Decentralized Environment's Impact on Employee Performance:
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
6 -
download
0
Transcript of Decentralized Environment's Impact on Employee Performance:
1
Decentralized Environment’s Impact on Employee
Performance:
A study on how a decentralized environment in the operating & service
department impacts employee performance within an organization.
Almohtasib, Tarik
Bergström, Nathalie
Nguyen, Vincent
School of Business, Society & Engineering
Course: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration Supervisor: David Freund
Course code: FOA230 Date: 2020-06-08
15 cr
2
ABSTRACT
Date: 2020-06-08
Level: Bachelor thesis in Business Administration, 15 cr
Institution: School of Business, Society and Engineering, Mälardalen University
Authors: Tarik Almohtasib Nathalie Bergström Vincent Nguyen
(96/09/18) (97/01/17) (98/04/26)
Title: Decentralized Environment’s Impact on Employee Performance: A study on
how a decentralized environment in the operating & service department impacts
employee performance within an organization.
Tutor: David Freund
Keywords: Employee Performance, Decentralized Environment, Organizational Culture,
Job Satisfaction, Motivation, Decision-Making
Research
Question:
How does an operating and service department’s decentralized environment
impact employee performance?
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how a decentralized environment
affects and influences employee performance within their workplace; with a
focus on understanding whether a decentralized environment has a significant
impact on the employees’ performance or not.
Method: The exploration of this study includes the collection of primary data. The
primary data collected for this study was gathered through qualitative interviews
with open-ended questions through a Snowball sampling.
Conclusion: Decentralization among other factors mentioned in this paper leads to motivation
and satisfaction which the respondents agreed upon leads to an increase in their
performance.
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Case Company .................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Problem Background ............................................................................................................ 8
1.4 Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................10
1.5 Research Question ..............................................................................................................10
2. Literature Review ..................................................................................................................11
2.1 Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory ......................................................................................11
2.2 The Porter-Lawler Model ....................................................................................................12
2.3 Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation ........................................................................14
2.4 Employee Performance .......................................................................................................16
2.5 Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership ..........................................................................17
2.6 Literature Analysis .............................................................................................................20
2.7 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................................22
3. Methodology ..........................................................................................................................24
3.1 Scientific Approach ............................................................................................................24
3.2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................25
3.2.1 Primary Data ................................................................................................................25
3.2.2 Selection of the Respondents .........................................................................................25
3.2.3 Qualitative Interviews ...................................................................................................26
3.3 Methodology Criticism ........................................................................................................29
3.3.1 Criticism of the Sources & Reliability .............................................................................30
3.3.2 Limitation ....................................................................................................................32
3.4 Method of Analysis .............................................................................................................32
4. Empirical Findings .................................................................................................................35
4.1 Managers responsibility .......................................................................................................35
4.2 Findings from Employees ....................................................................................................38
4.3 Role of Decentralization ......................................................................................................40
5. Analysis .................................................................................................................................42
5.1 The Decentralized Environment ...........................................................................................42
5.2 Motivation .........................................................................................................................46
4
5.3 Job Satisfaction ..................................................................................................................50
5.4 Employee Performance .......................................................................................................53
5.5 Further Discussion ..............................................................................................................56
6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................58
7. Further Research ...................................................................................................................60
References .................................................................................................................................61
Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................89
Appendix 2 ................................................................................................................................92
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The following section will include a brief overview of the importance of conducting this study,
the background information, and presentation of themes and theories that will be introduced in
this study.
For the past decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance of employees and
that they are an asset for the organization both internal and external (Bailey et al., 2016). In the
present time, it is known that employees expect to be engaged in the organizational working,
that is, their role should contribute and affect the business in a greater sense (Deeb et al., 2019).
Abdalla Hagen, Macil Wilkie and Mahmoud Haj (2005) states that in another article that it is
now more often accepted that human resources create an important source of competitive
advantage for the organization. They further state that the importance of human resources creates
an increased interest in finding and adopting progressive management practices that would
improve the organization’s performance (Hagen et al., 2005). Motivation has been mentioned in
the decentralized environment, which raises questions (in terms of connections) in the field of
employee performance (Fiedler, 1972). Therefore it is necessary to address those questions and
develop further knowledge in this field of study. Thus, it can be concluded that a decentralized
environment can be one of these management practices Hagen et al., (2005) discuss in their
article.
There has been an ongoing engagement in determining the most efficient style of decision
making that fits organizations. Each organization has to determine the most fitting style that fits
6
their work environment. (Long & Hinkes, 2015) As this thesis focuses on decentralization there
must be a definition to it, according to (Seeds & Khade, 2008, p. 99) decentralized decision
making can be defined as, “The degree to which decision-making authority is pushed down to
lower levels of the firm”. Decentralized organizations based on teams are highly successful when
it comes to having people within the organization who feel accountable and responsible for the
operation and success of the enterprise and not merely a few people in senior management
positions. This enhanced sense of responsibility excites more initiative and effort on the parts
where everyone is involved. (Hagen et al, 2005) Furthermore, it is said that people tend to
associate themselves with the choice of the team since they try to accentuate their personal
characteristics with potential members. (Reimer et al., 2017) Furthermore, having team members
put together in order for them to self-identify can result in a common purpose that eventually
enhances team initiative. (Turner et al., 2019) Teamwork is essential for an interdependent team.
Additionally, teams allow removal of hierarchy levels and absorption of administrative tasks
previously executed by specialists while evading the huge costs of employing people whose
exclusive job is to control and watch over other employees do their work within the firm. (Hagen
et al, 2005)
Approaches commonly associated with decentralization are often correlated with performance
(Kuhlmann et al., 2011). A paper by Ebinger & Richter (2015), the authors summarized research
done by Kuhlmann et al. (2011). The summary established the three Es categories that are
essential for performance effects for a decentralized environment. Economy, Efficiency &
Effectiveness are elements that can be used as a help, for managers as an evaluating tool for
performance analysis. According to Albdour and Altarawneh (2014), employee performance is
related to the employees' involvement and dedication towards their work and achieving the goals
7
of the organization. A decentralized environment can give employees more opportunities for
decision-making, which means the employees are more involved within the corporation.
Employee performance became a hot topic in the literature and research field due to the
competitiveness in achieving greater performance (Ojo, 2009). Employee performance is defined
as the output and accomplishments of an employee, which are acknowledged by the organization
or system in which he works (Robbins, 2004). According to a previous study by Shah et al.,
(2011) concludes that combining abilities, opportunities and motivation will eventually result in
performance. Having motivated employees helps the corporation to survive and thrive. These
employees are more motivated to work and the performance of employees will be stronger. To
be more effective, managers need to understand their employees and how to motivate them.
(Lindner, James R, 1998).
1.2 Case Company
The case company for this thesis is the organization Siemens in Finspång. Siemens Industrial
Turbomachinery AB is a multinational corporation that has subsidiaries in countries all over the
world. Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB is located in about 40 cities around Sweden with
over 4,200 employees worldwide. Siemens AB has over 385,000 employees working in over 200
countries. Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB which manufactures and services gas turbines
all over the world. Today the organization is a global powerhouse with a focus on electrification,
automation and digitalization. They are currently a leading supplier of systems for power
generation and transmission along with a medical diagnosis. Furthermore, they are one of the
world’s largest producers of energy-efficient and resource-saving technologies. (Siemens, 2020)
Alongside their innovations and world-leading production, Siemens is also a great case company
8
for study since Siemens is working on improvements in working methods and to have a strong
will for the internal collaborations to work. (Siemens, 2020) To build an understanding of how to
deliver a good job and to make good decisions, it is important to have a smooth procedure of
who is doing what and why they are doing that, also continue working on building stronger
relationships. Furthermore, Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB in Finspång is working with
a decentralized environment where the employees have more room for decision-making and
having more control instead of a centralized environment where managers are in control
(Siemens, 2020).
1.3 Problem Background
According to the State of the Global Workforce report, 67% are “not engaged” in the workplace,
18% of the employees are actively disengaged and 15% consider themselves highly engaged in
their current workplace (Harter, 2017). Employee performance and engagement has become an
essential organizational requirement for multinational corporations to gain a competitive
advantage (Anitha, 2014). There are ways to measure performance using financial measures that
have been criticized because they encourage short-term views, which causes frustration from the
management also resistance, lacked strategic focus and the ability to provide data about quality,
and failed to provide information about customer requirements and the quality of competitors’
performance (Shahin et al., 2014).
This thesis will explore how a decentralized environment affects employee motivation and
performance because we as the authors of this study can see the problems of having a too
controlled and strict environment can have a negative impact on employee motivation and
performance as they cannot decide much for themselves and not develop within an organization.
9
As authors of this paper, we hope that this study will generate a great deal of descriptive
information regarding the decentralized environment, motivation and performance, which act as
a supplement to the knowledge gained from the theoretical sources.
Multinational corporations today grow more and more every year, which can lead to control
problems because of the decision-making processes that have to be done. Business relationships
are important as they form a basis for the firm’s competence development (Forsgren, 2017). For
managers to achieve their goals, leaders need to have authority, power and influence over their
followers (Jooste, 2004). It is, therefore, more important for managers to listen to their
employees that may have more knowledge about a decision that a manager cannot decide
because employee involvement increases organizational effectiveness because of better decision
making, better problem solving, less absenteeism, and lower turnover (Lawler, 1988).
From a previous study by Rangus and Slavec (2017), the study partly states that decentralization
and employee involvement positively influence a corporation's performance. The study partly
states that decentralization and employee involvement positively influence corporations
performance (Rangus and Slavec, 2017). According to Griffin (2003), organizational
performance refers to the ability of organizations to meet the needs of stakeholders and their own
needs of surviving (Griffin, 2003). According to the study by Rangus and Slavec (2017), there is
a direct positive relationship between decentralization and employee involvement and
motivation.
Motivation has been mentioned in the decentralized environment, which raises questions (in
terms of connections) in the field of employee performance (Fiedler, 1972). Therefore it is
10
necessary to address those questions and develop further knowledge in this field of study. Thus,
it can be concluded that a decentralized environment can be one of these management practices
Hagen et al., (2005) discuss in their article.
1.4 Purpose of the Study
This section will highlight the purpose of conducting such a study and its contributing factors to
the academic world, researchers, and empirical findings.
The purpose of this study is to research how decentralization is an important driver to employee
performance by evaluating employees' involvement and motivation within the corporation
through a qualitative approach; with a focus on understanding how a decentralized environment
has an impact on the employees’ performance within an operating & service department.
This study will focus on understanding how a decentralized environment within a corporation
has an impact on employee performance; not only to understand the impact but to explore the
key factors of employee performance. This study is focusing on decentralization because the
authors cannot find much correlation between decentralization and employee performance in
current researches. The aim of this study is to understand how a decentralized environment has
an impact on employee performance.
1.5 Research Question
How does an operating and service department’s decentralized environment impact employee
performance?
11
2. Literature Review
This chapter describes the concepts of employee performance, motivation and decentralization
by explaining how they have been defined in the past and through a presentation of the existing
related theories. When reading this paper, there should be a feeling of unbiased arguments about
the subject, to give the reader the possibility to draw their own assumptions regarding the paper
which enhances the dependability of the study (Bryman & Bell, 2011), p.213).
2.1 Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory
Employees will be motivated when they believe that effort will lead to performance. According
to Deci (1992), “People are said to engage in behaviors because they expect those behaviors to
lead to their goals”. This theory, referred to as valence-instrumentality expectancy or expectancy
theory Vroom (1995), could be used to promote engagement and recognition that is conscious
and planned for the employees. “Whenever an individual chooses between alternatives that
involve uncertain outcomes, it seems clear that his behavior is affected not only by his
preferences among these outcomes but also by the degree to which he believes that these
outcomes to be probable” (Vroom, 1995, p. 20).
Vroom’s Expectancy Theory tries to explain the motivating behavior as goal-oriented. He argues
that people tend to act in a hedonistic way (Vroom, 1964) preferring the actions that will bring
the highest subjective utility. The study will partly discuss how the expectancy theory argues the
strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depending on the expectations that the act will be
followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual
(Robbins, 1993). The theory states that choices people make among different alternative courses
of action are related to psychological processes, particularly perception and the formation of
12
beliefs and attitudes (Pinder, 1984). The theory was expressed as motivation is determined by
three factors: expectancy, instrumentality and valence. M= E×I×V
The theory indicates only the conceptual determinants of motivation and how they are related
and does not provide specific suggestions on what motivates organizational members (Luthans,
1989). The study will investigate if a decentralized workplace setting of employees motivation
increases the likelihood that they would engage in a certain course of action will increase as well
(Robbins, 1993). It is, therefore, important for corporations to establish a linkage between an
increase in effort and higher performance. ‘Expectancy theory holds that people are motivated to
behave in ways that produce desired combinations of expected outcomes’ (Kreitner and Kinicki,
1998, p. 227).
According to Smith and Rupp (2003), “expectancy theory provides a general framework for
assessing, interpreting, and evaluating employee behavior” (p.109). Pinder (1984) states that if a
person judges that he can achieve an outcome, then he will be more motivated to try; the higher
the expectancy, then the more likely a person will exert energy to accomplish the outcome and
perform stronger, which most likely favors the corporation. For example, a person that does not
know how to draw will have a very low expectancy of being able to make a good drawing. In
contrast a person who has drawing skills might have a high expectancy of success after being
given legitimate feedback that he or she has great potential (Pinder, 1984).
2.2 The Porter-Lawler Model
The Porter-Lawler Model from 1968 argues similar points as Vroom’s theory, (1964) but Porter-
Lawler (1968) goes beyond the limited concept of motivational force to performance as a whole.
The model is associated with two authors L.W Porter and E.E Lawler. In the model, the
13
motivation process is explained with nine variables. The fundamental aspect of the Porter and
Lawler model is about the relation between performance and satisfaction. This study will see
how Porter and Lawler’s model have refined, revised, and expanded on Vroom’s expectancy
theory, from a mathematical explanation to a more diagrammatic explanation (J, Newstrom and
K, Davis 1995). According to Porter and Lawler, the model is more dynamic over time than
Vroom’s theory because firstly, to the extent that performance does result in reward, the
perceived effort-reward probability is increased. Secondly, when satisfaction is accomplished
after receiving a reward, it tends to influence the future value of that reward. The nature of this
effect varies with the particular reward (Miner, J B. 2005). The Porter-Lawler model illustrates
the different aspects of work motivation and the relationship between performance and
satisfaction. The model states that actual performance in a job is primarily determined by the
effort spent. In the Porter-Lawler model, performance is the responsible factor that leads to
intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. The satisfaction of the employee depends upon the fairness
of the reward. Employees may not work fully if they do not have value for rewards following
efforts (Miner, J B. 2005).
Porter and Lawler classified the rewards intrinsic and extrinsic forms. Here intrinsic rewards are
the feel-good factors, reputation and the status given by the employer for the achievement.
Extrinsic rewards are increment in the salary, perks and the promotion in recognition of the
deeds (Mohanty, S 2018). According to Mohanty (2018), the Porter and Lawler model
overemphasizes the impact of motivation as the main driver of productivity and that the model is
more for managers to use. The author’s study will see how motivation is a strong factor in
keeping the workforce active and enthusiastic but corporations have to look for talented
innovators outside (Drucker, 2004). In conclusion, Mohanty (2018) argues that overall, the
14
success of corporations do not come only from the rewards they give, rather complete and
effective management provides much better results (Mohanty, S 2018).
2.3 Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation
The two-factor theory, also known as a motivator-hygiene theory authored by Fredrick Hertzberg
& Snyderman in 1959, suggests that there are two sets of factors that distinguish the cause of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Hence, the factors can be broken down
into intrinsic “motivators” that work as personal growth and satisfaction motivation that comes
from the work placement. Meanwhile, “hygiene factors” or extrinsic factors function as work
conditions, relationships with associates, salary, or other types of benefits beyond the employee's
reach. Hygiene factors work as a necessity in order to prevent dissatisfaction and do not
contribute to any increased grade of motivation. Even though it could seem like the factors are
the opposites, they are partitioned due to their diverse set of needs. Satisfaction depends on
motivators meanwhile, dissatisfaction is the prime result of hygiene factors. Herzberg argued that
motivators are intrinsic to the job while hygiene factors are extrinsic. Therefore, an extrinsic
dissatisfaction can cause dissatisfaction to the job if the requirements are not met, even when
intrinsic factors are fulfilled satisfactorily (Herzberg et al., 1959, as cited in Alshmemri et al.,
2017). Figure 1 illustrates the above-mentioned statement where the job satisfaction is influenced
by the motivational factors which this paper will be more focused on rather than the job
dissatisfaction.
15
FIGURE 1: Herzberg’s two-factor theory
According to Herzberg (1966), an appropriate type of management and use of motivator and
hygiene factors improves efficiency & job satisfaction. Herzberg suggested that motivation and
hygiene are two separate factors because of their “initial causes” therefore, it is not possible to
make them opposites rather count them as influencers since the “initial causes” need to be
examined. Above all, it needs to be realized that opposites of both job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction are no job satisfaction/no job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966).
Although, Herzberg’s theory got its praised attention, it has also faced a negative backlash by
Schneider & Locke (1971). Herzberg’s theory fails to mention the importance of recognizing
considerable individual differences that are confused because of the classification system, for
events that state “what happened” & for agents “who made it happen”. This questions the
individual differences since individuals tend to have distinctive demands that could influence
motivator and hygiene factors therefore the two-factor theory lacks the support in individual
differences. On the other hand, other recent studies done by Bassett-Jones and Lloyd (2005) &
Furnham et al. (2009) it was confirmed that the theory is still valid and that it still holds a strong
16
position as a leading theory in determining the impact on employee motivation despite being
half-century old.
2.4 Employee Performance
Shermerhorn (2000) states in Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree’s (2012) article that environment
and individual factors such as marital problems and education affect employee job performance.
Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree (2012) believe that there are other factors relating to the
employees’ performance, such as motivation and productivity, which they state can be improved
by creating a work environment that maximizes these factors.
Extra benefit programs, training programs, weekly group talks, informal meetings, hygiene
conditions, orientation, and game competition are typically programs that are on a trial period for
about one year and if they show positive results, they will become a part of the company policy.
These programs cause changes in the employees’ attitudes towards their work in a more positive
way. They also help develop a sense of responsibility for the work the employee is assigned, the
employee shows more attention to quality control and is able to work independently to solve
problems that occur instead of causing problems for their supervisors. (Phiphadkusolkul and
Archaree, 2012)
In order for employees to perform better, organizations have to provide them with benefits. If the
employees feel that the organization is concerned about them and make them feel valuable they
will do their best to reach the company’s goal. Furthermore, the employer or managers have to
recognize opportunities to motivate their employees. If the leaders are doing a good job they will
be able to create a motivational climate that will impact the employees’ willingness to do a better
job and do their best to reach the organization’s goal. (Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree, 2012) In
17
other words, in order for the employee performance to increase, the first thing the leaders have to
do is to motivate and satisfy the employees.
Motivation has been described as a psychological process that gives individuals behavior
purpose and direction, which managers have to understand in order to motivate the employees to
perform in a way the company wants. (Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree, 2012) Alpander (1982)
states in Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree (2012) article that:
“Motivation is effort and desire that influence how vigorously an individual will use one’s ability on the
job’’ (Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree, 2012)
If the employee's motivation is lacking or low, they will probably not be satisfied with their
work. Hence they will not have a high employee job performance. (Phiphadkusolkul and
Archaree, 2012)
Sutermeister and Robert (1971) say that several authors state that satisfaction contributes to
improved performance and productivity but also that other authors implies that outstanding
performance leads to better satisfaction of needs. The chances of motivating good employee
performance are higher if the employees' egoistic needs are well satisfied regularly or if the
employee feels that their work leads to such satisfaction within the future (Sutermeister and
Robert, 1971). Good employee performance is necessary for the organization since an
organization’s success depends on its employees’ creativity, innovation and commitment
(Ramlall, 2008)
2.5 Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership
Fred E. Fiedler states that the leadership contingency model postulates that the effectiveness of a
group or a firm is contingent on two interacting variables:
18
“(1) the motivation system of the leader, and (2) the favorableness of the situation; that is, the degree to
which the situation itself gives the leader power and influence.” (Fiedler, 1972)
The leadership contingency model theory has consistency with anecdotal evidence that leaders
perform well under different conditions. In order to determine which condition is best suited for
leaders, it is necessary to classify different types of leaders and situations first (Fiedler, 1972).
Iqbal, Anwar and Halder (2015) write in another article that the Fiedler leadership contingency
model theory is presenting that Fiedler proposes that effective employee performance depends on
the correct match between a leader's skills to lead and the behavior and the competence of the
employee. This theory is based on the fact that leaders should adopt the style which is best suited
to the situation and instantly excite the employee's performance. They continue by stating that an
effective leader is responsible for providing guidance and sharing knowledge to the employees to
guide them towards better performance and make them experts in their areas to maintain the
quality. (Iqbal et al, 2015)
There are different ways multinational firms can coordinate and control their corporations, and
headquarters has always been interested in finding ways to control and monitor subsidiaries in an
effective and efficient manner (Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S., 1989). In this study, the authors
will see and understand how through a decentralized and relaxed atmosphere gives employees
more freedom and flexibility to participate in decision-making and implementation processes
(Dodgson et al., 2006). More freedom and flexibility can result in more creative ideas and
innovations via employee involvement, where employees can share knowledge and ideas through
R&D processes (van de Vrande et al., 2009).
19
By having a decentralized environment within your corporation, top, middle and lower managers
can make quicker decisions that lead to more committed and empowered performance.
According to Knies (2012), Thomas & Duckerley (1999), middle and lower managers who are
more committed, empowered, and flexible have more likely higher levels of intrinsic motivation.
This will benefit organizational performance (Knies, 2012; Thomas & Dunkerley, 1999). The
study will investigate if having a more decentralized environment, the CEO has to be willing to
transfer some of their managerial decision-making to middle and lower management to enlarge
organizational autonomy or result control.
From this previous study by Wynen, J, Verhoest, K & Rubecksen, K (2014) results indicate that
reducing the power of top-level managers and empowering middle and lower management
decreases the likelihood that lower hierarchical levels within the corporation will be given more
autonomy because to much control can result in passivity and lack of initiative (Wynen, J,
Verhoest, K & Rubecksen, K, 2014). From another previous study by Chang and Harrington
(2000), their results show that under decentralization, each store can, in the long-run, more
effectively tailor its practices to its market and thereby this organizational form eventually
outperforms a more centralized organization which the authors has in mind during the study
(Chang, M, Harrington, J, 2000).
20
2.6 Literature Analysis
This section will highlight the connection between the concepts found in the literature review to
emphasize the importance of this study.
This study will research and understand the gap between decentralization and employee
performance to see how a decentralized environment has an impact on employee performance.
Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964) offered an expectancy approach to the understanding
of motivation. Thus the Vroom’s theory is built around the concepts of value, expectancy and
force. Vroom’s theory argued that employees are consciously and rationally selecting different
job-related behaviors that they believe would yield the most desirable reward (Steers et al.,
2004). The Porter and Lawler Model (1968) goes beyond Vroom’s theory, where the model
refined, revised, and expanded on Vroom’s expectancy theory with more fundamental variables
of motivation. These two concepts still go hand in hand because Porter and Lawler’s model goes
more in-depth of Vroom’s theory so they are connected and the main idea behind them is
motivation and employee performance.
A previous study by William, A (2010) states that the majority of the respondents would wish to
be free to make decisions so they would have more responsibilities instead of instructions from
the hierarchy. This study will investigate how a more decentralized environment will let
employees make more decisions and how that affects employee performance. Therefore these
concepts of performance, motivation and decentralization can answer the study’s research
question.
Another previous study by Dalfol & Åström (2013) suggested further motivational research
should be conducted within production facilities where the work tasks are commonly static and
21
uninteresting, which means that the managers must uncover alternative solutions to enhancing
the workers level of motivation. The study also argues that motivation is a constantly changing
phenomenon, which means that managers should consistently evaluate the motivational
orientation of the production worker (Dalfol & Åström, 2013).
Evans (1968, 1970) studied the relationship between the behavior of leaders and employees’
expectations that effort leads to rewards, and he also studied the resulting impact on employee
performance ratings. Evans found that when employees viewed leaders as being supportive, there
was a positive relationship between leader behavior and employee performance ratings.
According to Evans (1970), there is a connection between leadership and employee performance.
Leaders willing to be open and let employees be more part of the corporation by making
decisions will have a positive outcome on employee performance and motivation (Evans, 1970).
Leaders have an important role in influencing their employees effectiveness by communicating
priorities, supporting and facilitating performance (Yukl, 1994). According to Yukl (1994), it is
hard for leaders to do the right thing all the time and think to do the right thing at the right time.
One challenge with leadership and employee performance in determining where and how to best
focus leadership efforts (Singh, 2000). Leaders must learn to effectively balance and adapt to the
situations to create the most value (Yukl 1994). The results from a previous study by (Douthitt,
2001) suggest that leaders who successfully create a fair environment are likely to have
employees with better performance and with lower turnover. The study did find a positive
relationship between perceived fairness and performance. The study suggests that leaders need to
be concerned with how they behave towards their employees and how employees perceive that
behavior (Douthitt, E.A 2001).
22
The determinants of discontent are linked to the relation between the individual and the
ambience or setting in which the person is doing the work (House and Wigdor, 1967). According
to Alpander (1982), desire and effort is the motivation that drives an individual’s vigor in order
to perform well on the job. This is the way managers tend to recognize motivation in their
employees. It is well known that there is a positive correlation between the two factors, i.e., job
satisfaction and motivation, since they have a tremendous impact on the performance of an
employee and the organization (Singh et al., 2011).
Furthermore, according to Robbins (1997), job satisfaction is described as a pleasurable state of
emotion resulting from the evaluation of one's employment, an effective reaction to one's job,
and an attitude towards one's job. This will have an impact on employee performance.
2.7 Conceptual Framework
By looking at all the theories provided in the literature review and the theoretical framework, the
authors have created a figure that shows the understanding of the authors. It is believed that
within a decentralized working environment, the employees get more motivated since they have
been trained and gained the freedom to be creative within the work. As Thomas & Dunkerley,
(1999) stated, top, middle and lower managers can make quicker decisions within a decentralized
environment, leading to a more committed and empowered performance. They further say that
middle and lower managers are more committed, empowered and flexible and have a higher
level of intrinsic motivation. These managers then create a motivational environment for their
workers.
Which leads to the fact that, if the workers are motivated they become happier with their work.
Thus, their job satisfaction increases. This is seen in almost every theory provided in this paper,
23
however, Herzberg lifts this up a bit more than the others. While having their job satisfaction
raised they will be more motivated they will also feel that the organization cares for them, which
leads them to the fact that they want to work harder in order to reach the company’s goal.
This process can be viewed in the figure below.
FIGURE 2: Conceptual Model (made by the authors of this thesis)
24
3. Methodology
This section will highlight the process of completing this study so as the design of the study and
data collection. This section will define the steps of the research and explore the process behind
the work from reliability and trustworthiness. Methodological criticism will as well be
elaborated under this section. Deciding what type of methodology to be used while investigating
the chosen topic will guide the authors in the right direction towards attaining the aim of the
research (Bryman & Bell 2015).
3.1 Scientific Approach
To answer the research question of this paper, a qualitative investigation was conducted in order
to see how a decentralized environment within a corporation impacts employee performance. A
qualitative method rather focuses on words than numbers and collects less but more detailed
answers to get a deeper understanding in comparison to the quantitative method as it is easier to
grasp experiences and understand more in-depth information in a qualitative method. (Bryman
and Bell 2011) A qualitative approach is more suitable for this paper than a quantitative
approach since it is based on an inductive approach. Thus, a comparison between theories and
interviews will be made in order to find out the best conclusion for the research question
(Bryman and Bell 2011). Furthermore, since this thesis was based on a Snowball sampling
method, where we worked very closely to the theoretical sampling, qualitative research is a
better fit than quantitative research. (Bryman & Bell, 2011) In addition, the authors of this thesis
want to get a deeper understanding of the topic.
25
Since there is limited research about decentralization and employee performance has been done,
an inductive approach seems like the best choice for this study. An inductive approach is mainly
used in qualitative methods and emphasizes the consideration between theory and research when
the emphasis is placed on the used theories (Bryman & Bell 2011). However, in this study,
several theories about performance, motivation and decentralization are used as the building
block to help the authors throughout the paper.
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Primary Data
The only data used in this paper is primary data, collected through interviews and peer-reviewed
articles. (Bryman and Bell, 2011) The authors of this paper found peer-reviewed articles through
the Mälardalen University database. With these articles found, the authors created the interview
questions for the semi-structured interviews held, see Appendix 2.
3.2.2 Selection of the Respondents
The company chosen for this study is Siemens AB in Finspång, where the interviews have been
conducted continuously with improving employee performance and motivation since this thesis
investigates how a decentralized environment impacts employee performance. After talking to
the managers of the operating and service department, the manager and the authors agreed to
conduct interviews with the managers’ department.
The selection of respondents was conducted through a Snowball sampling which is a form of
convenience sampling method where one of the authors of this study had been in contact with the
manager for the case company since the author did her work placement there. As Bryman & Bell
26
(2011) states in their book regarding snowball sampling, the authors of this study engaged in
contact with the vice president of the service department which is relevant to our topic. The vice
president further contacted four suitable managers and ten employees within his department to be
part of our research. The employees were able to state different reasons for their motivations and
the ways their managers could help them and the fact that they come from a workplace with a
decentralized environment makes them relevant for this study. The selection of respondents is
also based only on the department of choice and on whoever has the time to spare us for an
interview.
3.2.3 Qualitative Interviews
For this thesis, the most suitable data collection method for this thesis is qualitative interviews,
where the authors hold individual interviews via the communication platform Microsoft Teams
with the selected participants and focus on the personal and subjective perceptions to collect the
information from the interviews. Having qualitative interviews gives the interviewer a deeper
and detailed understanding than questionnaires. In addition, having a more personalized
approach, as according to Esposito, Bratanic and Keller (2007), is crucial for mutual
understanding. This choice of method allows the authors to get a deeper understanding of how
decentralization affects employees motivation to perform better and to draw conclusions from
the answers (Bryman & Bell, 2011). With having one-by-one interviews, the participant can feel
more comfortable discussing various subjects that the participant may not want to discuss in a
focus group. The interviewer’s role is to ask questions that explore why concepts are important
to the respondents and how they are related (Bryman & Bell 2011).
27
Bryman & Bell, (2011) stated that the role of the interviewer is to ask questions that explore why
concepts are important to the respondents and how they are related which is why the interview
questions were written to cover the theories used in this study of the decentralized environment,
employee performance and motivation. Therefore, the research is conducted with an open
mindset, where it is susceptible to new information throughout the study. New information is
developed and gathered from the responses of the respondents.
The questions were operationalized to fit the relevant theories needed for the investigation of this
paper. Under Appendix 2, the operationalization table for the paper's qualitative interviews can
be found in order to see how the questions were motivated to fit the chosen theories. This paper
had 14 interviews, four of which were conducted by managers and ten of them on different
employees within the service department.
It was important to make the participant feel that the interview was a pleasant and smooth
experience. Therefore the first few questions were standard questions to get the interview going
and to have a good start to later ask the more open-ended questions for discussion. The order in
which the questions are asked can vary from interview to interview and the interviewer also has
the ability to ask further questions in response to what is seen as meaningful replies by the
informant (Bryman & Bell, 2015, p. 213).
The participant that has been interviewed for this thesis received a copy of the questions before
the interview took place, to give them time to read through the questions and think about how to
answer. This gives the participants time to understand the question and therefore giving the
participants the chance to be more confident and prepared for the interview. Giving the
28
participants a day to prepare was beneficial to the authors because the data collected needed to be
thoroughly prepared. The interview questions are developed with a connection to the research
questions and the relevant theories and concepts used in order to ensure the gathering of relevant
data for a rich analysis and conclusion. The gathering of primary data captures a deeper
understanding of how decentralization influences employee performance and motivation within
Swedish premises.
The data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews with open-ended
questions via the communication platform Microsoft Teams because of the COVID-19 crisis,
which appeared during the writing process and made physical interviews impossible. The reason
for semi-structured interviews was because it is more flexible than a structured interview
(Bryman & Bell, 2011). The data collected through the interviews are to be analyzed with the
theories in hand, in order to reach a conclusion. Furthermore, the interviews held were all
anonymous so that the employees can feel free to answer; however, they want without having to
fear that the managers know what they said.
The questions for the interviews are going to be based on the theoretical framework of this paper
with the research question in mind. These questions served as a base for the interviews to create
a more discussion section than a structured interview. This is also a reason the authors chose to
have semi-structured interviews rather than structured interviews. Below a table of the interviews
is presented. Furthermore, the interviews were, with the acceptance from the respondent,
recorded in order for the authors to transcribe and analyze it. The table below shows how long
the interviews were and the position of each respondent.
29
Respondent Employee position Length of the
interview in minutes
Date of the
interview
Manager A Vice President of the Service
Department
38 min 07-05-2020
Manager B Head of Logistics 17 min 12-05-2020
Manager C Director of Supply Chain of Service 28 min 12-05-2020
Manager D Head of Project Manage Office Working 34 min 13-05-2020
Employee A Supply Chain Developer 25 min 11-05-2020
Employee B Logistics Employee 32 min 11-05-2020
Employee C Strategic Purchaser 18 min 15-05-2020
Employee D Business Developer 31 min 11-05-2020
Employee E Senior Technical Advisor 23 min 12-05-2020
Employee F Demand Planning Professional 22 min 13-05-2020
Employee G Project Manager 24 min 13-05-2020
Employee H Project Manager 17 min 14-05-2020
Employee I Specialist in Repair 6 min 12-05-2020
Employee J Application Engineer 15 min 12-05-2020
FIGURE 3: Table of the interviews (made by the authors of this thesis)
3.3 Methodology Criticism
The fact that this paper is based on only one department in a Swedish company means that this
study will not be able to generalize the answer. The conclusion will only convey a Swedish
perspective and not be representative of the other subsidiaries of this multinational enterprise.
However, doing it in only one department creates an opportunity for the authors to get a more in-
depth conclusion for this specific department of the case company.
30
Qualitative research is often unstructured and reliant upon the researcher’s ingenuity; it is almost
impossible to conduct a true replication since there are hardly any standard models or procedures
to be followed. (Bryman & Bell 2011). It was, therefore, important as the authors of this paper to
have a structured interview model still with open-ended questions for deeper discussions. As
authors of this paper, the questions were designed through the concepts and theories discussed as
it would explore why these concepts are important to the respondents and how they are related.
A disadvantage with the interviews was that we could not see the body language and expression
of the respondents since we conducted the interviews through Microsoft Teams without using
webcams. Sometimes it can be good to see the respondents’ and the interviewers' expressions to
really understand what they mean. Another disadvantage with interviews is that you never really
know what the respondents chose to say and what to hide, you can’t know if they want to hide
some factors or lie about something, especially when you cannot see their facial expression or
body language. This could not give the paper a false conclusion which the authors do not know
about. However, this is countered by looking at the overall view of all the respondents together
and analyzing the bigger picture and not from an individual perspective.
3.3.1 Criticism of the Sources & Reliability
An important factor for a scientific paper is how credible it is, and in order for a study to be
credible, it is important that the sources used are credible otherwise, the paper will lose its
credibility. For this study, only sources from the MDH database were used, as mentioned above.
The authors are fully aware that the use of old peer-reviewed articles from the year 1800-1900
might make the study less credible and trustworthy since the data might have been updated
31
through all these years. However, the data collected from the old sources have also been
mentioned in more recent articles making the authors keep the old sources. Therefore, the articles
used for the framework are deemed, by the authors, relatable and acceptable to use for this paper.
The methodology for this paper has been described in a manner that enables the reader to
replicate the study. In order to further increase the reliability of this paper, all the interview
questions will be presented in Appendix 2.
According to Throne (2000), he characterized data analysis as the most complex phase of
qualitative research. As authors of this paper, it is important to be transparent when conducting
the data analysis because if the readers are not clear about how the authors analyzed their data
evaluating the trustworthiness of the research process is difficult. Trustworthiness is important to
the authors of this paper because it is one-way researchers can persuade themselves and readers
that their research findings are worthy of attention (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The interview questions were also chosen to be given out beforehand to the respondent in order
for them to come up with as detailed answers as possible. The authors of this study know that
this has an impact on the credibility and trustworthiness of the paper since the answers could be
biased and fixed. However, the answers could also be more thoroughly thought out and detailed,
giving the interviewer a deeper understanding of what's going on. It was important for the
authors of this paper that the respondents felt comfortable before, during and after the interview.
All interviews gave a last word question at the end to give everyone the opportunity to give one
more comment on the topic that we, as authors, did not ask.
32
3.3.2 Limitation
This study has potential limitations that could have influenced the findings and conclusions.
Although this paper was thoroughly prepared and conducted, there is an awareness of the
limitations of it that needs to be considered. The first limitation the authors recognized was the
current COVID-19 crisis that affected the whole study process. This affected the data collection
as the interviews were supposed to be in-person at the company but instead were instead
conducted via Microsoft Teams. The authors of this study adapted the new guidelines for
conducting interviews. The authors could see the limitations with conducting the interviews via
digital channels instead of in-person because the digital channels used could have technical
difficulties and misunderstandings that would delay the interview. Having an interview would
also not have the same feeling and effect if the interview was conducted in-person because the
authors and the participant could meet in real-life, which would have a more authentic setting.
The authors of this study also recognize the problem with the definition of employee
performance, it is a very complex word to define and measure and will therefore only be
measured by the authors through the interviews and having the answers reflect the measurements
of the employee performance.
3.4 Method of Analysis
As to being able to answer the research question, we had to establish a scientific approach that
could be a base for our thesis. According to Saunders (2012), having a qualitative method means
having an opportunity to "probe" the answers, also there is more control over who answers the
questions since, in this thesis, there are certain types of interview questions based on if the
interviewee is a manager or not. Moreover, there is a significant relevance in choosing to be
33
interviewed rather than completing a questionnaire, according to Saunders (2012). This can
benefit the discussion and build a deeper analysis of this thesis. The primary purpose for analysis
of the data collection is to use the obtained data and turn it into useful information (Bryman &
Bell, 2015). During the data collection, we have gathered, transcribed, reviewed and later
analyzed all data collected. As for data analysis we chose to use the explorative-type method
approach, since it designates areas of the market, consumer and behavioral research. In this
approach, there is no intent in providing a solution to the ongoing research problem; rather, it is
about investigating the research question (Saunders, 2012). Data analysis is a definitive approach
since it helped us create patterns, comparisons, relationships and conclusions. As for patterns we
chose to use work-based methods that involve keywords and repetitive words and/or phrases.
This is crucial since it is a definitive way of determining relevant information in secondary
sources. The sources’ relevant information was analyzed and later decided if it would be part of
the theoretical framework since it holds main grounds for the interview questions that are crucial
for collecting primary data.
When we had established relationships, patterns, etc., we had to analyze the data from several
sources with a qualitative data analyzation method such as a narrative analysis in order to
identify various trends in the data. This type of method is often used as a qualitative approach in
qualitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2015). The process of conducting data through qualitative
measures does not follow linear steps; rather it is an open-ended way of doing research (Bryman
and Bell, 2015). Moreover, when conducting research it is important to focus on facts and
statements that are true to nature, meaning we followed an epistemological approach that
concerns the question of what knowledge is and what kind of acceptable limits it has in a
discipline (Bryman and Bell, 2015).
34
According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2010), implementation of theories can be managed either
before or after gathering the data. Ghauri and Grønhaug (2010) state that in order to have a
forthright study that corresponds with the research purpose, the theories must adjust based on the
scope of the thesis. Thus, for this study, it was decided to identify relevant theories, and
concepts, and later collect primary data. The theories that have been used came from a
realization in need of understanding concepts of decentralization, motivation, job satisfaction and
employee performance.
35
4. Empirical Findings
The following section will present a summarized version of the findings. The structure of this
section will be divided into three parts that will be a summary of the findings from the managers,
the employees perspective and a connection between decentralization and employee
performance. The extensive summary of interview answers is provided in Appendix 1.
Furthermore, the quotes in this section are referenced from the interviews that were conducted.
4.1 Managers responsibility
Looking at all the interviews with the managers, all of the managers agreed that it is the culture,
the autonomy, the freedom and the responsibility the employees have that makes the workplace
and that's what motivates the employees. They also agreed that it is their responsibility to coach
the employees in the right direction if they are going down the wrong path. One of the
respondent stated:
“One of the important topics a manager should have is to create an atmosphere to establish the culture in
the team and have meetings with the employees to coach them into the right direction and motivate
them.” (Manager A)
And another respondent discussed how important it is as a manager to be present for the
employees:
“as a manager you need to be present, coaching, creating team spirit and environment so they dare to try
new things, if they are afraid to fail you will never win and have a strong team, work a lot with team
building and individually personally, know how you work.” (Manager B)
36
Both respondents talked for all of the managers, all four of them believed that they have the
responsibility to help the employees with their motivation and work tasks. While Manager B
states the above-mentioned quote another manager believes that it's their responsibility to coach
them towards the organization's goals. It appears that all four managers agreed on how much
responsibility and freedom the employees have and that it is the managers’ responsibility to
encourage and coach the employees.
In order for the flat organization to benefit from culture, they should create a flexible and
transparent one. Respondents stated:
“I help my employees get motivated by giving them support, coach them, understand them and
understand the overall picture and communicate rather well with them in order to keep the direction and
be transparent.” (Manager D).
In another statement Manager C mentioned that the organization does annual surveys to measure
the employee motivation and the results are rather positive, much to do with the employees'
understanding of their work tasks and that shows direct effort as well as being in a flat
organization that is broad, communicable and direct in decision making. Manager D also stated
that it is important to always give constructive feedback to the employees on their works.
However, she then mentioned that creating a climate where feedback is normal and positive is
even more important and it seems that the other managers agree. For example, Manager A stated:
37
“It is important that each and every person understands their own targets, and that we have regular follow-
ups where each person can present a plan, and the manager can coach and give feedback, support them
and support development.” (Manager A)
While Manager B talks a lot about team spirit and creates an environment where the employees
dare to try out new things while the manager stays supportive and present for them.
When it comes to acting against demotivation and setting up measurements that benefit
employees, the managers claim that they have the responsibility of helping the employees on the
right path when motivation declines. One respondent reasoned that it is in his responsibility to
notice his employees signals and act upon them by stating,
“always give feedback as that is the most important thing because everybody would like to be seen
everybody likes to have a kind of response that they did a great job and these small and tiny things that I
think is basics and of course if you get more and more difficult motivation problems that is something
else behind but I mean it's these small tiny things that makes good relationship with the employee and
increase the motivation.” (Manager A).
Another response from Manager D pointing out the same concern for the employees by stating:
“you need to be aware as a manager on what has an impact on people's motivation and efficiency.”
(Manager D).
When an employee loses motivation the managers have to step in and help the employee, the
different managers stated different ways of doing so, but the most common thing was to be
38
present, to talk with the employee and coach him or her back on the right track. Another
common factor was to try to understand the reason behind the unmotivating factor and help the
employee solve it. The managers also believe that they should every now and then commend the
employees in order to prevent any demotivational factors. Furthermore, if the employees are not
motivated they will not be able to perform.
4.2 Findings from Employees
When it comes to personal motivation, the ten employees agreed that they are aware of the
company’s goal and that they were happy and satisfied with their current work. The majority of
the respondents thought that the goals were clear, but there were one or two who disagreed; they
believed that it was quite hard for newly employed people to understand it due to either too much
information or too much complexity. The employees stated several different factors that
triggered their motivation and satisfaction for their work. Still the most common factors were the
freedom and responsibility they have with their tasks, their colleagues, environment and
recognition. Some of the respondents also stated that they get motivated while working towards
their goal, which was somewhat the company’s goal and to satisfy customers. There were also
some respondents who were motivated by getting feedback from the manager, and one
respondent who wished for more feedback from the managers in order for him to feel more
motivated. For instance, one respondent said:
“on this department it's very motivating to meet a lot of new, different people.” and “And then it's also
motivates me to help the customers when they need help and I can give them help and then I like you
know always go forward all the time.” (Employee F)
39
The employees got to answer the question if satisfaction makes one work better than motivation
or if satisfaction increases the motivation to work, the majority of the employees could not
choose either of them. It appeared that for the respondents, the motivation and satisfaction were
dependable on each other and that you cannot have the one without the other one. One
respondent stated:
“I would say both it is combined, if you are not satisfied makes the motivation to go down, and vice
versa, I think it is both that is needed in order to feel that this is a good place to work, you need the
motivation to go somewhere and I think that the goals we are having in the department is really important
but also to have the possibility to feel satisfaction if not reaching the goals then you get unmotivated, feels
like running but never coming to the end.” (Employee B)
As Employee B stated, the majority of the respondents claimed that the motivation would go
down if you did not have satisfaction and that the other way around. This also gave the
interviewers the view that in order for the employee performance to be high, the employee has to
be both motivated and satisfied with their work. Just like the managers, the employees also
thought that the managers have to help get them motivated by recognition, for instance.
Further, into the interviews, the interviewer asked the respondents about the environment and
culture. They have a culture where the people are willing to help each other and the majority of
the respondents are quite satisfied with the environment Siemens has created for them. For
example, Employee B stated:
40
“we work as a team and support each other and I would say the manager too in this case, for me at least it
is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and the clarity,
possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on.” (Employee B)
As Employee B stated,, the environment at Siemens is quite friendly. They work as a team and
another respondent said that they often teach each other new things, whether it is about
knowledge, life or work and this is motivating and creates a good atmosphere within the work.
But on the other hand, some respondents disagreed with this. For example, one respondent said
that Siemens had created an environment where they do not necessarily work hard. He also
believed that Siemens could include strict management in order for the employee performance to
increase. Nevertheless, the employees within the service department are motivated and satisfied
with their work and they all believe that their motivation and satisfaction is the main reason for
their performances.
4.3 Role of Decentralization
Looking back at the interviews, all of the managers stated, the employees have a high degree of
freedom and responsibility when it comes to their work tasks and that this is among other factors
what motivates the employees. One of the managers stated, she believes in a decentralized
environment where people can take action in relation to changes, she stated:
“In general I think its important with a decentralize workplace where people can take decisions and it
motivates them with freedom and knowledge’’ (manager D)
Furthermore, while looking at the vice president’s answer, he too believes in a decentralized
workplace where he stated:
41
“I strongly believe in a kind a distributed responsibility and more target oriented or I mean guiding people
with target instead of control.’’ (manager A)
Manager A strongly believes in a decentralized environment because he as a vice president tries
to create a culture where the employees always strive for improvement.. Manager A encourages
the employees to come up with ideas of improving their work.
In addition, the interviews with the employees seem to agree with what the managers stated. For
example, one respondent stated:
“I would say that I'm quite satisfied and happy with it and I think one of the big reasons for that is
because as part of the organization that i'm working with my managers we have a lot of sort of personal
responsibility in what we do and also freedom with that.” (Employee F)
It seems like the employees agree with the managers when it comes to the employees having a
lot of autonomy within their work which is a cause by having a decentralized environment. One
of the respondents was asked the question whether they have a lot of freedom to solve problems
on their own or not and he stated:
Yes, I have and that’s for Siemens service that’s one of the top thing that we have. That we have
a lot of space to like to develop both ourselves and the business. (Employee D)
Which also supports what the managers’ state, Siemens service department is a department
which truly engages in a decentralized environment where the employees have a lot of autonomy
which the employees see as a motivating factor. Furthermore, the employees all agree that this
motivation is something that leads to an increase in employee performance.
42
5. Analysis
This chapter includes a discussion & analysis of the empirical data where the answers are
discussed. Furthermore, the information collected by the interviews is connected to the theories
described in the literature review and theoretical framework and conclusions are drawn.
During the data collection, the authors of this paper have encountered several different
individuals who all possess their own unique set of values. From the data gathered, it can be seen
that there is a pattern in regard to decision-making, motivation, satisfaction to performance. The
aim of the following study was to explore how decentralization affects employee motivation and
performance through the use of a qualitative research study.
5.1 The Decentralized Environment
The data collected from the ten employees and four managers during the interview sessions
highlight the importance of workplace culture. The culture at a workplace is important to
maintain a good atmosphere for the employees working there. Knies (2012), Thomas &
Dunkerley (1999) believe that managers that have a more flexible and open environment can
create higher levels of intrinsic motivation because employees feel more freedom in working at
the company. This is according to manager A:
“One of the important topics a manager should have is to create an atmosphere to establish the culture in
the team and have meetings with the employees to coach them into the right direction and motivate
them.” (Manager A)
43
Manager B also stated:
“As a manager you need to be present, coaching, creating team spirit and environment so they dare to try
new things, if they are afraid to fail you will never win and have a strong team, work a lot with team
building and individually personally, know how you work.” (Manager B)
According to the managers from the interviews the majority thought that they have an important
role in supporting their employees to perform better and create a stronger culture where
employees can decide for themselves regarding some questions. The Fiedler's Contingency
Theory of Leadership (1972) discusses the topic of the effectiveness of leadership on how
leaders should behave and control their employees, which are shown to be very important for
both managers and employees to have a good bond between each other. According to Employee
A:
“I see that if you compare with Sweden and England, Lincoln, which are two different cultures within the
company, I can clearly see that the Lincoln employees were less motivated, they do not make their own
decisions and if you never let people make decisions then it is hard to develop and hard to work with
because they do not know what to do. Not controlling their job as we do in Sweden, would grow you into
making more decisions and feel more motivated to perform better.” (Employee A)
When evaluating and interpreting the managers’ responses it becomes evident that the managers
have a large impact on employees when managing them because they can control their
employees and create a more controlling or flexible culture. According to Douthitt (2001),
managers that create a culture where employees can decide more and have a more flexible
environment are more likely to have employees who will perform better. Van de Vrande et al.,
(2009) states that having more freedom and flexibility can result in more creative ideas and
44
innovations via employee involvement where employees can share knowledge and ideas.
Manager D stated:
“I help my employees get motivated by giving them support, coach them, understand them and
understand the overall picture and communicate rather well with them in order to keep the direction and
be transparent.” (Manager D)
When it comes to the employees responding to the culture, the majority thought that the culture
at Siemens did not maximize their productivity and motivation because Siemens is such a large
corporation and that decisions and processes take a very long time in this large corporation.
According to Hymer (Forsgren 2017), being a large corporation can impact employees'
motivation negatively. Employee A explains that:
“You need to know how to play the game which is not always the most efficient way, working with
different cultures and people, and you need to find the smartest way which is not always the most
motivating and productive. This is how it is, we need to learn it, we try to make the environment also
connected to individuals and managers.” (Employee A)
Therefore, managers have an important role in motivating and satisfying their employees.
According to Yukl (1994), it is hard for leaders to do the right thing all the time and think to do
the right thing at the right time. Leaders must learn to effectively balance and adapt to the
situations to create the most value (Yukl, 1994). The majority of the respondents think that their
managers are doing a good job in supporting them. According to employee H:
“I work closely with my manager that constantly provides me with feedback on my work” in addition he
states how his manager contributes a good share to his satisfaction. (Employee H)
45
According to Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree (2012), employee motivation is enhanced and
improved by creating a work environment that maximizes the factors that affect performance.
The majority of the employees interviewed thought that their department has a safe and flexible
environment and that the manager has a large part because they support them. According to
employee B:
“For me at least it is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and
the clarity, possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on.” (Employee B)
Having a more flexible environment allows the employees to make more decisions within the
corporation. According to Evans (1970), results it states that managers who are a more willing to
give their employees more flexible culture and let them make more decisions for the company
motivate the employees to perform better and grow within the corporation. Employee F
regarding the flexibility within the corporation:
“The management welcomes change, and they really push for changes when they find an idea good or
interesting and this is something that really motivates him. The feeling when you have a good idea and
the managers agree and really push for it is something, he believes motivates him a lot.” (Employee F)
According to Manager D:
“Not every person likes this kind of freedom and also this freedom does not suit every company either.”
(Manager D)
Everyone has different views on management style, some want a more controlled environment
and others want a more flexible environment. From this study’s findings the majority of the
respondents want a more flexible environment, but it is still okay to not want to make decisions
46
as much, still, manager C encourages her employees to step outside their comfort zone to explore
and develop.
5.2 Motivation
The data collected from the ten employees and the four managers were rather interesting, it
appeared that motivation was the key factor in their performances, hence employee performance.
Almost every respondent stated that the reason for them to work well and have a high employee
performance is that they have motivation and job satisfaction. An example can be:
“you can never do a good job if you are not motivated, it's impossible. Sure you can maybe do that for a
short while but sooner or later you would just sink deeper and deeper down.’’ (Employee E)
This shows that an employee needs to have motivation in order for them to perform and that their
employee performance would be very low, at least for the long term. However, even though the
motivation was the key factor, it was not always the decentralized environment that triggered this
motivation. For most of the respondents, motivation was formed by the feeling of helping the
customers and their colleagues. Within Herzberg's theory, the motivational factors that created
satisfaction and increased the respondent’s performance could be seen. Personal growth,
responsibility, advancement, achievement, recognition, and work. All of these factors were
mentioned more than once among the 14 interviews. For example, one of the respondents
answered:
“Of course I think to get responsibility and to get results and that your performance matter I think that’s
the key to satisfaction and motivation.’’ (Employee D)
47
While another respondent answered:
“and I think one of the big reasons for that is because the part of the organization that I’m working with
my managers we have a lot of sort of personal responsibility in what we do and also freedom with that.’’
(Employee F)
As we can see, both respondents get motivated by being able to have responsibility for their own
tasks. Employee F further stated in the interview that in order for him to get even more
motivated, he would want better recognition from his manager, not just feedback on the result
but also on the process. In addition, as stated in Herzberg’s theory, these motivational factors
created some sort of satisfaction for the employees, which in turn lead to an increase and in their
willingness to work better, hence once again, increasing their employee performance. This also
corresponds with what Akah Ndang (2010) stated about how the majority of their study wished
to be free to make their own decisions in order for them to become more responsible instead of
only following instructions from the hierarchy. Apart from the freedom, the respondents also
found their colleagues as one of the factors that motivated them. People are willing to help and
are not selfish and also that you, as a senior in the department, can teach and learn new things
from the newer employees.
Apart from Herzberg’s theory, both Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory and the Porter-Lawler
model can also be seen in this case. Just as Deci (1992) said, many of the respondents become
more motivated when they know that their actions lead to their goals, which in many cases are
the company’s goal to satisfy the customer. An example can be Respondent D, which says that
he really gets motivated when he knows that his effort and hard work pay off and that it leads to
a good performance. He states that:
48
“I really want to see results in what I'm doing and seeing that people are actually seeing benefits from it.
The correlation is quite strong between seeing the results and putting in a lot of effort.” (Employee D)
This was only one among many examples of how a good result from hard work gives them
motivation. Still something that would increase their motivation even more in this case as if their
managers recognized them and commended them on their hard work.
Lastly, when interviewing the managers about situations where the employees get demotivated
and how the manager would act. Many of them said that it is their responsibility as a manager to
notice these types of situations and help the employee get in the right direction and be motivated
again. Dalfol & Åström (2013) stated that the managers must uncover alternative solutions to
enhance alternative solutions for the workers’ level of motivation and that they should
consistently evaluate the motivational orientation of the workers. This could be seen in one of the
interviews where the respondent stated:
“It's pretty much in the daily discussion, every now and then say great job guys great job and so on and
always give feedback as that is the most important thing because everybody would like to be seen
everybody likes to have a kind of response that they did a great job and these small and tiny things that I
think is basics and of course if you get more and more difficult motivation problems that is something
else behind but I mean it's these small tiny things that makes good relationship with the employee and
increase the motivation.’’ (Manager A)
While another manager stated:
“you need to be aware as a manager of what has an impact on people's motivation and efficiency because
in the end we need to be profitable as a company, to be able to communicate changes, being to handle
those, being aware of each and every individual's work. I have a huge responsibility in that.” (Manager D)
49
Just like the respondents and Dalfol & Åström (2913) state, it is important for the managers to
notice, help and motivate the employees to be motivated and satisfied with their work, which
leads to them doing a better job. One cannot do a good job if he or she is not motivated or
satisfied with their job. One of the respondents stated that it is impossible to do so. For an
employee to have a good employee performance, he or she has to be motivated and satisfied with
their work and this can be triggered by several factors, the decentralized environment meaning
that they get freedom and responsibility, the recognition from their managers and colleagues,
feedback or from their own and the company’s goals.
Looking back at the conceptual framework, motivation was something that would lead to job
satisfaction and then the satisfaction would lead to employee performance. However, while
conducting the interviews, it appeared that this was not necessarily the case. Many of the
respondents believed that the motivational factor and the job satisfaction was dependable on each
other, an individual cannot have job satisfaction if he or she does not have motivation for the
work and vice versa. As an example, one of the respondents answered:
“I would say both it is combined, if you are not satisfied it makes the motivation to go down, and vice
versa.” (Employee B)
This could be viewed in figure 1 about Herzberg’s two-factor theory, that job satisfaction is
influenced by the motivator factors. Job satisfaction is not something that is created by having
motivation but rather influenced, and like the respondent said, you need both in order for the
employee performance to stay high. However, some respondents stated other opinions. One
respondent stated that motivation is what gives him satisfaction. He gets satisfaction from his
motivation which he gains from the feeling of teamwork and appreciation of what he does within
the company. But the majority of the respondents believed that motivation and satisfaction are
50
dependable of each other and that they need both of them because without one of the factors, the
other one would also decrease which, in turn leads to a decrease in employee performance.
5.3 Job Satisfaction
The results from the interviews were rather on the same level of confidence in the case of job
satisfaction. The interviewees were satisfied in their own way, but one thing they all had in
common had a happy customer, which in their case is a type of satisfactory reward (Miner, J B.
2005).
As discussed in the theoretical framework, managers tend to have a tremendous impact in terms
of job satisfaction on their employees since managers recognize an individual's desire and effort.
This has a positive impact on the performance of an employee and the organization (Singh et al.,
2011).
This is evident in interviews with both employees and managers. When it comes to motivating
and satisfying an employee through feedback the respondent states that:
“constructive feedback and I would say even more important is to create climate where feedback is
normal and positive even though it might be something that the person could have done better. But the
climate sets that and also be very, I believe a lot in to feedback more on the positive and to emphasize
good behavior than working on the bad behavior and the mistakes and to always do those better.”
(Manager D)
In an interview with a topic about the recognition from a manager and others a respondent stated:
“receiving acknowledgement and feedback from a manager and co-workers is motivating and exciting.”
(Employee G)
51
Moreover, the respondent believes that for him personally, it is important to have a higher degree
of satisfaction that eventually makes his line of work better. This can be supported by the
Herzberg Two Factor Theory that argues for increased job satisfaction will eventually lead to a
positive influence on work.
With high levels of job satisfaction comes an affective reaction and attitude towards one's job
Robbins (1997). This is apparent in an interview with Employee D, who mentioned how both
satisfaction and motivation come mainly from the manager who shows interest in the employee
and his work. This can be recognized as a motivator factor that associates with recognition and
work. This association to the manager can also be seen in an interview with Employee H, who
describes how he works closely with his manager that constantly provides him with feedback on
his work. In addition he states how his manager contributes a good share to his satisfaction. The
respondent said:
“my manager contributes a lot to my satisfaction because she is a care and care about me and the project
in a good way.” (Employee H)
The empirical information exhibits how Manager A describes the process of gathering higher
efficiency in an organization. When Manager A responded to the question if an employee's
satisfaction and motivation leads to higher efficiency, the answer was positive and the
respondent stated that it leads to higher productivity. Mohanty (2018) and the Porter Lawler
model brings this up as one of the main productivity drivers for managerial use that favors an
organization.
Meanwhile, when analyzing the connection between improved performance and employee
motivation & satisfaction. Sutermeister and Robert (1971) cite other authors who state that
satisfaction contributes to improved performance and productivity. Also that outstanding
52
performance leads to better satisfaction of needs. In two interviews with the respondents raised
the topic about the statements which they stated that:
“For me, like these two are linked right. Sense the satisfaction is something you get when you get
recognition or it could be that when you solve the small problems which is then connected to increasing
the level of motivation I would say. So for me these two are quite tight linked.” (Employee F)
“I would say both but I think the feeling of doing something good is motivating so I can stand on the
same line, same time it's fun to get acknowledgement from manager and coworkers, if they think I did a
good job then it motivates me to try to continue doing a good job.” (Employee G)
Again this is supported by another claim by Sutermeister and Robert (1971) that the chances of
motivating good employee performance are higher if the employees' egoistic needs are well
satisfied regularly or if the employee feels that their work leads to such satisfaction within the
future.
The typical work environment one can be in often distinguishes as a hygiene factor, according to
Herzberg (1966). Among other hygienic factors, the work environment is influenced by
supervisor quality and working conditions. In an interview with Employee G, the respondent
explains that when it comes to the work environment he believes that Siemens does not create a
motivational work environment instead, it is something that has to be done by oneself. The
respondent states:
“No, I think that is a bubble we have to create on our own so I think this is something that is not served to
us, we have to be part of creating this.” (Employee G)
This explains how something like creating a motivational environment for yourself influences
job dissatisfaction since there is a negative influence on the hygiene factors. This phenomenon is
53
backed up by the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory and acts as a recommendation in order to
improve the hygienic factors.
5.4 Employee Performance
Employee performance is more than the ability of the employee alone because employee
performance also refers to the managerial side of performance (Herzberg, 1959). According to
Herzberg (1959), performance is: let an employee do what I want him to do. This implies that the
corporation’s hierarchy and task distribution are also critical for good employee performance.
Factors that affect employee performance is the environment of the organization, employee
motivation and satisfaction. From the results of the interviews in this study, the majority of the
respondents thought these concepts had an impact on their performance. Good employee
performance is necessary for the organization since an organization’s success is dependent on its
employee’s creativity, innovation and commitment (Ramlall, 2008). According to employee B:
“I believe that when being motivated your effort and hard work leads to good performance.” (Employee
B)
From the findings, the majority of the employees thought that the environment and being part of
the corporation is very important for them to feel motivated, which leads to the employees
performing better. The managers have an important role in supporting their employees at work
and in creating a fair and flexible environment for the employees to thrive in. According to
Manager A:
“I believe that it is the managers responsibility to help the employee get motivated, when a manager sees
an employee that is not motivated the manager should step in and see the reason behind it and try to help
solve it” (Manager A)
54
According to Vroom (1964), the more management is able to create the environment, the more
likely the employees will become engaged and not only meet the goals and believe in the
outcome but also “freeze” the change and sustain the modification. Mohanty (2018) argues that
overall, the success of corporations do not come only from the rewards they give, rather
complete and effective management provides much better results (Mohanty, S 2018)
Regarding the importance of a manager to create a flexible environment employee B stated:
“because we work as a team and support each other and I would say the manager too in this case, for me
at least it is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and the clarity,
possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on.” (Employee B)
According to Vroom (1964), an employee’s performance is based on individual factors, for
example, personality, skills, knowledge, abilities and experience. Other researchers state that it is
not what performance exactly means, but how it is composed and how it is measured. Vroom
(1964) also states that lack of motivation could result in any number of problems such as
inadequate training, negative group dynamics, inadequate feedback, as well as lack of training
and tools. This is why a manager's job is crucial to have motivated employees to perform better.
The respondent stated:
“I am self-driven and have my own goals that mostly motivates me but also the culture, where new people
go and come and I have the opportunity to learn and teach new things to my new colleagues.” (Employee
F)
Employee F also stated according to feedback:
“A manager that understands the work and gives feedback, not only on the result but also on the process”
(Employee F)
55
When it comes to satisfaction, the majority of the respondents thought that both motivation and
satisfaction are equally important and go hand in hand because from being satisfied, employees
are motivated, or that motivated employees feel satisfied. According to Porter and Lawler's
(1968) model, the actual performance of a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. Porter
and Lawler’s model (1968) as discussed in section 2 and 3 has similar points as Vroom’s Theory
(1964), but they expand Vroom’s ideas and thoughts. One of Porter and Lawler’s points is
discussed: when satisfaction is accomplished after receiving a reward, it tends to influence the
future value of that reward. According to Manager C regarding accomplishments:
“It is important to highlight accomplishments that involve creativity and being out of the comfort zone.”
(Manager C)
In this statement employees will see that according to manager C being creative and stepping out
of the comfort zone is an accomplishment that is rewarding.
According to Manager D:
“The employees are also very much allowed to be creative and she believes that it motivates them.
However, this can not be said for every employee since some individuals might prefer having tracks laid
out for them already and others do not.” (Manager D)
In this study, the majority thought flexibility is important for employees to thrive in the
corporation, be motivated and satisfied, which leads to the employees performing better.
According to Vroom (1995) “Whenever an individual chooses between alternatives that involve
uncertain outcomes, it seems clear that his behavior is affected not only by his preferences
among these outcomes but also by the degree to which he believes that these outcomes to be
56
probable” (Vroom, 1995). Employees make decisions that benefit the corporation and
themselves to grow within the corporation. According to employee A on this:
“I thrive by working on reaching organizational goals and personal goals, I rather want to work with tasks
that I enjoy instead of focusing on climbing the career ladder.” (Employee A).
5.5 Further Discussion
Concepts such as decentralization, motivation, job satisfaction and employee performance were
the conceptual base of this study. From the start, we as authors of this study thought that there
was a strong correlation between these concepts in the conceptual model and that the empirical
findings will strengthen the model. Since the model got developed through the theories and the
analysis of the research question there is a given inaccuracy for having expectations. The
empirical findings brought meaning towards the end of the study, where we could correlate
decentralized workspace and intrinsic motivation with past studies from Knies (2012), Thomas
& Dunkerley (1999). The operating and service department at Siemens where the interviews
were conducted gave the authors of this study great insights about their thoughts on the topic of
decentralized environment, motivation and performance.
The thesis research question discussed the topic of how a decentralized environment affects
employees motivation and performance. From the results of the interviews conducted, we as
authors of this paper could see that some of the findings from the interviews were answered how
the authors expected regarding the research question. The results from the interviews conducted
show that the majority of the respondents thought that the concepts of the environment of the
organization, motivation and satisfaction had an impact on their performance as shown in the
conceptual framework which the authors of this paper found had a connection with the
57
interviews. According to a past study, Evans (1970) discusses the connection between leadership
and employee performance. As the results of the interviews found that, the majority of the
employer respondents thinks that having an active and interested manager helps them become
more motivated and wants to perform better. Yukl (1994) discusses how leaders must learn to
effectively balance and adapt to the situations to create the most value. With this statement, the
authors of this paper have discussed how a more flexible environment can have an impact on
employees motivation throughout the paper and according to the respondents’ managers, a more
flexible and open environment has a positive effect on the employees. These results discuss the
topic of having a more decentralized environment that affects employees motivation, satisfaction
and performance in a good way. The findings of this thesis give an insight into how a workplace
views a more flexible and less controlled environment and how the culture at the workplace
impacts employees motivation, satisfaction and performance. To answer the research question
the environment at the workplace affects partly how motivated and satisfied they are and how
they perform in their tasks and projects. This thesis gives an insight into how these factors lead to
more effective and most likely better performance because employees feel motivated and
satisfied working in a more decentralized environment because they have more possibilities in
decision-making. Furthermore, not all the expectations were met since the findings from the
interviews pointed out that motivation does not necessarily lead to satisfaction, even though the
Herzberg Theory states that job satisfaction is influenced by motivator factors. Therefore, the
theory cannot be taken for granted as a management tool for the use of motivator and hygiene
factors.
58
6. Conclusion
This study aimed to show how an operating and service department’s decentralized environment
impacts employee performance and it appears that a decentralized environment contributes to an
employees’ performance. The decentralized environment allows the employees to freely take
decisions and have their own responsibilities for their own tasks, as long as they work within the
company’s frames. While researching this topic, the authors of this paper noticed that what really
has an impact on employee performance is employee’s motivation and satisfaction for their
work. But in the end, a decentralized environment gives the employee’s freedom and
responsibility for their own tasks. The majority, if not every one of them agreed on, gave them
motivation and satisfaction to work better and increase their performance. In the end, the authors
noticed that the conceptual model was somewhat incorrect; motivation does not necessarily lead
to satisfaction. Motivation and satisfaction are two factors that are dependable of each other and
an employee needs both factors in order to perform. Thus, the correct analysis is that a
decentralized environment brings motivation and satisfaction for the employees, which increases
their performance.
In conclusion, the authors of this paper wanted to see how a decentralized environment impacts
employees motivation and satisfaction to perform better in their work. From the interviews, the
majority of the respondents thought that the culture is important to feel a part of the corporation,
to feel that the employee can make decisions by themselves and to have supportive managers.
This paper’s conceptual framework is divided into decentralization, motivation, job satisfaction
and employee performance. The authors of this paper wanted to see how these concepts affect
employees. Employees that can make their own decisions and feel that they are making a
difference will motivate them and be satisfied with their work which can lead to better
59
performance. Thus, decentralization among other factors mentioned in this paper leads to
motivation and satisfaction, which the respondents agreed upon leads to an increase in their
performance.
60
7. Further Research
For further research, a bigger study can be conducted where the researchers would investigate
other departments outside the service department and in other companies since this paper is
based on the Siemens located in Finspång. In order to get a more general answer, bigger research
has to be conducted over more decentralized companies. Siemens Finspång has a more
decentralized environment than, for example, England, Lincoln who Sweden, Finspång has been
working with for the past five years and Lincoln has a more centralized environment where the
employees have not much to say and decide within the corporation. There are large cultural
differences between Sweden and England, according to some of the interviewees of this study. It
is also very difficult to transfer knowledge between different countries because different cultures
handle knowledge differently. There are gaps between cultures within the organization of
Siemens.
61
References
Albdour, A., & Altarawneh, I. (2014). Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment:
Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business, 19(2), 178-192.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n16p89
Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life
Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.
Alpander, G.G. (1982). Human Resource management planning. New York: A, Avon, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41164873
Anitha J. (2014). Determinants of Employee Engagement and their Impact on Employee
Performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-
323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008
Bailey, A., Albassami, F., & Al-Meshal, S. (2016). The Roles of Employee Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment in the Internal Marketing-Employee Bank Identification
Relationship. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(6), 821-840.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbm-06-2015-0097
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution.
Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279037
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (Vol. 4th). Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.
62
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Ethics in business research. Business Research Methods, 7(5),
23-56.
Bassett‐ Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying
power?. Journal of management development. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510627064
Champion, M. R. (2008). Creating engagement: The use of expectancy theory in corporate
customer service teams (Order No. 3296743).
Chang, M, & Harrington, J. (2000). "Centralization vs. Decentralization in a Multi-Unit
Organization: A Computational Model of a Retail Chain as a Multi-Agent Adaptive System,"
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0860, Econometric Society.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.11.1427.12085
Crawford, E., Buckman, B., & Bergeron, J. (2014). The Antecedents and Drivers of Employee
Engagement. Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,2, 57-81.
https://doi.org/10.25255/jss.2019.8.1.7.23
Dalflo, L & Åström, L. (2013). The Relationship between Employee Motivation and
Performance. Umeå School of Business and Economics.
Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1995). Organization Behavior. Mc. Grawhill Inc.
Deci, E.L. (1992). The history of motivation in psychology and its relevance for management. In
V.H. Vroom and E.L. Deci (Eds.), Management and motivation (2nd ed.). London: Penguin
Group.
63
Deeb, A., Alananzeh, O., & Tarhini, A. (2019). Factors Affecting Job Performance: The Case of
Jordanian Hotels Kitchen Staff. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpspm.2019.10021730
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., Salter, A., 2006. The role of technology in the shift towards open
innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Manager. 36
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x
Douthitt, E.A, 2001. Effects of leader behaviors on service employee role perceptions, fairness
perceptions, and performance: Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick,
ProQuest Dissertations
Drucker, P. F. (2004), The Daily Drucker: 366 Days of Insight and Motivation for Getting the
Right Things Done, New York, NY: Harper Business.
Ebinger, Falk & Richter, Philipp. (2015). Decentralizing for performance? A quantitative
assessment of functional reforms in the German Lander. International Review of Administrative
Sciences. 82. 10.1177/0020852315586916 https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315586916
Esposito, A., Bratanic, M. and Keller, E. (2007). Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal
Communication and the Biometric Issue.
64
Evans, M.G. (1968). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, S,277-298.
Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn JR, Laurence E, & Pollitt, Christopher. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of
Public Management. Oxford University Press.
Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model
interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 453-470.
Forsgren, M. (2017). Theories of the multinational firm: A multidimensional creature in the
global economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Furnham, A., Eracleous, A. & Chamorrio-Premuzic, T. (2009) Personality, motivation, and job
satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(8) p. 765-779.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910996789
Ghauri, P. Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research Methods in Business Studies. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson
Education
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2003) Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing
the Human Side of Work. 18th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. p. 195.
65
Hagen, A., Wilkie, M., & Haj, M. (2005). Progressive management practices as predictors of
organizational future performance: empirical evidence. Academy of Strategic Management
Journal, 4, 41.
Harter, J. (2017). “Dismal employee engagement is a sign of global mismanagement”.
Gallup.com. Retrieved 1 April 2020, from
http://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/224012/dismal-employee-engagement-sign-global-
mismanagement.aspx
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man, Staples Press, New York
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snydermann B.(1959). The motivation to work. New York:Wiley.
House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg's dual‐ factor theory of job satisfaction and
motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel psychology, 20(4), 369-390.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1967.tb02440.x
Iqbal, N., Anwar, S., & Haider, N. (2015). Effect of leadership style on employee performance.
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2223-
5833.1000146
Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). The theory & practice of learning. Psychology Press.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203465653
66
Jerome, N. (2013). Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and
implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s performance.
International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3), 39-45.
John W. Newstrom and Keith Davis, Organizational Behavior, 91h Ed. 1995, p. 148.
Jooste, K. (2004). Leadership: a new perspective. Journal of Nursing Management, 12(3), 217-
223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2003.00450.x
Kaur, A. (2013). Maslow’s need hierarchy theory: Applications and criticisms. Global Journal of
Management and Business Studies, 3(10), 1061-1064.
Knies, E. (2012). More value for and from employees: A longitudinal study of the origins and
effects of people management. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1998). Organizational behavior. Chicago, Richard D.
Kuhlmann S, Bogumil J, Ebinger F, et al. (2011) Dezentralisierung des Staates in Europa.
Auswirkungen auf die kommunale Aufgabenerfu¨llung in Deutschland, Frankreich und
Großbritannien. Wiesbaden: VS. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2011.604557
Lawler EE. (1988) Choosing an Involvement Strategy. University of Southern California.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1988.4277254
67
Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
https://doi.org/10.2307/2987760
Lindner, James R. (1998) Understanding Employee Motivation. The Ohio State University.
Volume 36; Number 3; Research in Brief; 3RIB3 https://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php
Long, A., & Hinkes, D. (2015) A COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR CENTRALIZED
AND DECENTRALIZED BUSINESS DECISION MAKING.
Luthans, F., & Thomas, L. T. (1989). The relationship between age and job satisfaction:
curvilinear results from an empirical study–a research note. Personnel Review.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483488910133350
Maximizing Cash in Decentralized Organizations Phillips, Thomas E;Droege, Mark E
Management Accounting; Aug 1984; 66, 2; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 38
Miner, John B. (2005) Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and
Leadership. Published by Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group.
Mohanty, S. (2018). Porter and Lawler’s Model of Motivation: Hypes and Realities.
Ojo, O. (2009). Impact assessment of corporate culture on employee job: Journal of Business
intelligence, 2/2, 389-37.
68
Phiphadkusolkul, A. (2012). The Initial Impact of Organization Development Interventions on
Performance Management, Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Employee Performance
at a Thai SME. AU-GSB e-JOURNAL, 5(1).
Pinder, C.C. (1984). Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Theory. In V.H. Vroom & E.L. Deci
(Eds.), Management and Motivation (pp. 90-102). London: Penguin Books.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391269
Ramlall, S. J. (2008). Enhancing employee performance through positive organizational
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1580-1600.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00360.x
Rangus, K, Slavec, A. (2017) The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and
absorptive capacity on firms' innovation and business performance. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.017
Reimer, T., Lee, S.J.C., Garcia, S., Gill, M., Duncan, T., Williams, E.L. and Gerber, D.E. (2017),
“Cancercenter clinic and research team perceptions of identity and interactions”, Journal of
OncologyPractice, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. E1021-e1029. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2017.024349
Robbins, S.P., Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, 2004.
69
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6th
edition, Pearson Education Limited
Seeds, D., & Khade, A. S. (2008). Transforming a multinational corporation from a centralized
organization to a decentralized organization. International Journal of Business Strategy, 8 (1),
99-104.
Schneider, J., & Locke, E. A. (1971). A critique of Herzberg's incident classification system and
a suggested revision. Organizational behavior and human performance, 6(4), 441-457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(71)90027-4
Shah, S.S.H., Jaffari, A.R., Aziz, J., Ejaz, W., Ul-Haq, I. and Raza, S.N., ‘Workload and
Performance of Employees’, 2011, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In
Business, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 256-267.
Shahin, A. Naftchali, J., & Pool, J. (2014). Developing a Model for the Influence of Perceived
Organizational Climate on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Performance
based on Balanced Scorecard. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 63(3), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2013-0044
Smith, A. D., & Rupp, W. T. (2003). Knowledge workers: exploring the link among performance
rating, pay and motivational aspects. Journal of Knowledge Management.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310463662
70
Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Shapiro, D.L. (2004). The Future of Work Motivation Theory.
Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159049
Siemens AB (1996-2020) About Us. NewSiemens.
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/about.html
Singh, J. (2000). Performance productivity and quality o f frontline employees in service
organizations. Journal of Marketing. 64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.2.15.17998
Singh, S. K., & Tiwari, V. (2011). Relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of the
white collar employees: A case study. Management insight, 7(2), 31-39.
Sutermeister, R. A. (1971). Employee performance and employee need satisfaction—Which
comes first?. California Management Review, 13(4), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164318
Thomas, R., & Dunkerley, D. (1999). Careering downwards? Middle managers' experiences in
the downsized organization. British Journal of Management, 10(2), 157-169.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00117
Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 3, 68–70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebn.3.3.68
71
Turner, J. R., Thurlow, N., Baker, R., Northcutt, D., & Newman, K. (2019). Multiteam systems
in an agile environment: a realist systematic review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2018-0355
Van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W., de Rochemont, M., (2009). Open
innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001
Vroom, V.H. (1964) (1995). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
William, A. N. (2010). Employee motivation and performance. Ultimate Companion Limited.
Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations. 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall
Wyhen, J, Verhoest, K & Rubecksen, K., (2014). Decentralization in Public Sector
Organizations, Public Performance & Management Review, 37:3, 496-520.
https://doi.org/10.2753/pmr1530-9576370307
72
Appendix 1
Findings From Interviews
The following section will show the important information gathered from the interviews
conducted with fourteen individuals who are working at Siemens AB to discuss the topics of
decentralization, employee performance and motivation.
Manager A
The first interview was conducted with the Vice President of the Service department. He is 56
years old and has worked at Siemens for 32 years. The Vice President position is new for
manager A as of April 1st of this year, before manager A was managing the R&D and
engineering department. According to the manager, he is aware of the company’s goals and how
to reach them but with the new organization that is developing the new goals are still unclear,
because of COVID-19 the new organization launch is slow and will be complete during the fall
of 2020. At the moment Siemens in Finspång are still following the previous organization’s
goals. According to manager A it is important that the employees understand and follow the
goals set but also to set their own personal goals to get more motivated to work and perform
better. It is rather how employees perform their work and how they plan the work is up to the
employees, it is important to understand that as a manager we do not control the employees in
detail, controlling everything is no way of managing according to the respondent. “It is important
that each and every person understands their own targets, and that we have regular follow-ups
where each person can present a plan, and the manager can coach and give feedback, support
them and support development” explained manager A as talking with the employees is important
for both the manager to understand them and for the employee to be heard. The manager has to
be available and active to their employees but it is also difficult to know how much to talk to
73
their employees because some employees do not need much guidance or question as other
employees need more time from a manager.
When asked if satisfaction and motivation leads to higher efficiency he answered absolutely, if
an employee is motivated and satisfied then he or she will become more productive. But he then
states that when he is motivated he starts to think of ways he can do his work differently, to
understand and find ways to do it better. To always think about how to improve and that is what
is important. When he later was asked if he believes Siemens has created a work environment
that maximizes their employees motivation and productivity he states that they have a process,
they set targets and they follow them on an individual basis and that in Siemens they have a
dialog where they really discuss these targets and find ways to get others satisfied. However,
something he finds more important than the dialogs are the culture. A culture that always strives
for improvement. He believes that the process is good but the culture needs to be combined with
it, he states that ‘’you need to have some DNA in the company as well’’.
According to the respondent, Siemens have programs that are only for seniors such as bonuses
and so on. But the training programs are for anything which he believes is good, they also have
something he calls a dialog that they on a monthly basis have development plans for all the
employees to train them and educate them on what’s needed in order to fulfill their targets.
Furthermore, the respondent believes that it is the managers responsibility to help the employee
get motivated, when a manager sees an employee that is not motivated the manager should step
in and see the reason behind it and try to help solve it. One of the important topics a manager
should have is to create an atmosphere to establish the culture in the team and have meetings
with the employees to coach them into the right direction and motivate them. They should also
74
every now and then commend the employees and always give feedback, it's these small things
that creates good relationships with the employees and this increases their motivation.
Manager B
Manager B is head of the Logistics Service MGT. She is 39 years old and has worked for the
company for 15 years. In manager B’s team they have a high degree of influence on how to
perform tasks and why targets are set, how to reach them and what to do. The team can more or
less decide themselves with the managers interests at heart explained manager B. The most
important thing is team spirit according to her, it takes many years to create a safe environment
with a good team spirit so that the team can dare to try new things than they really dare to try
new ways of doing things. Climate, culture and team spirit, is as a manager to be present and
supporting that is very important but also to develop so that the team sees that they are doing a
great job and to develop their work to support the business. According to the respondent
“Siemens is a large corporation but now we are entering a new Siemens Energy organization
with the aim to be faster but still Siemens is a large organization and we could have a less
bureaucracy would be great, with faster decisions and so on”.
According to manager B Siemens has various programs, education and online courses for
individuals to study but for the respondents team they work at regular meetings on development
instead. She said “Workload is one of the biggest issues that we have in our team. We have
workload sharing, daily meetings so we can share and help each other. I have worked with my
team for a few years to redesign their roles and increase the flexibility which increases
motivation, help each other much better. Person development, broader their knowledge, what do
you want to do in a few years so I can help them to build their knowledge base and to increase
the flexibility within the team so they can support each other. They can discuss and help each
75
other”. She also added that “as a manager you need to be present, coaching, creating team spirit
and environment so they dare to try new things, if they are afraid to fail you will never win and
have a strong team, work a lot with team building and individually personally, know how you
work”.
Manager C
The respondent is a 54 year old woman who is a director of Supply Chain of Service and has
been working full time since 2008. She states that the level of autonomy and freedom varies
between the employees since it has to do with the kind of a role one has and the designated task.
Furthemore, she believes in standardized or streamlined job tasks that require not as a big of a
responsibility and influence if you had a higher level of managerial role. When it comes to
motivating her peers and other employees she strongly believes in being supportive and
encouraging in situations where it is necessary. The respondent further states that there is a
correlation between motivation and an increase in employee performance. She mentions how
important it is to feel a connection to a bigger cause, since everyone is working towards similar
goals regardless of the field one is working in. Moreover, she mentions that feeling like being
part of a “chain” creates a more dynamic, fun and inspirational environment that pushes people
to produce better results even when someone has difficulties in understanding the “chain” it
makes one more prone to feeling included in an organization. When being asked about finding
balance between better effort and better performance instead the respondent mentions how
important it is to not be in a business of waste management since spending time, energy on
things that do not add value is useless and instead focusing on getting rid of waste processes like
overworking and anything that does not add to the customer value. She further states that
praising one for 15 hours of work is not the way to go instead it is important to highlight
accomplishments that involve creativity and being out of the comfort zone. The respondent is
76
skeptical in thinking that her department's environment maximizes employee motivation and
productivity. She mentions that it is a “super ambitious goal” to have. However, she mentions
that they do annual surveys in order to review employees' assessment of themselves in terms of
motivation. The results are genuinely positive and it has to do with the employees being
understanding of one selves work tasks that shows direct effort as well as being in a flat
organization that is broad, communicable and direct in decision making. The respondent
mentions that there is availability for employees to enter training programs, she highlights the
importance of an individual's function and goals since it has a lot to do with the kind of
intentions one has in their career.
Manager D
The respondent is 41 years old and has been working full time for the company for over 15 years
now as head of Project Manage Office, working with project development. She is well aware of
the goals even though it might be changes of the goals due to Covid-19 but then she would get
informed through a PowerPoint presentation of the new goals and they would castrate it in the
management community. According to the respondent, the employees in her department have
both a lot of influence and responsibility in terms of their decisions and work tasks. The biggest
reasons are because they have a project management office which have a huge variety of
different projects so they can have an influence on what project they take on. When it comes to
responsibility, they are all responsible for their own projects and how they want to run it. The
employees are also very much allowed to be creative and she believes that it motivates them.
However, this can not be said for every employee since some individuals might prefer having
tracks laid out for them already and others do not.
77
The respondent helps the employees get motivated by giving them support, coach them,
understand them and understand the overall picture and communicate rather well with them in
order to keep the direction and be transparent. She believes that it is really important to give
feedback, both positive and negative feedback when an employee is not going in the right
direction. It is also important to coach the employee so they can grow on their own. In addition
to this she also states that it is the responsibility of the manager to notice obstacles that makes the
employees demotivated. But something that is even more important is to create a climate where
constructive feedback is normal and positive. It is also the managers responsibility to notice and
help the employees when they get demotivated from their work. Furthermore, the manager also
believes that the manager plays an important role in explaining the direction and setting the
scene where they are at and where they are going in order for every employee to know what
piece of the puzzle they are carrying. The respondent also stated that she believes that she plays
an important role in motivating and coaching the employees, giving feedback, sharing their pain
and success. She also believes that it is okay to fail and not feel motivated all the time and that it
is her responsibility to step in and help.
When asked about programs she states that they have both benefit programs and training
programs in different areas. The benefit programs are for the seniors but the training programs
can be accessed by having a dialog with the manager and if the manager agrees the employee
will be able to attend the training program. The respondent believes that the training programs
give you a deeper understanding within your work which in turn will give you motivation to
work better.
Lastly, the respondent stated that she thinks it is important with a decentralized workplace where
people can take decisions and action in relation to changes. This freedom and knowledge
78
motivates them. However this is not always the case, in order for this to be true it depends on the
individual. Not every person likes this kind of freedom and also this freedom does not suit every
company either.
Employee A
Employee A’s position is Supply Chain Developer and has worked at Siemens for 8 years and
was born 1977. Employee A works with the organization's goals from the business unit level to
personal goals. According to employee A the manager at Operation Department is very good at
making the goals clearly stated for every employee to follow. Asking the question on motivation
employee explained that some days she is very motivated and other days not so much because
she has a hard time working with colleagues that themselves are not unmotivated and that can
drag her down as well and makes it hard to reach goals. The respondent thrive with working on
reaching goals and wants rather to work with tasks she enjoys instead of focusing on climbing
the career ladder. Siemens is a large corporation which means it is a lot of political layers, not
always the best for the productivity, according to her “you need to know how to play the game
which is not always the most efficient way, working with different cultures and people, need to
find the smartest way which is not always the most motivating and productivity. This is how it is,
we need to learn it, we try to make the environment also connected to individuals and managers”.
According to employee A the culture at Siemens is not working well because it is such a large
corporation and it is hard to have a culture everyone thrive in but the culture at the Operating
Department has the manager doing a good job in making sure that everyone knows about with a
special “culture document” everyone can read and follow. The respondent can see an opportunity
with the new organization on setting new standards to follow and go by. According to her “ I see
that if you compare with Sweden and England, Lincoln, which are two different cultures within
79
the company, I can clearly see that the Lincoln employees were less motivated, they do not make
their own decisions and if you never let people make decisions then it is hard to develop and hard
to work with because they do not know what to do. Not controlling their job as we do in Sweden,
would grow you into making more decisions and feel more motivated to perform better”.
Employee B
Employee B is working at the logistic department and has worked at Siemens for 5 years and she
is 31 years old. Employee B is aware of Siemens goals and feels that her manager is very good at
making sure everyone understands the goals and how to reach them. Most of the time employee
B feels motivated but the time limit is sometimes unmotivating and stressful to manage some
tasks or projects, meaning you have to prioritize. The respondent believes that when being
motivated your effort and hard work leads to good performance. Just like employee A, employee
B does not take decisions based on support of her career more than taking decisions that favor
the tasks. According to her “if you are not satisfied makes the motivation to go down, and vice
versa, I think it is both that is needed in order to feel that this is a good place to work, you need
the motivation to go somewhere and I think that the goals we are having in the department is
really important but also to have the possibility to feel satisfaction if not reaching the goals then
you get unmotivated, feels like running but never coming to the end”.
Similar to employee A, Employee B thinks that Siemens is such a large corporation and that
everything takes time with decisions and processes which makes her unmotivated and feels that
Siemens environment is not maximizing her motivation and productivity but with the new
organization the focus is that decisions should be decided faster. She can miss her old job
because it was smaller and decisions were made faster and easier and she could understand the
80
products in the making better than the gas turbines at Siemens “Some people at OPS have never
seen a gas turbine” employee B said. Still the possibilities at Siemens is motivating because you
can come a long way in the company by being curious and working hard. According to the
respondent every year we go through with the manager if there are any gaps that have developed
during the year to increase the knowledge. I think a manager contributes a lot, a big part you feel
happy when you go to work, feel part of the team. Employee B enjoys working in Operating and
Service department “because we work as a team and support each other and I would say the
manager too in this case, for me at lease it is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also
the support they give back and the clarity, possibility to discuss goals so we know which
direction to work on”. The respondent can take her own decisions to a limit otherwise discuss
decisions with the manager and taking her own decisions makes her feel more motivated and
satisfied to perform better within the company.
Employee C
Employee C is a Strategic Purchaser at Siemens and she has been working there for 8 years and
she is 32 years old. Employee C is also aware of the department's goals and how to reach them,
but not the global goals as clear as the department goals because the employees do not need to
reach them otherwise they have too much on their mind. The respondent explained that each year
the manager goes through the goals of the year and how to work to reach them. She has been
working for strategic purchasing since she started and says that she thrives really well there “If
you work hard and are willing to work you can thrive and decide in the company”. Just like
employee A & B, employee C believes that when being motivated your effort and hard work
leads to good performance. According to her “You need to feel satisfied to get motivated. I feel
good having flexibility and that I get help from the management team if I need it, which I think
81
Siemens is good for most of the time. You need to feel that it is fun and satisfying as well to keep
the motivation”.
She thinks the culture at Siemens has a nice feeling there and everyone is nice to each other but
some takes down the mood. But she likes to work at Siemens and thinks it is important that
managers are clear with the culture, so everyone is aware of them and to be nice. Listen to
everyone in the group and try to make the culture better. Siemens has tried but needs more. The
respondent can make her own decisions, She does not need to take it with the manager all the
time, if she has questions or problems she talks to the manager. According to employee C “I am
happy here but if I am not then I tell them and am honest. It is a good workplace that I enjoy.
Large companies such as Siemens take so much longer to reach a goal of a project, so many
people go through in order to finish a project or task. Siemens has both positive and negative
problems, at Siemens you can find the right position within the corporation”
Employee D
The respondent is 33 years old and has been working full time for the company for 5 years now
as a business developer within the procurement department. His work tasks are to develop
business. How to work and improve their ways of working using digital tools. He is aware of the
company’s goals which he got to know when through company meetings where managers
explained them. Although he finds them easy and clear he believes that they can be hard to
understand for a new employee since there is a lot of information and there are different goals on
different levels within the company.
The respondent is motivated and satisfied with his work and believes that motivation and
satisfaction are the key to get responsibility and one's performance. He also believes that it is the
motivation that gives him satisfaction and the factors that gives him the motivation is the feeling
82
of teamwork, appreciation and that tasks are on a good level, not too hard but also not too easy.
He believes that one way to motivate employees is through salary, it can not be the only way but
it is a good way. If an employee does a good job he would rather see the appreciation in his
salary than through soft feedback such as a commend. He also brought up that the environment
in Siemens is not one that maximizes your motivation and productivity, it is an environment
where they do not necessarily work hard and this is created from a mix of culture with some soft
management. He believes that stricter management would increase the employee performance in
his department. However he does think that his manager contributes to his satisfaction and
motivation, mainly by showing interest in both him and his work.
In his department people do not stay long at their positions, people quit and new people come in
and this affects his motivation both positively and negatively, sometimes it feels like you have to
start it all over again but the positive side with it is that you meet new colleagues, friends and
new ideas.
When asked about if they got any programs he stated that they have some courses they must
attend but also development plans together with their manager. However, these meetings and
courses are a way to communicate and reflect on their performance which in the end helps them
to become more efficient and increases the quality.
Employee E
The respondent is 53 years old and is currently working full time as a technical advisor in
Siemens. He has been working in that specific position for 8 years but has worked for Siemens
over 30 years. The respondent is aware of the company's goals and knows how he shall work in
order for him to reach them but. He also states that they are presented to him by his manager but
since he has worked for over 30 years for the company, he states he has knowledge about how
83
things work in the company. But when asked about how he would think new employees would
understand the goals he stated that the goals are just a couple of sentences that say how one
should behave and do. He believes that the most important thing is to learn how the process
works and things like that, and that it is quite complicated to do so since their products are
complicated and he thinks it takes some years in order to get warm in their clothes. According to
the respondent Siemens have some training programs but it is a complete program, it is a plan for
you when you are new since an employee should have fulfilled some criteria such as different
types of courses before getting employed in the company.
When the respondent was asked about his motivation and satisfaction he stated that he is
motivated since he finds it very motivating to meet a lot of new different people since their
department has quite a lot of people going in and out. He meets new people from all over the
world and gets to teach and learn from them. He also states that helping the customers when and
always working forward is something that motivates him. The respondent however thinks that
one can never do a good job if the person is not motivated, it might work for a short period but
sooner or later the person would sink deeper and deeper down. He believes that motivation and
satisfaction for the work equals higher employee performance.
The respondent is allowed to work undependable and is able to do some things off the records,
he believes that this comes with a relationship with the manager where they have built up a trust
between each other. He knows how to be as efficient as possible and who to go to when help is
needed. According to the respondent, he can make his own decisions about some things but there
are also some kinds of frames he needs to work within because a company cannot have people
doing their own thing otherwise it would become a big disaster he believes. He states that as an
employee you have to work as a process.
84
When the respondent was asked about if he thinks it is the managers responsible to help him get
motivated he stated that it is, if he has a lousy manager his improvements would go down and he
would be less motivated to work. However, he states that he has pretty good communication with
his manager, he believes that the managers know what they are getting from him. He states that a
new employee should work hard and prove themselves and create a good relationship with their
manager and with that you can get feedback from them. However, it is not the manager that
motivates him, he is motivated by having a happy and satisfied customer.
The respondent is self-driven and has his own goals that mostly motivates him but also the
culture, where new people go and come and he has the opportunity to learn and teach new things
to his new colleagues.
Employee F
The respondent is 27 years old and is working full time for 2 years at Siemens as a demand
planning professional where he is more focused at data analytic and setting forecast levels for the
business econ. The respondent is aware of the company’s goal and finds them quite clear. The
way he gets to know the goals are through information gathering but he also says that whenever
they work with development projects, they always must connect it to the company’s goals.
The respondent states that he is quite satisfied and happy with his work and one of the big
reasons for that is because he has a lot of personal responsibility and freedom in what he does
because the management believes in him. He also states that motivation is something that
definitely leads to a good employee performance, at least for him. He really wants to see results
in what he is doing and seeing people getting benefit from his work motivates him. The
correlation is quite strong between seeing the results and putting in effort according to him. The
respondent further states that for him, motivation and satisfaction are linked and that he gets
85
either one of them by the other one which in turn leads to an increase in his performance. He also
believes that the culture within his department is quite good, people are willing to help each
other, and nobody is selfish. The management welcomes change, and they really push for
changes when they find an idea good or interesting and this is something that really motivates
him. The feeling when you have a good idea and the managers agree and really push for it is
something, he believes motivates him a lot.
However, something that he would like is to have a manager that could give him close feedback
on what he is doing and if it's good or bad. The manager right now in his department doesn't
really understand his work and they only see the end results, thus, the manager does not give him
the feedback that he wants and this is something that could motivate him to work even better. A
manager that understands the work and gives feedback, not only on the result but also on the
process.
Siemens has programs where you can get stocks and training programs where you can
understand how the business works and as an employee you are able to participate in these
programs if the managers see benefit in it.
Employee G
The respondent is a 40 year old male with a position as a project manager within added
manufacturing and has been working full time for the past 13 years in Siemens. The respondent
is familiar with the company's goals since he mentioned how his department brings up this topic
annually. He goes further and mentions how his colleagues and the working environment
motivates him at his current job. As for the job description he states that it is an exciting area of
work which keeps him motivated regardless of the environment he is in. The respondent further
states how crucial it is to how good colleges are since according to him he spends a third of his
86
life there and having good working conditions is a fundamental baseline to be excited for work.
Furthermore, he states that there is no better feeling of having a happy customer which brings up
his effort as being recognized. According to him he is in the beginning of a learning curve since
there is a lot to learn on a weekly basis. Even though the respondent is in the beginning of a
learning curve he insists on working cost-effective for the organization, and brings up the
thought of asking himself if it favors Siemens before doing anything decisive.
When it comes to satisfaction and motivation the respondent states that receiving
acknowledgement from a manager and co-workers is motivating and exciting. However, when it
comes to the work environment he believes that Siemens does not create a motivational work
environment instead it is something that has to be done by oneself. Meaning he needs to take his
own responsibility to make his environment motivating. The respondent mentions the training
programs he is offered and that according to him it is how “a company rewarding us” since it
will contribute the person in the long run like with an increased salary because of the career
improvements one gets from the training programs. Lastly the respondent explains that there is
not a straight line for doing his job even though there can be a set of frameworks by top
management which means that he has his freedom with the framework to work as it fits his job
as long as it retains high quality standards and a happy customer.
Employee H
The respondent is a male who has been working full time for the company for the last eight
years, he currently manages various engineering projects inside the organization. According to
the respondent he has regular appointments with his manager were they go through goals and
how to reach them in a sufficient way. According to him his current project involves every
department inside the organization, he continues stating how important it is for him to be a part
87
of the process since it is motivating to feel being mattered in the business. For the respondent it
is important to have a higher degree of satisfaction that makes his line of work better. Moreover,
he continues explaining how he got “free hands” to solve the problems at his department and that
he time to time collaborates with other departments in order to solve problems that require
advanced contribution. Likewise for the respondent it is important to take individual decisions in
bigger projects and that he feels like he can perform independent decisions. When it comes to
rating the level of involvement of his managers in his ongoing projects the respondent believes
that there is room for improvement.
Apparently, the respondent was going to undergo a training program but due to the ongoing
pandemic/crisis everything got canceled. Meanwhile, the respondent describes how he works
closely with his manager that constantly provides him with feedback on his work, in addition he
states how his manager contributes a good share to his satisfaction. Nevertheless, the respondent
sees no room for improvements in his kind of work culture since he believes that he and his
colleagues take full advantage of each other's skill sets in order for them to further develop
themselves.
Employee I
The respondent is a 64 year old male with an experience of working in the organization for over
22 years as a specialist in repair and project manager. The respondent believes in hard work that
eventually leads to good results which in the end makes him motivated to do his best. He states
that his decisions are based on the organization's milestones in his projects and that these are the
determining factors in his decision making. According to the respondent it is the satisfaction at
work that increases his motivation to work. The respondent does not recognize any training
programs in his line of work but instead puts emphasis on the possibility to improve the culture
88
at his workplace by saying how the organization should be more straightforward with
information that concerns him and his colleagues. Nevertheless, the respondent clarifies that he
can make his own decisions and will do what's necessary for the company, he goes further by
stating how he does decisions like if it was his company and that it is the same as if he did
decisions for himself.
Employee J
The respondent is a 54 year old woman who has been working in the same organization for
roughly 32 years, she is an application engineer that works in a diverse department. She is a
satisfied employee who thinks highly of her manager, she states that she has built up her
influence at the job and that it got her to the point where she can take active decisions on her
own. According to the respondent, satisfaction brings joy in her work life and eventually it leads
to motivation. She mentions that her department is offering special training programs that are
suited for women in her field and that it brings her value to her career. The respondent
emphasised on the importance of having a good manager and that it is more relevant than her
colleagues. According to her it is acceptable to be more competent than someone else at her
department as long as people help each other and that nobody needs to be an expert on
everything even though everyone has the same job description.
89
Appendix 1
Operalization of Interview Questions
Respondent type Question Theoretical Connection
Manager
How much
influence/responsibility do the
employees have in terms of
decisions and work tasks?
Decentralization
Manager
To what extent are the employees
allowed autonomy and assume
responsibility for their work
tasks?
Employee
Do you feel like you can take
your own decisions and to be a
part of the corporation? Why,
why not?
Employee
How is the culture at your
workplace? Can it be improved,
how?
Manager
How do you as manager make
your employee more satisfied
with their current work?
Porter and Lawler
Employee
Would you say that satisfaction
makes you work better than
motivation? Or does the
satisfaction
90
Manager
Do you believe Siemens has
created a work environment that
maximizes your employee’s
motivation and productivity? If
so, do you feel that the
environment makes them perform
better?
Employee Performance
Manager
Do you have any sort of programs
such as benefit programs, training
programs or other programs that
helps the employees to develop a
sense of responsibility for the
work?
Manager
Are you aware of any
motivational obstacles? If so, how
are these solved?
Manager
Do you believe that you as a
manager helps the employees get
motivated and satisfied by
creating motivational climates in
order to raise their willingness to
do a better job to reach the
organization's goal?
Employee
Do you believe Siemens has
created a work environment that
maximizes your motivation and
productivity? If so, do you feel
that the environment makes you
more dedicated to your work?
Employee Do you have any sort of programs
such as benefit programs, training
91
programs or other programs that
help you develop a sense of
responsibility for your work? If
so, do you believe that you show
more attention to quality control
and are able to work
independently in order to solve
problems that occur?
Employee
Do you get motivated when you
believe that your effort and hard
work leads to good performance?
Vroom's Expectancy
Theory
Employee
What are your decisions based on
for you to work as efficiently as
possible?
Employee
Do you believe that your manager
contributes in any way to your
satisfaction and motivation for
this work? If so how?
Fiedler leadership
contingency model
theory
Employee
Have you experienced high
job satisfaction when you
filled in the current position
in this company compared
to your previous position
with another employer?
Herzberg
Employee
Are you satisfied and motivated
while working at your current
job? why? Why not?
Follow up question: If answer not,
how would you be motivated
Herzberg
92
Appendix 2
Interview Questions
Starting Questions:
1. Age (years)?
2. Are you working full-time for the company?
3. How many years have you worked for the company?
4. What is your highest level of education?
5. What is your position in the company?
6. Are you aware of the company’s goals, and how to reach them?
7. How did you become aware of them? Are the goals clearly stated?
Managers:
8. How much influence/responsibility do the employees have in terms of decisions and work tasks?
(Connection Decentralization)
9. To what extent are the employees allowed autonomy and assume responsibility for their work tasks?
(Connection Decentralization)
10. How do you as manager make your employee more satisfied with their current work? (Connection
Porter and Lawler)
11. Do you believe Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes your employees motivation
and productivity? If so, do you feel that the environment makes them perform better? (Connection
Employee Job Performance)
12. Do you have any sort of programs such as benefit programs, training programs or other programs that
helps the employees to develop a sense of responsibility for the work? (Connection Employee Job
Performance)
13. Are you aware of any motivational obstacles? If so, how are these solved? (Connection Employee Job
Performance)
14. Do you believe that you as a manager helps the employees get motivated and satisfied by creating
motivational climates in order to raise their willingness to do a better job to reach the organization's goal?
(Connection Employee Job Performance)
Employees:
1. Are you satisfied and motivated while working at your current job? why? Why not?
Follow up question: If answer not, how would you be motivated
93
2. Do you get motivated when you believe that your effort and hard work leads to good performance?
(Connection Vroom's Expectancy Theory)
3. What are your decisions based on for you to work as efficiently as possible? (Connection Vroom's
Expectancy Theory)
4. Would you say that satisfaction makes you work better than motivation? Or does the satisfaction
increase your motivation for your work? (Connection Porter and Lawler)
5. Do you believe Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes your motivation and
productivity? If so, do you feel that the environment makes you more dedicated to your work?
(Connection Employee Job Performance)
6. Do you have any sort of programs such as benefit programs, training programs or other programs that
help you develop a sense of responsibility for your work? If so, do you believe that you show more
attention to quality control and are able to work independently in order to solve problems that occur?
(Connection Employee Job Performance)
7. How is the culture at your workplace? Can it be improved, how? (Connection Decentralization)
8. Do you believe that your manager contributes in any way to your satisfaction and motivation for this
work? If so how? (Connection Fiedler leadership contingency model theory)
9. Do you feel like you can take your own decisions and to be a part of the corporation? Why, why not?
(Connection Decentralization)
10. Have you experienced high job satisfaction when you filled in the current position in this
company compared to your previous position with another employer? (Connection Herzberg)
Interview Questions in Swedish (Employees)
1. Är du nöjd och motiverad när du arbetar på nuvarande jobb?
2. Blir du motiverad när du tror att din insats och hårt arbete leder till goda resultat?
3. Tar du aktiva beslut som ger dig den högsta inflytande på jobbet?
4. Skulle du säga att tillfredsställelse gör att du arbetar bättre än motivation, eller ökar tillfredsställelse din
motivation din motivation för ditt arbete?
5. Tror du att Siemens har skapat en arbetsmiljö som maximerar din motivation och produktivitet?
6. Har du någon form av förmånsprogram, träningsprogram eller annan typ av program som hjälper dig
att utveckla en ansvarskänsla för ditt arbete?
7. Tror du att din chef bidrar på något sätt till din tillfredsställelse och motivation för ditt arbete?
8. Hur är kulturen på din arbetsplats?
9. Känner du att du kan ta dina egna beslut och vara en del av företaget?
10. Har du upplevt hög arbetstillfredsställelse när du fyllde i den nuvarande positionen i detta företag
jämfört med din tidigare tjänst hos en annan arbetsgivare?