of how much effort they intend to put into the task. What must
19
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
Scholars has recently pointed out the great conversion it means to move the whole business
from regular offices to home offices. This implies of course a change in the environment, both
in how employees lose the physical room with their colleagues, but also their working
conditions (Kniffin et al., 2021). Here we are investigating with the help of two-way theory
how this change may affect employee motivation. Herzberg builds his theory upon two
dynamics, “motivators” and “hygiene factors”. Motivators are those factors that lead to
employee satisfaction such as achievement, self-recognition, or work itself. Just as we
discussed in the previous chapter in which humans are driven by intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, the two-factor theory accordingly expresses similar characteristics, see table 2.
What is unique with his theory is that if the motivators are taken away from us, we do not
20
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).
It is however necessary to note that Herzberg’s two-way theory has constantly been an object
for criticism. Some critics argue that the nature of his chosen methodology has paved the way
for the final result. For example, critics say that the answers generated by the type of questions
he gave his participants during his research automatically lead to the two dynamics on which
Herzberg’s theory is based (Ewen et al., 1966; Vroom, 1964). The reason for this outcome is
according to Abrahamsson and Andersson (2005) that people describe positive events based
on themselves while negative events are described based on external conditions. However,
what draws our attention is not necessarily his creation of separate continuums. Instead, we are
directing our interest to the long-term effects of the environment (ie. hygienic factors) in which
an employee is surrounded. His model demonstrates that in order to maintain employee
motivation, one must first ensure a certain level of hygiene (Herzberg et al., 1993). In other
words, hygiene factors such as salary, interpersonal relationship, and working condition are not
determinants of whether an individual will feel motivated to work, rather it allows for
motivators to be effective. Thus, the hygiene factors are fundamental components for
motivation to be maintained. A more recent study concluded that motivators generate long-
term satisfaction while the presence of hygiene factors only causes satisfaction for a limited
period of time (Sachau, 2007). As the hygiene factors only affect the employees for a limited
period, we may assume that motivators are the only factors that drive motivation between these
21
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
Revisiting the discussion regarding extrinsic motivation in 3.2.2, we stated that the type of
extrinsic motivation and whether it controls or supports the need for autonomy will impact the
lasting effect of that motivational driver. Deci and colleagues studied what long-term effects
extrinsic motivation has on individuals’ perceived motivation. The study revealed that some
types of extrinsic motivation could eventually shift to have a negative effect on motivation.
The determinant for this phenomenon is explained as to which degree the extrinsic motivation
copes with the individual’s inner values and autonomy (Deci et al., 1999; Deci & Ryan, 2000).
The match between extrinsic motivation and the individual’s autonomous drivers is grouped
22
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).
First, SDT recognizes external regulation as the most controlling form of extrinsic motivation.
In this group, we find motivating incentives that are induced by external rewards such as bonus
systems that concern monetary compensation or work benefits (Deci et al., 1999; Deci & Ryan,
2000). On the other hand, external regulation also includes the avoidance of being punished for
performing badly. Individuals may find themselves being motivated to work in order to avoid
the risk of getting fired or facing other material punishments. However, the strive for rewards
and the efforts to avoid punishments could likewise be socio related. Individuals may find it
motivating to work as they expect high appraisals from their supervisor or to avoid the risk of
being disregarded. The second group along the continuum is introjected regulation. Similar to
external regulation, individuals are still motivated by external influences to perform. However,
these are more accepted in oneself as the individual experience pride by performing well, hence
avoiding guilt and shame. The third group called identified regulation concerns individuals
endorsing the reason for their efforts and support why these are important and valuable. A
specific task is not performed because a person believes it is fun and enjoyable, but because
that person fully supports its importance and its positive impact on the surroundings. The fourth
group called integrated regulation holds the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation.
Despite its external nature, people view these motivational drivers as aligned with their
23
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
man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same
man.” (Heraclitus, c.535 BC - 475 BC). Hence, change could be regarded as an ongoing
24
[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).
In managerial literature, scholars distinguish between two reasons why organizations change:
(1) external powers that force organizational change (needed change), and (2) an opportunity
that drives internal change (opportunistic change) (Pennington, 2013). The Covid-19 pandemic
has unquestionably been a matter of “needed change” for many organizations and their
employees. New external requirements as a result of the pandemic have simply eliminated
many opportunities for companies to control their own change. So, what happens with
25
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).
The description of different phases that humans experience when faced with critical events or
change can still be recognized in today’s models of change processes. Despite the tale of Isaiah
from the Old Testament, Kurt Lewin (1947) is considered to be the first researcher to study
how people react to change (Elrod & Tippet, 2002; Burnes, 2020). Lewin (1947) is also
regarded as the “intellectual father” of organizational change (Schein, 1988 p. 239). He
recognized two opposing forces; (1) the driving forces positive to change, and (2) the
restraining forces that resists change. By definition, status quo is an equilibrium state, in this
case, two forces balancing each other. Change occurs when status quo becomes unfrozen. This
happens if the driving forces are intensified, the restraining forces are weakened, or both. While
unfrozen, the driving force is enabled to move from a current state towards a new desired state.
26
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
How employees react to change has been widely discussed in the literature concerning
organizational change, however, these discussions are mostly focused on how to persuade or
prevent disasters that are connected to change reactions (Iuliana, 2020). A general
understanding noted by Bareil and colleagues was that employees are predisposed to change,
in this context, “planned change”. Employees are according to this belief supposed to have a
natural tendency to initially react to change in similar ways, regardless of type of planned
change. These dispositional patterns were not supported in their study, instead, the results
indicated a diversity of potential reactions (Bareil et al., 2007). Hence, employees react in
different ways when perceiving change, for example, change can be met with acceptance,
apathy, or resistance (see Coetsee (1999) for a comprehensive list). The reaction depends on
the individual’s previous experiences, values, personality, level of motivation, and individual’s
social and demographical characteristics (Coetsee, 1999; Raišienė at al., 2020). Iuliana’s
(2020) study categorizes the different levels of reactions into three groups; victims of change,
neutral to change, and masters of change. Individuals belonging to the group “victims of
change” are people who barely cope with the new situation. These are individuals are
characterized by being emotionally unbalanced and tend to resist or complain over the new
situation which was shown to be persisting restraining behaviors. Individuals that are neutral
to change will react and have difficulties at the beginning of a perceived critical change but
27
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
is raised is whether the Kübler-Ross’s (1969) model is applicable to other types of losses than
the extreme change that terminal illness entails. Even if the model is widely used by
28
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.
Even if this paper is focusing on the individual psychological process, employees are seldom
acting in a vacuum. It is shown that the level of feedback (Ashford, 1986) or support (Tan &
29
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,
resilience displays a process in which individuals react to unexpected events based on their
knowledge and previous experiences. Accordingly, the authors divide the process into three
stages; (1) the anticipation stage, (2) the coping stage, and (3) the adaptation stage (Ibid., p.
390). The same elements are described by Park and Park (2021) as (1) readiness and
preparedness, (2) response and adaptation, and (3) recovery or adjustment. Therefore,
resilience does not only reflect a person’s ability to recover from unexpected events but also
involves the capacity to employ and proactively develop their own abilities to cope with these
(Kuntz, 2017). Resilience ultimately becomes a determinant for how individuals will perceive
happiness, commitment, and satisfaction (Park & Park, 2021), and allows for effectively coping
with unexpected change (Duchek et al., 2020). Further, it is shown that resilience has a positive
impact on psychological health while negatively related to anxiety, posttraumatic stress
disorder, and depression PSD (Park & Park, 2021). This implies that people belonging to the
group “neutral to change” and especially “masters of change” (Iuliana, 2020) hold resilient
qualities and will therefore have easier to adapt to unexpected events.
30
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,
2005, p. 1120). The literature (eg. DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Coget, 2010) suggests that people
are goal-oriented towards either learning or performing. To clarify, some people are motivated
by being recognized by their performance while others are motivated to improve and develop
themselves. The study conducted by Ahearne and colleagues showed that employees with a
learning orientation focused on embracing and understanding the new surrounding and were,
therefore, closer to acceptance and coping with the new situation. These employees could
consequently perform better in this new environment and they recovered both quicker and
performed better. On the other hand, employees who were performance-oriented focused on
holding onto their performance level while neglecting the new conditions caused by the change.
Not only did they fail to adapt but ignoring to embrace and understand the new conditions made
them less productive (Ahearne et al., 2010). Another study showed that there were no positive
effects of acceptance and adaptability to change (Wulandari et al., 2020). This implies that
employees who are accepting the new situation but lack previous experiences of changing
31
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
In an attempt to explain how flexible behavior is shaped within the individual when change is
critical and uncertain, we invite the notion of self-regulation. Self-regulation theories have been
widely used when seeking an understanding of for example students’ motivation to study
(Zimmerman, 2008). This encourages us to apply this framework in the context of employee
motivation as motivational cues arguably do not differ between motivation to study and
motivation to work. Most motivational theories explain motivation as a result of an intrinsic or
32
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).
To summarize, the self-regulation theory indicates that people are able to adapt to critical
events without being primarily motivated by what current literature (eg. Deckers, 2018; Deci
& Ryan, 2000) refers to as internal and external stimuli. The rationale for this behavior rests
33
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).
Employees’ resistance to change can be understood as a tridimensional [negative] reaction to
change which includes cognitive, affective (or emotional), and behavioral elements. The
cognitive dimension of resistance is based on the employee’s cognitive beliefs (Sherman &
Garland, 2007; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). For example, employees might think that working from
home is unnecessary as they think it is plenty of space to secure safety distance (required by
the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions) between colleagues at the office. The affective dimension
of resistance includes the negative attitudes towards change. This involves stress and the short-
term inconvenience perceived by the employee (Oreg, 2003). For example, an employee may
think it is cumbersome to work from home or that the possibilities for effective “corridor
decisions” have disappeared. Last, the behavioral dimension describes the employee’s
inclination to stick to their regular routines (ie. “I will perform my duties as I have always done
it”) (Oreg, 2003; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). This habit often reflects adverse action in a changed
34
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
uncertain post-change scenarios” (Imran & Iqbal, 2021, p. 95). Uncertainty or ‘lack of
35
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 = 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦𝑥𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑥𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ( 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.
Working from home during the current pandemic has, as we mentioned earlier, caused a work
enigma for many employees. Questions about how long the pandemic will last? what the new
work routines are? and in some cases even questions about the employment itself - will the
employment endure the company’s financial difficulties? are complex and sometimes
impossible questions to answer. In addition, working conditions have changed (Kniffin et al.,
2021) and the employees’ frames of reference based on pre-pandemic work setups (Coetsee,
1999; Raišienė at al., 2020) become less sufficient. The expected outcomes of their effort put
into the working tasks are thus more uncertain and in turn, might therefore inhibit motivation
36
(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 This model paper sought to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings that
supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. Specifically, this paper has aimed to draw
links between current understandings of human motivation, employees' adaptability to change
in which we use uncertainty and time as two mediating forces to simulate unexpected change.
Earlier we argued that time and change are interconnected. Change cannot take place without
time passing. Nor can time pass without change taking place. This, of course, challenged the
Ford and Ford (1994) model which illustrated change as something between "something" and
"result". From our view, we see time as an important factor in change and use time as a force
that does not necessarily affect but accompanies change, see figure 4. Result is never definite
and should therefore only be recognize as a point of time and change.
37
Figure 4. The Relationship Between Time and Change.
Using time as a mediator in our model we can illustrate how different motivational elements in
our model may change over time. Through our review of the motivation literature, we
discovered that time has in some cases a detrimental effect on motivation. What we did not
encounter was theories suggesting the contrary - that time would have a positive effect on
motivation. For this reason, we suggest a relationship between time and a-motivation.
Furthermore, one of the recurring effects of change in the adaptation literature was the well
mentioned uncertainty that employees may experience during a change. Uncertainty is
something that can occur in all employees regardless of their ability to handle the uncertainty.
By using uncertainty as a mediator in our model, we are able to illustrate the level of uncertainty
thereby demonstrating how this affects certain adaptive elements during change.
Figure 5. The Relationship Between Constructs.
Through our review of the adaptation literature, we discovered that restrainment and
uncertainty are closely related. Humans have an inherent behavior to restrain in uncertain
situations (Oreg, 2003; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). This behavior is noticed both when individuals
are unable to make sense of their surroundings and when the present or the future is uncertain.
However, the adaptation literature has not shown that awareness would drive restrainment, nor
is there any indication to the contrary. What we can state with confidence is that there is a
relationship between uncertainty and restrainment. What is prominent in both the motivation
38
and the adaptation literature is the emphasis on satisfaction. The close relationship between
motivation and satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sachau, 2007) and
increased employee's well-being (Steers et al., 2004) is demonstrated as well as the close
relationship between change adaptation and satisfaction (Cullen et al., 2014; Park & Park,
2021). Humans strive for well-being and satisfaction which is manifested in the way they adopt.
Motivation and adaptations hence become interconnected in employees' endeavors towards
satisfaction. Further, satisfaction drives motivation to work. Hence, we argue that the link
between motivation and adaptation is established. We illustrate these links between the
presented constructs in figure 5.
5.2 Modelling motivation In the two previous chapters, we have dealt with motivation and unexpected change separately.
The objective of chapter 3 was to frame motivation with current employee motivation theories.
We learned that motivation can be divided 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 (Cook & Artino, 2016). We also noticed the
link between motivation and increased employee well-being (Steers et al., 2004). What is most
prominent in the theory, however, is the individual's constant drive towards self-actualization
by continuously develop and learn. This includes psychological growth, internalization, and
well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). To realize this, people are motivated by activities that they
believe support this self-development. We humans also need to feel a certain kind of autonomy
in what we do. The feeling that we "must" perform an activity has proven to be devastating to
motivation (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). In Chapter 3, we generated 9 propositions based on
the current theory.
In regard to Proposition 1: ‘Humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, however, needs
are not universal.’. We place the satisfaction of needs at the center of our model. We believe
that humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, in which humans are actively striving
to fulfill their desired needs. What is important to note is that needs are not universal. What
one defines as a ‘need’ can therefore differ from one individual to another. Needs are however
assumed to vary depending on geographical settings, values, and socioeconomic factors. In this
respect, in order to allow our model to be generalizable, we use the broader understanding of
satisfaction of needs in our model. For example, two employees working at the same company
can both be equally motivated but for different reasons. As proposition 5 also suggests, we can
assume that not all motivational drivers are directly connected to the intrinsic satisfaction of
39
needs: 'Employees are extrinsically motivated to perform if they believe that their effort will be
sufficiently rewarded.'. To put it into context, an employee’s motivational drive may derive
from taking on extra courses online (internal) in order to satisfy their need for competence
(Satisfaction of needs). Another employee may take on a "boring" course in Excel (external)
in order to satisfy his or her need for relatedness (satisfaction of needs).
Using Deci and Ryan’s (2000) understanding of human motivation, we are motivated to act
when we believe that the action serves our psychological growth, internalization, and well-
being. Proposition 2 suggests that ‘Humans are motivated to act when they believe the action
serves their psychological growth, internalization, and well-being.'. Hence, we are inclined to
act in order to reach our inherent drive for autonomy. In this regard, we assume that
motivational drivers are related to the extent people perceive if an activity serves their need for
satisfaction. Humans strive for self-actualization and to develop themselves as much as
possible. External factors would prohibit the possibility for psychological growth or self-
actualization which means that proposition 2 must be placed in the middle of our model,
closely related to human action. To put this into context, employees that are working in an
environment that lacks stimuli for self-development and psychological growth are facing
higher risks of losing their motivation. They are further away from taking action and their
productivity decreases. On the other hand, employees that are in an environment that enhances
their possibility of psychological growth or internalization will consequently be closer to take
action and therefore ultimately generate a higher productivity.
By using Deci and Ryan’s (2000) understanding of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, we
conclude that intrinsic motivation derives from an individual’s own will of performing one
particular task and the satisfaction that comes from successfully fulfilling it. With Proposition 3
we suggested that ‘Intrinsic motivation surpasses extrinsic motivation regarding its effective
influence on human motivation.’. Hence, intrinsic motivation should be the inner layer of
motivation as it is closely related to an individual’s inner beliefs. While it surrounds
psychological growth, internalization, and well-being, this does not imply that extrinsic
motivation lacks influencing power. However, we should recognize that it is less effective than
intrinsic motivation and closer to a-motivation. Motivation to perform a task based on one’s
own interest or enjoyment without being dependent on extrinsic motivators is thus more
sustainable. Hence, our model suggests that an employee who genuinely enjoys performing a
particular task is probably at the center of the model. That employee is closer to motivation and
has a higher probability of maintaining that motivation. The outer layer of the model illustrates
40
motivation that is stimulated when individuals are engaged in an activity for other reasons than
their own interest or enjoyment (Van De Broeck et al., 2016). From our understanding, we
assume that people may not be motivated to perform any task if they believe that their effort is
not sufficiently rewarded. Since the tasks are not intrinsically orientated, the outcome of the
performed task must live up to the person’s expectations in order for that person to act.
Both Vroom (1994) and Deci and Ryan (2000) connect motivation to people’s need for
satisfaction which our proposition 4 embraces: ‘Motivational drivers are related to the extent
people perceive an activity serves their need for satisfaction.'. We argue that this assumption
is strongly related to proposition 2. First, people who are motivated are driven to act. Second,
people act because they see how it serves their satisfaction of needs. Accordingly, we illustrate
this force in the center of intrinsic motivation as a sphere of activity.
Our model stands on the foundation of proposition 6: ‘Hygiene factors are necessary
components for the retainment of motivation.'. We believe that motivation is highly facilitated
by, for example, human relationships, salaries, and supervision. Therefore, we
illustrate proposition 6 at the very bottom of the model by demonstrating that the hygiene
factors have a crucial role, at least in the long-term effects on the environment in which
motivation occurs. In accordance with our suggestion, employees may experience less
satisfaction in their work if one or more hygiene factors would be taken away. Related to this,
during critical times as the Covid-19 pandemic, many employees were forced to change from
their normal working environment to work from home. Our model implies that if employees
perceive a loss of hygiene factors, motivation will ultimately become suppressed.
A less surprising finding yet important to address is shown in proposition 7: ‘Motivators are
related to long-term employee motivation.’. There is no evidence that motivators by themselves
would decrease over time without other factors affecting it. This proposition may be criticized
as there are of course those who may claim that we humans can change interest or focus in life,
hence losing our motivational drive towards a particular stimuli. That is of course true, but we
differ between motivational drivers as one single stimulus and motivators as a unity of what
people perceive as motivating for the moment. We illustrate this assumption as a line stretching
from the very core of the model across the edge into internalized motivation. Contradictory,
as proposition 8 suggests: ‘Extrinsic motivation, by nature, has a detrimental effect on long-
term motivation.’. This implies that despite the long-term attributes of proposition 7, if the
person is extrinsically motivated, the motivators will ultimately have a detrimental effect on
41
motivation over time. This is illustrated with the curvy route that completes the line of
motivators. In other words, employees can be satisfied at their workplace if a combination of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation exists, but motivation will decline if motivation is solely
dependent on extrinsic motivation. Throughout our analysis, we detected another exception
regarding motivators. We suggest that extrinsic motivation will adopt the long-term features of
intrinsic motivation if that person holds a personal importance or endorsement towards
performing a task. In proposition 9 we proposed that ‘Extrinsic motivation is related to long-
term motivation if the reason “why” to perform a particular activity is internalized by the
employee.’. In this case, external factors become internalized by the individual causing a
synergy between the external forces and the individual’s beliefs and values (Deci et al., 1999;
Deci & Ryan, 2000). Internalization is illustrated as an extension of extrinsic motivation as it
stretches towards the inner circle of intrinsic motivation.
5.3 Modelling adaptation In Chapter 4, we argued that change is related to loss, that is, a change process is the process
in which humans react to what they perceive is sacrificed as a result of the change. During
times of change such as the Covid-19 pandemic, we can assume that people react differently.
Some employees are passing through all stages of their grieving process, some may not even
feel loss, while some might get stuck on a particular stage throughout the process. What is
prominent here is that acceptance to change is the ultimate cure to allow for motivation to
occur. The more an employee accepts the new conditions caused by a change, the higher is the
likelihood for them to feel motivated to work. We show this assumption in proposition 10: ‘The
level of acceptance to change is closely related to employees’ level of motivation.’. We also
assume the opposite which is shown in Proposition 14: 'The level of denial (or resistance) to
change is closely related to employees’ level of motivation.'. If the employee is in denial by not
accepting the new conditions, they ultimately move out from the inner circle of motivation
towards restrainment as illustrated in our model. This implies that change is devastating to
motivation if not accepted.
The literature review revealed that knowledge (or previous experience of change) of situations
related to uncertainty led to increased adaptability. The opposite was also demonstrated by
scholars. Employees who have no previous experience of change or lacked knowledge of
similar situations hold a greater risk of experiencing uncertainty and thus restraining it. The
relationship between these was therefore suggested in Proposition 11: 'Knowledge or previous
experience of change events facilitates employees adapting activities in the event of unexpected
42
change.'. Knowledge is illustrated in the inner circle of the model as it is closely related to
adaptation. The line from the center of the model reaching out into the atmosphere of
restrainment represents the level of experience. In other words, as an employee moves inwards
the continuum, implying more knowledge, they will ultimately increase their adaptation and
motivation.
Flexibility or 'flexible work behaviors' are the umbrella term for describing an employee's
adapting performance. These involve problem-solving and uncertainty-, stress-, and crisis
control. The literature review showed that these all facilitate the employee when coping with
change, regardless of perceived uncertain outcomes and lack of frames of reference (Park &
Park, 2019; Park & Park, 2021). Hence, we suggested in proposition 12: 'Employees’ flexible
work behaviors facilitate employees adapting activities in the event of unexpected change.'.
This implies that employees who possess these skills are not motivationally reduced by
uncertainty. This is illustrated by the dotted line running from the center of the model to the
end of the extrinsic circle. In other words, if the employee holds flexible work behaviors, the
detrimental effects of uncertainty become dormant and the risk of individual restraining
becomes low.
We have understood that acceptance is an important part of the adaptation process in the event
of unexpected change. We have highlighted how individuals adapt differently to change.
However, the extent of their acceptance is related to their level of motivation. In addition to
acceptance, there are signs that humans can self-regulate their motivation, which means that
we adapt as we are inherently motivated to function. However, as self-regulating activities are
exhaustive, exercising these will have a detrimental effect on motivation from a long-term
perspective. We suggest by proposition 13 that: ‘Motivation through self-regulation has a
positive effect on an employee’s adaptation to change during a limited period of time.’. We
illustrate this assumption as a line leading from the very core of motivation towards a-
motivation as time passes. We acknowledge that employees may be motivated in a new setting
caused by critical or unexpected change without accepting the actual change. However, if not
accepted in one’s inner self, that employee will sooner or later become demotivated.
Throughout this study, we have been discussing change with a focus on unexpected change in
particular. By applying the expectancy theory, we could understand how people are motivated
by the known and the expected valance of performing an action. Humans are thus partly driven
by the expectations we have from the results of the actions we perform. The explanation lies
43
within Vroom’s (1964) equation in which motivation is the product of expectancy,
instrumentality, and valence. We see valence which refers to the expected outcome of an action
to be the key in this manner as indicated in proposition 15: ‘The uncertain outcomes of change
have a negative impact on motivation.'. The current pandemic, particularly as an unexpected
event is impeccably fraught with uncertainty. Employees will ultimately move away from the
core of motivation as the outcome uncertainty increases. As illustrated in our model,
uncertainty springs from the outer line of the model and moves outwards into the atmosphere
of a-motivation and restrainment. As previously noted, the Covid-19 pandemic has created
uncertainty for employees in terms of not being able to declare the duration of the pandemic or
what actual effects the pandemic will bring in terms of job security or other economic factors.
As suggested by our model, these are critical elements that impact motivation negatively.
5.4 The model explained Based on the above discussion, we now have fully constructed our conceptual model, see figure
6. The model is presented as a multidimensional structure surrounded by an atmosphere of a-
motivation and restrainment. The closer employees are to the center, the further away are they
from being demotivated or restraining change. In addition, the model demonstrates time and
uncertainty as two mediators of motivation and adaptation. Motivation and adaptation are
presented at the very core of the model. These are intertwined by humans' need for satisfaction.
We are motivated towards these needs and we are satisfied if we understand and adapt to our
surroundings. Hence, the model suggests that motivation and adaptation are simultaneously
present. Also at the very core of the model, it is illustrated how intrinsical incentives that serve
individuals' satisfaction of needs (ie. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) are those drivers
which most effectively motivate employees to act. Satisfaction of needs provides leverage for
employee motivation, while employee motivation provides leverage back to satisfaction of
needs. In other words, these two are mutually supportive – ”the circle of motivation”. The outer
layers of the model represent extrinsic motivation, it illustrates that external incentives to act
may also motivate employees, however, these are less effective and are most likely to decrease
in their effectiveness over time. Nevertheless, there are two exceptions. First, if the employees
believe that their efforts for taking action yields sufficient rewards. Second, if the reason for
taking action becomes internalized by the employee, meaning the reason why performing a
particular task is in line with his or her own beliefs and values. Both of these are accordingly
closer to or connected to the center of the model which suggests long-lasting motivation. The
model relies on the platform of hygienic factors (eg. work conditions, salary, colleagues,
44
internal relations). These factors do not drive motivation by themselves but if these are
insufficient, motivation will sooner or later fade or "collapse".
The model illustrates five additional continuums that are reliant on either time or the level of
uncertainty. First, motivators are illustrated as most effective in the center of the model. In
relation to time, it illustrates that motivators are effective unless these are extrinsically
engaging. In that case, motivators are detrimental over time. Second, Self-regulating activities
(ie. regulate oneself to be motivated) are initially effective, but as time passes, motivation will
decrease due to self-exhaustion. Third, change illustrated on the opposite side of the model are
reaching from the center out to the atmosphere of restrainment. If the change is not accepted
by the individual, it will mostly induce restraining behaviors. Fourth, the individual's flexible
work behaviors (ie. problem solving and uncertainty-, stress-, and crisis control) are
demonstrated inside the inner circle. The dotted line suggests that not all employees own these
skills, however, if an employee holds these abilities, that person is immune to the detrimental
effects of uncertainty. On the other hand, if the employee lacks flexible work behaviors, they
will ultimately reside in the outer solid line of the continuum, implying uncertainty, hence
restrainment. Fifth, knowledge is illustrated as an continuum of experienced or inexperienced
employees. If the employee is experienced change, he or she will ultimately be in the inner part
of the model and therefore better cope with uncertainty. However, if the employee is
inexperienced, he or she will consequently move out from the model into the atmosphere of
restrainment.
The presented model ultimately illustrates how time and uncertainty relate to motivation and
adaptation and illustrates how different skills, techniques, or employee behaviors affect how
well employees cope with change. To ensure long-term motivation and acceptance, employees
must reside within the inner circle. It is to a large extent a leader's role to facilitate this by
providing a good work environment and learning opportunities. Consequently, this model can
serve as a template for which parts that require improvement.
46
6 Conclusions
In the following chapter, the conclusions are made on the initial research question and purpose
of this paper. In addition, the contribution of this paper is argued for and what these
contributions means, both practically and theoretically. Last, research limitations are
discussed and suggestions for future research are proposed.
6.1 Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings
that supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. But in order to achieve our goal, we
needed 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? By this
paper, we introduced a conceptual model that connects motivation to time and uncertainty. 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 behaviors. The thorough discussion
in chapter 5, we argue that we successfully answered our research question and fulfilled the
purpose of this study.
Research on motivation is extensive and we acknowledge by this paper we were only able to
scratch the surface of the current understanding of motivation. Yet we managed to cover the
different aspects of employee motivation. We argue that proposition 10-15 presented in our
study contributes to novel understandings of motivation in the event of unexpected change.
The ultimate objective of this study was to construct a conceptual model by drawing links
between current theories and our framed phenomenon. This to be able to demonstrate and
understand how a new phenomenon may affect employees’ motivation when they work from
home 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
may be affected through unexpected change and extended work from home. This
47
conceptualization can also be used for future research where it will benefit from empirical data
to further strengthen or develop the model.
6.2 Research Limitations Studies within motivation exist in a wide spectrum, we have during our literature review
acknowledged the extensive amount of research that has been made on the subject. Therefore,
we gathered and critically reviewed relevant and existing topics within the field of motivation
and in individual change. In order to get an even more holistic view of these phenomena, future
research can use lesser recognized theories on motivation and link them into our model. In our
endeavor, we did not collect any empirical data to test our model in a real-world context as our
findings are theoretically limited. However, we assume that new empirical data will be
available in the future on what the current pandemic has inflicted employee motivation which
we welcome in order to test our model. Our model brings in the novelty of illustrating the
relationship between time and employee motivation, time and adaptability to change,
uncertainty and employee motivation and uncertainty and adaptability to change. In this regard,
we encourage future studies to study these relations in isolation. These limitations are
considered and acknowledged due to the limited timeframe that the authors were provided
during the writing of this thesis.
6.3 Theoretical Implications We stated in research limitations that our model is created from theories and is not derived
from collecting empirical data, thus we believe that in order to determine the validity for our
model, it must be empirically tested. Hopefully, when the pandemic is fading worldwide and
employees are returning to their regular offices, both qualitative and quantitative studies could
be employed to verify the conceptual model on how employees adapted to the change and its
impact on their motivation. In this regard, our conceptual model can serve as a starting point
for future research. This thesis is solely relying on current theories in order to construct our
conceptual model. We highlight the possibility to further conduct studies using our model as a
foundation, researchers may add more theories, change theoretical segments, and add empirical
data. Also, we stress the possibility to use it to build a new theory based on our conceptual
model with different aspects of analysis (eg. the driving forces in change) in order to further
develop the model and also get a multilevel perspective to the concept.
48
6.4 Managerial Implications We have previously presented theoretical implications for upcoming research and for future
scholars to continue to use and add novel insight to our model. In this section we address
managerial implications for practitioners to use our conceptual model. Our model is based on
theoretical findings and connections between motivational studies and uncertainty in
unexpected change. Practitioners can work proactively to avoid a fading employee motivation
during unexpected change by strategically analysing the work environment with aid of our
conceptual model. We propose that practitioners need to be aware of the hygiene factors that
might disappear in relation to changing working environments. To fill that void, practitioners
can replace the normal social interactions with more frequent non-work-related digital
meetings with the employees. Also, to take into consideration that employees’ competencies
are fulfilled when working from home as the normal role at work may alter and the sense of
feeling useless or stressed in relation with this change may impact the motivation. Practitioners
need to be able to provide continuous information about the company’s situation, as the model
suggests. The more uncertain an outcome is, the higher the risk of employees falling into a
demotivational state. So, keeping the employees up to date with the changes may help increase
employee motivation. Clear and open communication is therefore suggested in order to
increase the probability of having employees accepting the new situation. Employees that do
not accept the new change and still are in denial are also not motivated. Practitioners will need
to consider that our model is based on general terms of what drives motivation and how people
may adapt to change. Humans are different and what motivates an individual can differ
substantially from another.
I
List of References Abrahamsson, B. and Andersen, J.A., 2005. Organisation: att beskriva och förstå organisationer.
Liber: Malmö.
Abulof, U., 2017. Introduction: Why we need maslow in the twenty-first Century. Society, 54(6), pp.508-509.
Ahearne, M., Lam, S.K., Mathieu, J.E. and Bolander, W., 2010. Why are some salespeople better at adapting to organizational change?. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), pp.65-79.
Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J., 2020. The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), pp.1290-1304.
Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management journal, 29(3), pp.465-487.
Aropah, V.D.W., Sarma, M. and Sumertajaya, I.M., 2020. Factors Affecting Employee Performance during Work from Home. International research journal of business studies, 13(2), pp.201-214.
Bareil, C., Savoie, A., & Meunier, S. 2007. Patterns of discomfort with organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), pp.13-24
Bartunek J.M., Rousseau D.M., Rudolph J.W., DePalma J.A., 2006. On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 182–206.
Bénabou, R. and Tirole, J., 2003. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The review of economic studies, 70(3), pp.489-520.
Bonacini, L., Gallo, G. and Scicchitano, S., 2020. Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. Journal of Population Economics, 34(1), pp.303-360.
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. 2004. Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of business and psychology, 18(4), pp.507-532.
Bridges, W. 1986. Managing organizational transitions. Organizational dynamics, 15(1), pp.24-33
Burnes, B., 2020. The origins of Lewin’s three-step model of change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), pp.32-59.
Chen, I.S., 2020. Turning home boredom during the outbreak of COVID-19 into thriving at home and career self-management: the role of online leisure crafting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(11), pp.3645-3663.
Coetsee, L., 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), pp.204-222.
II
Coget, J. F. 2010. Performance Orientation or Learning Orientation: Which Helps Salespeople
Better Adapt to Organizational Change?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), pp.106-108.
Cook, D.A. and Artino Jr, A.R., 2016. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Medical education, 50(10), pp.997-1014.
Corr, C.A., 2020. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and the “five stages” model in a sampling of recent American textbooks. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 82(2), pp.294-322.
Couch, D.L., O'Sullivan, B. and Malatzky, C., 2021. What COVID‐19 could mean for the future of “work from home”: The provocations of three women in the academy. Gender, Work & Organization, 1(28), pp.266-275.
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. 2016. The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), pp.361-381
Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. 2014. Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), pp.269-280.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science: New York.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M., 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin, 125(6), p.627.
Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), pp.227-268.
Deckers, L., 2018. Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental. Routledge Press: New York.
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2005. A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), pp.1096-1127.
Downe-Wamboldt, B., & Tamlyn, D., 1997. An international survey of death education trends in faculties of nursing and medicine. Death Studies, 21(1), pp.177-188.
Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. 2020. The role of diversity in organizational resilience: a theoretical framework. Business Research, 13(2), pp.387-423.
Elrod, P.D. and Tippett, D.D., 2002. The “death valley” of change. Journal of organizational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), pp.273-291.
Ewen, R. B., Smith, C., Hulin, C., & Locke, E., 1966. An empirical test of the Herzberg two-actor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 544-550.
III
Friedrich, E. and Wüstenhagen, R., 2017. Leading Organizations Through the Stages of Grief: The Development of Negative Emotions Over Environmental Change. Business & Society, 56(2), pp.186-213.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of management review, 19(4), pp.756-785.
Gagné, M. and Deci, E., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), pp.331-362.
Gagné, M. ed., 2014. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford University Press: New York.
Gilson, L.L. and Goldberg, C.B., 2015. Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper?. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), pp.127-130.
Gupta, N. and Pandla, K., 2020. Leveraging Employee Experience during Crisis Situation for Higher performance-special reference to COVID-19 pandemic. Scholedge International Journal of Management & Development. 7(10), pp.150-160.
Hein, E., 2012. The macroeconomics of finance-dominated capitalism and its crisis. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.
Hemakumara, M.G.G., 2020. The Impact of Motivation on Job Performance: A Review of Literature. Journal of Human Resources, 8(2), pp.24-29.
Heyns, M.M. and Kerr, M.D., 2018. Generational differences in workplace motivation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), pp.1-10.
Hirschheim, R., 2008. Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(8), 432–441.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B., 1993. The motivation to work. Transaction Publishers: New York. 40
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T., 2018. Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), pp.155-172.
Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K. and Sandman, K., 2015. What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. The evidence, 1(1), pp.34-37.
Hyde, K.F., 2000. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative market research, 3(2), pp.82-90.
Imran, M. K., & Iqbal, S. M. J. 2021. How change leadership affects change adaptability? Investigating the moderated mediation effect of cognitive resistance and change efficacy. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 15(1), pp.94-117.
IV
Iuliana, S. T. 2020. The Employees´Reaction to Change - Key Factor in Implementing Organisational Change. Annals of Constantin Brancusi´University of Targu-Jiu. Economy Series, (3) pp.36-41.
Jaccard, J. and Jacoby, J. 2010. Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists, Methodology in the social sciences, Guilford Press: New York.
Jaakkola, E., 2020. Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, pp.1-9.
Kniffin, et al., 2021. COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), pp.63-77.
Kooij, D.T., 2020. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on older workers: The role of self-regulation and organizations. Work, Aging and Retirement, 6(4), pp.233-237.
Kostman, J., 1987. Aristotle's definition of change: History of Philosophy Quarterly. 4(1), pp.3-16.
Kumar, P., Kumar, N., Aggarwal, P. and Yeap, J.A., 2021. Working in lockdown: the relationship between COVID-19 induced work stressors, job performance, distress, and life satisfaction. Current Psychology, pp.1-16.
Kuntz, J. R., Malinen, S., & Näswall, K. 2017. Employee resilience: Directions for resilience development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(3), pp.223–242.
Kübler-Ross, E. 1968, On Death and Dying. Touchstone: New York.
Lambert, R.L., 1980. Herzbergs Theory of Hygienes and Motivators. American pharmacy, 20(2), pp.43-44.
Levinson, H., 1976. Psychological man.
Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human relations, 1(2), pp.143-153.
Lopez-Leon, S., Forero, D.A. and Ruiz-Díaz, P., 2020. Recommendations for working from home during the pandemic (and Beyond). Work, (Preprint), pp.371-375.
Lukka, K. and Vinnari, E., 2014. Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1308–1338.
Mahesh, V. and Kumar, S., 2020. Work from home experiences during COVID -19 pandemic among IT employees. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 26(2), pp.639-645.
Marks, M.L., 2006. Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings:: facilitating individual adaptation to major organizational transitions. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), pp.384-399.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), pp.370-396.
V
Mathur, A., 2013. Employee motivation, adjustment and values as correlates of organizational change. Review of HRM, 2, p.35.
Mirela, B., 2020. The impact of working from home on productivity: A study on the pandemic period. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 29(2), pp.267-275.
McClelland, D.C., 1965. N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), p.389.
Monica, B. and Ghayathri, N., 2020. Impact of work from home on employee wellbeing during pandemic. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 26(2), pp.442-446.
Neal, A., Ballard, T. and Vancouver, J.B., 2017. Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4, pp.401-423.
Newman, B.M. and Newman, P.R., 2020. Theories of Adolescent Development. Academic Press: Waltham.
Oreg, S., 2003. Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of applied psychology, 88(4), pp.680-693.
Palumbo, R., 2020. Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(6/7), pp.771-790.
Park, S. and Park, S., 2019. Employee adaptive performance and its antecedents: review and synthesis. Human Resource Development Review, 18(3), pp.294-324.
Park, S. and Park, S., 2021. How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the adaptive performance concepts. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1), pp.E1-E15.
Paton, R.A. and McCalman, J., 2008. Change management: A guide to effective implementation. Sage: London.
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3. ed., SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks.
Pennington, R., 2013. Make change work: staying nimble, relevant, and engaged in a world of constant change. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken.
Quick, T.L., 1988. Expectancy theory in five simple steps. Training & Development Journal, 42(7), pp.30-33.
Rashford, N.S. and Coghlan, D., 1989. Phases and levels of organisational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 41, pp.17-22.
Raišienė, A.G., Rapuano, V., Varkulevičiūtė, K. and Stachová, K., 2020. Working from Home—Who is Happy? A Survey of Lithuania’s employees during the COVID-19 quarantine period. Sustainability, 12(13), pp.1-21.
VI
Ramlall, S., 2004. A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American academy of business, 5(1/2), pp.52-63.
Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A., 2017. Organizational behavior. 17th ed. Pearson Education: Harlow.
Sachau, D.A., 2007. Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human resource development review, 6(4), pp.377-393.
Samuel, M.O. and Chipunza, C., 2009. Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational variables as a panacea. African journal of business management, 3(9), pp.410-415.
Schein, E. H., 1988. Organizational psychology. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Sherman, W. S., & Garland, G. E. 2007. Where to bury the survivors? Exploring possible ex post effects of resistance to change. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 72(1), pp.52.
Sparr, J. L. 2018. Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sensegiving. Journal of change Management, 18(2), pp.162-180.
Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Shapiro, D.L., 2004. The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management review, 29(3), pp.379-387.
Susilo, D., 2020. Revealing the Effect of Work-From-Home on Job Performance during the Covid-19 Crisis: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Issues in
Business and Government, 26(01), pp.23-40.
Tan, V., & Tiong, T. N. 2005. Change management in times of economic uncertainty. Singapore Management Review, 27(1), pp.49-69.
Tay, L. and Diener, E., 2011. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(2), pp.354-365.
Toniolo-Barrios, M. and Pitt, L., 2021. Mindfulness and the challenges of working from home in times of crisis. Business Horizons, 64(2), pp.189-197.
Tovmasyan, G. and Minasyan, D., 2020. The Impact of Motivation on Work Efficiency for Both Employers and Employees also During COVID-19 Pandemic: Case Study from Armenia. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(3), pp.25-25.
Ujhelyi, M., Barizsné, E. H., & Kun, A. I. 2015. Analysing Organizational Changes- The Connection between the Scale of Change and Employees Attitudes. Annals of The University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 24(1), pp.1191-1198.
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D.L., Chang, C.H. and Rosen, C.C., 2016. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), pp.1195-1229.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 2005. Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization studies, 26(9), pp.1377-1404.
VII
Venkatesh, V., 2020. Impacts of COVID-19: A research agenda to support people in their fight. International Journal of Information Management, 55(1), pp.1-6.
Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J., 2003. Self-regulation and the extended now: Controlling the self alters the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 217-230.
Vohs, K.D. and Baumeister, R.F. eds., 2016. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Publications: New York.
Vroom, V. H., 1964. Work motivation. Wiley: New York.
Wahba, M.A. and Bridwell, L.G., 1976. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 15(2), pp.212-240.
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization studies, 14(1), pp.37-58.
Wortman, C., Loftus, E. and Weaver, C., 1999. Psychology. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill: Boston.
Wulandari, F., & Dwiatmadja, C. 2020. The mediating roles of pro-commitment to learning and adaptability to technological change: professional experience portfolio toward employee performance. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), pp.859-868.
Zimmerman, B.J., 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American educational research journal, 45(1), pp.166-183.