You are on page 1of 11

Total Quality Management Vol. 17, No.

2, 131 140, March 2006

The EFQM-Model and Work Motivation


CHRISTIAN EHRLICH
University of Kaiserslautern, Germany

ABSTRACT Job satisfaction and work motivation are result criteria of the EFQM-Model for Excellence. Looking at the organizational practice, one can however see that normally organizations are using instruments measuring job satisfaction to receive information about how their employees feel about important work-related aspects of their work. Very rarely do they use instruments with which they get information about how their employees judge their organization with respect to motivational aspects of their workplace. This is fairly surprising, as several studies have shown that satised employees are not automatically the ones who show higher performance. Employees have to be highly motivated too. One reason for the dominance of instruments measuring job satisfaction is due to the fact that there is only one instrument that explicitly claims that it measures work motivation potentials at work: The Job Diagnostic Survey. Analysing this instrument one can critically see that its focus is only the work-content of an employee. Motivation potentials beyond the work-content (or the work-task itself) are not considered. Therefore, an additional instrument is needed, including further aspects of motivation. Based on an expectancy-value approach, an instrument has been developed that contains the motivation potentials of the JDS and adds to it six new motivation potentials. It is called: Motivation Assessment Questionnaire. The usefulness of this new questionnaire in the context of the EFQM-Model is described in this paper. It shows, that measures (stated in criteria 3) like work-design, differential work-design, performance-oriented incentive systems, cafeteriasystems, management of responsibilities and policy deployment can now be assessed in respect of their amount of effectiveness in the perception of motivation potentials in criteria 7. Therefore the MAQ helps to show relationships between measures in criteria 3 and (motivational) results in criteria 7. This is, until today, a major criticism of the EFQM-Model, because it does not say which precise organisational measures in criteria 3 do lead to which better results regarding motivation in criteria 7. KEY WORDS : Survey Work motivation, job satisfaction, people orientation, EFQM-Model, Job Diagnostic

The EFQM-Model and people orientation By using the EFQM-Model a company can conduct a Self-Assessment, i.e. an evaluation of its organisation based on the nine criteria of the EFQM-Model (see Figure 1).

Correspondence Address: Christian Ehrlich, University of Kaiserslautern, Gottlieb-Daimler-Strae, Building 42, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany. Email: cehrlich@wiwi.uni-kl.de 1478-3363 Print=1478-3371 Online=06=02013110 # 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080=14783360500450400

132

C. Ehrlich

Figure 1. The EFQM-Model of Excellence (from EFQM, 2003: 12)

These nine criteria of the model are divided in two groups: the so-called Enablers and the thereby achieved results. The Enablers contain the conditions for every successful change: incorporation in policy and strategy, management dedication, people integration, an adequate supply and utilization of resources and partners and incorporation in the key processes. The Enablers achieve results for the organization and also for its key target groups (customers, employees and society). On a second level these nine criteria are further specied in 32 criterion parts. The central criteria in this paper are the two concerning the employees of an organisation. Criteria 3, in which an organization describes the measures it has taken to improve their Human Resource Management, and Criteria 7, in which it states the results in respect of their employees. These results can be divided into results measuring satisfaction and motivational aspects of the employees. Instruments Measuring Employee Orientation in the EFQM-Model Focusing rst on Criteria 7, one can ask which instruments do exist to measure job satisfaction or work motivation of the employees, whereas this paper is concentrating on the subjective data an organization can gain through adequate instruments (cf. EFQM, 2003). Those subjective data reect the employees perception of the organization and can be obtained by surveys, focus groups or structured appraisals according to the EFQM-Model (cf. EFQM, 2003). Usually these data are collected by using a standardized employee questionnaire measuring job satisfaction. These kinds of questionnaires explicitly address the employees satisfaction of different work aspects (How satised are you with XY?) or they predominantly use adjectives as strong keywords (Is your work boring?, Is your work tiresome? etc). Numerous instruments measuring job satisfaction normally contain questions about the whole spectrum of relevant work aspects and are easily available for the organizational practice. But the explicit focus on job satisfaction is problematic as the majority of employees indicate that they are satised with their job (Robbins, 2003: 79). This is because the variable job satisfaction is a result of different consideration and experience

The EFQM-Model and Work Motivation

133

processes (Bruggemann, 1974). Bruggemann sees six qualitative different forms of job satisfaction developing out of the following processes: . satisfaction and dissatisfaction of needs and expectations at a given time, . increase, maintenance or decrease of the level of aspiration as a result of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, . problem solving, problem xation, problem displacement in case of dissatisfaction. Based on these processes, different forms of job satisfaction are developing, such as progressive job satisfaction, stabilized job satisfaction, resignative job satisfaction, pseudo job satisfaction, xed job dissatisfaction and constructive dissatisfaction (Bruggemann, 1974). Therefore, the (general) term satisfaction covers qualitatively different forms of employees job satisfaction. Someone might express satisfaction because he or she accepts his/her uninteresting job or does not see a realistic chance for improvement, or the needs of the employee are really satised by the job. This also explains why a lot of Meta-Analyses did not reveal the at rst sight apparently logical - connection between job satisfaction and job performance (Vroom, 1964; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). The large correlation-variance in the single studies furthermore indicate that the connection between job satisfaction and job performance is moderated by other factors. It can be assumed, that the connection between job satisfaction and job performance grows stronger if employees have a specic goal and get some sort of feedback, if the goal was achieved or not, and whether they are adequately paid for their work results (Rosenstiel, 1999). These basic conditions clearly increase motivation and therefore show that job satisfaction and job performance can only work together if the adequate motivational aspects are given. Finally we can conclude that employee-surveys cannot be conned to job satisfaction but need to be completed by instruments measuring motivational aspects. The Job Diagnostic Survey Measuring Motivation Potentials at Work As a requirement for this request, adequate instruments need to be available. One of the most renowned instruments is the Job Diagnostic Survey, which is the only one that measures motivation potentials at work and can be used for an employee survey. The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) has been developed by Hackman & Oldham (1974, 1980). It is one of the most established and internationally renowned practices for measuring personal experience of objective work situations (Taber & Taylor, 1990). Proof for this can be found in the extensive research of the JDS. It measures ve motivation potentials, or core job dimensions, which are: Skill Variety, Task Identity, Task Signicance for the employee or others, Autonomy and Feedback. Compared with the instruments measuring job satisfaction, the JDS has one critical disadvantage. Its focus is solely the task itself. The result of this provides important cues for redesigning the work-task. However, one must critically ask if the acquisition of major job characteristics includes all the inuencing factors for work motivation. To answer this question we need to look closer at the dimensions of surveys measuring satisfaction in comparison to the JDS. Typical factors that are measured in job satisfaction instruments include the nature of the work, supervision, present pay, promotion opportunities and relations with co-workers (Robbins, 2003: 78).

134

C. Ehrlich

The comparison of these facets with the JDS clearly shows that aspects such as colleagues, supervisor(s), pay and development potentials are not taken into consideration by the Job Diagnostic Survey (Ehrlich & Zink, 2003). Therefore the question arises of whether aspects such as remuneration or recognition from colleagues or supervisors really have no inuence on motivation at all. These are factors of work, which may not be directly related to the work content. The assumption, that these factors are irrelevant to motivation seems at rst glance rather unlikely. Furthermore, the literature indicates that there are many researchers that specify motivational factors in addition to the work content. For example, Lawler (1992) assigns a considerable motivational function to incentive systems. Setting goals with the employees, in a participative manner, is also seen as a way to foster work motivation (Locke & Lathham, 1984). Additionally it must be mentioned that the JDS does measure the employees satisfaction with pay, colleagues, supervisors and work security; but it does not make an explicit or direct connection to motivation, i.e. satisfaction with these work aspects have no inuence on motivation. From the above-mentioned comparison it can be concluded that it is desirable to extend the motivation potentials of the JDS (Ehrlich & Zink, 2003). An Extension of the Job Diagnostic Survey: the Motivation Assessment Questionnaire In the following, the core contents of the Motivation Assessment Questionnaire an extension of the JDS will be described. The extension adds further motivation potentials to the JDS, which go beyond the task itself. Altogether, six new motivation potentials can be theoretically derived and reviewed empirically. To identify motivation potentials the cognitive motivation model by Heckhausen and Rheinberg (1980) has been used (see Figure 2). This model describes central expectations of employees with a vital inuence on the motivation of employees and is slightly simplied compared to the original Model of Heckhausen (1977). For a better understanding of this paper, the model will be described briey. The rst expectancy in the model is the so-called situation-outcome-expectancy, which concerns the expectancy in terms of the degree to which the present situation will lead toward a desired outcome apart from any contribution of the actor. The higher this expectancy gets, the lower the motivation to act will be, because the outcome will be achieved apart from personal effort. The second expectancy is called action-outcome expectancy and is described as the probability that the present situation can be changed to yield a desired outcome through ones own actions. The higher this expectancy, the greater the motivation to undertake any action to achieve the desired outcome. Furthermore, there is a third expectancy, the outcome-consequence expectancy, which describes the degree to which outcomes produced by oneself or by others are instrumental for the occurrence of consequences having particular incentive values. In this case, two aspects are relevant to motivation. First, motivation will be higher, the higher the consequences are valued by the employee. Secondly, motivation will be higher, the greater the probability to receive these consequences. In contrast to the original model of Heckhausen, the incentive values have been divided in internal and external rewards or incentive values, according to Lawler & Porter (1967, cf. Porter & Lawler, 1968). Intrinsic rewards result automatically through a successfully performed task, whereas extrinsic rewards have to be given through a third party and do not result automatically (Nadler & Lawler, 1977: 29). Consequently an intrinsic reward is the experience of being proud because one has successfully mastered a challenging task. This describes the

The EFQM-Model and Work Motivation

135

Figure 2. The model of Heckhausen & Rheinberg (1980) and modication concerning intrinsic and extrinsic rewards (below)

same circumstances as mentioned in the JDS concerning questions of intrinsic motivation (e.g. I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well). Thus, intrinsic motivation, as seen by Hackman & Oldham, can be summed up, in the category intrinsic rewards, as it is done in the Expectancy-Value-Theory. As described in Hackman & Oldhams (1980) Job Characteristic Model, the intrinsic work motivation is positively inuenced by the ve core job dimensions. Based on the model of Heckhausen & Rheinberg (1980), it is now possible to theoretically derive further motivation potentials, which are able to inuence the expectations and (extrinsic) incentive values postulated in the model (see Figure 3). Altogether, six new motivation potentials were identied (Ehrlich, 2003; Ehrlich & Zink, 2003). The theoretical explanation of the new identied motivation potentials will be described shortly. An extensive explanation of the theories, which where used to theoretically derive the motivation potentials can be found in Ehrlich and Zink (2003). Concerning the situation-outcome expectancy it can be postulated that the tasks, respectively the goals, related to the individual employee have to be clearly assigned to the employee, so that he/she is aware of the fact that he or she is (solely) the one in charge of his or her working outcome. Concerning the expectancy that ones own efforts will lead to achieving a task or goal, several factors can be identied: On the one hand, people must build up a mental model, of what the successfully achieved task will look like and, at the same time, they must have an

Figure 3. Framework of motivation potentials

136

C. Ehrlich

idea of which measures have to be taken in order to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the action-outcome expectancy will be higher if the employee already has positive experiences with similar tasks. The expectancy that the achievement of an outcome is followed by positive consequences for an employee has to be specied in its effect regarding extrinsic rewards. The outcome-consequence expectancy for this study is mainly focused on the employees expectancy in terms of extrinsic rewards and the probability to receive them. This creates the necessity for organizations to arrange a relationship between extrinsic rewards and successfully mastered tasks in a highly motivational manner. This can be achieved if the fullment of goals of an employee supports the goals of the respective superior. It ensures that the assigned tasks of the employees are also important in the eyes of the people in charge of rewarding the employees (for example the supervisor). Another motivational potential of the outcome-consequence expectancy can be seen in a transparent and strongly performance-oriented incentive system. Furthermore, the actual value of the reward plays a major role. Organizations that implemented a close relationship between performance and extrinsic rewards, but offered rewards that are not highly valued by the employees, cannot expect to foster motivation. This makes it essential to offer rewards that are highly valued by the employees, as well as the implementation of a strong relationship between performance and rewards. This can be achieved by offering alternative extrinsic rewards, from which the employee can choose those rewards that t his/her needs best and have the highest benet for him/her. The framework of motivation potentials comprises the theoretical basis for a JDS extension. Based on this theoretical approach, a questionnaire was developed and reviewed by a total of three empirical studies. The questionnaire measures in analogy to the JDS each of the six motivation potentials by three questions, for a total of 18 questions. For each motivation potential one item is shown as an example. Clearly dened areas of responsibilities: Example: If the work results are not achieved it is mostly due to other people. Employees conception of optimal work-results and appropriate measures to reach them: Example: I understand what is expected of me to achieve the work-results. Consideration of employees positive experiences with similar work-tasks: Example: I was able to demonstrate the abilities and acquirements, which are needed to receive my work-results, by similar tasks in the past. Importance of work-results for subdominant goals: Example: I can see my results clearly in connection with superior goals. Transparent and performance-oriented incentive system: Example: The way of rewarding employees is so transparent that everyone knows what kind of reward to expect (if work-results are achieved). Opportunity of choosing between alternative extrinsic rewards: Example: Within our organization, employees, who are achieving the same workresults can choose between different rewards.

The EFQM-Model and Work Motivation

137

Furthermore, the questionnaire consists of 15 items from the JDS to measure the ve core job dimensions. Thus, the extended version of the JDS consists of 11 motivation potentials. These are measured by a total of 33 items, whereas additional demographic items, questions concerning expectations based on Heckhausen & Rheinbergs (1980) model and questions concerning the value of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards are added. The time to complete the questionnaire is about 20 minutes. Motivation Assessment Questionnaire and its use within the EFQM-Model In the following, organizational measures are described that are suited to change the motivation potentials of the MAQ. Furthermore, it is analysed in how far these measures can be found in Criteria 3 in the EFQM-Model. Table 1 illustrates which measures are suited to improve the motivation potentials of the MAQ (Ehrlich, 2003). As Table 1 shows, measures such as job descriptions, process descriptions and goal setting-techniques have a positive impact on the motivation potential: Clearly dened areas of responsibility. All three measures make sure that each employee is especially responsibly for the assigned tasks. For example, setting goals with the employees ensures that the employees know which results are demanded of them, i.e. for which goals they are responsible. Furthermore, the design of work is a crucial point to inuence the motivation potentials. Work design in general is suited to enhance the motivation potential Employees conception of optimal work-results, because work design leads to work-tasks, which are intellectual challenging for the employee, and as a consequence the employee gets an increasingly distinct conception of how the work has to be fullled best and what it has to look like at the end. Measures to improve the motivation potentials of the JDS are described by the authors of the JDS themselves (Hackman et al., 1975). They name ve implementing concepts to enhance the JDS-potentials. These are: . forming natural work units, . combining tasks,
Table 1. Organisational measures with an inuence on the motivation potentials of MAQ Motivation potentials of MAQ Clearly dened areas of responsibilities Consideration of employees positive experiences with similar work-tasks Employees conception of optimal work-results and appropriate measures to reach them: Importance of work-results for subdominant goals Transparent and performance-oriented incentive system Opportunity of choosing between alternative extrinsic rewards Motivation potentials of the JDS Measures to improve the motivation potentials in an organisation Job descriptions Process descriptions Goal setting techniques Differential work design Work design (job enrichment) Management by objectives Policy deployment Performance oriented pay systems Cafeteria-systems Work design

138

C. Ehrlich

. establishing client relationships, . vertical loading, . opening feedback channels. A special way of work-design is a differential work-design, which means that organizations consider the different needs and competencies of their employees by offering them different work-contents (Hackman, 1977). This differential approach is suited to enhance the motivation potential, Consideration of employees positive experiences with similar tasks. Management by objectives and policy deployment can enhance the importance of the work results of the employees for subdominant goals, because both concepts ensure that the goals or work-results of the employees have been derived from the goals or workresults of their supervisor. Therefore, the goals or work results of the employees should be as important as possible for the supervisor. Performance-oriented pay systems can have a positive impact on the motivation potential, transparent and performance-oriented incentive system, and cafeteria-plans are one way to improve the motivation potential opportunity to choose between alternative extrinsic rewards. Finally, it can be analysed which of these measures in Table 1 are already mentioned in Criteria 3 within the EFQM-Model, although on a more general level, because the measures stated in Criteria 3 do not focus (solely) on work motivation rather on people orientation. Thats why, one can ask which of the guidance points listed in Criteria 3 can now be described in more detail in respect to measures fostering work motivation. Furthermore, it can be analysed whether some measures, which can improve the motivation potentials of the MAQ, are not mentioned by the EFQM-Model at all. As Table 2 shows, there are some similarities between the stated measures of the EFQM-Model to achieve people orientation and the described measures to improve the motivational potentials of the MAQ. Therefore, one can conclude that an integration of the MAQ and its measures to improve the motivation potentials is rst of all possible and does shift the focus of the measurements described in Criteria 3 more towards improving motivation. Very important in this context is the fact that the new measures can be assessed by a standardized questionnaire, the MAQ. For most of the measures stated in Criteria 3, there are no instruments available with which the effects of the measures undertaken in Criteria 3 can be assessed. This is still a major problem of the EFQM-Model, which with respect to work motivation has been solved by the MAQ. Summary This paper deals with the fact that, normally, organizations use standardized questionnaires to measure job satisfaction in order to receive data about how the employees perceive their organization. This is also true for organizations using the EFQM-Model for Excellence. One reason for this is that the only instrument that measures motivation potentials contains only items concerning the work content or the task itself. An extension of the JDS by six further motivation potentials has been described: the Motivation Assessment Questionnaire. This questionnaire is also suitable to use within the EFQM-Model for Excellence. Here one can see that the measures (guidance points) listed in Criteria 3 show some similarity to the measures described to improve the motivation potentials of

The EFQM-Model and Work Motivation

139

Table 2. Comparison between measures to improve the motivation potentials of MAQ and measures of the EFQM-Model to achieve people orientation Measures to improve the motivation potentials of an organisation Differential work design Measurements of the EFQM-Model in Criteria 3 Can be seen as specication of the following guidance point in criteria 3b developing and using training and development plans to help ensure people match the present and future capability needs of the organisation Can be seen as specication of the following guidance point in criteria 3b developing people through workexperience Can be seen as specication of the following guidance point in criteria 3a aligning the human resource plans with policy and strategy, the organizational structure and the framework of key processes Can be seen as specication of the following guidance point in criteria 3b aligning individual and teams objectives with the organizations targets Can be seen as specication of the following guidance point in criteria 3d aligning remuneration, . . . with policy and strategy Can be seen as specication of the following guidance point in criteria 3d recognizing and taking account of diversity. . . setting the level of benets, e.g. pension plan, health care. . . No statements about any management of responsibilities is made

Work design Management by objectives Policy deployment

Performance oriented pay systems Cafeteria systems

Job descriptions Process descriptions Goal setting techniques

MAQ. The major difference lies in the fact that the general measures to foster people orientation can be more specied in respect of measures fostering motivational aspects. Therefore, one can see that most of the MAQ measures can be integrated in one of the four criterion parts of Criteria 3 of the EFQM-Model. Furthermore, the motivation potential Clear areas of responsibilities for employees is one motivation potential that has not been considered so far in Criteria 3 in the EFQM-Model. References
Bruggemann, A. (1974) Zur Unterscheidung verschiedener Formen von Arbeitszufriedenheit (Differentiation of various forms of job satisfaction), Arbeit und Leistung, 11, pp. 283284. hrung Ehrlich, C. (2003) Erfassung und Gestaltung von Motivationspotenzialen als Aufgabe der Personalfu nchen und Mering: (Measurement and Design of Work Motivation Potentials as Leadership Task) (Mu Hampp Verlag). Ehrlich, C. & Zink, K.J. (2003) Development and testing of a questionnaire on motivation potentials at work, in: H. Luczak & K.J. Zink (Eds) Human Factors in Organisational Design and Management VII, Re-Design Work and Macroergonomics Future Perspectives and Challenges: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management, pp. 109114 (Santa Monica, USA: IEA Press). European Foundation for Quality Management (2003) EFQM Excellence Model (Brussels: EFQM).

140

C. Ehrlich

Hackman, R.J. (1977) Work design, in: R.J. Hackman, L.J. Suttle (Eds) Improving Life at Work Behavioural Science Approaches to Organizational Change, pp. 193204 (Yale University: Goodyear Publishing Company). Hackman, R.J. & Oldham, G.R. (1974) The Job Diagnostic Survey: an Instrument for the Diagnostic of Jobs and the Evaluation of Job Redesign Projects (New Haven: Yale University). Hackman, R.J. & Oldham, G.R. (1980) Work Redesign (London: Addison-Wesley). Hackman, R.J., Oldham, G.R., Janson, R. & Purdy, K. (1975) A new strategy for job enrichment, California Management Review, 4, pp. 5771. Heckhausen, H. (1977) Achievement motivation and its constructs: a cognitive model, Motivation and Emotion, 1, pp. 283329. Heckhausen, H. & Rheinberg, F. (1980) Lernmotivation im Unterricht, erneut betrachtet (learning motivation in education, newly considered), Unterrichtswissenschaft, 1, pp. 747. Iaffaldano, M.T. & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985) Job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 2, pp. 251273. Lawler, E.E. (1992) The Ultimate Advantage: Creating the High-Involvement Organization (Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco). Lawler, E.E. & Porter, L.W. (1967) Antecedent attitudes of effective managerial performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2, pp. 122 142. Locke, E. & Latham, G.P. (1984) Goal Setting: a Motivational Technique that Works! (Prentice Hall: New York). Nadler, D.A., Lawler, E.E. (1977) Motivation: a diagnostic approach, in: J.R. Hackman, E.E. Lawler & L. W. Porter (Eds) Perspectives on Behaviour in Organisations (McGraw-Hill: New York). Porter, L.W. & Lawler, E.E. (1968) Managerial Attitudes and Performance (Homewood: Irwin). Robbins, S.P. (2003) Organizational Behavior (Pearson Education: New Jersey). Rosenstiel, L.V. (1999) Arbeitszufriedenheit (Job satisfaction), in: L.V. Rosenstiel, E. Regnet & E.M. Domsch hrung von Mitarbeitern, pp. 193204 (Stuttgart: Scha ffer-Poeschel). (Eds) Fu Taber, T.D. & Taylor, E. (1990) A review and evaluation of the psychometric properties of job diagnostic survey, Personnel Psychology, 3, pp. 467500. Vroom, V.H. (1964) Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley).