1 / 8

Firing Each Other Up: The Impact of Motivational Messages from Peers on Job Performance

Firing Each Other Up: The Impact of Motivational Messages from Peers on Job Performance. Jeff Thompson, Brigham Young University Richard Gardner, Texas A&M University Adam Grant, University of North Carolina Joseph Pike, Hewitt Associates, Chicago John Bingham, Brigham Young University.

libitha
Télécharger la présentation

Firing Each Other Up: The Impact of Motivational Messages from Peers on Job Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Firing Each Other Up: The Impact of Motivational Messages from Peers on Job Performance Jeff Thompson, Brigham Young University Richard Gardner, Texas A&M University Adam Grant, University of North Carolina Joseph Pike, Hewitt Associates, Chicago John Bingham, Brigham Young University

  2. Motivation Maintenance at a Telefund • Brief interaction with a beneficiary increases both persistence and performance of fundraising callers (Grant, et al, 2006). • Callers who read a letter from scholarship recipients (task significance condition) received more pledges (Grant, 2008) • Those who read a letter from past employees (personal benefit condition) did not

  3. Can Employees Replicate these Effects with One Another? • Callers appear to get “fired up” by interaction with (or a letter from) a beneficiary of their work. • Can callers “fire each other up” by sharing stories about helping beneficiaries? • Information richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1984): richer, more personal, more enthusiastic communications foster internalization

  4. A Quasi-Experimental Opportunity • Brigham Young University’s Telefund provides some unique features: • High performing Telefund • Very low employee turnover • Unique social mission (church-owned school) • Most shifts begin with a “devotional” delivered by an employee (voluntary basis)

  5. What we Did • Trained shift supervisors to rate devotionals on a number of dimensions, e.g., • Told story about the Telefund • Told a story about helping others outside Telefund • Talked about Telefund’s benefits to others • Talked about Telefund’s benefits to self • Used inspirational quotes, etc. • Collected data over 10 weeks; 39 shifts with at least two supervisor-ratings of devotionals • Telefund provided performance data for all 75 callers • Total of 1224 individual-level observations

  6. Preliminary Results • DV = Pledges per minute • Controlled for prior individual performance (ns?!) • Controlled for shift time, day, and calling pool (more donations at 5pm and when calling young prior donors; fewer donations from recent grads) • Devotionals “fired up” callers when they: • Told a story about the Telefund (ß = 2.44*) • Told a story about helping outside the Telefund (6.73**) • Related to the work of the Telefund (4.41**) • Were specific (3.73**) • Were less polished (-4.95**!) • Devotional traits explained 8% of variance in pledges • But very small effects for dollars pledged/minute

  7. What are we Learning? • Employees may be able to “fire each other up” even without interacting with beneficiaries • Specific work-related stories seem to be an effective proxy for direct interaction • Motivational messages seem to influence the number of pledges, but not the overall dollar amount (more small pledges?) • Also collected employee data. Look for moderators such as: • Prosocial motivation • Proactive personality • Psychological contract fulfillment, etc.

  8. Questions for MMMers • What is/isn’t compelling about the data so far? • What theories might best help us tell a story here? • Where should we go next? • What questions aren’t we thinking about? • Why and where does this matter?

More Related