Assignment 1

 

Throughout this course, we are going to draft a company policy that encourages managers to empower their employees.  Several topics will be analyzed in preparing this policy to ensure that it will be successful upon implementation.  Topics that will be addressed include company culture, motivation, economics, managerial accounting, decision making, and risk management.  We will work through these issues as they relate to your idea for a new policy and end with a final proposal to the executives.

Assignment 1:

Throughout the first two weeks, you have read about the importance of motivating employees within a company as well as how this is an economically wise decision.  The first step in this project is to come up with your idea as to how you are going to motivate the employees within the company.  I want you to explain the idea, and present research to support the importance of motivation (how it benefits both the company and the employee) as well as support for your idea specifically. 

This does not need to be written as a formal research paper, but all research provided does need to be cited in APA format.  You may write in the first person because you are presenting your own ideas.  You do not need to provide an abstract, but you do need an APA formatted title page and reference page.  Your paper should be a minimum of 2 pages (approx. 700 words) not including the title and reference.

Use the attached material for reference and when citing only!!!!!

A Policy of Zero Tolerance with Exceptions: Writing Organizational
Policy in a Changing Environment

Phil Vardiman

Abilene Christian University

Ian J. Shepherd
Abilene Christian University

Darryl Jinkerson

Abilene Christian University

Management exists within a framework of “do’s” and “don’ts”. This framework requires the ability of
managers to make decisions that don’t always conform to a set of rules, and yet are held to a standard of
right outcomes based on the rules. Managers, who don’t follow the rules or policies, are judged based on
their decision as it relates to the rule or policy. The use of policies and procedures to guide decisions is
fine until something comes along that doesn’t fit the mold of a normal day-to-day business issue and
suddenly an “out of the norm” decision is required.

INTRODUCTION

Managers operate in a world of constant change and difficult decisions. The challenge facing
managers having to make consistent decisions arises partially from the difficulty of designing policies and
procedures that allow for conformity and at the same time allow for flexibility. A case in point would be
the “Zero Tolerance Policy” when in fact there is no such thing as a “Zero Tolerance Policy.” This type of
policy has created many unexpected consequences and caused high levels of stress on the managers
tasked with implementing them.
Policies are written with the intent to make things better by helping the decision-making process work
better for everyone. Something happens in the workplace that needs to be addressed, and suddenly a
policy is written to make sure it is handled consistently for everyone in the future. The question arises as
to how we redesign the policy-making and implementation process. What steps should we consider first
before writing a policy? How do we determine the “domino effect” before the policy is implemented?
Managers are being required to know the employment laws and organizational policies and also to
use “common sense” in handing all issues. Rethinking our way of utilizing policies in the ever changing
workplace environment is needed in today’s society. Managers are becoming more of a coach and mentor
than a rule master. With the rapid changes taking place in our generational demographics, what will the
new policies and procedures requirements be for future generations? How will managers consistently
apply policies that leave little room for judgment? This paper presents examples of changes in policy
development and implementation processes, and recommendations for best practices.

32 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014

POLICY DESIGN

Policy development can be a very broad topic and one that involves many different levels of design.
The focus of this paper is targeted toward organizational policy development to address specific needs
and required decision-making guidance. When discussing policy development for an organization, this
research is not intended to focus on developing policy within a political context. This type of policy
development views policy design and implementation through the use of logic models. Such models focus
on how the policy will be represented, implemented, and measured within a broad scope of both internal
and external stakeholders (Wallis, 2010). Many organizational policies are designed primarily to address
a day-to-day need without a broad consideration of stakeholders beyond the immediate department or
organizational context.
Several things need to be considered when designing an organizational policy. Unfortunately the
driving force behind most new policy development is an urgent need to address an unsatisfactory
condition or situation without considering the long term impact of full implementation. This need
supersedes a systematic approach to policy development and has the power to override common sense.
We realize this is a strong statement, but many policies have been developed with the sole purpose of
addressing a single issue that arises from a crisis situation. Rarely do policies happen because they are
part of a long-term well-thought-out strategic plan with no necessary need for changing the organization’s
decision-making processes in the short-term. Policy design should take into consideration all the potential
variables of consistent decision-making, implementation, equity, and predetermined analysis for
revisions. The more established organizations, such as large businesses and government agencies, have
well-defined and engrained policies that are so heavy with restrictions and add-ons that it makes policy
enforcement almost a joke.
The exceptions to the policy become the “rule” of the policy. You have a policy that says you can’t
dress a certain way at work, and then you make an exception for Fridays. This change becomes the new
policy until you make an exception for Wednesday, and before long the dress code policy becomes
impossible to enforce. In the academic environment we are constantly making new policies concerning
the use of technology in the classroom. Students appear confused, especially when we enforce the policy
differently depending on which professor or department is interpreting it. The challenge is allowing
exceptions without the exceptions becoming the norm.

CONSISTENCY IN DECISION MAKING

The need for consistency is both a “fair” and “legal” requirement in an organizational climate.
Treating people fair and equably is not only the right thing to do, but it is the legal thing to do. How can
you always be consistent? How can you ensure fairness in your policies and procedures? When is it okay
to be inconsistent and yet be fair? In the Book “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, it is taught that establishing
the rules and abiding by them to the letter is a foundational cornerstone for developing strong leadership.
Once you break the rules and allow this behavior to go unaddressed, even by a high level employee, you
have weakened the leadership position. With this in mind, how can you be inconsistent and consistent at
the same time when handling challenging situations or difficult decisions?
The challenge in having policies that are strictly based on rules and regulations is not to build walls
and limit the ability to react to out-of-the-norm situations. Basically it is hard to be consistent with a strict
rule-based policy and also seem to understand the out-of-the-norm situations that require some flexibility.
The need then is to develop policies that have guidelines and at the same time allow for flexibility in the
application.

RULES VS PRINCIPLES (GUIDELINES)

Taking a difference approach to policy development includes moving away from simply writing new
rules and instead developing principles that can be used to guide behaviors or outcomes in a variety of

Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014 33

different situations. It involves moving away from the reliance on specific (sometimes highly detailed)
rules and relying on principles to determine the standard or expectations of acceptable behavior. This new
approach does bring new challenges in the area of accountability and consistent application. To be
successful, it requires learning new skills in the administration and approaches required from the
organizational leadership (Black, Hopper, & Band, 2007).
Principle-based decision making processes require trust in ability and an understanding that values
should serve as the foundation for appropriate decision making. These values are developed into guiding
principles that start with the individual and then move through the organization. Fundamental changes in
behavior are achieved through the successful implementation and administration of the appropriate
guiding principles (Castiglione, 2013). Recently we helped create a new Social Media Policy for an
organization that worked with a large group of individuals in the Millennial/Gen Y generation. We
actually decided to change the word “policy” to “guidelines” and focus on the key principles we identified
to guide behaviors in this particular age group. By taking this approach to policy development, we have
found that consistency is a goal that can still be obtained even if the outcomes (decisions) are different
based on the policy administration. In other words, you should always be consistent in how you reach
your decision, but the outcomes may be different based on the environment and various factors impacting
the decision.
Of course, there are many good patterns and examples of traditional policy development that require
an established list of rules “do’s” and “don’ts”. It is important to understand the strengths of such policies
and also the limitations of flexibility.

BEST PRACTICES

In this section of the paper, we will show two different approaches to best practices in policy
development. These approaches show a traditional model for policy development and a more unstructured
model designed for flexibility in both development and implementation. Both development processes
focus on achieving a highly useful, practical and effective organizational policy. The process of achieving
these desired outcomes is approached in very different formats and early design stages.

ACUPA POLICY DESIGN

The first example, as shown in figure 1 below, is from the association of college and university policy
administrators (ACUPA). This chart lays out each critical stage of development and the key areas such as:
predevelopment, development, and maintenance. This process is strong in issue identification and
securing the needed approval processes throughout design and implementation. It is also strong in
understanding the need for constant maintenance and policy updates. It follows a linear process that
covers all the bases and helps make sure a well-defined highly structured policy is created. The overall
need and expected outcomes are both identified and included within the policy development steps.

34 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014

FIGURE 1
ACUPA POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

As illustrate in figure 1, a critical key to writing a good policy is to truly know what issue or situations
you are attempting to address and improve. This may seem too basic, but it is very important; without
starting out on the right foot you might spend an enormous amount of time trying to fix something that
isn’t broken. Keeping it simple upfront is very important. The strength of the simple structure lies in its
simplicity (Robbins & Judge, 2015). At the beginning of policy development there is a tendency to create
a wish list and to keep thinking of things to include. At this initial stage, it is recommended that policy-
makers be specific and expand only if the need truly exists.
You also need to identify the stakeholders and people who will be most affected by the new policy.
Many times policies and procedures are written at a distance from the issue or situation needing to be
addressed, with the result that once the policy is completed people will ask what were they thinking when
this was written. It is simply a case of not truly knowing everything needed to develop a good policy and
having the need to cover everything. To help address this disconnect, it is recommended that you
assemble a team knowledgeable of the issue to help you create the new policy or procedure.
After you have identified the key issue(s) and designed the policy with appropriate language through
key approvals, you begin the broad communication and implementation. An important point to remember
is the need to evaluate and constantly revise the policy as needed. The desired outcome is a well-
established policy that is broadly communicated and one that will be used appropriately. There are

Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014 35

countless policy manuals that have been well written and yet seldom get used and stay on the shelf
collecting dust.

PRINCIPLE BASED POLICY DESIGN

Another key consideration for best practices is to move away from a rigid rule-based policy
development process and move towards a more flexible principle-based policy. In the following figures 2
& 3, we begin highlighting two different approaches to policy design that both contrast and highlight key
differences between a rigid design and a flexible design. This is a difficult move in organizational cultures
that rely on strong leadership from the top in the decision making and approval processes. The
developmental paths begins just like the traditional policy development with identifying the issue (s) and
making sure the correct need is being addressed.
Depending on the policy development process, the expected outcomes rely on policy implementation,
and to some degree, acceptance. This process of development understands that a good policy is not only
used appropriately, but is supported and aligned with the needed change for organizational success.
Beginning with the end in mind is a good rule of thumb, but it cannot justify any means to get there. It is
very important to get support and buy-in from the people who are impacted by and are expected to
implement the new policy.
It is also important to understand that support and buy-in does not mean total agreement. It does mean
broad support and acceptance. The goal is to replace the need or desire for support and reach a higher
level of acceptance that becomes a level of ownership for the new policy (guidelines). This greatly
enhances the full implementation and use of the new policy. The people impacted by the policy will see it
as a useful process and one that allows some degree of flexibility to reach common sense outcomes. It is
not meant to be a restricting process, but more of a direction-setting policy with a positive desired
outcome of changed behavior. Using a principle-based policy or guidelines requires a higher level of trust
in the organizational leadership and focuses on doing the right thing more than doing it the right way.

Stage 1
At this stage, as shown in figure 2, is found the critical step of identifying the correct issue to be
addressed. It doesn’t matter which policy development process you select, if you haven’t identified the
correct issue to address, the policy will not be used successfully. In fact, if the correct issue is not
addressed, it will cause confusion and frustration that adds to the time required and hinders acceptance.
Revisions will have to be made, and the overall effectiveness will be diminished. The key differences lie
in the initial developmental steps once the issue(s) have been identified. Basically, it is at this point a
decision is made to either begin by writing rules and regulations that address the direction of change or by
developing a set of principles that encourage the desired behavior (s) to address the direction of change.

Stage 2
At this point the desired outcomes are expressed, and the required set of rules “do’s” and “don’ts” are
identified. Everything is documented exactly as desired and buy-in is secured from high level leadership
for the policy. The high level of commitment obtained from the top leadership is for both implementation
and compliance (following the policy). It comes down to the list of “do’s” and “don’ts” and how they are
to be followed. Key employees are identified to approve, communicate, and provide direction in the
developmental process. The developmental process and format of the policy is taking shape within a
limited amount of communication and buy-in.

36 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014

FIGURE 2
TRADITIONAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (FOUR STAGES)

Acceptance Filter
Policy acceptance by the employees tasked with interpreting and implementing the new requirements
are critical to the overall success and realized outcomes. In a traditional policy development process, once
the policy has been written and approved then the policy is required (forced) to be used. As the policy is
rolled out, many things impact the acceptance of the new policy. Some of these begin with the basic first
step of identifying and addressing the correct need. Added confusion is created when policies are written
to address a need caused by one incident, but not totally bought into by the employees tasked with
interpreting and implementing the new policy. For example, when a policy such as attendance is created
to force employees to come to work on time, it can also be interpreted as a time determinant for not only
beginning and ending work but also for when work actually occurs. As a case in point: when a person is
required to use a time clock to record working hours, it is then a document trail detailing when they
should work and not work. Basically, anything that is not on the clock is not considered work. This type
of policy is supported by employment law, but it does create some confusion in an unstructured work
environment.
Another recent example of confusion created by a new policy would be the “The Affordable Care
Act” requiring insurers to cancel individual policies if they don’t meet new minimum benefits or cost-
sharing rules established by the federal government. The intent of this policy was stated much differently,
and has caused many debates and frustrations regarding its interpretation. Again, the policy roll-out has
been difficult because of differences between what was originally said to be addressed and how the

Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014 37

implementation process has had to be adjusted or revised to clear up confusion caused by a different
outcome (overall impact) than what was communicated.

Stage 3
After the policy has been developed, then it is communicated to the workforce and the impacted
employees are trained and instructed on the correct use of the policy. This step is also well documented
and given strong emphasis. This stage is presented with an understanding that the policy will be used as
necessary to address situations that are out of compliance. It is at this stage that a certain level of “wait
and see” is felt by many within the workforce. The employees understand that new policies are constantly
being developed and many times the need for the policy changes or the level of buy-in drops to a point
where the policy simply is not enforced anymore. If the skeptics can wait long enough, then the policy
will either go away or simply become an out-of-date document that no longer affects them.

Limited Use (Filter)
At the time of creation, all policies are expected to be used and to achieve the desired outcomes. The
actual success of the policy lies in the level of use and how well the need is addressed. The true test of a
policy can be measured by the overall commitment to follow the requirements (rules & regulations) and
the long term impact on the organization. One of the “watch-outs” for utilization is the unforeseen
domino effect caused by a rigid set of rules. A domino effect as defined by BusinessDictionary.com as the
repercussion of an act or event under which every associated or connected entity is affected to more or
less the same degree. This affect is named after the circular arrangement of dominos in which if any one
domino falls, all fall. When writing policies, it is hard to consider the domino effect unless you have a
strategic focus.
Another concern to consider is unintended consequences that happen when a policy is implemented
without considering the full impact or big picture. A perfect example is the “Zero Tolerance Policy” as
discussed at the beginning of the paper. As an example, Debra Smith, the multi-unit owner of eight
Subway sandwich shops, had a vision to establish a chain of family friendly restaurants that promoted a
clean, safe, and attractive atmosphere. Debra had grown her operation from one shop location in a very
small rural city to eight locations – five of which were in a much larger city. Debra attributed much of her
success to the values and attitudes that she personally modeled in her management style and work
behaviors. To help promote and foster these values and behaviors throughout all the stores, she developed
an extensive new employee orientation and well documented personnel policies that were very typical to
the fast food industry.
One policy that was unique to Debra’s operation was a zero tolerance policy against the use of
profanity in the work place. This policy was written to establish a cooperative and professional workplace
environment. Everyone bought into the policy on these premises. The written policy stated that the use of
profanity or vulgar language will be grounds for immediate termination. The policy forces the question,
“Would Debra actually fire someone that used profanity in the workplace regardless of the situation?”
The policy had never really been tested until the day Debra received a phone call from her General
Manager, telling her that one of their best managers, had just gone berserk at a meeting and cursed out all
the other managers in the room. Wow! What should Debra do? Should she fire the manager for violating
the zero tolerance policy? Now the real dilemma is being forced on the manager because of the No
Tolerance policy. Again, the policy was developed and written for the right reason, but its implementation
and ultimate effect on the workplace is in doubt.
Faced with having to make the difficult decision of letting the manager go, it was decided to wait and
fully evaluate the incident from all angles. Basically this decision has caused a longer delay in addressing
the issue, and it eventually went away or at least dropped from the top of the to-do-list. As the time
passed, most everyone tried to forget about the incident and hoped that there would not be another
situation involving profanity in that type of sitting. Based on manager interviews and further discussions,
it was discovered that profanity does occur on many occasions in the normal course of work. It was also
discovered that the actual written policy does state a zero tolerance for profanity. The policy is still used

38 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014

for training purposes and no one has challenged its validity. The time bomb is ticking and everyone
knows that the next incident is just a “word” away.
Finally, if a policy is deemed to be too difficult to use, or if it simply does not adequately address a
long term need then it will simply cease to exist in a practical sense. These types of policies tend to
become dust collectors and stay on the shelf. There is a high level of satisfaction in policy creation when
it is fully documented and finalized. If the policy is not written in such a way as to be used for a broad
area of need, then once the crisis has passed the policy becomes obsolete. The policy is then closed and
placed on the shelf until we have another need for it, but when that happens we will probably find a way
to address it with an exception, so we really don’t need to look at the original or outdated policy. We have
now in effect written a new policy that may in fact be undocumented. Many organizations have
undocumented polices that every long-term employee knows and recognizes.

Stage 4

The final stage is one of both acceptance and resistance. Depending on how specific the policy is
written the final effect may be one that limits or restricts the overall effectiveness of the implementation.
The example of a zero-tolerance policy as stated earlier can cause management to be boxed-in with little
flexibility in the decision-making process. This causes resistance to use the policy. The more rigid the
policy, the more consistent in the final decisions (outcomes), but at the same time a more rigid policy can
lead to questionable solutions that seem to say one size fits all. To address this challenge, a process of
constant policy updates and revisions is required. This requirement can lead to a large and robust policy
that will rarely be read and will be even less likely to be used appropriately.

FIGURE 3
PRINCIPLE BASED POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (FOUR STAGES)

Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014 39

Stage 1
As shown in figure 3, when considering a principle based approach to policy development it is once
again critical to identify the correct issue to be addressed. As stated earlier, it doesn’t matter which policy
development process you select, if you haven’t identified the correct issue to address, the policy will not
be successful. A key difference at this stage in policy development begins by establishing a set of
principles or guidelines to provide direction and adequate flexibility to fully address a large scope of
situations depending on each specific need. At this stage it is recognized that flexibility is just as
important as principle refinements. The overall support and usability of the policy or guidelines will
greatly increase depending on the acceptance and alignment with the agreed-upon set of principles. This
stage begins the engagement and alignment process.

Stage 2
At this point, buy-in is sought from all or a large group of employees who will be impacted by the
policy with its stated principles or guidelines. It is important to seek engagement and understanding from
those expected to communicate and implement the policy. Documentation will be more focused on
identifying and defining each specific principle or guideline. Policy documentation based on principles is
normally much shorter and allows more flexibility in interpretation. Again, the desired outcome is
alignment with the established principles and not rules-based enforcement. By gaining alignment, a
change in behaviors is expected to occur that satisfies the policy goals. This stage is critical for the
acceptance and support for the policy. It sets the stage for ownership of the new policy and not just
following orders if the proper buy-in and support was gained upfront during the initial development
process.

Acceptance Filter
The point of acceptance is much easier when developing principle-based policies. To a large degree
the acceptance has already occurred during the identification and definition of each principle or guideline.
By involving many of the people tasked with policy interpretation and implementation, the buy-in and
alignment has already occurred. If the work up to this point has been done appropriately then the
acceptance filter is one of support and even ownership. This is a key strength of principle-based policy
development. The policy doesn’t have to be forced through the organization. It is seen as a guide that can
be flexed within reason to help provide direction. It is not seen as a set of rules that limit decision making
and flexibility in application.

Stage 3
Key to this stage is the overall broad-based communication of each principle and/or guideline along
with suggestions for implementation. As stated earlier, flexibility is a key strength of principle-based
policy development, but at the same time the communication process does allow for training and
affirmation on how to use the policy within different scenarios. Training is vital for appropriate
interpretation and alignment on the proper uses of the policy. Again, a key goal is not to determine every
decision outcome upfront, but to provide consistency in how the policy is administered. As with every
policy, there will be skeptics waiting to see how well the policy is interpreted, applied, and fully
implemented. The more buy-in you can get from the people impacted by the new policy, the more easily
concerns can be addressed.

Guide – Use Filter
The actual application of a principle-based policy can be very broad. You have the advantage of
applying a set of principles to each situation that allows flexibility and common sense. The policy is seen
as a good tool to help you address and find answers to difficult situations. It is meant to be positive and
not restrictive. There is both an art and a science to policy interpretation and use. Policies that are
principle-based become easier to use and, to some degree, part of the culture as discussed in stage 4. It is
at this point that you know the policy is successful and has achieved full implementation.

40 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014

Stage 4
The policy implementation process allows for a variety of applications and flexible outcomes. It is a
process that is intended to become part of the organizational culture. Decisions are reached by utilizing a
principle such as “respect others” that addresses a need to promote a behavior change that fosters the
desired behavior. If the desired behavior is not achieved, then the policy allows for more direct
enforcement. If the desired behavior is achieved, then the policy allows for positive coaching and
recognition. Respecting others is a broad principle that can be applied to a variety of situations with a
flexible decision-making outcome. Again, as stated earlier, it is very important to provide the necessary
communication, training, and alignment to reach full cultural acceptance. The eventual long-term success
of this policy will depend largely on the skills, interpretation, and proper implementation of this policy.

FIGURE 4
COMBINED POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (FOUR STAGES)

As shown above in figure 4, the initial step in policy development is to decide if you want to establish
a set of rules/regulations or a set of principles/guidelines to address the need. Both policy development
formats have their advantages and, to some degree, their weaknesses. Overall commitment from the
individuals designing and using the policy is required, and there will always be some skepticism for the
actual effectiveness of the new policy. Ultimately the long-term impact will be determined by the
acceptance and actual use by the organization.

Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014 41

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL

The “decision” at the point of entry to the combined model found in figure 4 is of critical importance.
The path chosen for the best policy is better understood if we examine the differences in both paths. As
previously discussed, a rule is a fixed application of law or a requirement that has to be followed
completely. When considering the decision or implementation from a law perspective; if you use foul
language you will be immediately dismissed. In essence all this law requires is a yes or no answer i.e. did
the employee use foul language? Answer: Yes, therefore, the employee must be dismissed immediately.
No interpretation is needed. The answer is clear and obvious, but as we can see in reality, it is “a less than
palatable” option. It creates a boxed-in scenario that can seem out of touch with a common sense
approach to the best solution.
From a corporate entity point of view, this type of rule is more applicable to, or more likely to be
sourced from, larger corporations with deep and hierarchical spans of control. The deeper the span of
control, the more rules typically found and the more complex become the policies to maintain control.
“The top-down implementation approach is a clear-cut system of command and control” (Girdwood,
2013). A shallow span of control is more likely to be found in smaller, more nimble corporations, where
reactions need to be made on the spur of the moment. These types of corporations are less likely to use
corporate rules and prefer guidelines allowing flexibility in reaction to certain situations. The decision
path then becomes a choice based on the identity and personality of the company. A more traditional
management style would tend towards rules while a more distributed and flexible management style
would tend towards guidelines. Two different management styles are in play as well: top down or bottom
up management styles?
The different models work best when the management styles match the policy directions of
development and management styles should be considered when selecting the policy development track.
The creation process for both types (rule and guideline) carry different creation time lines. The creation
process for the top-down rule is fairly efficient (Matland, 1995). There are few people involved and their
decision process occurs fairly quickly when compared to the bottom-up approach. Bottom up creation of
guidelines requires much more time to ensure acceptance by all. The process of group agreement and
approval dramatically increases the time required to implement these types of guidelines.
Once commitment has been obtained and the corporation has either enforced or accepted the decision,
implementation begins. Implementation time differs in both models as training for the rule-based model
requires instruction on how the rules must be applied whereas the guidelines model requires mere
acceptance of something those affected already understand. The people involved in the generation of the
guideline have already ensured that their understanding is aligned with what the guideline entails.
Given the two models creation process, the use filter is determined by the level of buy in by the
employees. Rules imposed and enforced tend to be limited in their use. A good example is the foul
language example. Were the foul language example designed as a guideline, the example given above
could be explained and still supported by defining “where” and under “what circumstances” the infraction
occurred. Guideline: You must not use foul language at all. Application: A situation in front of employees
in a closed door meeting is different than a situation where the foul language occurs in front of a
company’s customers.
The long term impact of a rule, once overlooked, is greatly degraded. The rule loses effectiveness
when its application is inconsistent. The flexibility of application using the guideline approach allows
each application to be assessed, allowing the guideline to become an accepted, rather than enforced, part
of the corporate culture. Flexibility allows the guideline to be continuously used, adapted, applied, and to
become engrained within the culture of the corporation.

SUMMARY

Policy development doesn’t just happen. It needs to be planned and well-thought-out to be
appropriately effective in an ever-changing environment. It is best to begin with the end in mind and

42 Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014

consider all the possible watch-outs that are associated with implementation for the long-term. People
support policies that are clear, simple, and developed through a participative method. The best policies are
self-correcting; that is, they are developed with the understanding that they will be changed and that there
is a process for ensuring this will happen as necessitated by changing variables within the organization. It
is also good to consider principles as guidelines and not necessarily a list of rules that send a message of
inflexibility. The thought of flexibility doesn’t mean an inconsistent process of policy implementation. It
means that not all answers will be the same as the policy or principles are used to reach decisions. It does
mean that the same process or steps will be used consistently to find the best answer.
In addition, it involves a process of inclusion, in that knowledgeable participants will have a full
understanding of the issues and will determine the policy and assist in overseeing its implementation.
Additional research in the areas of management style versus policy developmental path(s) and identifying
suitable values that drive best policy principles for desired organizational behavior changes will continue
to be explored. A successful developed organizational policy is one that is supported and used by the
organization appropriately and that ultimately becomes part of the culture.
Policies should not become an entity unto themselves that outlive their usefulness, and in the long-
term become more of a burden then a solution. The balance between consistently addressing the need and
also allowing flexible outcomes (decisions) is a difficult but worthwhile goal in the policy development
process.

REFERENCES

Association of College & University Policy Administrators (1998). Policy Development Process.

Retrieved 9:00, January 24, 2014, from http://www.acupa.org/projects/process/default.cfm
Black, J., Hopper, M., & Band, C. (2007). Making a Success of Principle-based Regulation, Law and

Financial Markets Review. May 2007.
Castiglione, A.M. (2013). Guiding Principles: Principle Based Decision Making. The Bill Blackwood

Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. February 2013.
Girdwood, J., (2013), “Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches within Implementation”, February 21, 2013

in Public Policy. http://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/top-down-and-bottom-up-
approaches-within-implementation/

Matland, “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy
Implementation,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5 (April, 1995), pp.
145-174.

Robins, S., & Judge, T. (2015). Organizational Behavior, Pearson 16th Edition, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey.

Sun Tzu – The Art of War. (2002, October 25). In WriteWork.com. Retrieved 11:00, March 01, 2014,
from http://www.writework.com/essay/sun-tzu-art-war

Wallis, Steven E., Toward the Development of More Robust Policy Models (2010). Integral Review, Vol.
6, No. 1, March 2010.

Journal of Management Policy and Practice vol. 15(5) 2014 43

http://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/top-down-and-bottom-up-approaches-within-implementation/�

http://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/category/public-policy/�

http://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/top-down-and-bottom-up-approaches-within-implementation/�

http://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/top-down-and-bottom-up-approaches-within-implementation/�

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Managerial communication

practices

and employees’
attitudes and behaviours

A qualitative study
Shilpee A. Dasgupta

Department of Management, Chandragupt Institute of Management,
Patna, India, and

Damodar Suar and Seema Singh
Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, IIT Kharagpur,

Kharagpur, India

Abstract

Purpose – This study is a part of two sequential studies (quantitative and qualitative) carried out to
study the impact of managerial communication on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. The paper
aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – Using the critical incident technique, this study explores the
effects of managerial communication practices on employees’ happiness, job performance, commitment,
absenteeism, and turnover intentions. Totally, 101 employees in three manufacturing organisations in
eastern India narrated critical incidents related to happiness and superior performance, unhappiness
and inferior performance, absenteeism, and the desire to stay or quit. The incidents were further
content-analysed.
Findings – Results revealed that collaborative approach, respect and recognition, flexible working
arrangements, trust, clear direction, autonomous and challenging tasks are important indicators
to make employees happy and drive them towards superior performance. Contrarily, the dominant
nature of the superior and more bossism than required, humiliation, biased approach, and lack of
flexible working arrangements are detrimental to employees’ performance. Collaborative approach,
respect/recognition, person-job match, autonomous and challenging tasks, flexible working
arrangements, brand image, and location near hometown are the propellers for continuing service
in organisations. Contrarily, hierarchical/dominant approach, humiliation, lack of respect and recognition,
biased approach – different rules for different people, monotonous and boring assignments, and
uncompetitive pay are the propellers for not continuing service in organisations. Humiliation, lack of
flexible arrangements, and overwork are the causes for employees’ absenteeism.
Research limitations/implications – This study is not without limitations. First, there were some
critical incidents with apparent overlapping content areas. To overcome this situation, the authors
decided to give preference to the primary theme emerging out of an incident. Second, the observations
made in this study were limited to descriptions of what happened in only three organisations.
This limits the ability to generalise the results.
Practical implications – Organisations can train supervisors to develop people-centric communication
practices, communicate with respect and recognition, implement flexible working arrangements,
improve job design, involve employees in important decisions, offer them with autonomous and
challenging tasks, so that employees realise their full potential and become happy contributors to their
organisations.
Originality/value – The study attempted to capture employees’ lived experiences and provided them
with narrations of situations that are commonly and uniquely experienced.

Keywords Corporate communications, Employee behaviour, Employee attitudes,
Employee relations, Management attitudes, Employees involvement

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

Received 25 June 2011
Revised 2 February 2012

26 April 2013
15 August 2013

20 November 2013
31 December 2013

Accepted 27 January 2014

Corporate Communications: An
International Journal

Vol. 19 No. 3, 2014
pp. 287-

302

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1356-3

289

DOI 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2013-0023

287

Managerial
communication

practices

Introduction
Relationships have been an integral part of human lives. Effective managerial
communication in an organisation helps to connect with employees, build positive
relationships and frame attitudes and behaviours of employees in the workplace
(Wyatt, 2006).

There is a shift in the way managers communicate with their employees/subordinates.
It is believed that in the 1950s the emphasis was on reducing bureaucracy. From the
late 1950s to early 1980s the emphasis moved to motivating and involving people for
harnessing their unused potential. During the late 1980s and into the early 1990s
organisations had begun to consider employees as their greatest asset as they became
more and more multinational and decentralised. But now, the asset metaphor is elevated
to a new level. Organisations have started recognising their employees as human capital
owners and investors (Davenport, 1999).

The word “yoga” in “udyoga” provides a new vision of business in India. It can be
considered as the fifth way of self-realisation, the other four being raj yoga, gyan yoga,
bhakti yoga, and karma yoga. The managerial meaning of yoga is “yearning for oneness
and gaining advancement” (Sharma, 2005). Managers represent organisations and their
communication can influence employees’ behaviours down the line (Vuuren et al., 2007).

Although relationships have been one of the pivotal concerns in management
research for decades, the significance of relationships between employees and organisations
has become even more salient. While the role of emotions has been emphasised in
organisational research (Rafaeli and Sutton, 1989), the display of emotions in organisations
has become a topic of greater interest to organisational scholars during the past several
years. Increased competition has forced organisations to focus greater attention on the way
employees are treated at the workplace.

Background
We had previously conducted a quantitative-questionnaire-based study to gauge the
impact of managerial communication styles on employees’ attitudes and behaviours.
Hypotheses were derived on the basis of extensive literature survey. Studying a
cross-section of 400 employees (working under middle managers, line managers, and
supervisors) from ten similar manufacturing organisations in eastern India, the study
examined the relationship of managerial communication styles and employees’ attitudes
and behaviours through the lens of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and organisation
support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Shore and Shore,
1995). Analyses were carried out using SPSS 16.0 and AMOS 16.0. Results revealed
that managers/supervisors communicate in passive, aggressive, and assertive styles.
Assertive style of communication of superiors can foster maximum supportive work
relations. The perceived supervisory support (PSS) can fulfil the communication needs
of employees and increase their organisation-based self-esteem (OBSE). While PSS can
increase affective commitment (emotional attachment) that can reduce absenteeism,
OBSE can enhance job performance (Dasgupta, Suar, and Singh, 2013).

At the time of collection of filled-in questionnaires, some employees agreed to share
their experiences about their supervisory communication, recognition, behaviours, and
attitudes and those were jotted down in field dairy. The important narrations relevant
to the context were reported. The revelations by employees were interesting and
synonymous with McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y.

Relationships and social bonding play a vital role in Indian culture (Dash et al.,
2007). Employees tend to be in supportive relationship with superiors who create

288

CCIJ
19,3

trustworthy environment through open, honest, and need-based communication.
They cultivate sneh-shradha relationship with their superiors (Sinha, 2002). While
passive managers can be indecisive, poor mentors, and uninspiring, assertive
managers consider the rights and needs of everybody (Arredondo, 2003). They have
the ability to support and connect with employees both rationally and emotionally,
which helps them to properly manage their employees. Accordingly, assertive
managers have extended more support to employees compared to passive managers.
Conversely, aggressive managers due to their rude and self-centred behaviour could
not maintain positive relationships with their employees.

Supportive communications of supervisors build positive relationships thus
increasing PSS and increase employees’ communication satisfaction because their
needs are met (Madlock, 2008). Also, PSS helps in the development of employees’
OBSE by enhancing employees’ scope for decision making and developing a sense of job
autonomy. The OBSE of employees in organisations reflects the perceived value they
have of themselves as organisation members (Pierce et al., 1989).

Organisational commitment (OC) is the desire of employees to remain in the
organisation. OC has three dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative (Allen and
Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is the employee’s positive emotional attachment to
the organisation. Continuance commitment is the state in which the employee commits
to continue his/her job in the organisation because s/he perceives high costs of losing
organisational membership, including economic (such as pension accruals) and social
costs (friendship ties with co-workers). Indian culture values emotions, family ties,
and long-term relationships. Employees develop emotional attachment with their
organisations when they are satisfied with the communication of supervisors. This
emotional attachment encourages them to attend their work regularly. On the other hand,
just fulfilling the intrinsic needs of employees may not be sufficient to increase their
performance. Also, an employee might stay in an organisation in spite of dissatisfaction
with his/her manager’s communication, if s/he does not have any other employment
alternative(s). Employees who are bound by economic exchange may or may not be
regular in their work.

As in the “Pygmalion effect” (Livingston, 1988), employees give their best when
expectations of supervisors are high. When employees are trusted and offered
challenging work, their enhanced self-esteem trigger higher job performance as well as
better job elsewhere (Goris et al., 2000; Villegas and Cerveny 2004).

Employees have reported very low rate of absenteeism in the quantitative study.
Employees might not have taken leave without permission due to the severe
consequences they might have to face including pay cut, losing jobs, etc.

Previous studies have suggested that OC can influence absenteeism (Savery et al.,
1998). But issues like OC and absenteeism of employees along with the impact
of communication were not explored fully within the structured frame of the
quantitative study. However, the experiences shared by employees laid the foundation
to comprehend effects of managerial communication practices through a qualitative
study.

Qualitative research has not been emphasised much by the industrial/organisational
psychologists in the study of employees’ behaviours (Ehigie and Ehigie, 2005). Adopting
a qualitative approach can reveal the fine-grained realities that are likely to escape in
a quantitative study (Ehigie and Ehigie, 2005; Patton, 2002). Recently, the critical incident
technique (CIT) has been instrumental as a research technique to explore organisational
problems. Rather than the pre-conceptualised notion and specific hypotheses, efforts

289
Managerial
communication
practices

were made to explore the effects of managerial communication using a similar technique
like Herzberg’s critical incident.

In Herzberg’s (1959, 1968) study, 200 accountants and engineers in Pittsburgh area
of the USA were asked to narrate incidents when they felt exceptionally good or bad
about their present and/or past job. Analysis of reported critical incidents revealed that
when employees reported or talked about good feelings or satisfaction, they mentioned
the factors intrinsic to the job – achievement, recognition, responsibility, challenging
job, and growth or advancement. When employees talked about bad feelings or
dissatisfaction, the analysis of narrated incidents revealed the factors external to
the job – company policy and administration, working conditions, salary, personal life,
status, status, security, relationship with supervisors, peers, and subordinates.
Analysis of critical incidents gave rise to the two-factor theory of motivation because
the motivation/satisfaction as well as dissatisfaction reside in two distinct category
of job factors. Using similar critical incidents in happiness and unhappiness in
communication with supervisors, this study intends to explore the effects of managerial
communication practices.

Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 150 employees (working under middle managers, line
managers, and supervisors) in three organisations, one at Haldia of West Bengal, one at
Tatanagar of Jharkhand, and one at Renukut of Uttar Pradesh (in eastern India).
Totally, 50 employees in each of the three organisations were randomly selected and
individually approached with the permission of higher authorities and explained about
the purpose of the study. The organisations were large private firms having similar
range of employees (2,000-2,500) with more or less similar structural hierarchy
producing electricity, steel, and aluminium, respectively.

Complete anonymity of responses was assured. Out of 150 employees, 101
completed testimonials were returned. The response rate was 67.33 per cent. Of the
101 employees, 90.1 per cent were males and only 9.9 per cent were females.
The sample contained the lower representation of females since there were very few
female employees compared to male employees. The age of employees varied from as
low as 20 to as high as 60. More than half of employees were from urban background,
about one-fifth were from rural background, and about one-fourth were from
semi-urban background (see Table I).

Measure
CIT was used to capture employees’ experiences at the workplace. The technique
focused on respondents’ accounts of events that had actually happened (incidents)
in communication with superiors rather than on generalisations or opinions.
Four open-ended questions were designed to elicit the narration of incidents for: first,
increasing happiness in communication and superior performance; second, unhappiness
in communication and underperformance; third, absenteeism; and fourth, inspiring
commitment towards organisations or turnover. Employees were requested to recall
situations at the workplace in which they had good and/or bad experiences. The prompts
to mention the critical incidents were. First, mention one incident when the
communication of your immediate supervisor made you happy, inspired, and
consequently you were able to perform well. Second, mention one situation when the
communication of your immediate supervisor made you unhappy, uninspired, and

290

CCIJ
19,3

consequently you failed to perform well. Third, narrate one situation created by your
immediate supervisor due to which you wanted to take leave or had taken leave to
escape the work environment. Fourth, narrate one incident why you want to/do not
want to continue with your organisation.

The employees identified issues related to communication that were responsible
for their attitudes and behaviours. We did not analyse the data with preconceived
categories based on earlier research (a priori approach), but the categories emerged
from the views of employees (a posteriori approach).

Each incident was read through several times to obtain the central theme in it.
Incidents were deemed to be critical when the purpose and the outcome of the incident
were reasonably clear and relevant. The incidents were scrutinised by a panel of three
experts in social sciences, and then categorised on the basis of inductive judgements.
The categories which evolved finally included the incidents.

As a part of the process of verification, one respondent from each organisation
was invited to check whether the words were properly interpreted and summarised.
Two doctoral scholars in communication acted as coders. They assessed the contents
and put the themes into different categories. In the first round, each coder was given 30
critical incidents. The classification of the two coders in 27 critical incidents matched
exactly, suggesting the inter-rater consistency of 90 per cent. In the second round,
half of the remaining critical incidents was analysed and put into different categories
by one coder and the rest by another coder.

Results
From the survey content categories emerged against the critical incidents. Employees
identified the following aspects of managerial communication that contributed to their
happiness and enhanced performance: collaborative approach, respect/recognition,
flexible working arrangements, trust, clear direction, involvement, and autonomous
and challenging tasks (see Table II).

On the other hand, employees identified the following aspects of managerial
communication that were responsible for their unhappiness and low performance:
hierarchical/dominant approach of the supervisors, humiliation, biased approach, lack
of flexible working arrangements, and selfish approach.

Frequency %
Gender
Female 10 9.90
Male 91 90.10
Background
Urban 55 54.46
Semi-urban 26 25.74
Rural 20 19.80

Minimum Maximum
Age 20 60
Total family members 1 12
Total work experience 0.4 41
Total salary per month 2,500 60,000
Number of promotions 0 6
Years studied in formal education institutions 9 24

Table I.
Sample profile

291

Managerial
communication
practices

In order of perceived importance to employees, the reasons to stay in organisations
were: collaborative approach, respect/recognition, person-job match, involvement,
autonomous and challenging tasks, flexible working arrangements, brand image, and
location near hometown.

The reasons for employees’ intention to quit organisations were: hierarchical/
dominant approach, humiliation, lack of respect/recognition, biased approach/different
rules for different people, monotonous/boring assignments, and uncompetitive pay
(see Table III).

Employees also pointed out the following reasons for taking leave to avoid
the workplace: humiliation, lack of flexible working arrangements, and overwork (only
when allotted forcefully).

Descriptive n (%)

1. Communication of supervisor that made employees happy and performance oriented
(a) Collaborative approach 55 (54.46)
(b) Respect/recognition 54 (53.47)
(c) Flexible working arrangements 52 (51.49)
(d) Trust 51 (50.50)
(e) Clear direction 50 (49.50)
(f) Involvement 46 (45.54)
(g) Autonomy/challenging tasks 45 (44.55)

2. Communication of supervisor that made employees unhappy and decreased their performance
(a) Hierarchical/dominating approach 46 (45.54)
(b) Humiliation 45 (44.55)
(c) Biased approach – different rules for different people 42 (41.58)
(d) Lack of flexible working arrangements 41 (40.59)
(e) Selfish approach 39 (38.61)

Table II.
Positive and negative
aspects of managerial
communication

Descriptive n (%)

Causes identified by employees as major contributors to employees’ desire to stay with organisations
(a) Collaborative approach 55 (54.46)
(b) Respect/recognition 54 (53.47)
(c) Person-job match 52 (51.49)
(d) Involvement 46 (45.54)
(e) Autonomous/challenging tasks 45 (44.55)
(f) Flexible working arrangements 43 (42.57)
(g) Brand image 36 (35.64)
(h) Location near home town 33 (32.67)

Causes identified by employees as major contributors to employees’ desire to leave organisations
(a) Hierarchical approach 45 (44.55)
(b) Humiliation 44 (43.56)
(c) Lack of respect/recognition 44 (43.56)
(d) Biased approach 42 (41.58)
(e) Monotonous/boring assignments 41 (40.59)
(f) Uncompetitive pay 34 (33.66)

Causes identified by employees for being absent to escape workplace situations
(a) Humiliation 50 (49.50)
(b) Lack of flexible working arrangements 47 (46.53)
(c) Overwork 44 (43.56)

Table III.
Causes of employees’
desire to stay/leave
and absenteeism

292

CCIJ
19,3

Discussion
Studying the critical incidents of 101 employees, the findings reveal that collaborative
approach, respect/recognition, flexible working arrangements, trust, clear direction,
involvement, autonomous, and challenging tasks are important indicators to make
employees happy and drive them towards superior performance. Contrarily, the dominant
nature of the superior and more bossism than required, humiliation, biased approach, lack
of flexible working arrangements, and selfish attitude of supervisors are detrimental to
employees’ performance. Collaborative approach, respect/recognition, person-job match,
involvement, autonomous and challenging tasks, flexible working arrangements, brand
image, and location near hometown are the propellers for continuing service in
organisations. Contrarily, hierarchical/dominant approach, humiliation, lack of respect/
recognition, biased approach, monotonous and boring assignments, and uncompetitive
pay are the propellers for not continuing service in organisations. Humiliation, lack of
flexible working arrangements, and overwork are the causes for employees’ absenteeism.

Collaborative approach
Collaborative effort is the combined/coordinated effort of supervisors and subordinates
in order to resolve issues. Employees reported to be happy when they worked in
collaboration:

Our supervisor encourages us to work in collaboration. Once we were very upset when not
getting proper solution to the sudden breakdown of our plant. Our manager had a meeting
with us, discussed the problem and collaboratively we solved the problem.

Employees appreciate democratic setup and love to share difficulties. They believe that
“none of us is as good as all of us”. The collaborative environment fosters a “we” spirit,
contributes to synergy, and builds alliance relationships. The interdependence of
employees makes an integrated organisation.

Hierarchical/dominant approach
Rigidity in thought and action of managers reduced the efficiency and creativity of
employees:

My manager is overdominant. Last week, I was given a task. But he was monitoring my work
every now and then. He wanted explanation over small things like a school teacher. This
irritated me a lot. I cannot work like this [y] I will have to look for other job.

Employees get frustrated to have someone breathing down their necks every minute.
Indian employees exhibit a preference for reduction in the power distance if possible
and value work if it is part of a positive personalised relationship (Kumar and Sankaran,
2007). It is wasteful if managers do not allow employees to use their skills and knowledge
to their full potential. An employee explained:

I felt very depressed when my manager imposed decisions on me. He insisted that the steam
flow transmitter of the plant should be calibrated. I was sure that calibration was not
required. But my manager would not listen. I wished I could withdraw myself from the work
but had no other option than to continue. I couldn’t concentrate.

Employees felt unhappy and tried to escape from the workplace when supervisors
pushed them to overwork:

We have been working for 10-12 hours a day in our organisation. But when my supervisor
forcibly gave me an additional task of looking after the safety department, I felt extra
burdened. I went on leave to avoid the situation.

293

Managerial
communication
practices

When pushed to overwork, disenfranchised employees do not like to attend to their
work. Performance declines and the downward spiral continue. Contrarily, employees
reported to be happy and experienced a deep “camaraderie” when managers listened to
them with empathy:

My supervisor periodically asks for our suggestions. Once when I told him that daily
monitoring of current in a motor would prevent sudden breakdown, he listened to my views
very carefully and took necessary steps. This made me feel important and I felt more
enthusiastic to perform better.

Respect/recognition
Respect and recognition to employees give them the motivational push they need to
stay loyal and committed to organisationsal goals. The following incident described
by an employee clearly illustrates this:

Two weeks ago, I was able to complete a task one day before the schedule. I received a grand
appreciation from my manager in front of all members of my office. The incident has made me
more confident to handle any task.

Another employee illustrated his contentment and intention to stay as follows:

I had worked day and night to complete the task allotted by my supervisor. And the good
news is that my dedication was recognised by my supervisor. He recommended my name for
promotion. I wish to stay here for long.

Employees want to see a clear and measurable return of their effort. Although a part of
that return may be monetary, surprisingly a large part has to do with the respect/
recognition that they earn in the workplace.

Humiliation
Abuse in the workplace has come increasingly into limelight. Employees sometimes
revert back with negative attitudes and behaviours:

Yes, I had taken leave just to escape the work environment created by my supervisor.
The multimeter which is used to detect problem was malfunctioning. My supervisor was
horrible. He shouted at me very badly although it was not my fault.

Another employee said:

The history card of instruments was not updated. My supervisor scolded me in front of
everyone. I understand that I had committed a mistake, but to err is human. That does not
mean that you start shouting at an employee in front of his collogues. I was not able to
concentrate on my work. I even went on leave for a few days.

A manager who threatens employees, uses scare tactics, makes unfounded accusations,
screams, and abuses is a workplace bully. Employees feel defeated and humiliated.
Their emotions are hurt, following which they are unable to perform well. An employee
indicated:

My supervisor bashes me unnecessarily in front of my peers. The situation has become such
that he has become a nightmare for me. I do not feel like going to the workplace anymore.
I wish God could change my supervisor or I’ll have to change my job!

It is a fact that “employees leave the boss but not the organisation”. More often,
employees develop withdrawal intentions because of the way supervisors treat
them.

294

CCIJ
19,3

Flexible working arrangements
To balance increased pressures of work and family life, some supervisors allow
flexible working practices. This leads to increased motivation and productivity.
Flexible arrangements include part time or reduced hours, additional career breaks,
assistance with child care and eldercare, extensions to statutory maternity leave,
paternity leave, emergency leave working, job sharing, compressed work weeks,
voluntary reduced time, and flexible work schedules. Employees felt very happy and
supported when they had flexible working arrangements:

Recently my brother met an accident. I asked my manager to grant me leave for a few
days, as this was an emergency. My manager didn’t hesitate to grant me leave although the
deadlines for commissioning the plant were very tight.

Another employee explained:

Our supervisor is very efficient and knows how to manage our workload. Sometimes, if
you are really tired with workload and have to work till late at night, you can get up late the
following day and arrive at the factory late.

Contrarily, employees felt disappointed at the lack of flexible working arrangements:

Once I had applied for leave to attend my brother’s marriage. My manager cancelled my leave.
At that point of time, there was no emergency in the plant. But still I had to cancel my tickets.
I felt very depressed and was unable to concentrate on my job. As soon as I get a good job,
I will leave.

Another employee complained:

Once I had taken leave to go to Kolkata for my daughter’s treatment and even booked the
tickets. But I had to cancel the leave because my supervisor forced me to do so. I felt very
unhappy and completely drained out.

Another employee reported:

My supervisor cares much more about how long you have worked than about how much you
have accomplished. Is it fair that spending a much longer time doing the same amount of
work can be taken as being more hardworking? It is better to be with your family and child
after completion of your task. But I have no choice than to waste time unnecessarily at
the workplace.

Many employees felt trapped and greatly stressed out when working conditions
were not flexible. The effect is subtle, yet cumulatively it becomes powerful. It
creates stress, disturbs worklife balance, and sometimes leads to absenteeism and
turnover.

Trust
Trust is formed when immediate supervisors transfer their care to employees and deal
in their day-to-day transactions with utmost transparency and fairness. Employees feel
empowered, confident, willing to take risks, and embrace change. They become more
responsible and there is a high degree of accountability and ownership. One employee
commented:

In my present organisation my supervisor trusts me much. He would go on leave only if I am
not on leave. This makes me feel that I am an important and essential part of my
organisation. I would really like to continue here.

295

Managerial
communication
practices

Biased approach
Some managers apply different rules for different people. Employees felt unhappy
when they experienced biased approach of their superiors:

Despite having several positive feedbacks, I was given the most general rating at the time of
annual appraisal. My manager told me that whatever I had done was expected. I had not
exceeded or excelled. I felt very bad and down and this hampered my performance as well.

An employee expressed his discontentment thus:

I think my manager is inclined more towards his personal relationships with employees than
the skill set of employees. How bad technically an employee is, if he/she is in his good books,
he/she will get everything in his/her plate. Let it be salary hikes or better opportunities. I have
never been dishonest in my work and so I strongly believe in getting recognition for what
I have done. This ray is missing here.

Another employee narrated:

Its very hard to believe but I myself faced racism in my project. My manager was very much
biased toward people of his own caste and spelling his mother tongue. Its very tough to work
in such workplace situations. I am not able to concentrate on my work.

Another employee explained:

My supervisor has a predefined circle of trust. The people inside that would get every benefit
whereas people outsider it will have to wait for long. Recently, one of my colleagues got
a promotion, although he does not deserve it.

Selfish approach
Some managers lack work ethics. They are often incompetent and incapable of
formulating their own ideas and resort to stealing the ideas of employees in order to
hide their own deficiencies. Such thieving supervisors also blame employees when
organisational goals are not met. If there is success to be claimed, they take all the
credit and refuse to acknowledge the contribution of employees. Employees felt
undervalued, demeaned, and cheated when their managers were selfish and unfair and
took the credit themselves:

My manager is very selfish. On substantial occasions to surmise it is, as always, heads he
wins tails I lose. A few months back, DCS (Distributed Control System) was not responding
and the total control system failed. There was no communication between FCS (Field Control
System) and HIS (Human Interface Station). It was me who found out that the underground
V-net cable (connecting between FCS and HIS was cut by rat. The cable was replaced and the
problem was rectified. But my effort was not recognised. The higher authorities could only
know that the problem was solved by my manager. Perhaps that was the unhappiest day
of my life in the organisation.

Another employee complained:

There was a problem in PLC ( programmable logic controller). I detected that the problem
was in the input card of PLC. The problem was solved immediately with the replacement of
the card. Yet, my supervisor took the credit for himself in front of the management. He did not
even mention my name there. The incident gave me many sleepless nights.

Clear direction
Efficient supervisors set clear expectations from employees, including what is to be
done, when it is to be done, and where it goes after they complete their responsibilities.

296

CCIJ
19,3

While this can be accomplished by creating a comprehensive employee manual,
a “personal touch” by interacting with employees in group and in one-on-one setting
enhances employees’ positive attitudes and behaviours. Employees felt happy and
connected to the core purpose of the organisation when their superiors gave them clear
directions:

Recently, when we had a sudden breakdown in our plant, our manager had a meeting with us.
He clearly explained the roles to each one of us. This helped us to perform well and properly
handle the situations. I find it very interesting to work under his supervision.

Involvement
Employees want to learn and grow. They want their opinions based on their expertise
to matter and to be taken seriously. They feel happier if their ideas and opinions
are implemented into a process. When supervisors encourage employee participation
and expect novel ideas, the organisations are more likely to be benefitted (Rooney et al.,
2009). Here is one such incident:

My boss does not take decisions independently. Whatever may be the situation, he always
discusses with me/us and due to this I never feel that his decision is imposed on me, even if
the workload is sometimes high. Once when the steam temperature was showing erratic
reading, my manager consulted me and we detected that the problem was in the junction
box. The wires were found loose and were rectified. I enjoy working here and wish to stay
here for long.

Autonomous and challenging tasks
Employees reported to be happier, performance oriented, and more attached to
organisations when they had some decision-making power and consequently felt
a greater sense of control over their jobs:

My supervisor encourages me a lot. After my DCS training, I was given the power to take
decisions independently. I felt very enthusiastic. I got a chance to further learn and test my
abilities. I could successfully perform the task.

Another employee elaborated:

My supervisor provides me the power and freedom to try new methods to solve the problems.
Recently, I tried condition based monitoring to prevent breakdown and I could handle the
situation successfully. This is the reason why I like to stay here.

On the contrary, lack of power and freedom prompted employees to look for other jobs:

The role that has been allotted to me has little importance in my project. I feel neglected and
demoralised to work here. I want to have a somewhat challenging role. If I am given a job
with better opportunities and freedom, I would like to leave.

These expressions show that employees want to be challenged by their work, especially
those which stretch their abilities and create a learning atmosphere. Many employees felt
monotonous and frustrated doing the same type of jobs daily:

My job is very monotonous. I get bored of updating history card and documentation job day
after day. Perhaps it would have been interesting if I were offered some other interesting task
by my manager. I really need a change.

Job rotation policies expose employees to new responsibilities and functions. By
cross-functional training, some job monotony can be reduced, so that employees have a

297

Managerial
communication
practices

variety of tasks to perform. An employee became enthusiastic when given a chance for
distributed control system training:

We feel bored and monotonous by performing the same type of work daily When I was
selected for DCS training which was a relatively new thing for me, it inspired me a lot as
I was given the opportunity to learn and explore a new domain.

Participation in multiple roles can actually expand, rather than diminish resources and
lead to increase in well-being. Success or satisfaction in one role may buffer the stress
or dissatisfaction that is evolved from another role. Finally, other positive outcomes
such as increased income, social support, and self-efficacy may also develop as a result
of managing multiple roles.

Person-job match
While challenging tasks appealed to most of employees, it is worth noting that
employees lost interest if they were not matched to their jobs in terms of their abilities,
interests, and personalities:

My supervisor is a tough nut to crack. He thinks that since he is my boss he has every right to
force me to do anything. He forcibly allotted me a task which did not match my abilities and
interests. In the end I had to leave the city by taking a voluntary relocation to another place.

Another employee expressed:

My experience is in mechanical department. But a few months back my manager transferred
me to safety department, saying that I was not good enough in mechanical department. I took
leave to escape the humiliation and started looking for a new job.

When employees are put in jobs where the demands of the job do not match their
abilities, where stimulation offered by the job does not match their particular interests,
and where the demands of the position does not match their skill, knowledge, and
attitudes as well as personalities, employee absenteeism and turnover intentions
increase, and performance decreases as well.

Brand image
Employees felt secured to work for an organisation, which is a responsible corporate
citizen and a trusted brand in the market:

The organisation that I am working in is one of the big players in the steel market. So, it’s a
pleasure for me being a part of this organisation. I feel proud to work for this organisation.
I want to be here for long.

Another employee said:

My present organisation is striving to be one of the best of its own kind. It really feels great to
be a part of such a reputed organisation. I would like to work here for the rest of my life.

Location near home town
Only a few employees considered the location of their workplace to be important.
Having strong emotional attachment with their family, friends, and relatives, they feel
comfortable and contented with their jobs if the location of their workplace is near their
hometown. One employee indicated:

My organisation is in my home town, Haldia. That’s a big advantage for me as I can work
while staying with my parents. I have a special attachment with this place, and so, I would
like to continue with this organisation.

298

CCIJ
19,3

Another employee said:

The reason why I prefer to stay with my present organisation is that it is quite near my home
town Kolkata. It takes only 3-4 hours to reach my hometown. I can visit my family and
relatives almost every weekend.

Uncompetitive pay
Employees need adequate and reasonable salary to satisfy their physiological and
security needs like food, clothing, healthcare, and also for other needs like relations
with family and friends. A sound pay policy is, therefore, critical to retention of
employees. One employee said:

I cannot fulfill my needs with this salary structure. If I get a job which would offer me a better
salary than what I am getting here, I will leave this organisation.

Another employee indicated:

The salary structure of my organisation is not very impressive. I have two school going
children. My parents are also dependent on me. I am willing to work day and night for this
organisation, provided I receive a salary hike. But if my salary is not increased, I will leave.

Pay vs personal growth and dreams
An interesting finding here is that, high employee turnover cannot be simply
smothered by salary increase and other costly extrinsic incentives. Employees’
happiness may be dependent on how an employee sees his or her work (Wrzesniewski
et al., 1997). Employees exchange not only impersonal resources such as money with
their organisations/supervisors, but also socio-emotional resources such as approval,
respect, recognition, and support (Eisenberger et al., 2001). They deeply care for
emotional comfort and self-fulfillment. They have goals to achieve which surpass
financial gains. Involvement, autonomous, and challenging tasks make them feel that
they are important and responsible part of their organisations. One employee narrated:

One of the reasons why I want to continue with my current organisation is that, here I am
enjoying the autonomy and thus meeting my career goals. I have defined a milestone for my
life and I think with my present work and rewards it is on track.

Another employee narrated:

I am not satisfied with my job. The money I am being paid is the best in the market but I do
not have opportunities for my career growth. I want to change my job not because of any
monetary reason but because of the monotonous and boring assignments.

Still another employee revealed:

I had joined this organisation for its relatively better pay, but now I feel that from the career
perspective, it was the wrong choice. I have tried my best to deliver to the organisation but
my supervisor has never recognised my efforts.

Conclusion
The study attempted to capture employees’ lived experiences and provided them with
narrations of situations that are commonly and uniquely experienced. The findings are
in accordance with McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y. The major theme that has emerged is
that employees like to work and stay in organisations where the communication
between supervisors and employees transpires the intrinsic worth of employees,

299

Managerial
communication
practices

provides respect, and instills recognition beyond the financial rewards. Perhaps these
needs of employees are least satisfied/met in the workplace and consequently those
have prominently surfaced in the contents of the incidents. Though the qualitative
study did not specify the variables outlined in the quantitative study, the broad themes
of both the studies reinforce each other.

Employees consider emotional comfort as one of the major elements of motivation
and love to be managed by people-centric leadership – one that has the human factor at
the centre of things (Bardwick, 2007). Putting employee happiness first has a direct,
positive effect on individual productivity, and by extension, organisation profitability
(Pfeffer, 1998; Gavin and Mason, 2004). Organisations can only develop competitive
advantage by creating value in a way that is rare and difficult for competitors to
imitate (Becker and Gerhart, 1996). A people-centred strategy is an important source of
competitive advantage because, unlike technology, cost, or new product development,
it is difficult to imitate (Pfeffer, 1998). Great leaders through effective communication
create “connection cultures” that meet the emotional needs in the people they lead.
Managers, who are able to connect with subordinates on a human level, minimise the
difference between superior-subordinate relationships and create a comfortable
environment in which subordinates can develop and use their abilities. This is leadership
Darwinism – survival of the happiest.

Limitations and future study
This study is not without limitations. First, there were some critical incidents with
apparent overlapping content areas. To overcome this situation, we decided to give
preference to the primary theme emerging out of an incident. Second, the observations
made in this study were limited to descriptions of what happened in only three
organisations. This limits the ability to generalise the results.

Because every investigation raises issues for further investigation, there is no
dearth of scope for future research. First, research can be replicated in a sample of
employees from diverse organisations. Second, a comparative study can be made on
the communication of male and female managers and their influence on employees’
attitudes and behaviours.

Implications
The culture in collectivist countries like India emphasises on interpersonal relations and
social bonding as compared to structural bonding (Dash et al., 2007). Indian managers at
workplace need to narrow the power distance, treat employees more humanely, and
improve the social bonding at workplace to bring out employees’ talents and increase
their performance. Organisations can train supervisors to develop people-centric
communication practices, communicate with respect/recognition, implement flexible
working arrangements, improve job design, involve employees in important decisions,
offer them with autonomous and challenging tasks, so that employees can realise their full
potential and become happy contributors to their organisations.

References

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organisation”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Arredondo, L. (2003), Communicating Effectively, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company,
New Delhi.

300

CCIJ
19,3

Bardwick, J.M. (2007), “Strengthen the bond with employees by customizing”, One Foot Out The
Door: How to Combat the Psychological Recession that’s Alienating Employees and Hurting
American Business, AMACOM, pp. 47-58.

Becker, B. and Gerhart, B. (1996), “The impact of human resource management on organizational
performance: progress and prospects”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 779-801.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.

Dasgupta, S.A., Suar, D. and Singh, S. (2013), “Impact of managerial communication styles on
employees’ attitudes and behaviours”, Employee Relations: The International Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 173-199.

Dash, S., Bruning, E. and Guin, K.K. (2007), “Antecedents of long-term buyer-seller relationships: a
cross cultural integration”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2007 No. 11, pp. 1-29.

Davenport, T. (1999), Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest It, Doubleday,
San Francisco, CA.

Ehigie, B.O. and Ehigie, R.I. (2005), “Applying qualitative methods in organizations: a note for
industrial/organizational psychologists”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 621-638,
available at: www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-3/ehigie (accessed 28 February 2008).

Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), “Reciprocation of
perceived organisational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organisational
support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.

Gavin, J. and Mason, R. (2004), “The virtuous organization: the value of happiness in the
workplace”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 379-392.

Goris, J.R., Vaught, B.C. and Pettit, J.D. (2000), “Effects of communication direction on job
performance and satisfaction: a moderated regression analysis”, Journal of Business
Communication, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 348-368.

Herzberg, F. (1959), The Motivation to Work, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-62.

Kumar, M.R. and Sankaran, S. (2007), “Indian culture and the culture for TQM: a comparison”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 176-188.

Livingston, J.S. (1988), “Pygmalion in management: HBR classic and retrospective commentary”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 121-130.

McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Madlock, P.E. (2008), “The link between leadership style, communicator competence, and
employee satisfaction”, Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 61-78.

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Pfeffer, J. (1998), The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Cummings, L. and Dunham, R. (1989), “Organisation-based self-esteem:
construct of definition, measurement and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 633-648.

Rafaeli, A. and Sutton, R. (1989), “The expression of emotion in organizational life”, in
Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, Vol. 11, pp. 1-42.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organisational support: a review of the
literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.

301

Managerial
communication
practices

Rooney, J.A., Gottlieb, B.H. and Newby-Clark, I.R. (2009), “How support related managerial
behaviour influence employees: an integrated model”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 410-427.

Savery, L.K., Travaglione, A. and Firns, I.G.J. (1998), “The links between absenteeism and
commitment during downsizing”, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 312-324.

Sharma, S. (2005), “Indian ethos, Indian culture and Indian management: towards new frontiers
in management thinking”, paper presented at the ICSSR and COSMODE Workshop on
Indian Culture and Management, Hyderabad, 14-16 April.

Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995), “Perceived organisational support and organisational justice”,
in Cropanzano, R.S. and K.M. Kacmar (Eds), Organisational Politics, Justice, and Support:
Managing the Social Climate of the Workplace, Quorum, Westport, CT, pp. 149-164.

Sinha, J.B.P. (2002), “A cultural frame for understanding organisational behaviour”, Psychology
Developing Societies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 155-166.

Villegas, M. and Cerveny, C. (2004), Is Communication A Moderate of the Relationship Between
Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism?, Buena Vista University, Storm Lake, IA, available at:
http://web.bvu.edu/students/villmar/proposal (accessed 6 April 2008).

Vuuren, M.V., De Jong, M.D.T. and Seydel, E.R. (2007), “Direct and indirect effects of supervisor
communication on organisational commitment”, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 116-128.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, B. (1997), “Jobs, careers, and callings:
people’s relations to their work”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31, pp. 21-33.

Wyatt, W. (2006), Effective Communication: A Leading Indicator of Financial Performance (White
Paper), Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Arlington.

About the authors

Dr Shilpee A. Dasgupta is an Ex-Research Scholar in the Department of Humanities and
Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. She has just
completed her PhD (Communication) from the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
West Bengal, India. Her current research interest is in communication and business ethics.
Dr Shilpee A. Dasgupta is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: dg_shilpee@yahoo.co.in

Damodar Suar, PhD (Social Science), is a Professor in the Department of Humanities
and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. His
research focuses on organisational behaviour and business ethics.

Dr Seema Singh, PhD (English), is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities
and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal, India.
Her current research focuses on English and communication skills.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

302
CCIJ
19,3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

Age-Related Work Motivation Declines: Myth or Reality?

Thomas J. Calo
Salisbury University

Meredith M. Patterson

Salisbury University

Wayne H. Decker
Salisbury University

Actual and widely assumed age-related work motivation changes are differentiated. Self-rated extrinsic
motivation (compensation and recognition) of university alumni decreased as respondent age increased,
while intrinsic motivation (challenge and task enjoyment) did not vary with age. As respondent age
increased, ratings of older workers’ intrinsic motivation increased, but older workers’ perceived
extrinsic motivation did not vary. Younger respondents (under 50) consistently rated themselves higher
than older workers, while older respondents did so only on challenge and recognition motivation.
Interventions to reduce age stereotypes should be directed at workers of all ages.

INTRODUCTION

Various trends have contributed to an increased presence of older workers in the work force. Among
the most significant of the contributing factors are the aging of the large cohort of baby boomers,
increasing life expectancy, and difficult economic times (Feldman & Turnley, 1995; Loi & Shultz, 2007;
Pienta & Hayward, 2002; Purcell, 2009). As workers grow older, changes occur biologically and
psychosocially that pose unforeseen and unique challenges for organizations. Traditional assumptions of
work and workers often fail to incorporate an understanding of age-related changes on older workers and
on the organizational policies and practices that affect them. While some research studies have focused
on the reasons older workers continue to hold a job (e.g., Dendinger, Adams, & Jacobson, 2005; Higgs,
Ferrie, Hyde, & Nazroo, 2003; Lord, 2002), this study investigated workers’ motives as a function of
age, as well as perceptions held of older workers (cf., Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Lang & Carstensen,
2002; Paynter, 2004).

Older Worker Stereotypes

With the growing number and percentage of older workers in the work force a fundamental issue for
both organizations and older workers is the prevalence of negative stereotypes concerning older worker
job performance and work-related motives (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). Cuddy and Fiske (2002, p. 4)
defined stereotypes as “cognitive structures that store our beliefs and expectations about the
characteristics of members of social groups”, and stereotyping as “the process of applying stereotypic

96 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

information”. Stereotypes of older workers are reflective of the widespread societal stereotypes of older
persons. According to Lawrence (1988), members of a social system develop age norms, which are
widely shared judgments as to the expected ages of individuals holding each role or status. Whether
accurate or not, they influence how information guides our behavior in situations such as judging an
employee’s suitability for a promotion. Ageism is not limited to bias against older persons. For example,
bias against Millennials (born between 1979 and 1994) has been found in the workplace (Myers &
Sadaghiani, 2010). Nonetheless, negative stereotypes of older persons appear to be especially prevalent.

Although there are some positive stereotypes of older persons, including as being perceived as
having better interpersonal skills (Rosen & Jerdee, 1977), as being more reliable (Metcalf & Thompson,
1990; McGregor & Gray, 2002), and as being more experienced (Finkelstein, Higgins, & Clancy, 2000)
than younger workers, negative perceptions seem to be more pervasive. Common negative beliefs about
older workers relate to their ability and desire to learn and develop at work, as well as their overall
motivation. Rosen and Jerdee’s (1976b) respondents believed a 60-year-old had less development
potential than 30-year-old. Similarly, older adults were perceived as inferior in processing information
and accepting new technology (Rosen & Jerdee, 1976a), as well as in creativity and flexibility (Metcalf
& Thompson, 1990; Vrugt & Schabracq, 1996; Wood, Wilkinson, & Harcourt, 2008). Also, older
workers were viewed as less alert and less productive than other workers (Wood et al., 2008).
Furthermore, older workers were seen as more accident prone, less intelligent, and less decisive than
younger ones (Brosi & Kleiner, 1999).

Despite the continuing existence of negative stereotypes of older workers’ motivation and
performance, such stereotypes are largely unfounded. From an extensive meta-analysis of 96
independent studies on age-performance correlations, McEvoy and Cascio (1989) concluded that age and
job performance were generally unrelated, regardless of the type of job or type of performance
measured. Similarly, Wood et al. (2008) determined that older workers usually perform at least as well
as younger workers. Furthermore, in reviewing more than 185 research studies on age-related differences
in various categories of work attributes and behavior, Rhodes (1983) found strong evidence that age is
typically positively associated with work satisfaction and motivation. In addition, older workers typically
have been found to have more favorable attitudes toward their jobs, including higher levels of
organizational commitment than younger workers (Brosi & Kleiner, 1999; Kalleberg & Loscocco, 1983;
Ng & Feldman, 2010; Rhodes, 1983). Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) suggested that, while aging is often
perceived as associated with decline, particularly in cognitive and intellectual capabilities, research has
demonstrated such assumptions to be simplistic and misleading. Yet, Cuddy, Norton, and Fiske (2005)
concluded prejudice against older persons continues to go unchallenged by mainstream society.

The current study sought to determine the prevalence of negative age stereotypes concerning older
workers’ motivation and to assess the degree to which those perceptions vary with respondent age.
Although negative age stereotyping is common among adults of all ages (Posthuma & Campion, 2009),
older adults generally have more positive views of older persons than do younger ones (Calo, Patterson,
& Decker, 2013; Kite, Deaux, & Miele, 1991; Kite, Stockdale, Whitley, & Johnson, 2005; Kluge &
Krings, 2008; Lyon & Pollard, 1997; Wentura & Brändstadter, 2003). These findings are consistent with
the Social Identity Theory proposition that people tend to maintain a positive self-image as a result of
evaluating their in-groups positively (Kite et al., 2005). On the other hand, a somewhat reverse process
may be occurring. The phenomenon may be reflective of externalization, i.e., respondents’ favorable
views of themselves impacting their stereotypes of similar-aged persons positively (Rothermund &
Brandtstädter, 2003).

Older Worker Motivation

Age stereotypes found in the workplace reflect not only negative attitudes toward older workers’
abilities, but also their motivations (Maurer, Barbeite, Weiss, & Lippstreu, 2008; Posthuma & Campion,
2009). After an extensive literature review, Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) concluded that as workers age
extrinsic rewards such as compensation become less attractive and intrinsic factors such as feelings of
accomplishment become more important in determining job satisfaction. The findings support the Life

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 97

Span Theory of Control which includes the notion that older persons shift their focus to situations they
have high control over (i.e., intrinsic rewards) and away from those over which they have less control
(i.e., extrinsic rewards) (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995). However, results have not been consistent across
intrinsic motives. Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, and Dikkers (2008) concluded from their review that while
some intrinsic motives, such as desire to maintain a positive self-concept and to mentor others, increase
with age, achievement motivation and the desire to learn new things decrease with age. An extensive
meta-analysis has supported these assumptions (Kooij, de Lange, Jansen, Kanfer, & Dikkers, 2011).
Also, Linz (2004) found older workers in Russia to place a higher value on extrinsic rewards (e.g., pay
and friendliness of co-workers) than did younger workers. Furthermore, Paynter (2004) found older
teachers to exceed younger teachers in both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Apparently, neither all extrinsic nor all intrinsic motives change at the same points in one’s life. For
example, among intrinsic motives, the desire to learn new tasks may have declined for older workers
who, at the same time, may be experiencing an increased desire to mentor others, i.e., generativity (Kooij
et al., 2008; McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1992). Such motivational changes are consistent with
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory which posits that persons sensing that their time is running out focus
increasingly on near-term goals (Carstensen, Isaacowitz, & Charles, 1999; Lang & Carstensen, 2002).

Two extrinsic and two intrinsic motives have been measured with the Work Preference Inventory
(WPI) (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994). This instrument consists of a series of rating scales in
which extrinsic motivation is subdivided into an “Outward Scale” (recognition) and a “Compensation
Scale” and intrinsic motivation is subdivided into an “Enjoyment Scale” and a “Challenge Scale.” Using
an adaptation of the WPI designed to apply to sales jobs, Miao, Lund, and Evans (2009) found decreases
in one intrinsic motive (challenge motivation) and one extrinsic motive (compensation motivation)
across career stages (not age per se). It would seem to be in the interest of organizations to determine
whether managers and co-workers of older workers understand age-related changes in work motivation
or if these persons tend to hold negative age stereotypes that are contrary to reality.

Comparisons of self-rated motives with ratings of older workers in general could potentially yield
additional insight into the extent of age stereotypes. While, as noted above, some studies have found that
older persons generally view themselves more positively than they view “typical” older persons, there is
also evidence that older persons’ self-perceptions are influenced in the direction of negative age
stereotypes (Bennett & Gaines, 2010; Pinquart, 2002; Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003). Some
persons may internalize stereotypes such that they come to believe that because they are old, they must
fit the stereotype (Bennett & Gaines, 2010). Personality differences may determine the direction in
which and the extent to which an older person’s self-perception is influenced by negative age stereotypes
(Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003). In a longitudinal study of persons 54 and older, respondents had
more positive views of themselves than the “typical old person” (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003).
While they held strong negative age stereotypes, as they got older most evaluated the typical old person
less negatively. The authors interpreted this to be reflective of externalization, i.e., respondents’
favorable views of themselves positively impacted their stereotypes of similar-aged persons. In another
study respondents’ (age 60 and older) self-perceptions improved after receipt of negative information
about competence in old age. This was interpreted as supporting Resilience (Comparison) Theory, the
notion that one’s self-concept improves when one encounters evidence that he/she is superior to
somewhat similar persons (Pinquart, 2002). In other words, the assumption is that we evaluate ourselves
relative to what we consider normal for our age group. If our perception of normal becomes more
negative, we will then look better to ourselves.

This study assesses the prevalence of negative age stereotypes regarding four specific work-related
motives (two intrinsic and two extrinsic motives) and endeavors to ascertain perceptions of older
workers’ motives as a function of respondent age. Respondents’ self-ratings and perceptions of older
workers’ motives will be compared across a broad range of respondent ages. The inclusion of self-
perception measures will facilitate the distinction of any true age-related motivational changes from
those that are only assumed.

98 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

Hypotheses

Since the majority of studies reviewed, including one using the WPI, have found motivation for

compensation to decline with age (e.g., Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Miao et al., 2009), we expected to
obtain the same result.

Hypothesis 1. It was predicted that the compensation motive would be negatively related
to respondent age.

Since the majority of studies reviewed, including one using the WPI, have found motivation for

challenging work to decline with age (e.g., Kooij et al., 2008; Miao et al., 2009), we expected to obtain
the same result.

Hypothesis 2. It was predicted that the challenge motive would be negatively related to
respondent age.

Based on past research discussed above which found older persons viewed “the typical older person”

more positively with respect to a wide variety of attributes than did younger persons, we expected to find
perceptions of older workers’ work-motivation levels would be positively related to respondent age.

Hypothesis 3. It was predicted that older respondents would have more favorable views
of older workers’ challenge, task enjoyment, recognition, and compensation motives
than younger respondents would have of them.

We expected that age stereotypes would be pervasive among all age groups. Therefore, we expected

that employed persons of all ages would have a self-concept such that they would consider themselves as
more motivated than the typical older worker. However, it was expected that the difference would be
greater for younger workers than for older ones.

Hypothesis 4. It was predicted that respondents of all ages would perceive themselves as
superior to older workers with respect to all extrinsic and intrinsic motives measured.

Hypothesis 5. It was predicted that respondent age would moderate the relationship
between self-ratings and older worker ratings such that the magnitude of the difference
would be negatively associated with respondent age.

Overall, the hypotheses reflect the expectation that age stereotypes for recognition and task

enjoyment motivation are more likely than for compensation and challenge motivation. This is the case
since the former two motives are not expected to actually decrease with age, but respondents are
expected to perceive all motives as doing so. It was also expected that younger respondents would
exhibit stereotypes to a greater extent than would older respondents.

METHOD

Respondents

Surveys were mailed to 1050 business school alumni of Salisbury University. The addressees
included thirty randomly selected graduates from each of the years 1975 through 2009. Thirty-nine
surveys were returned as undeliverable. 241 completed surveys were returned, yielding a return rate of
23.8% of those surveys assumed to have been delivered. 239 surveys were usable. This sample included
142 males, 96 females, and one transgendered/transsexual respondent. Among the 236 respondents
answering the birth-date item, the range of ages was 24 through 70 years, the median respondent age was
42.5 years.

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 99

Materials and Procedure
Thirteen demographic questions were followed by a survey consisting of 52 items. The items

relevant to this report were 24 items comprising two different shortened versions (12 items each) of the
WPI adapted from Miao and Evans (2007) and modified to apply to all jobs, not just sales jobs. The two
versions each consisted of four 3-item scales measuring perceived challenge, task enjoyment,
compensation, and recognition motivation. One version elicited self-ratings, while the other set prompted
respondents to rate older workers with respect to the same characteristics. Items were modified, for each
rating task, such that each item in the first set contained the word “I” (e.g., “I am strongly motivated by
the money I can earn through my job” and “I enjoy trying to solve complex problems”), while the phrase
“older workers” appeared in the corresponding positions of the second set (e.g., “Older workers are
strongly motivated by the money they can earn through their job” and “Older workers enjoy trying to
solve complex problems”).

Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on
a 7-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). Although order effects are generally small in
research comparing self- and group- ratings, self-ratings always preceded the ratings of older workers in
order to prevent any possible stereotype effects on self-ratings that might occur if the self-ratings were
done following the older worker ratings (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003).

RESULTS

Scale Reliabilities

All 8 scales used (4 rating one’s self and 4 rating older workers) yielded reliability coefficients
(Cronbach’s alpha) exceeding the commonly accepted standard of .70 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998). The Cronbach alphas, means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of the self-
rating scales and the older worker scales are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1
SCALE RELIABILITIES, MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND BIVARIATE

CORRELATIONS: SELF-RATINGS, OLDER WORKER RATINGS,
AND DEMOGRAPHICS

Correlations

Cronbach’s
Variable α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Gendera 1.60 .50
2. Formal education 6.31 .49 .00
3. Positionb .54 .50 .14* -.03
4. Age 42.43 11.18 .09 .02 .23‡
5. Challenge-Sc .91 5.72 1.15 .12 .05 .08 -.10
6. Task enjoyment-S .82 5.34 1.22 -.21† .01 -.10 -.01 .28‡
7. Compensation-S .79 5.17 1.24 .13* .03 .03 -.27‡ .30‡ .24‡
8. Recognition-S .81 4.78 1.39 -.08 -.07 -.07 -.16* .16* .31‡ .51‡
9. Challenge-OWd .92 4.25 1.30 .05 .06 .06 .31‡ .24‡ .16* .07 -.09
10. Task enjoyment-OW .82 4.93 1.21 -.11 -.05 .03 .26‡ .15* .47‡ .16* .15* .39‡
11. Compensation-OW .81 4.50 1.19 -.11 -.04 -.02 -.08 .11 .19† .36‡ .24‡ .27‡ .27‡
12. Recognition-OW .87 4.25 1.27 -.04 -.13* .02 .06 .03 .19† .22‡ .45‡ .21† .39‡ .54‡
____________________________________________________________________________________________

aFemale = 1, Male = 2
bManager = 1, Non-manager = 0
cSelf
dOlder Workers
*p < .05, †p < .01, ‡p < .001 n = 239

100 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

Self-Ratings
Regression analyses included three variables for control purposes. One control variable was gender.

Several studies have found small differences in the direction of males holding slightly stronger age
stereotypes than females (e.g., Bodner, Bergman, & Cohen-Fridel, 2012; Chiu, Chan, Snape, & Redman,
2001; Kalavar, 2001; Rupp, Vodanovich, & Credé, 2005), although under some conditions gender and
ageism have been found to be unrelated (Lin, Bryant, & Boldero, 2011). Formal education level was also
controlled since it is likely that age and formal education are significantly related due either to
differences in time available for educational achievements or to societal changes over time. Position
(manager or non-manager) was controlled because some studies have shown this variable to be
associated with the likelihood of age stereotyping (e.g., Chiu et al., 2001; Kirchner & Dunnette, 1954).
Age, the independent variable and only continuous variable included in the regression analyses, was
centered in order to reduce the likelihood of multicollinearity.

Both types of self-rated extrinsic motivation decreased as respondent age increased. Neither type of
intrinsic motivation varied with respondent age. Therefore, Hypothesis 1, which predicted that
compensation motivation would be negatively related to respondent age, was supported and Hypothesis
2, that challenge motivation would be negatively related to respondent age, was not. The regression
results for self-rated intrinsic and extrinsic motivation appear in Table 2.

TABLE 2
REGRESSION ANALYSES WITH STANDARDIZED BETA COEFFICIENTS AND

VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR (R2): SELF-REPORTED MOTIVES

Dependent variable

Challenge
orientation

Task
enjoyment

Compensation
orientation

Recognition
orientation

Gendera .11 -.19† .14* -.06
Formal education .04 .00 .03 -.08
Positionb .09 -.10 .07 -.02
Age -.12 .03 -.30‡ -.15*

R2 .03 .05 .10 .04
aFemale = 1, Male = 2
bManager = 1, Non-manager = 0
*p < .05, †p < .01, ‡p < .001; n = 234

Perceptions of Older Workers

On all measures, older respondents rated older workers as high as or higher than did younger
respondents. As the age of the respondent increased, both types of intrinsic motivation were perceived as
higher for older workers. Perceived older worker extrinsic motivation did not vary with respondent age.
Therefore, Hypothesis 3, that older respondents would have more favorable views of older workers’
motivation than would younger ones, was partially supported. The regression results for perceived older-
worker motivation are in Table 3.

Self-Ratings vs. Perceptions of Older Workers

For each of the four motive types the general linear model (GLM) technique (Norusis, 2012) was
used to compare the respondents’ self-ratings to their perceptions of older workers and to determine
whether respondent age moderated the relationships. Self-rated challenge motivation (M = 5.71, SD =
1.15) exceeded older worker challenge motivation ratings (M = 4.25, SD = 1.30, f[1, 234] = 246.58, p < .001). The interaction of rating type and respondent age was significant (f[1, 234] = 29.74, p < .001). As shown in Table 1, self-rated challenge motivation did not correlate with respondent age, but the

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 101

perceived challenge motivation of older workers increased with respondent age. Therefore, the
difference between self-ratings and older worker ratings was negatively related to respondent age.

TABLE 3
REGRESSION ANALYSES WITH STANDARDIZED BETA COEFFICIENTS AND

VARIANCE ACCOUNTED FOR (R2): RESPONDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF
OLDER WORKERS’ MOTIVES

Dependent variable

Challenge
orientation
Task
enjoyment
Compensation
orientation
Recognition
orientation

Gendera .00 -.13* -.12 -.08
Formal education .04 -.06 -.06 -.15*
Positionb .00 -.04 .02 .02
Age .31‡ .28‡ -.07 .07

R2 .10 .09 .02 .03
aFemale = 1, Male = 2
bManager = 1, Non-manager = 0
*p < .05, †p < .01, ‡p < .001; n = 234

Self-rated task enjoyment motivation (M = 5.33, SD = 1.22) exceeded older worker task enjoyment
motivation ratings (M = 4.92, SD = 1.20, f[1, 234] = 26.80, p < .001). The interaction of rating type and respondent age was significant (f[1, 234] = 16.99, p < .001). Self-rated task enjoyment motivation did not correlate with respondent age, but perceived older worker task enjoyment motivation increased with respondent age (see Table 1). Therefore, the difference between self-ratings and older worker ratings was negatively related to respondent age.

Self-rated compensation motivation (M = 5.17, SD = 1.23) exceeded older worker compensation
motivation ratings (M = 4.51, SD = 1.18, f[1, 234] = 56.02, p < .001). The interaction of rating type and respondent age was significant (f[1, 234] = 7.17, p < .01). As shown in Table 1, self-rated compensation motivation was negatively related to respondent age, but the perceived compensation motivation of older workers did not correlate with respondent age. Therefore, the difference between self-ratings and older worker ratings was negatively related to respondent age.

Self-rated recognition motivation (M = 4.79, SD = 1.38) exceeded perceived older worker
recognition motivation (M = 4.25, SD = 1.28, f[1, 234] = 37.16, p < .001). The interaction of rating type and respondent age was significant (f[1, 234] = 11.37, p < .001). As shown in Table 1, self-rated recognition motivation was negatively related to respondent age, but perceived older worker recognition motivation and respondent age were not correlated. Therefore, the difference between self-ratings and older worker ratings was negatively related to respondent age.

The significant main effects of the rating type variable upon all four motivational variables provide
some support for Hypothesis 4, that respondents would perceive themselves as superior to older workers.
Hypothesis 5, that the magnitude of the difference would be negatively associated with respondent age,
was also supported, as indicated by the nature of the four interactions of rating type with respondent age.

Paired t-tests compared the younger (under 50 years of age) and older respondents’ self-ratings to
their perceptions of older workers. Kooij et al. (2008) noted that in studies of labor market participation,
ages 50 or 55 are typically considered the boundary between younger and older workers. In the present
study, 50 was chosen since it yielded twice the older respondent sample size that 55 did. (The results
were virtually the same regardless of which age cut-off used.) As shown in Table 4, younger respondents
rated themselves higher on all four dimensions than they rated older workers. On the other hand, while
older respondents rated themselves higher than they rated older workers on the challenge and
compensation motivation dimensions, the differences with respect to task enjoyment motivation and

102 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

recognition orientation were not significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 4, that respondents of all ages would
perceive themselves as superior to older workers, was only partially supported.

TABLE 4
PAIRED t-TESTS: RESPONDENTS’ SELF-RATINGS

VERSUS PERCEPTIONS OF OLDER WORKERS
___________________________________________________________________________
Age group Self-ratings Older worker ratings
Dimension Mean SD Mean SD df t
___________________________________________________________________________
Younger (under 50) respondents
Challenge orientation 5.77 1.14 4.02 1.26 161 13.92‡
Task enjoyment 5.31 1.21 4.76 1.18 161 5.18‡
Compensation orientation 5.33 1.17 4.57 1.17 161 6.76‡
Recognition orientation 4.93 1.33 4.18 1.24 161 6.51‡

Older (50 and over) respondents
Challenge orientation 5.58 1.15 4.73 1.26 73 6.55‡
Task enjoyment 5.35 1.27 5.26 1.17 73 .85
Compensation orientation 4.81 1.29 4.39 1.21 73 3.12†
Recognition orientation 4.49 1.46 4.41 1.34 73 .64
___________________________________________________________________________
*p < .05, †p < .01, ‡p < .001 DISCUSSION Theoretical Implications

This study is consistent with others in that the attractiveness of the extrinsic rewards investigated
was negatively related to age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004). These findings support the Life Span Theory
of Control assumption that aging is accompanied by a decrease in desire to seek rewards that are
externally controlled (Heckhausen & Schulz, 1995) and also, the Socioemotional Selectivity Theory
view that older persons shift their orientations away from rewards involving delayed gratification
(Carstensen et al., 1999; Lang & Carstensen, 2002). However, the predicted increased emphasis upon
internally controlled and immediately available rewards among older workers was not observed, as
intrinsic motivation did not vary with age.

The study demonstrates that some negative age stereotypes continue to persist among workers of all
ages. We found that younger respondents generally held more negative views of older workers than did
older respondents, as on all measures the younger respondents rated older workers as low as or lower
than did older respondents. These findings are consistent with both Social Identity Theory, which
contends that people evaluate their in-groups positively in order to maintain positive self-images (Kite et
al., 2005) and the concept of externalization, i.e., respondents’ favorable views of themselves impact
their stereotypes of similar-aged persons positively (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003). Nonetheless,
older respondents also appeared to exhibit some negative age stereotyping. Overall, the respondents
appeared to have particularly strong negative age stereotypes regarding older workers’ motivation for
challenging work, at least relative to the other motives studied. Both the younger and older respondent
groups perceived themselves as being more challenge oriented than “typical” older workers. This
occurred despite the fact that self-reported challenge orientation did not decline significantly with age.
The discrepancy between the current study and those that found a decline in challenge motivation with
age (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004) may be due to our sample being highly educated (college graduates),
and therefore, possibly higher than average in achievement motivation. Younger, but not older,

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 103

respondents also exhibited age stereotypes with respect to task enjoyment motivation by rating older
workers lower than they rated themselves.

As expected, the compensation motive was negatively related to respondent age. Therefore, the
perception by the younger respondents that older workers’ compensation motivation is lower than their
own has a basis in fact. Interpretation of the older respondents’ views would seem to depend on whether
the older respondents perceived themselves to be older workers. If they perceived themselves to be
younger than older workers, the older respondents also would be justified in rating themselves higher.
However, if they perceived themselves to be old, they exhibited a stereotypical view of their own
contemporaries’ compensation motivation.

As was the case with compensation motivation, younger respondents seem justified in perceiving
their own recognition motivation as greater than that of older workers, since self-reported recognition
motivation also was negatively related to age. Older respondents, however, did not perceive their own
recognition motivation to differ from that of older workers. If they viewed themselves as old, older
respondents were correct in this assessment. If they perceived themselves as younger than older workers,
they actually judged older workers more favorably with respect to motivation for recognition, relative to
themselves, than they should have.

As noted above, older respondents generally viewed older workers less negatively than did younger
respondents. However, older respondents certainly did not see themselves as identical in motivation to
the “typical” older worker. As purported by Resilience Theory (Pinquart, 2002), they may have seen
themselves as superior to their contemporaries in some ways, perhaps as a result of past comparisons of
themselves with others. On the other hand, they may not feel they are as old as the “typical” older
worker. Alternatively, older workers may believe they are exceptional relative to their contemporaries in
some ways, but not in others.

Implications for Practice

The negative stereotypes of older workers were striking, especially with regard to challenge
motivation. This poses potential concerns for organizations and older persons who work in them.
Stereotypes can influence the way managers and younger workers treat their older colleagues (Hassell &
Perrewe, 1993; Mauer et al., 2008). Managerial attitudes toward older workers will inevitably affect
work-related practices such as hiring, promotion, and training opportunities. Rosen and Jerdee (1976a)
suggested that older workers may lose work motivation due to perceiving managerial bias. Stereotypes,
therefore, can be seen as resulting in self-fulfilling prophesies (Livingston, 1969) or the internalization of
stereotypes (Bennett & Gaines, 2010). Also, people’s fear of being judged on the basis of a negative
stereotype (stereotype threat) can lead to anxiety, which may affect performance (Steele & Aronson,
1995).

We suggest that organizational policies and practices must meet the challenges associated with an
aging workforce. Allport’s (1954) Contact Hypothesis proposed that increased exposure to stereotyped
persons would lessen stereotyping. Although some studies have obtained supporting evidence (e.g.,
Stoker, Van der Velde, & Lammers, 2012), findings are generally not encouraging with respect to the
likelihood that age stereotypes will change through normal daily encounters with older individuals (Chiu
et al., 2001; Henkens, 2005; Hewstone & Brown, 1986). It should not be surprising that beliefs do not
always change even when evidence seems to warrant it (Weber & Crocker, 1983). Research
demonstrates that people can easily justify the belief that evidence against a negative stereotype does not
disconfirm it (Kunda & Oleson, 1995). Furthermore, Loretto, Duncan, and White (2000) concluded that
even though enlightened attitudes regarding age and employment issues were found among business
students, the attitudes will likely become more negative if they later work in discriminating
organizational cultures. Our findings, along with previous research, suggest two distinct but interrelated
steps must be taken by organizations to adapt successfully to the realities of an aging workforce.

104 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

Dispel Negative Age Stereotypes
Negative age stereotypes are deeply embedded within the cultures of most organizations. We expect

that these stereotypes will inevitably result in discriminatory treatment of older workers in a wide range
of organizational domains, including hiring, promotion, work assignments, and developmental
opportunities. As Taylor and Walker’s (1998) findings suggest, in order for disadvantageous
employment practices to be changed, negative age stereotypes held by managers need to first be
overcome. Sterns and Miklos (1995) concluded that sensitizing managers to aging and work issues is as
important as changing organizational systems.

Although our study confirmed the widespread belief that some motives of older workers decline with
age, intrinsic motivation did not change. Therefore, we argue that older workers are differently motivated
rather than less motivated. Appropriate treatment of older workers is likely to be enhanced through
organizational strategies that incorporate an understanding of the patterns of adult development. Adults
experience stages of life dominated by differing life tasks and priorities (Erikson, 1950). For example, in
midlife and beyond, generativity (concern for sustaining and guiding the present and succeeding
generations) becomes a more powerful motivator (Erikson, 1950, 1964). Understanding the differences
in motivation between older and younger employees will better prepare organizations to accommodate
their workforce through effective policies and practices. Consequently, we suggest that organizations
develop a required managerial training process on psychosocial development, with a particular focus on
the impact on workers as they age.

Various methods may be effective in dispelling negative age stereotypes. For example, sensitivity to
the needs of older workers may be further enhanced if training programs include role playing (Tausch &
Hewstone, 2010). Redesigning job responsibilities, for example by providing opportunities for serving as
mentors, could be beneficial both to organizations as well as to older workers. Job responsibilities that
include mentoring will likely not only increase motivation, but also provide opportunities for older
workers to transfer their knowledge and skills to younger persons. Mentoring can also serve to expose
younger workers to older workers and, perhaps, reduce stereotyping. Although increased contact with
older workers does not eliminate all stereotypes (Chiu et al., 2001; Henkens, 2005), it may result in
younger workers having more positive attitudes regarding older workers’ productivity (Henkens, 2005).

Create a Supportive Climate for Older Workers

Changing embedded attitudes is a necessary step toward effectively employing older workers, but
this step alone is insufficient to ultimately change behavior toward older workers. Also required is a
systematic review and adaptation of organizational policies and practices to incorporate consideration of
the age-specific needs of workers. While many of the policies and practices of organizations regarding
older workers are designed to avoid age discrimination lawsuits, policies must be designed to proactively
provide for the needs of an aging workforce. Strategies already being effectively utilized to
accommodate working mothers and others may also be viable for an aging workforce. Such policies
include flexible schedules, compressed workweeks, and job sharing. Older workers who may want to
continue working, but on a more restricted basis, may benefit from a phased retirement strategy with
which retirement is a gradual transition rather than an abrupt end to one’s job. Most of these concepts are
not new, but need to be utilized in a focused strategy for accommodating the unique needs of older
workers.

Maurer et al. (2002) suggested that a continuous development orientation on the part of older
workers is enhanced when supervisors and co-workers provide a supportive learning environment. There
is empirical evidence that the perceived support from managers and co-workers positively influences
employee participation in development activities (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). To strengthen the
development motives of older workers, Kooij et al. (2008) advocated that managers should ensure that
older workers have jobs in which they can achieve a sense of accomplishment. We believe our suggested
actions will reduce the risk of loss of older workers, while at the same time maximizing older worker
productivity while they continue to work. In short, we suggest that by addressing the physical and

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 105

psychosocial needs of aging workers, organizations can more effectively retain, motivate, and utilize
them.

Limitations

One limitation of the current study is that no attempt was made to define “older worker.” Rather,
respondents responded to their own perception of what constitutes an older worker. While our approach
has the advantage that all respondents expressed their attitudes toward hypothetical workers that they
actually consider old, future research might consider assessing respondents’ stereotypes of various given
ages. Such research may help to determine the ages at which respondents perceive age to become a
performance-related factor.

An additional limitation is that the sample was taken only of alumni from one university business
school. Also, while the respondents work in a wide range of organizations and job categories, they are
above average in educational achievement and are concentrated primarily in professional positions. It
may be that highly educated professional workers have different expectations of performance for older
workers than do workers with different educational backgrounds or workers in non-professional
occupations.

Additional types of extrinsic and intrinsic motives should be studied. Although neither intrinsic
motive included in the present study varied with respondent age and both were subject to some age
stereotyping, others such as the motive for generativity have been previously been found to increase with
age (Lang & Carstensen, 2002; McAdams, de St. Aubin, & Logan, 1993) and may elicit positive age
stereotypes. It would be of interest to determine the extent to which younger workers recognize
generativity motivation in older workers. One reason is that the success of older persons as leaders is
affected by their level of generativity (Zacher, Rosing, Henning, & Frese, 2011). It seems likely that
younger persons recognizing generativity motivation in leaders influences leader success.

Finally, future studies may focus on employees in specific organizations and compare different types
of organizations. Organizational culture has a powerful influence on employee perceptions and
behaviors. The study of employees in a single organization may more clearly assess organizational
culture’s impact on older workers. Also, researchers and human resource professionals should
collaborate to study the impact of specific organizational policies and practices on older worker
motivation, job performance, and retention.

Conclusion

Given the aging of the workforce, organizational leaders and researchers need to be concerned about
the impact of aging on work-related factors such as motivation and job performance. Organizations may
be reluctant to utilize and develop older workers if they believe such persons are unmotivated, resistant
to accepting challenges, and lacking in up-to-date skills. It is not that older workers are typically
unmotivated, but rather, extrinsic rewards become less effective as workers age. Therefore, organizations
must rely more on intrinsic rewards to bring out the best in older workers. Negative age stereotypes are
likely to lead to discriminatory practices and dysfunctional relationships among co-workers resulting in
the underutilization of older workers’ skills and experience. Intervention attempts to reduce age
stereotypes must be directed at workers of all ages, not just younger ones.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory:

Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66(5), 950-967.

Bennett, T., & Gaines, J. (2010). Believing what you hear: The impact of aging stereotypes upon the old.
Educational Gerontology, 36, 435-445.

106 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

Bodner, E., Bergman, Y. S., & Cohen-Fridel, S. (2012). Different dimensions of ageist attitudes among
men and women: A multigenerational perspective. International Psychogeriatrics, 24(6), 895-
901.

Brosi, G., & Kleiner, B. H. (1999). Is age a handicap in finding employment? Equal Opportunities
International, 18(5-6), 100-104.

Calo, T. J., Patterson, M. M., & Decker, W. H. (2013). Employee perceptions of older workers’
motivation in business, academia, and government. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 4(2), 1-10.

Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54(3), 165-181.

Chiu, W. C. K., Chan, A. W., Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2001). Age stereotypes and discriminatory
attitudes towards older workers: An East-West comparison. Human Relations, 54(5), 629-661.

Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. (2002). Doddering but dear: Process, content, and function in
stereotyping of older persons. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against
older persons (pp. 3-26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cuddy, A. J. C., Norton, M. I., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and
persistence of the elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Sciences, 61(2), 265-283.

Dendinger, V. M., Adams, G. A., & Jacobson, J. D. (2005). Reasons for working and their relationship
to retirement attitudes, job satisfaction and occupational self-efficacy of bridge employees.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 61(1), 21-35.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York, NY: Norton.
Feldman, D. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1995). Factors influencing intentions to retire: An empirical test of

theoretical propositions. Management Research News, 18(6-7), 28-45.
Finkelstein, L. M., Higgins, K. D., & Clancy, M. (2000). Justifications for ratings of old and young job

applicants: An exploratory content analysis. Experimental Aging Research, 26(3), 263-283.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hassell, B. L., & Perrewe, P. L. (1993). An examination of the relationship between older workers’

perceptions of age discrimination and employee psychological state. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 5(1), 109-120.

Heckhausen, J., & Schulz, R. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102(2), 284-
304.

Henkens, K. (2005). Stereotyping older workers and retirement: The managers’ point of view. Canadian
Journal on Aging, 24(4), 353-366.

Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact
hypothesis”. In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup
encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Higgs, P., Mein, G., Ferrie, J., Hyde, M., & Nazroo, J. (2003). Pathways to early retirement: Structure
and agency in decision-making among British civil servants. Ageing & Society, 23, 761-778.

Kalavar, J. M. (2001). Examining ageism: Do male and female college students differ? Educational
Gerontology, 27(6), 507-513.

Kalleberg, A. L., & Loscocco, K. A. (1983). Aging, values, and rewards: Explaining age differences in
job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 78-90.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation. Academy of
Management Review, 29(3), 440-458.

Kirchner W., & Dunnette, M. (1954). Attitudes toward older workers. Personnel Psychology, 7, 257-
265.

Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Miele, M. (1991). Stereotypes of young and old: Does age outweigh gender?
Psychology and Aging, 6(1), 19-27.

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 107

Kite, M. E., Stockdale, G. M., Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Johnson, B. T. (2005). Attitudes toward younger
and older adults: An updated meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 241-266.

Kluge, A., & Krings, F. (2008). Attitudes toward older workers and human resource practices. Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 67(1), 61-64.

Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2008). Older workers’ motivation to continue to work:
Five meanings of age: A conceptual review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(4), 364-394.

Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., Kanfer, R., & Dikkers, J. (2011). Age and work-related motives:
Results of a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 197-225.

Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing
grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565-579.

Lang, F. R., & Carstensen, L. L. (2002). Time counts: Future time perspective, goals, and social
relationships. Psychology and Aging, 17(1), 125-139.

Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms, and performance
ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 309-337.

Lin, X., Bryant, C., & Boldero, J. (2011). Measures for assessing student attitudes toward older people.
Educational Gerontology, 37, 12-26.

Linz, S. J. (2004). Motivating Russian workers: Analysis of gender and age differences. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 33, 261-289.

Livingston, J. S. (1969). Pygmalion in management. Harvard Business Review, 47(4), 81-89.
Loi, J. L. P., & Shultz, K. S. (2007). Why older adults seek employment: Differing motivations among

subgroups. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 26(3), 274-289.
Lord, R. L. (2002). Traditional motivation theories and older engineers. Engineering Management

Journal, 14(3), 3-7.
Loretto, W., Duncan, D., & White, P. J. (2000). Ageism and employment: Controversies, ambiguities

and younger people’s perceptions. Ageism and Society, 20, 279-302.
Lyon, P., & Pollard, D. (1997). Perceptions of the older employee: Is anything really changing?

Personnel Review, 26(4), 245-250.
Maurer, T. J., Barbeite, F. G., Weiss, E. M., & Lippstreu, M. (2008). New measures of stereotypical

beliefs about older workers’ ability and desire for development: Exploration among employees
age 40 and over. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(4), 395-418.

Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. (1994). Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and
person variables in relation to voluntary development activity by employees. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(1), 3-14.

McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-
report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62(6), 1003-1015.

McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. L. (1993). Generativity among young, midlife, and older
adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 221-230.

McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age
and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 11-17.

McGregor, J., & Gray, L. (2002). Stereotypes and older workers: The New Zealand experience. Social
Policy Journal of New Zealand, 18, 163-177.

Metcalf, H., & Thompson, M. (1990). Older workers: Employers’ attitudes and practices (Report No.
194). Brighton, England: Institute of Manpower Studies.

Miao, C. F., & Evans, K. R. (2007). The impact of salesperson motivation on role perceptions and job
performance – A cognitive and affective perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 27(1), 89-101.

Miao, C. F., Lund, D. J., & Evans, K. R. (2009). Reexamining the influence of career stages on
salesperson motivation: A cognitive and affective perspective. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 29(3), 243-255.

108 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on
millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25(2), 225-238.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677-718.

Norusis, M. J. (2012). IBM SPSS statistics 19 statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle-River,
N.J: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Paynter, J. L. (2004). The motivational profiles of teachers: Teachers’ preferences for extrinsic, intrinsic,
and moral motivators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 1327A.

Pienta, A. M., & Hayward, M. D. (2002). Who expects to continue working after age 62? The retirement
plans of couples. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 57B(4), S199-S208.

Pinquart, M. (2002). Good news about the effects of bad old-age stereotypes. Experimental Aging
Research, 28, 317-336.

Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes,
moderators, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 35(1), 158-188.

Purcell, P. J. (2009). Older workers: Employment and retirement trends. Journal of Deferred
Compensation, 14(2), 85-102.

Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328-367.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976a). The influence of age stereotypes on managerial decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61(4), 428-432.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976b). The nature of job-related age stereotypes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(2), 180-183.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1977). Too old or not too old. Harvard Business Review, 55(6), 97-106.
Rothermund, K., & Brandtstädter, J. (2003). Age stereotypes and self-views in later life: Evaluating rival

assumptions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 549-554.
Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J., & Credé, M. (2005). The multidimensional nature of ageism: Construct

validity and group differences. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 335-362.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African

Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Sterns, H. L., & Miklos, S. M. (1995). The aging worker in a changing environment: Organizational and

individual issues. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 248-268.
Stoker, J. I., Van der Velde, M., & Lammers, J. (2012). Factors relating to managerial stereotypes: The

role of gender of the employee and the manager and management gender ratio. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 27(1), 31-42.

Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Social dominance orientation attenuates stereotype change in the
face of disconfirming information. Social Psychology, 41(3), 169-176.

Taylor, P., & Walker, A. (1998). Employers and older workers: Attitudes and employment practices.
Ageing & Society, 18, 641-658.

Vrugt, A., & Schabracq, M. (1996). Stereotypes with respect to elderly employees: The contribution of
attribute information and representativeness. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 6(4), 287-292.

Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961-977.

Wentura, D., & Brandtstädter, J. (2003). Age stereotypes in younger and older women: Analyses of
accommodative shifts with a sentence-priming task. Experimental Psychology, 50(1), 16-26.

Wood, G., Wilkinson, A., & Harcourt, M. (2008). Age discrimination and working life: perspectives and
contestations – A review of the contemporary literature. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 10(4), 425-442.

Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014 109

Zacher, H., Rosing, K., Henning, T., & Frese, M. (2011). Establishing the next generation at work:
leader generativity as a moderator of the relationships between leader age, leader-member
exchange, and leadership success. Psychology and Aging, 26(1), 241-252.

110 Journal of Organizational Psychology vol. 14(1) 2014

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.

51

C O L U M N

B y S a r a h L . S i m o n e a u x
a n d C h r i s L . S t r o u d

Sarah L. Simoneaux, CPC, and Chris L. Stroud, MSPA,
MAAA, EA, provide consulting services to third-party admin-
istrators and financial institutions through Simoneaux & Stroud
Consulting Services. The firm specializes in strategic business
planning, general consulting, industry research, customized brain-
storming sessions and professional development workshops, and
Webcasts for the retirement services industry. They are both past
presidents of ASPPA.

Defining Corporate Culture
So exactly what is “corporate culture”? Investopedia

defines it as

The beliefs and behaviors that determine how a company’s

employees and management interact and handle outside

business transactions. Often, corporate culture is implied,

not expressly defined, and develops organically over time

from the cumulative traits of the people the company

hires. A company’s culture will be reflected in its dress

code, business hours, office setup, employee benefits,

turnover, hiring decisions, treatment of clients, client sat-

isfaction and every other aspect of operations. [http://www.

investopedia.com/terms/c/corporate-culture.asp, last accessed on

June 16, 2014]

Many factors shape and impact corporate culture.
Here is a list to start with, but you can do an objec-
tive “cultural walk” around your office to develop your
own list of factors.

• Corporate values;
• Symbols (logos, jargon, status symbols like corpo-

rate cars or offices)
• Environment (layout, community areas and open

space, desks, bulletin boards, objects and artifacts,

dress, how employees interact—tone and emotion,
email etiquette);

• Organizational structures (flat or hierarchical, for-
mal or informal lines of authority)

• Control systems (What is monitored and/or
reported on? Where are the strongest controls?
Where are the weakest controls? Are employ-
ees rewarded for good work or punished for bad
work?);

• Power structures (Who has “real” power? How are
decisions made? Is power abused? Who are the
“influencers”?);

• Rituals and ceremonies (rewards, celebrations, rou-
tines, awards);

• Stories (reputation of firm, history, heroes and vil-
lains, what new employees are told).

A strong culture also shapes how people work
together and ultimately what they are able to achieve
together. To support the culture, management should
encourage employee involvement and accountability at
all levels and exhibit consistency in applying company
policies. Holding town hall meetings or retreats and
conducting facilitated brainstorming sessions to solicit
employee input are effective ways to keep employees
engaged and informed. You can generate excitement
by creating new rituals or a slogan or mantra—or
simply just by hosting some fun activities. Social com-
mittees (with revolving cross-generational employee
members) that are given a budget are a great way to
take the burden off management for generating ideas
for social activities that appeal to all ages in order to
build a stronger culture.

Corporate Culture and the Hiring Process
There are a number of things you can do to

strengthen and evolve your culture. A good place to
start is by reinforcing the firm’s mission and values,

Business Best Practices

A Strong Corporate Culture Is Key to Success
A strong corporate culture reflects the values of the owners, the management team, and the employees.

It also reflects the company’s mission and has a direct impact on company policies and strategies.

The corporate culture defines how employees interact with each other and with clients and other stakeholders.

Successful firms exhibit strong and vibrant corporate cultures.

52 JOURNAL OF PENSION BENEFITS

or creating them if they do not already exist. The
values are the cornerstone of your culture and should
permeate everything you do, starting with hiring
and firing. When you conduct interviews with pro-
spective employees, you should not only consider
the person’s technical skills but also whether the
person is a good cultural fit and exhibits values
consistent with the firm’s corporate values. Hiring
like-minded managers and executives is especially
important in driving culture. If the people at the
top do not share the company’s values or demon-
strate those values in their actions, it is likely they
also will not hire people who fit the culture. The
number one reason employees leave a company today
is because of a bad manager. Bad managers create
bad cultures.

An effective orientation program, which reinforces
the mission and the values, and relates company
history, goals, and strategies, should be created for
new employees. Initially, equal time should be spent
explaining the elements of the firm’s culture as well
as teaching technical skills. Job descriptions, perfor-
mance evaluations, and reward systems should all be
reviewed during orientation, and each should contain
references to the corporate values. Zappos, an online
retail firm known for its extraordinary customer ser-
vice, puts all employees through a four-week orienta-
tion class, with an intense focus on company values.
At the end of the first week, they offer employees
$2,000 to leave if they do not feel they fit the cul-
ture. Although the offer stands through all four
weeks, less than 1 percent leave. Zappos’s process
underscores how important culture is in attracting
and retaining employees and living out corporate
values.

Corporate Culture in Action
Successful retirement services firms typically exhibit

the following six traits, with corporate culture being
an important core element:

1. Corporate culture is strong and vibrant.
2. Strategic planning is an ongoing journey—

not an event.
3. The planning process is transparent and

includes top-down and bottom-up input and
communication.

4. Values, goals, objectives, and strategies are
clearly articulated and communicated.

5. Strategic implementation includes account-
ability, metrics, and monitoring controls.

6. Strategic plans are aligned with core com-
petencies, structure, hiring practices, job
descriptions, rewards, and culture.

Strategic planning is a process that includes set-
ting a strategic direction and figuring out ways to
get to where we want to go. Sometimes it may be a
fairly straight-forward path, and sometimes we know
it might be a stretch. But what we often do not think
about are the unseen obstacles that might get in
our way, such as things in our corporate culture that
might prevent us from maximizing our success. As
author Kevin Craine says, “Corporate culture provides
the human glue that can rally the collective energy
of your company toward improvements and accom-
plishments, or it can be the glue that fastens your
organization to the way things have always been.”
[DOCUMENT magazine, Feb. 2004, “Supporting Your
Document Strategy”]

For a firm to be vibrant and relevant in today’s fast-
paced world, the firm’s culture must be aligned with
its values, strategies, and driving forces. For example,
too much discipline at Apple would stifle innovation.
Too many rules and policies for Ritz Carlton employ-
ees would limit their ability to make decisions and
respond quickly to hotel guests’ needs. If one of your
firm’s values is continuous learning, then there should
be a sizable budget for resources, educational oppor-
tunities, seminars, webinars, credentialing, and other
learning opportunities. If you value collaboration, then
create task forces across departments and age groups
or organize large group social events to encourage
interaction. Create rituals and celebrate successes that
reinforce your values.

Google is a great example of a successful firm
that carefully aligns its corporate culture with its
goals and strategies. Google is an innovative com-
pany that promotes an employee-friendly, uncon-
ventional corporate culture, which has earned it
repeated high ratings on Fortune magazine’s list
of “100 Best Companies to Work For.” Numerous
perks and on-site services, including flex time,
tuition reimbursement, free lunches, onsite doctors,
oil changes, massages, and fitness classes, blend the
line between work and home and encourage high
productivity and keep people in the office longer.
Employees can use in-office “fun slides” instead of
elevators to go down to a lower floor, and conference
rooms contain pool tables to promote creativity. The
atmosphere is very appealing to creative, young,
energetic employees and makes work fun, and the

BUSINESS BEST PRACTICES 53

rewards for Google are big in the way of new, inno-
vative products.

Conclusion
Firms with strong positive cultures experience many

benefits. It is easier to implement strategic initiatives

because these firms are better able to focus, change,
and adapt. Morale is high, which makes employee
recruitment and retention much easier—and happy
employees translate to happy customers! Productivity
is high, which yields higher profits. When a firm has
a strong and vibrant culture—life is good! ■

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.