LeadershipUnit III Reflection PaperPLEASE READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS AND ATTACHMENTS IN DETAIL!The employment of different types of power might influence a team member's satisfaction, and thus, his or her

23 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal HDM Modeling as a Tool to Assist Management With Employee Motivation: The Case of Silicon Forest Georgina Harell, Portland State University Tugrul U. Daim, Portland State University the various options more than once, and put a number to the importance of one option over another. This study shows a pathway to employee motivation more than the traditional HDM approach which has the end result being one choice. The group survey results provide a better understanding of the differences and the specific values of the groups and smaller sub-groups. For example, management can conclude from this survey that women’s tangible motivators are pay and bonuses followed by outside environment and working conditions.

Literature Review The theory of human motivation started as an interest of psychologists, but managers soon realized the importance of knowing how to motivate their workforce. The work of human motivation started as early as the Greeks (Skinner, 1965), and is still intriguing many researchers today. Motivation through conditioning responses has been explored in great detail since the late 19 th century. The most famous account of conditioned responses has to be that of Pavlov’s dog—where a dog was conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell by repeatedly reinforcing that after a certain sound food would be presented. This type of response has been termed a conditioned reflex. In short, the subject has been trained to produce a response normally associated with stimulus A when stimulus B is presented. Pavlov’s work was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of understanding human behavior in response to a stimulus (Skinner, 1965). E.L. Thorndike expanded the knowledge of human behavior by exploring the concept of learning curves. Thorndike did considerable research examining how long it took creatures to solve a simple problem, for example, how to escape from a latched box. Thorndike noted that initially the creature would take a considerable amount of time to solve the problem, but after more and more attempts at the same situation the solution came more and more quickly. Learning curves help clarify how behavior in complex situations are sorted, emphasized, and reordered. Thorndike’s work is a pivotal step toward the more modern concept of operant conditioning (Skinner, 1965). Operant conditioning is far more complicated than the simple notion of reflex conditioning illustrated by Pavlov.

Operant conditioning looks at human behavior as a complicated series of tendencies, and rather than looking at responses as either happening or not happening, operant conditioning considers a response as having a probability of occurring. By examining human behavior as a probability of a response occurring, more complicated interactions can be examined. There are two points in operant conditioning— operant reinforcement, where a subject is conditioned to respond in a desired fashion more frequently, and operant extinction, the slow fading of the increased response frequency after reinforcement has been removed. What is critical Refereed management tool manuscript. Accepted by Associate Editor Farrington. Abstract: This article gives a brief introduction into the history of human motivation research and discusses a variety of motivational theories. From the numerous theories reviewed, the main motivational elements are assembled into a Hierarchical Decision Model (HDM). A pairwise comparison survey was developed as a tool for managers to use when trying to develop a motivational strategy, i.e., which motivational theory or theories works best for their employees. Finally, as a proof of concept, the questionnaire was tested with 50 professionals in the high tech industry in the Portland area also known as the Silicon Forest.

Keywords: Employee Motivation, Hierarchical Decision Model (HDM), Pairwise Comparison EMJ Focus Areas: Organizational Performance and Assessment I n the definition of motive, the root word is motivate— “something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act” (Merriam-Webster, 2007). Many managers are contemplating how and what they can do to motivate their workforce. The consequences of unmotivated employees are a huge expense in the way of innovation, production, and quality. Management cannot treat people like machines and expect positive results; people offer specialized abilities, actions, vigor, and time commitments that machines cannot provide (Davenport, 2000). In terms of organizational benefit, humans can contribute new and innovative ideas, put in extra time and energy to make a strategic partner, or have a unique talent that no one else possesses. Organizations benefit most when employees are committed and engaged (Davenport, 2000). Managers need to make sure they are in tune with their employees’ motivators and not just blindly following a motivational theory. Asking employees what motivates them and listening and acting on the responses is very important. Not all employees are created equal or value the same thing, so managers may need to tailor a motivational strategy whenever possible. An example from this survey is how the social psychological motivator shows that the male group valued autonomy/responsibility/variety of task more than all other social psychological motivators in the survey, while the female group valued growth/development/ advancement above autonomy/responsibility/variety of task. We showed that using pairwise comparisons is a good way to get your employees to actually weigh each criterion against the others. This method makes employees actually think about 24 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal in operant conditioning from an employee motivation perspective is how to identify operant reinforcing events (Skinner, 1965). Two types of reinforcers have been identified: positive reinforcers and negative reinforcers. Positive reinforcers consist of adding a positive stimuli to the environment, e.g., providing food or water. Negative reinforcers, on the other hand, are the removal of negative stimuli from the environment, e.g., reducing a disturbing noise or bright light. When dealing with individuals, several generalized reinforcers have been identified: attention, approval, affection, submissiveness, and a token. In the work environment, the reinforcer types of approval, submissiveness, and token are the most applicable. People generally respond to the approval of a peer or manager while dominance or a perceived pecking order can invoke a submissive response. Finally, a token, often money or some other physical reward, is a strong reinforcer (Skinner, 1965). In 1943, A.H. Maslow came out with “A Theory of Human Motivation,” in which he discussed how humans have basic needs that need to be met, and once these basic needs have been met a higher level of needs arises. According to Maslow, individuals have a hierarchy by which their needs are ordered, and since everyone is different their needs order will vary. The five basic needs that are identified in Maslow’s theory are: physiological, belonging, self-actualization, safety, and esteem (Maslow, 1943; Hughes, 1999). Maslow further surmised that human beings are never satisfied and, as such, their goals are never fully achieved.

Because individuals always want, they play a game of give and take with the order and priority of their goals. In other words, as goals are met or reprioritized, there is always another need to take its place (Maslow, 1943). The Hierarchy of Needs theory makes a valid observation regarding humans’ basic needs and their continuous desire to strive for more which results in a never ending reprioritization of needs and goals. Management can definitely benefit from learning what their employees value in regard to their needs and goals. A key piece for managers to take away from the Hierarchy of Needs is that an employee’s needs are continuously changing and, therefore, what satisfies and motivates an employee today may not be’ what motivates them a year or six months from now. In the 1950s McGregor published his theories of X and Y.

Theory X makes the statement that people do not want to work and that they are inherently lazy and need to be coerced into working and led by management. McGregor alludes to Maslow’s theory and the five main goals that Maslow states as people’s main goals as he explains that in today’s society theory X will not work to motivate employees because “…physiological and safety needs are reasonably satisfied and whose social, egoistic, and self-fulfillment needs are predominant” (McGregor, 2000).

McGregor then goes on to explain how we must now use Theory Y in which he talks about workers having a potential and capacity to take on responsibility, but management is needed to motivate and guide the employee. Instead of the workers being unintelligent and unmotivated, employees simply need the right motivators. Management’s purpose, therefore, is to find the correct motivators for their employees and help them with any issues they may encounter (McGregor, 2000). Theory X is a highly involved management structure, while Theory Y leans more toward management giving the employee the objective, and the employee self-managing and completing the project. McGregor seems to be discussing two different types of motivational styles for two separate types of workers, and not so much the evolution of motivation based on the meeting of basic needs in the hierarchy model mentioned in Maslow’s theory. The manager needs to figure out what type of employees they are dealing with so they can use the correct type of motivational theory when deciding between X and Y. Some employees may also need a mixture of these theories. For example, if you have an employee who desires a large work load but also desires plenty of direction, he or she can be motivated by making sure they are given a sizeable work load but are also given access to feedback and direction as needed. Another example might be the highly skilled laborer who needs little direction to accomplish a task, but requires prodding to actually get the job finished. Both theories have valid attributes, but making a generalization to use one theory or another could be disastrous to a manager’s career and an employee’s motivation.

Herzberg developed the Motivation-Hygiene Theory which discusses management’s inability to motivate workers and how motivation does not come from just raising salaries, fringe benefits, or duties of the worker (Herzberg, 1987). He talks about management’s need to use the KITA (Kick In The Ass) management style (Herzberg, 1987). Negative KITA occurs when the management has to use force to get the employee to work, whereas positive KITA occurs when management dangles a reward to get the employee to finish the task. Neither method is a good form of management and is definitely not motivation.

Herzberg goes on to explain that positive personal KITA, where the employee kicks himself into doing the task, is the true motivator. Since Herzberg’s theory, management has spent considerable time and money developing ways to get employees to motivate themselves. Some examples of programs to develop positive personal KITA are: sensitivity training, human relations training, and employee counseling, just to name a few (Herzberg, 1987). Unfortunately these types of trainings have an initial positive result but they only work for a short duration. As a result, in order to sustain positive personal KITAs, more and more programs have to be developed and implemented with no guarantee the desired results will be achieved. The hygienes or KITAs he lists in his theory are the factors that cause employees to be discontented: company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and security (Chapman, 1995; Herzberg, 1987).

The motivators he list are the factors that cause employees to be motivated: achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, growth, or advancement (Chapman, 1995; Herzberg, 1987). Managers need to work to place people in the correct job and use their skills effectively. Keeping employees motivated and eliminating as much hygiene as possible will help the people and company as a whole gain many rewards, including bottom line benefits. Herzberg also mentions that if you are not using employees to their full level of abilities, management will see motivational problems (Herzberg, 1987). Sirota talks about Herzberg’s “motivator theory”. The theory suggests that it is challenging and interesting work that keeps employees motivated, and working conditions, wages, and benefits have little to do with working employee motivation. He argues that Herzberg’s theory only pertains to a small percentage of the workforce. The author believes job enrichment includes four key elements (Sirota, 1973): (1) rating the responsibility level of a job, (2) increasing the discretion with which the job is performed, (3) increasing “closure” (doing “the whole thing”), and (4) increasing the timeliness of performance feedback. An enrichment program in a silicon slicing company proved that if you give employees responsibility then they are happier and perform better. Each employee was given a toolset to own that they did not share. The employees were given responsibility to do maintenance on their 25 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal own, replace blades when they decided it was necessary, and to call repairs in directly without a manager’s approval. The outcome was no more dog tools, increased yields, cost of maintaining tools decreased, and employees were happier. This concept also worked on assembly lines where jobs tended to be segmented down under the assumption that the more segmented management could make the jobs the less skilled and less training the employees would need (Sirota, 1973). Job enrichment is not the answer to every problem at a company, by questioning employees and analyzing their answers management can identify the problems employees feel are important and need to be solved. Job enrichment is an important aspect in employee motivation and it can help if it is one of the things that is wrong with employee working situations (Sirota, 1973).

Herzberg is correct that it is a benefit, especially to managers, to understand what motivates employees in a positive way. By this, what is meant by motivate is what makes them want to do work themselves without the need for pushing, prodding, or micro- managing. Sirota makes an argument against Herzberg’s theory based on employee’s need of financial recognition and more than just employees needing positive feedback but needing timely positive feedback. The timely feedback component identified by Sirota is a very important factor that cannot be overlooked by management. If someone does a good job but does not get any feedback for a few months about the successfulness of the work, then how are they to know their work was not a failure. Both men make points on appreciation, but only Sirota comes out and highlights that raises and bonuses are a form of appreciation and, thus, motivation. Some individuals will take on responsibility, but they do not seek it or totally thrive when given it. McClelland developed the Three Needs Theory, also called the Acquired-Needs Theory or the Learned Needs Theory.

McClelland’s theory states that an individual’s needs were developed through their life events and over a period of time.

The major needs of an individual could be classified into one of the following three categories: affiliation, power, or achievement (McClelland, 1961). Furthermore, individual’s motivational factors are influenced by one of these three needs. An individual who highly values affiliation wants to have good relationships with people and strives to have more personal interactions. An individual who is driven by power can be classified into two subsets, either a person who seeks personal power or a person who seeks institutional power. Personal power is the individual’s need to be in charge of others (McClelland, 1961). Alternatively, institutional power seekers are not looking to have power over others; instead they seek the power to organize and meet objectives. The last type of need is achievement. People who are directed by their achievement needs are overachievers and tend to work alone or with people who also highly value achievement (McClelland, 1961). Every person tends to stick to their needs at varying levels, so you may have two people who have a high need for institutional power, but one of them may value this more than the other person and push to lead the project team. The three needs theory has many positive attributes and can benefit a manager when they are trying to pick a person for certain roles in the organization or when combining a team for a project; however, McClelland does not look into the possibility of an individual actually being made up of two or three of these needs. He does discuss how people have higher need strengths but they also may fall directly into two categories. A person who is extremely institutionally power driven could get the job done, but a better choice for leading a team could be the person who is not only intuitionally driven but also highly affiliation driven. This type of individual can do a better job of negotiating with outside vendors and, in turn, not only get the job accomplished but also make strategic partnerships with outside vendors while doing it.

The Equity Theory was developed by J. Stacy Adams and is also called Adam’s Theory of Inequity. The theory presents how motivation (specifically for employees) is directly related to how people judge themselves against others. These judgments are made by looking at their specific inputs and outputs as compared to others and judging if they are being treated reasonably (Adams, 2002). The inputs are things such as qualifications, time, expertise, intelligence, etc. Examples of outputs are salary perks, power, benefits, etc. People tend to do a mathematical ratio comparing their individual outcomes and individual inputs to others’ outcomes and others’ inputs (Adams, 2002). Based on the perception the employee has on their ratio compared to others’ ratios will correlate directly to their personal motivation (Adams, 2002). Adams theory is illustrated below in Exhibit 6.

An example of this theory is that people who judge themselves as being underpaid are two times as likely to leave a job as employees who perceive themselves as adequately compensated financially (Goodman, 1971). Employees will increase or decrease their inputs (i.e., performance level) to maintain a balance if they believe a disproportion in equity exists compared to their peers (Goodman, 1971). Studies have been performed that backup Adam’s theory. An example is in a situation where workers seem to be aware of the discrepancies pertaining to pay discrepancies in output: the hourly worker who is paid less will consistently produce less than the higher paid employee, whereas in a piece- rated system the higher paid individual will produce higher quality pieces but at lower quantity (Goodman, 1971). Adams has an extremely applicable theory, especially in today’s society where everyone is trying to “keep up with the Jones’s.” Most individuals are striving to get the newest and best of everything while judging their value and happiness against others. Management may feel they are able to control this (equity ratio judging) by mandating rules about disclosure of salary and compensation, but they are fooling themselves. Employees talk, and salaries and compensation packages are known throughout the company – not just by management. Also, employees do not judge on salary alone, and they may lower their effort level if they feel all their peers are not giving the same effort to make the ratio equal in their minds. Vroom developed, and Porter and Lawler built upon, the Expectancy Theory. Vroom was the first to propose VIE as a theory.

Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy (VIE) Theory looks at the relationship between task characteristics and intrinsic motivation to achieve higher employee performance. The theory contends that human behavior is a function of three related factors: (1) belief that effort will result in a desired performance level, (2) belief that performance will lead to rewards, and (3) the value of performing and accomplishing a task and the associated believed reward for that performance. These three factors are valence, expectancy, and instrumentality, and multiplying the three individual beliefs for an individual will give you their motivation to work (Vroom, 1964).

Vroom believed that the three VIE components were mentally directing and prompting of our actions (Sunil, 2004). Vroom’s definition for Valence is the emotional desire for the perceived outcome. Instrumentality is the individual’s believed probability that the action will lead to the perceived outcome. Expectancy is whether or not the individual believes that the result of their effort is probable (Sunil, 2004). Lawler, Porter, and others have built on Vroom’s theory, but the core VIE elements remain tried and true throughout the majority of research that has investigated the VIE 26 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Theory (Porter, 1968; Kesselman, 1974). Porter and Lawler put in feedback loops that add into the model such as role perceptions, extrinsic and intrinsic rewards, etc. The model showed the source of V and E and showed the links between effort, performance, and job satisfaction (Porter, 1968; Kesselman, 1974).

Vroom et al. have a valid point—people want to know what the reward for the effort exerted will be before initializing a task, and they also make a personal judgment of the value of the reward. If they feel the reward is well worth the payoff then they will be more motivated to accomplish the task. Managers will have to exert less effort in motivating employees to perform a task or project if they can help employees realize and find value in the outcome before they begin. In the 1950s, Eric Trist studied the English coal mining industry and concluded that the technological increases in the industry, i.e., machines taking over human jobs, had actually decreased people’s productivity. The main conclusion of his research was the development of the Socio-Technical Theory which concludes that both social and technical systems are at play in the workplace. The way the systems are interconnected plays a vital role in the success of the whole system (Richard, 2002). The Social/Human system takes a holistic approach to motivating employees by properly matching individuals with jobs.

When Trist did a critique of scientific management, his model stressed the need to include social and psychological aspects into employee satisfaction models rather then focusing merely on organizational and individual needs. To accomplish this Trist devised several socio-technical requirements of job design based on psychological requirements of the job. The psychological requirements are the need for the job to provide reasonably demanding content, an opportunity to learn, autonomy, support and recognition, a relationship between the product and employee’s life, and the feeling of a desirable future. Analyzing these psychological requirements resulted in the following seven job design principles (Trist, 1970): A variety of tasks 1. A series of tasks that relate to a single overall task 2. An optimal length of work cycles 3. Standards of performance and recognition 4. Boundary tasks 5. Tasks requiring some level of skill and worthy of respect 6. Tasks that are perceived to contribute to the overall product. 7. Trist’s theory makes a great argument for aligning people with jobs that will motivate them based on what motivates them psychologically. Although the seven principles make sense for the majority of people, the theory still needs to expand to encompass that not all employees are going to be motivated by the seven principles outlined. As an example, a manager might notice that their employee is motivated and enjoys doing repetitive tasks. If they push this individual to do a variety of tasks they are going to actually unmotivated this employee. In developing the Requisite Task Attribute Model, Turner and Lawrence devised six key task characteristics believed to be critical to job satisfaction: variety, autonomy, responsibility, knowledge and skill, optional interaction, and required interaction. When correlating the weighted index developed from the six task characteristics, it was found that no strong correlation to job satisfaction could be devised (Turner, 1975; Steers, 1977). Upon further research into these findings, Turner and Lawrence found that individual differences such as rural vs. urban backgrounds and situational differences such as coworker relationships or management style played a critical role in which characteristics led to job satisfaction. The realization that individual and situational differences play a large part in employee satisfaction was the key finding of this research (Turner, 1975; Steers, 1977).

During the 1950s Drucker discussed the need for management to be both economically and socially minded. He believed that the changes in business put higher standards on managers, and that they needed to develop and incorporate both skills—not just one or the other (Drucker, 1955). He went on to explain that human capital is a truly valuable resource and the building block of companies. His conclusion about highly skilled workforces was that management needs to create motivation by doing several things. First, realize that the people cannot be ordered and micromanaged as in the past. Employees need motivation and that motivation comes from management. Second, management needs to design jobs that are challenging, and give the employee growth opportunity and a sense of accomplishment. Third, make sure people are paired with the correct job for them. This can and does change over time. Fourth, people need objectives that are precise and exact. Management also needs to make sure workers are expected to do excellent work and not just let them get by with average performance and production. Fifth, give the employees tasks aligned with their strengths and also the tools they need to get the job done. This includes proper training, supplies, etc.

Lastly, make sure you are rewarding employees properly for a job well done (Drucker, 1955). Sirota, Michkind, and Meltzer discussed that the main belief is that management is meant to motivate employees. Management should make employees happy—thus it will positively affect employee morale and performance—thus helping the company’s bottom line (Sirota, 2005). A major amount of research supports the assumption that employee morale positively correlates to company performance including stock price. New employees have the highest job satisfaction and it goes down considerably until the ten year mark when it seems to show a little improvement.

Ten percent of organizations do not notice this loss in morale— in fact, they seem to harness the motivation and use it for their advantage. Management negatively affects morale by making policy and business decisions based on the “bad seeds” or negative employees, and by not giving employees enough credit or kudos for doing their jobs well (Sirota, 2005). Layoffs are never going to help morale—they make employees feel like a disposable commodity. Also, high levels of bureaucracy are not good for morale. Gaining high morale takes work, and managers need to work on treating employees fairly not only with monetary compensation but also with respect and fair treatment. Managers need to challenge employees with their work so they can learn new skills and feel a sense of accomplishment. Also, managers need to show appreciation for their employees’ work which in turn will benefit the organization by increased employee motivation.

Managers need to satisfy employees socially by allowing them good team members with whom to work and supporting a teamwork environment. A successful organization should follow the rules below to keep employees motivated (Sirota, 2005). Employees are laid off as a last resort and not the first thing • management does Compensation and benefits are competitive or slightly above • the industry average Employees are treated respectfully both by their immediate • supervisors and by the organization as a whole (for example, all employees may be salaried, and superfluous status symbols are kept to a minimum) 27 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Employees are organized into self-managed teams where • they control many aspects of their work processes Obstacles to performance are removed, usually on the basis • of employee input The financial benefits of employees’ performance are shared • with employees (through plans such as “gainsharing,” by far the most effective way to pay for performance) Employees receive full communication regarding all aspects • of the business The company’s vision and strategic direction are largely • centered on satisfying customers and doing so through the effort, ideas, and ingenuity of the workforce The models reviewed had two types of motivators. First, employees were motivated by psychological and social elements of the job. Second, employees were motivated by tangible benefits such as pay, awards, etc. The elements extracted from the literature review that made it into the survey developed for this study are listed below in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 1. Employee Motivational Factors Social-Psychological Tangible 1. Autonomy, Responsibility, Variety of Tasks 2. Growth/Development, Advancement 3. Interactions: Feedback, Coworker Relationship, Manager Relationship 4. Power, Respect 5. Pride, Sense of Accomplishment 1. Pay Bonuses 2. Fringe Benefits (Health Insurance, Life Insurance, Vacation, Retirement, SPP) 3. Recognition (awards) 4. Outside Environment 5. Working Conditions (Work Environment, Hours, Ame - nities, Activities) The items listed in Exhibit 1 were extracted from the numerous theories reviewed based on common motivational factors identified amongst the theories. Common factors were lumped together into groups for the purpose of the survey. Exhibits 2 and 3 list the motivational categories identified and which theories reviewed identified these categories as motivational factors. Autonomy,Responsibility, Variety of Task Growth, Development, AdvancementPride, Sense of AccomplishmentInteractions, Feedback, Relationships Power, Respect Top two tiers of Maslow’s pyramid Second tier of Maslow’s pyramidSecond tier of Maslow’s pyramidFourth tier of Maslow’s pyramid Second tier of Maslow’s pyramid McGregor theory Y McGregor theory YMcGregor theory Y Herzberg’s motivators Herzberg’s motivatorsHerzberg’s motivatorsHerzberg hygiene factors Herzberg hygiene factors McClelland achievement McClelland affiliation McClelland power Adam’s equity Adam’s equityAdam’s equityAdam’s equity Adam’s equity Trist’s Socio-Technical Trist’s Socio-TechnicalTrist’s Socio-Technical Requisite Task Turner and Lawrence Requisite Task Turner and Lawrence Requisite Task Turner and Lawrence Pay Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside EnvironmentWorking Conditions Fourth tier of Maslow’s pyramid Fourth tier of Maslow’s pyramidSecond tier of Maslow’s pyramid Fourth tier of Maslow’s pyramid McGregor theory Y McGregor theory YMcGregor theory Y McGregor theory Y Herzberg’s hygiene factor Herzberg’s motivatorsHerzberg’s hygiene factorHerzberg’s hygiene factor McClelland achievement Adam’s equity Adam’s equityAdam’s equity Adam’s equity Vroom et. al expectancy Vroom et. al expectancy Trist’s Socio-Technical Trist’s Socio-TechnicalTrist’s Socio-Technical Requisite Task Turner and Lawrence Requisite Task Turner and Lawrence Exhibit 2. Socio-Psychological Motivational Factors Exhibit 3. Tangible Motivational Factors 28 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Research Methodology We wanted to further explore the motivational factors in Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and identify which ones are preferred over others in different settings. This article focused on technical professionals and used a sample of technical professionals in the Portland, Oregon area.

We used a hierarchical decision model (HDM) to address multiple levels involved in this decision making process. The concept of hierarchical modeling (also know as Analytical Hierarchy Process, or AHP) can be applied to structurally decompose complex problems (Saaty, 1978, 1979, 1990, 1994).

Previous studies have used either three level or four level hierarchical models for evaluation and assessment of alternatives (Gerdsri and Kocaoglu, 2007). The scores used in selection methods are the relative importance measures of the various criteria and attributes. The weights assigned to criteria, attributes, and other parameters in decision models represent the final impacts of a series of interrelated actions on the outcomes of those models (Chen and Kocaoglu, 2008). Hierarchical decision models are used in several different decision problems: Bohanec and Zupan (2004) in real estate; Bohanec et al. (2000) in health care, Cakir and Canbolat (2007) in inventory management, Al-Subhi and Al-Harbi (2001) in project management, Karami (2006) and Montazar and Behbahani (2007) in irrigation management, Leung et al. (1998) in pelagic fishery, Mau-Crimmins et al. (2005) in national forest planning, Rabelo, et al. (2007) in construction, Azadeh et al. (2007) in railway system improvement and optimization, Bozbura et al. (2007) in human resource management, Parra-López et al. (2007) in agriculture, Bertolini et al. (2006) in public work contracts, Wong and Li (2008) in evaluation of innumerable intelligent building products, Lin et al. (2007) in identifying customer requirements, Durán and Aguilo (2007) in evaluation and justification of an advanced manufacturing system, Celik et al. (2007) in building, Galan et al. (2007) in manufacturing. The Hierarchal Decision Model (HDM) using a pairwise comparison survey was chosen for this research study due to the complex decisions that managers face when motivating employees.

A manager does not face one right answer or straight line to follow when motivating employees since there are multiple levels and types of motivators to consider (e.g., psychological/social elements and tangible benefits). Using the main motivational elements identified from the literature, a two part survey was developed to provide pairwise comparison of the key motivational factors. Pairwise comparison forms the basis of an HDM process.

Pairwise Comparison reflects the relative importance of a pair of elements as perceived by the expert. The relative importance is measured by distributing 100 points between the two options.

This is then converted into weights using scale normalization and priority matrices (Kocaoglu, 1983). The questionnaire was developed from the historic data gathered from the motivation theories presented in the literature review. The final survey developed and administered during this research project can be seen in Appendix A. The survey was given to 50 professionals in the high tech industry of the Portland, Oregon, area. Each person was given the survey and given three weeks in which to complete the survey and return it to the author. Out of the 50 people given the survey, 30 people or 60% responded. Within the 30 survey respondents, 13 were female and 17 were men. Three separate analyses were conducted on the data gathered from the surveys. First, the entire group was analyzed, and then the male and female sub groups were analyzed to assess any potential motivational differences between the sexes. The HDM model developed for the survey can be seen in Exhibit 4. The first level is the goal of this research study, i.e., how to motivate employees. The second level consists of the intangible motivators identified and illustrated above on the right side of Exhibit 1. Finally, the third level of the HDM contains the tangible motivators that were listed on the left side of Exhibit 1. Appendix B provides the details of the model that resulted through the surveys. The first set of pairwise comparisons from the survey gave the weighting of the social-psychological motivators as compared against the objective and can be seen for the three groups (total, men, and women). The light gray labels are the results for the group as a whole. The medium gray labels are the results for the men only, and the dark gray labels are the outcomes for the women only.

Results The results for the Social-Psychological motivators with respect to the objective shown in Exhibit 4 shows that the overall group equally valued autonomy/responsibility/variety of task and pride/sense of accomplishment. The overall group valued power/ respect the least among the five social-psychological motivators.

On the other hand, autonomy/responsibility/variety of task was clearly the dominant motivator among the male group. Finally, the women’s group top motivator was growth/development/ advancement, but only by a slim margin. Both the male and female groups agreed with the overall group in terms of the least motivating factor being power/respect. The results for the tangible work motivators with respect to autonomy/responsibility/variety of task showed that all three sets (combined/men/women) all put pay and bonuses as their top motivator. Men and the combined group were decisive on the second place tangible motivator, choosing working conditions. On the other hand, the second place motivator for women was a tie between recognition, outside environment, and working conditions.

Tangible work motivators with respect to growth/development/ advancement also showed pay and bonuses as the top motivator for all three sets, with working conditions coming in second for all three sets. Fringe benefits were the least motivating item for all three sets. Tangible work motivators with respect to pride/sense of accomplishment also came out with pay and bonuses as a clear top tangible motivator. Women had the largest separation between pay and bonuses and the second motivator, which was a tie between working conditions and outside environment. Men and the group also chose working conditions in second place and all three groups put fringe benefits in last place. Tangible work motivators with respect to interactions/feedback/relationships had pay and bonuses as the first choice as a tangible motivator; however, women chose outside environment as a second place motivator while the group Exhibit 4. HDM Diagram for Motivation Survey Power Respect Objective Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators AutonomyResponsibility Variety of Tasks Growth Development Advancement Pride Sense of Accomplishment Interactions Feedback Relationships Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions Motivated Employees 29 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal and men chose working conditions again for the second position as a motivator. Tangible work motivators with respect to power/ respect had similar results to most of the other models with pay and bonuses as the top motivator and working conditions coming in second. The results demonstrate that all sets of people show that pay and bonuses is the top choice for managers to motivate employees.

Conclusions Technical managers need to make sure they are in tune to their employees’ motivators and not just blindly following a motivational theory. Asking employees what motivates them, and listening and acting on the responses is very important. Not all employees are created equal or value the same thing, so managers may need to tailor a motivational strategy whenever possible. An example from this survey is how the social psychological motivator shows that the group and men value autonomy/responsibility/variety of task more than all other social psychological motivators in the survey while the female group more highly valued growth/ development/advancement. Using pairwise comparisons is a good way to get your employees to actually weigh each criterion against the others. This method makes employees actually think about the various options more than once and put a number to the importance of one option over another.

This study shows a pathway to technical employee motivation rather than using the traditional HDM approach which has the end result being one choice. The group survey results are very nice to have and they provide a better understanding of the differences and the specific values of the groups and smaller sub- groups. The pathway to motivate the group of women is shown in Exhibit 5; the top weighted motivators are shown in dark gray. The management can conclude from this survey that women’s tangible motivators are pay and bonuses followed by outside environment and working conditions. Women’s social-psychological motivators are growth/ development/advancement followed by pride/sense of accomplishment and interactions/ feedback/relationships. The men’s motivational HDM pathway, above, shows that pay and bonuses along with working conditions are the top tangible motivators. The top social psychological motivators are autonomy/responsibility/ variety of task followed by growth/development/advancement and then pride/sense of accomplishment. The group surveyed was almost exclusively from the high tech industry, so while the methodology is applicable to any industry the results may very greatly.

References Adams, S. J., “Inequity in Social Exchange,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2 (2002), pp. 267-299.

Ajgaonkar, P., A. Auysakul, R. Jefferis, S. Shinriki, “Use of Hierarchial Decision Modeling for Site Selection of a Major League Baseball Stadium in Portland,” PICMET, (July 2003).

Al-Subhi Al-Harbi, K.M. “Application of the AHP in Project Management,” International Journal of Project Management, 19:1 (2001), pp. 19-27.

Azadeh, S.F. Ghaderi, and H. Izadbakhsh, “Integration of DEA and AHP with Computer Simulation for Railway System Improvement and Optimization,” Applied Mathematics and Computation , in press, corrected proof, (2007).

Bertolini M, M. Braglia, G. Carmignani, “Application of the AHP Methodology in Making a Proposal for a Public Work Contract,” International Journal of Project Management , 24:5 (2006), pp. 422-430.

Bohanec M., and B. Zupan, “A Function-Decomposition Method for Development of Hierarchical Multi-Attribute Decision Models,” Decision Support Systems, 36:3 (2004), pp.215-233.

Bohanec M, B. Zupan, and V. Rajkovi, “Applications of Qualitative Multi-Attribute Decision Models in Health Care,” International Journal of Medical Informatics, 58-59:1 (2000), pp. 191-205.

Bozbura FT, A. Beskese, and C. Kahraman, “Prioritization of Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP,” Expert Systems with Applications, 32:4 (2007) pp. 1100-1112.

Cakir O., and M.S. Canbolat, “A Web-Based Decision Support System for Multi-Criteria Inventory Classification Using Fuzzy AHP Methodology,” Expert Systems with Applications , in press, corrected proof, (2007).

Celik M., I.D. Er, and A.F. Ozok, “Application of Fuzzy Extended AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection: The Case of Turkish Maritime Industry,” Expert Systems with Applications, in press, uncorrected proof, (2007).

Chapman, Alan, “BusinessBalls-Ethical Work and Life Learning,”, available online at http://www.businessballs.com/, accessed July 10, 2007 (1995).

Chen H., and D.F. Kocaoglu, “A Sensitivity Analysis Algorithm for Hierarchical Decision Models,” European Journal of Operational Research, 185:1, (2008), pp 266-288.

Davenport, T.O., “Workers as Assets: A Good Start But....,” Employment Relations Today, (Spring 2000).

Drucker, P.F., “Integration of People and Planning,” Harvard Business Review, 33:6 (1955), pp. 35-40.

Durán O., and J. Aguilo, “Computer-Aided Machine-Tool Selection Based on a Fuzzy-AHP Approach,” Expert Systems with Applications, in press, corrected proof, (2007).

Galan R, J. Racero, I. Eguia, and J.M. Garcia, “A Systematic Approach for Product Families Formation in Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing , 23:5 (2007), pp. 489-502. Gerdsri N., and D.F. Kocaoglu, “Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Build a Strategic Framework for Technology Exhibit 5. Women‘s (dark gray) and Men’s (light gray) Motivators HDM Pathway AutonomyResponsibility Variety of Tasks Power Respect Objective Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators Fringe Benefits Recognition Power Respect Objective Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators Growth Development Advancement Pride Sense of Accomplishment Interactions Feedback Relationships Pay & Bonuses Outside Environment Working Conditions Motivated Employees Autonomy Responsibility Variety of Tasks Growth Development Advancement Pride Sense of Accomplishment Interactions Feedback Relationships Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions Motivated Employees 30 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Roadmapping,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling , 46:7-8 (2007), pp. 1071-1080.

Goodman, P.S., A. Friendman, “An Examination of Adams’ Theory of Inequity,” Administrative Science Quarterly, (1971).

Herzberg, F. “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees,” Harvard Business Review, 46:1 (1987), pp. 53-62.

Hughes, R.L., R.C. Ginnett, G.J. Curphy, Leadership Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (3 rd ed.), McGraw-Hill (1999).

Karami E., “Appropriateness of Farmers’ Adoption of Irrigation Methods: The Application of the AHP Model,” Agricultural Systems, 87:1 (2006), pp. 101-119.

Kesselman, G.A., E.L. Hagen, R.J. Wherry, “A Factor Analytic Test of the Porter-Lawler Expectancy Model of Work Motivation,” Personnel Psychology, 27:4 (Winter 1974), pp. 569-579.

Kocaoglu, D.F., “A Participative Approach to Program Evaluation.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 30:3 (1983), pp.37– 44.

Leung P, J. Muraoka, S.T. Nakamoto, and S. Pooley, “Evaluating Fisheries Management Options in Hawaii Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP),” Fisheries Research, 36:2-3 (1998) pp. 171-183.

Lin M, C. Wang, M. Chen, and C.A. Chang, “Using AHP and TOPSIS Approaches in Customer-Driven Product Design Process,” Computers in Industry, in press, corrected proof, (2007).

Maslow, A.H., “A Theory of Human Motivation,” Psychol. Rev., 50 (1943), pp. 370-396.

Mau-Crimmins T., J.E. de Steiguer, and D. Dennis, “AHP as a Means for Improving Public Participation: a Pre-Post Experiment with University Students,” Forest Policy and Economics, 7:4 (2005), pp. 501-514.

McClelland, D.C., The Achieving Society, D. Van Nostrand (1961).

McGregor, D., “The Human Side of Enterprise,” Reflections, 2:1 (Fall 2000), pp. 6-15.

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, “Definition of Motive,” (2006-2007), available online at www.m-w.com/dictionary/ motiv e, accessed July, 1 2007.

Montazar, A. and S.M. Behbahani, “Development of an Optimised Irrigation System Selection Model Using analytical Hierarchy Process,” Biosystems Engineering, 98:2 (2007), pp. 155-165.

Parra-López C., J. Calatrava-Requena, and T. de-Haro-Giménez, “A Systemic Comparative Assessment of the Multifunctional Performance of Alternative Olive Systems in Spain Within an AHP-Extended Framework,” Ecological Economics, in press, corrected proof, available online (June 11, 2007).

Porter, L.W., E.E. Lawler, “ Managerial Attitudes and Performance ,” Homewood IL: R. D. Irwin (1968).

PSU ETM PCM Software, Version 1.4, (June 4, 1991).

Rabelo L, H. Eskandari, T. Shaalan, and M. Helal, “Value Chain Analysis Using Hybrid Simulation and AHP,” International Journal of Production Economics, 105:2 (2007), pp. 536-547.

Richard Scholl, “Home page - Dr. Richard Scholl,” (Oct. 2002) available online at http://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/scholl/ Notes/Motivation_Expectancy.html, accessed June 25, 2007.

Saaty T., “Applications of Analytical Hierarchies,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 21:1 (1979), pp. 1-20.

Saaty T., “Highlights and Critical Points in the Theory and Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, 74:3 (1994), pp. 426-447.

Saaty T., “How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research , 48:1 (1990), pp 9-26.

Saaty T., “Modeling Unstructured Decision Problems – The Theory of Analytical Hierarchies,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 20:3 (1978), pp 147-158.

Sirota, D., “Assumptions That Kill Morale,” Leader to Leader, 2005:38 (Fall 2005), pp. 24-27.

Sirota, D., “Job Enrichment – Is It For Real?” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 38:2 (Spring 73), pp. 22.

Skinner, B.F., Science and Human Behavior, Macmillan Co. (1965).

Steers, R.M., R.T. Mowday, “The Motivational Properties of Tasks,” Academy of Management Review, 2 :4 (Oct 1977), pp. 645-658.

Strategos: Consultants, Engineering, Strategist, “Principles of Socio-Technical Design,” available online at http://www.

strategosinc.com, accessed July 8, 2007.

Sunil, R. “A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications for Employee Retention Within Organizations,” Journal of American Academy of Business , 5:1/2 (Sept. 2004), pp. 52-63.

Swenson, David, “Homepage - Dr. David X. Swenson,” (Feb. 2000), available online at http://faculty.css.edu/dswenson/ web/LEAD/McClelland.html, accessed June 23, 2007.

Trist, E. “A Socio-Technical Critique of Scientific Management,” presented at the Edinburgh Conference on the Impact of Science and Technology, (May 1970).

Turner, A., Industrial Jobs and the Worker—An Investigation of Response to Task Attributes, Harvard University Press (1965).

Vroom, V., Work and Motivation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1964).

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, “Diagram: Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs,” (Oct. 2006), available online at http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Maslow_hierarchy_of_need s, accessed July 2, 2007.

Wong J.K.W., and H. Li, “Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Multi-Criteria Analysis of the Selection of Intelligent Building Systems,” Building and Environment, 43:1 (2008), pp. 108-125.

About the Authors Georgina Harell is a PhD student at Portland State University (PSU) in the Engineering and Technology Management Department. Her research interests include building trust and motivating teams, renewable energy, and predicting future demand for emerging alternative energy sources. She has an MS in engineering and technology management from PSU and a BS in biomedical engineering from Michigan Technological University and she is also a PMP certified project manager. She has a wide breadth of work experience including high-tech industry and academic research labs. Tugrul U. Daim is an Associate Professor of engineering and technology management at PSU. He had been with Intel Corporation before he joined PSU as a full-time faculty.

His research involves exploration of technology assessment in industries including automotive, energy, semiconductor manufacturing, communications and health care. He is also a visiting Professor at Technical University of Hamburg Harburg.

He has over 100 papers published in journals and conference proceedings. He is the editor in chief for International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management . He has a PhD in Systems Science and Engineering Management (EM) and MS in EM from PSU, MS in mechanical engineering from Lehigh University and a BS in mechanical engineering from Bogazici University in Turkey.

Contact: Tugrul U. Daim, Portland State University, Department of Engineering and Technology Management, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207; phone: 503-725-4582; [email protected] 31 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Appendix A. Motivational Survey 32 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Appendix B. Detailed Results Objective Motivated Employees Social- Psychological Motivators Autonomy Responsibility Variety of Tasks Growth Development Advancement Pride Sense of Accomplishment Interactions Feedback Relationships Power Respect .22 .25 .17 .21 .20 .23 .22 .21 .22 .20 .18 .21 .16 .15 .18 HDM Model of Social-Psychological Motivators to Objective Women Men Group Autonomy Responsibility Variety of Tasks Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators .33 .35 .29 .12 .12 .13 .15 .12 .19 .16 .15 .19 .23 .26 .19 Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions Autonomy, Responsibility and Variety of Task HDM Model Women Men Group Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators .30 .31 .30 .12 .12 .13 .16 .15 .18 .17 .15 .19 .24 .26 .20 Women Men Group Growth Development and Advancement HDM Model Autonomy Responsibility Variety of Tasks Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions 33 March 2010 Vol. 22 No. 1 Engineering Management Journal Pride Sense of Accomplishment Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators .32 .33 .30 .13 .12 .14 .15 .13 .17 .17 .15 .19 .23 .26 .19 Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions Pride and Sense of Accomplishment HDM Model Women Men Group Interactions Feedback Relationships Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators .35 .36 .34 .13 .13 .14 .13 .13 .12 .18 .15 .21 .22 .24 .18 Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions Interaction and Feedback HDM Model Women Men Group Power and Respect Social- Psychological Motivators Tangible Motivators .34 .35 .34 .14 .13 .14 .13 .13 .15 .16 .14 .18 .23 .25 .19 Pay & Bonuses Fringe Benefits Recognition Outside Environment Working Conditions Power and Respect HDM Model Women Men Group