EDP 812 Module 4 Applying Motivation at Work Example

Less Machine, More Member Service: Redesigning Motivation in a Contact Center

Student Name

Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University

EDP 812: Foundations of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Less Machine, More Member Service: Redesigning Motivation in a Contact Center

The previous module compared motivation theories and found that the composite Boise credit union's contact center targets raise speed while undermining representatives' sense of autonomy. Gabriel, the organizational development specialist, now turns to action. Exit interviews and a short survey point to three problems: speed targets imposed and monitored minute by minute, representatives working alone at individual workstations with little contact during shifts and schedules assigned by seniority with no explanation, leaving newer representatives with evening and weekend shifts. Like the earlier modules' cast, these staff and their employer are invented.

Autonomy Support

Gagné and Deci (2005) applied self-determination theory to work. They argued that autonomous motivation, acting out of personal endorsement, is associated with better performance on complex tasks, greater job satisfaction and better well-being, and that managers can foster it through autonomy support: providing a meaningful rationale for tasks, acknowledging employees' feelings and perspectives and offering choice where possible. Controlling management, through pressure and close monitoring, tends to produce controlled motivation. The center's minute-by-minute monitoring of handle time is a clear example of the latter.

Social Features of Jobs

Humphrey et al. (2007) meta-analyzed research on work design, bringing together the motivational side of a job, including how much freedom, variety and feedback it offers, with its social side, such as social support, interdependence and interaction outside the organization, and contextual characteristics, such as physical demands. Motivational characteristics predicted outcomes including satisfaction and performance. Social characteristics added substantially to the prediction of outcomes beyond motivational characteristics, and social support was related to lower turnover intentions. Contact center work, with representatives isolated at their stations, scores low on social characteristics.

Fairness

Colquitt et al. (2001) meta-analyzed research on organizational justice, separating judgments about whether outcomes are fair (distributive justice), whether the way they were decided is fair (procedural justice) and whether people are treated and informed respectfully (interactional justice). All three predicted how satisfied, committed and trusting employees were, with procedural justice especially related to attitudes toward the organization. Seniority-based scheduling with no explanation offends procedural and interactional justice in newer representatives' eyes, even if it seems natural to longer-serving staff.

The Pilot

The changes will be piloted in one team of eight at the downtown site for three months. If outcomes improve without unacceptable costs, the changes will extend to the other teams. The pilot allows Gabriel and supervisors to learn what works in practice, such as how teams set targets and whether huddles fit into the call schedule.

Side Effects and Constraints

Handle times may rise during the transition as monitoring relaxes; leadership has agreed to accept a five percent increase during the pilot. Some long-serving representatives may resist changes to scheduling; the new rotation will phase in over six months, with seniority still a factor. Huddles take time off the phones; they will be held at the shift's quietest time.

Measuring Results

The main outcome is six-month turnover among new hires, measured with the quasi-experimental design described in the second module. Secondary outcomes are survey measures of autonomy, social support and procedural justice, collected quarterly, and quality scores. Each measure is tied to a change, so that results show which parts of the intervention work.

Preparing Supervisors

The changes depend on supervisors, who have been trained to monitor handle times and intervene when they rise. Gagné and Deci (2005) noted that autonomy-supportive behavior can be learned, citing training studies in which managers learned to give rationales, acknowledge perspectives and offer choice. Before the pilot, the team's supervisor and team lead will complete a short workshop on these behaviors and practice them in role-plays drawn from real calls. Gabriel will observe two team huddles a month and give the supervisor feedback.

Connecting to the Earlier Analysis

The intervention builds on the previous module's comparison. Goal-setting theory is respected: targets remain specific, but teams help set them and a quality target is added. Self-determination theory shapes the changes to monitoring and target-setting. Expectancy reasoning shapes the path to specialized queues. The research added in this module, on social features of jobs and fairness, addresses problems the motivation theories alone did not capture: isolation and scheduling.

If Results Are Mixed

If turnover falls but quality scores drop, the team will examine whether relaxed monitoring went too far. If survey measures improve but turnover does not, the team will look at other reasons for leaving, such as pay or the work-family pressures examined in later modules. Mixed results are likely and still informative.

Why Not a Recognition Program

Leadership's first suggestion was a monthly award for the representative with the best handle time. The research suggests caution. Gagné and Deci (2005) reviewed evidence that tangible rewards made contingent on performance can be experienced as controlling and can undermine autonomous motivation for interesting work, though rewards that acknowledge competence without pressure are less likely to do so. An award for speed would reinforce the very pressure representatives described. If recognition is used, it will go to teams for quality and for solving difficult member problems, chosen partly by the representatives themselves, so that it signals competence rather than control. This is also cheaper than the alternatives and fits the fairness concerns, since team awards avoid the appearance of favoritism that individual awards chosen by supervisors can create (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Conclusion

Gagné and Deci show how autonomy support fosters autonomous motivation, Humphrey and colleagues show that social features of jobs add to motivational ones and Colquitt and colleagues show that fair procedures and treatment matter. For the contact center, changes to target-setting, team structure and scheduling address three distinct problems, each measured so the credit union can see what works.

References

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332