Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Difference Adam M. Grant Doctoral Student, Organizational Psychology University of Michigan

Acknowledgements of Impact Sue Ashford Sue Ashford Jane Dutton Jane Dutton Richard Hackman Richard Hackman Fiona Lee Fiona Lee Brian Little Brian Little Joshua Margolis Joshua Margolis Andy Molinsky Andy Molinsky Lou Penner Lou Penner Mike Pratt Mike Pratt Rick Price Rick Price Kathie Sutcliffe Kathie Sutcliffe Allison Sweet Allison Sweet Amy Wrzesniewski Amy Wrzesniewski Org psych/M&O faculty/students Org psych/M&O faculty/students QLIF, May Meaning Meeting QLIF, May Meaning Meeting Impact Lab students Amy Bass Charlotte Burns Beth Campbell Grace Chen Keenan Cottone Christy Flanagan Molly Gannon Alex Jaffe Melissa Kamin Claire Kemerling Emily Kidston David Lapedis Karen Lee Ginelle Nagel Gina Valo

Overview The motivation to make a difference The motivation to make a difference How work contexts motivate people to care about making a difference How work contexts motivate people to care about making a difference Field experiment evidence Field experiment evidence Mechanisms and contributions Mechanisms and contributions

The Motivation to Make a Difference Popular Press Popular Press Bornstein, 2004; Everett, 1995; May, 2003; Quinn, 2000 Bornstein, 2004; Everett, 1995; May, 2003; Quinn, 2000 Organizational Missions Organizational Missions Collins & Porras, 1996; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003 Collins & Porras, 1996; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003 Diverse Organizational Literatures Diverse Organizational Literatures E.g., Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Marx, 1980; Meyerson & Scully, 1995 E.g., Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Marx, 1980; Meyerson & Scully, 1995

Recent Organizational Research Individual differences perspective on the motivation to make a difference Individual differences perspective on the motivation to make a difference People who see work as calling want to make the world a better place; those who see work as a job/career do not (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) People who see work as calling want to make the world a better place; those who see work as a job/career do not (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) Benevolent employees are altruistic; entitled employees are more selfish (Huseman et al., 1987) Benevolent employees are altruistic; entitled employees are more selfish (Huseman et al., 1987) Some employees are self-interested; others are prosocially oriented (Penner et al., 1997; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004) Some employees are self-interested; others are prosocially oriented (Penner et al., 1997; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004)

Beyond Individual Differences Interdisciplinary evidence: Virtually all people have the capacity to care about others Interdisciplinary evidence: Virtually all people have the capacity to care about others Genetic capacity for empathy (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg, 2000) Genetic capacity for empathy (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg, 2000) Sociocultural values: benevolence (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001) Sociocultural values: benevolence (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001) Natural selection favors helping ingroup (Burnstein et al., 1994) Natural selection favors helping ingroup (Burnstein et al., 1994) In social and economic dilemmas, people cooperate (Axelrod, 1984) and help at a cost to themselves (Rabin, 1998) In social and economic dilemmas, people cooperate (Axelrod, 1984) and help at a cost to themselves (Rabin, 1998) People have basic motives to connect with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) People have basic motives to connect with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

Work Contexts Beyond “Which people care about others?” Beyond “Which people care about others?” To “When, and under what conditions, do people care about others? To “When, and under what conditions, do people care about others? Can work contexts motivate employees to care about making a positive difference in other people’s lives? Can work contexts motivate employees to care about making a positive difference in other people’s lives? Look to the work itself– tasks and jobs Look to the work itself– tasks and jobs

Basic Units of Work Task Task Assigned piece of work Assigned piece of work Job Job Collection of tasks designed to be performed by one employee (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Griffin, 1987) Collection of tasks designed to be performed by one employee (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Griffin, 1987) Definition overlooks relational architecture of jobs Definition overlooks relational architecture of jobs Jobs shape opportunities to interact and form connections with others Jobs shape opportunities to interact and form connections with others

Job Design Task significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) Task significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) Degree to which work affects the welfare of other people Degree to which work affects the welfare of other people Clues that jobs spark motivation to make a difference Clues that jobs spark motivation to make a difference What’s missing from task significance What’s missing from task significance How job structures shape opportunities for impact on others How job structures shape opportunities for impact on others How jobs shape connections with these others How jobs shape connections with these others

Relational Job Design Job impact on beneficiaries Job impact on beneficiaries Domains: psychological, physical, financial Domains: psychological, physical, financial Dimensions: magnitude, scope, frequency Dimensions: magnitude, scope, frequency Regulatory focus: promotion/prevention Regulatory focus: promotion/prevention Contact with beneficiaries Contact with beneficiaries Dimensions: frequency, duration, physical proximity, emotional intensity, breadth Dimensions: frequency, duration, physical proximity, emotional intensity, breadth When jobs are well-designed with attention to their relational properties, employees care about making a difference When jobs are well-designed with attention to their relational properties, employees care about making a difference

Predictions Jobs spark the motivation to make a difference when they provide opportunities for employees to have impact on, and build relationships with, beneficiaries Jobs spark the motivation to make a difference when they provide opportunities for employees to have impact on, and build relationships with, beneficiaries Job impact on beneficiaries  perceived impact on beneficiaries Job impact on beneficiaries  perceived impact on beneficiaries Contact with beneficiaries  affective commitment to beneficiaries Contact with beneficiaries  affective commitment to beneficiaries Perceived impact on beneficiaries + affective commitment to beneficiaries = motivation to make a difference Perceived impact on beneficiaries + affective commitment to beneficiaries = motivation to make a difference

Field Intervention Fundraising organization Fundraising organization University callers soliciting alumni donations University callers soliciting alumni donations Donations provide student scholarships Donations provide student scholarships Callers never meet scholarship students Callers never meet scholarship students Scholarship student agrees to meet with callers Scholarship student agrees to meet with callers

Intervention Design 41 callers 41 callers 23 male, 18 female 23 male, 18 female Average tenure 9.17 months Average tenure 9.17 months Conditions stratified by tenure and gender Conditions stratified by tenure and gender Control condition (n = 23) Control condition (n = 23) Never meet student beneficiary Never meet student beneficiary

Intervention Condition Intervention condition (n = 17) Intervention condition (n = 17) Callers have ten minutes of contact with the student beneficiary Callers have ten minutes of contact with the student beneficiary Callers meet in “break room” in groups of 4-8 Callers meet in “break room” in groups of 4-8 Read a letter from student beneficiary (5 minutes) Read a letter from student beneficiary (5 minutes) Structured Q&A session, led by manager, with student beneficiary (5 minutes) Structured Q&A session, led by manager, with student beneficiary (5 minutes)

Measures Persistence behavior Persistence behavior Minutes on phone Minutes on phone Job performance Job performance Number of pledges Number of pledges Total donation amount Total donation amount Baseline measures: 2 weeks before intervention Baseline measures: 2 weeks before intervention Dependent measures: 1 month after intervention Dependent measures: 1 month after intervention

Weekly Minutes on Phone weeks before intervention One month after intervention Intervention Control Cross-sectional analyses 2 weeks before: no differences One month after: Intervention > t (18.98) = 2.44, p =.03 Longitudinal analyses Control: no differences Intervention: increased, t (15) = 4.64, p <.001

Weekly Pledges \ 2 weeks before intervention One month after intervention Intervention Control Cross-sectional analyses 2 weeks before: no differences One month after: Intervention > t (39) = 2.13, p =.04 Longitudinal analyses Control: no differences Intervention: increased, t (15) = 2.26, p =.04

Weekly Donation Amount Intervention Control 2 weeks before intervention One month after intervention Cross-sectional analyses 2 weeks before: no differences One month after: Intervention > t (23.62) = 3.45, p =.002 Longitudinal analyses Control: no differences Intervention: increased, t (15) = 3.45, p =.004

Lab Experiment Editing task to examine mechanisms Editing task to examine mechanisms Varied contact with beneficiaries and task impact on beneficiaries between subjects Varied contact with beneficiaries and task impact on beneficiaries between subjects Participants in the contact + high impact condition spent significantly more time on the task Participants in the contact + high impact condition spent significantly more time on the task Affective commitment to beneficiaries mediated the effect Affective commitment to beneficiaries mediated the effect

Conclusion Contributions Contributions Job design Job design Relationships as meaning and motivation Relationships as meaning and motivation Self-interest Self-interest Your feedback on next steps? Your feedback on next steps?