Employee Motivation in the Event of Unexpected Change

The roles of time and uncertainty in employees’ adaptability to change

Master Thesis

Author: Robin Vipp and Hampus Johansson Supervisor: Mikael Lundgren Examiner: Krister Bredmar Term: VT21 Subject: Degree Project Level: Master Course code: 4FE41E

Abstract

The Covid-19 pandemic has made a major impact on organizations around the

world since the outburst at the beginning of 2020. This has led the organization

to let their employees work remotely from home. This situation has brought

challenges for the employees which in turn have been forced to adapt to a new

working environment. The uncertainty of the event may impact employee

motivation. is to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings

that supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. Specifically, this paper

draws a link between current understandings of employee motivation,

employees’ adaptability to change. In order to simulate the current situation of

the Covid-19 pandemic, this paper invites the notion of time and uncertainty

into the equation. This to be able to demonstrate and understand how a new

phenomenon can affect employees' motivation when they work from home for

an extended period. The model proposes time as a non-self-healing process

that instead risks impairing motivation if (a) self-regulatory activities are

supporting the current motivation, and/or (b) the employee denies the change.

In other words, there is no indication that the old saying 'time heals all wounds'

fits in this context. In addition, the model indicates that the uncertainties

derived from unexpected events drive employee's individual restraining

forces. This paper contributes to the existing literature on employee motivation

which previously lacked a framework for how motivation can be affected

through unexpected change and extended work from home. This framework

can also be used for future research where it will benefit from empirical data

to further strengthen or develop the model.

Key words

Employee Motivation, Work from home, Long-term adaptation, Time,

Outcome uncertainty, Change process, Covid-19.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all those who supported and motivated (no pun

intended) us during the execution of this master thesis.

First, we would like to thank our examiner Krister Bredmar. We are grateful

for the valuable insights he provided us and the highly appreciated inputs,

steering us into the right direction to refine our thesis. We would also like to

thank our classmates for interesting and well needed comments during our

seminars.

Secondly, we would like to direct our deepest gratitude to our supervisor

Mikael Lundgren who, by being the commander of this inspiring master

program. This program Leadership and Management in International Context

have for sure contributed to our personal development.

Lastly, we would like to show our gratitude towards our beloved friends and

family who tirelessly supported our endeavour when writing this thesis.

Thank you everyone!

Robin Vipp & Hampus Johansson

Table of contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problem discussion ........................................................................... 3

1.3 Purpose and Research question ....................................................... 4

1.4 Objectives of this study ..................................................................... 4

1.5 Aim and added value ........................................................................ 4

1.6 Scope and delimitations .................................................................... 4

1.7 Thesis outline .................................................................................... 5

2 Methodology ........................................................................................... 6

2.1 Research approach ........................................................................... 6

2.2 The conceptual model ....................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Our analytical process ............................................................... 9

2.3 Literature review ............................................................................ 10

2.3.1 Domain theory ......................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Method Theory ........................................................................ 11

2.4 Ensuring validity and credibility .................................................... 12

3 Understanding motivation .................................................................. 13

3.1 Defining motivation ........................................................................ 13

3.2 Human motivational drivers ........................................................... 13

3.2.1 The “when” in human motivation ........................................... 15

3.2.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation ........................................... 16

3.2.3 The need for satisfaction ......................................................... 17

3.2.4 When extrinsic motivation works ........................................... 18

3.3 What keeps us motivated? .............................................................. 19

3.3.1 The importance of hygiene ..................................................... 19

3.3.2 What makes humans motivated in the long run? .................... 21

3.3.3 The detrimental effects of extrinsic motivation ...................... 21

4 Unexpected change .............................................................................. 23

4.1 Change and time ............................................................................. 23

4.2 The antecedents of individual change reaction theories ................ 25

4.2.1 React to change from an employee perspective ...................... 26

4.3 The psychological change processes .............................................. 27

4.4 Adapting to change ......................................................................... 29

4.4.1 Adaptability and adaptive performance .................................. 30

4.4.2 Self-regulation activities ......................................................... 31

4.5 Resistance to change ...................................................................... 33

4.6 The devastating effects of uncertainty ............................................ 34

4.6.1 Expectancy theory and uncertainty ......................................... 35

5 Constructing the model ....................................................................... 36

5.1 The links between constructs .......................................................... 36

5.2 Modelling motivation ..................................................................... 38

5.3 Modelling adaptation ..................................................................... 41

5.4 The model explained ....................................................................... 43

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 46

6.1 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 46

6.2 Research Limitations ...................................................................... 47

6.3 Theoretical Implications ................................................................. 47

6.4 Managerial Implications ................................................................ 48

7 List of References.................................................................................... I

List of Figures

Figure 1. The Narrative Review Process……………………………………9

Figure 2. The Self-Determination Continuum…………………………......22

Figure 3. The Basic Understanding of Change…………………………….24

Figure 4. The Relationship Between Time and Change……………………37

Figure 5. The Relationship Between Constructs…………………………..37

Figure 6. Conceptualization of Motivation in Times of Change…………..45

List of Tables

Table 1. Coverage of Chosen Work Motivation Theories…………………11

Table 2. Motivators and Hygiene Factors…………………………………..20

1

1 Introduction

The following chapter provides the background of this study and highlights the problem in

which contemporary theories lacks the capacity to frame and understand a current

phenomenon. Further, this chapter describes the aim and objectives for this and while

providing the scope and delimitations that frames the scope of this study. Finally, the outline

of this paper is presented in which all chapters are briefly summarized.

1.1 Background The current Covid-19 pandemic has indisputably affected many communities and

organizations around the world since its outburst at the beginning of 2020 (Toniolo-Barrios &

Pitt, 2021). While the different impacts are highly diverse, a prominent commonality among

all domains is the decrease of physical interactions between people. If concentrating on the

organizational world during the pandemic, it is notable how many physical interactions

suddenly became replaced by digital means. This is majorly due to restrictions given by the

government or internal precautions taken by organizations to reduce the risk of spreading the

virus (Bonacini et al., 2020). Even if the enabling mechanisms that facilitate non-physical

interactions (eg. video conferences) have been available to companies long before the

pandemic, the use of these resources has increased dramatically since the beginning of 2020

(Venkatesh, 2020). The increased use of digital communication tools and the way it facilitates

connectivity between people has ultimately paved the way to sustain the business by having

employees working remotely since regular offices are closed or prohibited to visit (Bonacini et

al., 2020).

While remote work is a well-established way of working in modern companies, the amount of

employees working from home has never been this extensive. In addition, the move from the

company’s regular offices to home offices has entailed an unplanned and unexpected change

for all parties involved (Bonacini et al., 2020). As to date from the outburst of the pandemic,

researchers have accordingly shown interest in what effects this relocation ought for companies

and the employees. At an organizational level, it has been noted that operational costs related

to physical transfers, conferences, etc. have mostly decreased (Mahesh & Kumar, 2020).

Meetings via video link have in some cases proven to be more effective compared to previous

physical meetings as small talk has decreased while focus is directed to the main objectives

(Venkatesh, 2020). Another major insight is that managers now experience an overall increased

2

functionality in communication technology compared to before the pandemic (Susilo, 2020).

These benefits have been embraced by some business leaders who are considering maintaining

all or part of the new remote way of working even after the end of the pandemic (Bonacini et

al., 2020).

However, the current situation has posed a number of challenges for the individual employee

who has been forced to adapt to a completely new work environment. Kniffin et al. (2021)

account for a set of interruptions that occur in the actual transition from normal work routines

in the workplace when adapting them to a new home office. These increase stress and a

reduction of employees’ production output. This is particularly visible in those cases they are

forced to deliver according to what is normally expected. Furthermore, Mahesh and Kumar

(2020) point to the difficulties of balancing work and private life when the line between them

has become blurred. An example given is how employees no longer leave their homes for their

regular offices. This removes the previous physical shift between private and work

environments. Although the line between the two environments is an important part of

distinguishing between private life and work, the work environment itself is likewise an

important factor for the employee’s well-being (Herzberg et al., 1993). Kniffin et al. (2021)

exemplify how home offices compete for space with the rest of the family or other private

activities. In some cases, it is simply not possible for the employee to designate space

specifically for work.

Previous studies show that people that only work from home face a greater risk of becoming

demotivated in comparison with employees who solely work at the workplace (Tovmasyan &

Minasyan, 2020). Raišienė and colleagues found that personal preferences, previous

experiences, and habits were determinants of how remote work affected employee motivation.

However, a common factor regardless of employee characteristics showed that employee

motivation could increase if working remotely from home up to two days a week (Raišienė at

al., 2020). We can conclude that employees who previously did not expect a home office

environment are exposed to critical challenges du to an unexpected change. This in turn induce

negative impacts on job satisfaction and ultimately employee motivation (Iuliana, 2020). To

summarize, this pandemic has brought a new phenomenon into the business world which

entails uncertainty and a shift in motivational influences caused by an unexpected change.

3

1.2 Problem discussion The relationship between employee motivation and job performance is widely supported by

scholars (Susilo, 2020; Hemakumura, 2020). Most managers today will argue that demotivated

employees prevent a company from reaching its full performance capability (Hein, 2012). The

plan to maintain home offices even after the pandemic may therefore seem contra-productive

as the employees risk falling into a demotivational state and consequently decrease in

productivity. Accordingly, it is important to understand how motivation is affected by working

from home and how motivation can be maintained among employees by adapting to the new

environment.

Contemporary research on human motivation divides motivational drivers into intrinsic and

extrinsic sources of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000). To simplify, individuals are either

motivated by their own interests or by external rewards (Gagné & Deci, 2005). To better

understand human motivation in business contexts, Fredrik Herzberg distinguishes between

motivational and hygiene factors. The motivational factors (eg. Achievement, Recognition, and

Responsibilities) will ultimately increase job satisfaction if improved. However, improving the

hygienic factors (eg. working conditions, coworker relations, and policies and rules) will

merely decrease job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993). This may help in understanding

how moving to a home office might affect employee motivation in regard to changes in their

work environment. How change impacts human motivation can also be understood from Victor

Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory. Motivation to act is rooted in how people feel they are

capable of performing and their level of confidence of a certain outcome (Tovmasyan &

Minasyan, 2020). In a new uncertain setting, especially when physical interactions are

exchanged for what is sometimes considered as ‘more efficient’ video calls, leaders’ capacity

to recognize and develop employees and eventually increase their confidence will risk being

reduced.

However, we argue that studying; what drives motivation?; what keeps us motivated?; and how

change impacts motivation? in isolation is not sufficient to fully understand the future potential

threats this unexpected event and situation might have on employee motivation. To adequately

frame the new phenomenon brought by the pandemic it is required to involve the components

of time and uncertainty. We argue that the most optimal way to accomplish this task is to

construct a conceptual model in which links are drawn between current theoretical

understandings and the present phenomena. No comparable shift, to our knowledge, has been

4

studied before and no frameworks made to explain this unique phenomenon have accordingly

not yet been developed.

1.3 Purpose and Research question Based on the previous problem discussion, the purpose of this paper is to construct a model of

not yet linked theoretical understandings that supports a simulation of potential future

outcomes. Specifically, this paper draws a link between current understandings of employee

motivation, employees’ adaptability to change. In order to simulate the current situation of the

Covid-19 pandemic, this paper invites the notion of time and uncertainty into the equation. To

achieve our goal, we need to seek answer to following question: What role does time and

uncertainty play in employees’ ability to adapt and stay motivated in the event of unexpected

change?

1.4 Objectives of this study The set objectives for our study are to: (i) Study employee motivation and employee

adaptability to change in isolation. (ii) Answer our research question in 1.3. (iii) Construct a

conceptual model by drawing links between current theories and our framed phenomenon

1.5 Aim and added value The aim is to construct a model that illustrates how a new phenomenon can affect employees’

motivation when they face unexpected change for an extended period. The value of being able

to anticipate possible fluctuations in employees’ motivation to work is based on the

understanding that motivation boosts productivity. While business leaders need to know how

to foster and maintain motivation among their employees, it is likewise critical to understand

when and why motivation may fluctuate in order to prevent demotivation. Furthermore, this

paper contributes to the existing literature on employee motivation which previously lacked a

framework for how motivation can be affected through unexpected change and extended work

from home. This framework can also be used for future research where it will benefit from

empirical data to further strengthen or develop the model.

1.6 Scope and delimitations Research in the field of human motivation is comprehensive and the number of models to

explain what drives motivation has grown extensively over the past century. This might imply

that contemporary research to some extent has matured and, in several cases, even reached a

consensus. However, some motivational frameworks are overlapping while other frameworks

5

are contributing to broader knowledge. Due to limited time for this project, it would have been

impossible to include all concepts related to motivation, therefore, this study will majorly focus

on four well-established theories that together covers the heuristic understanding of employee

motivation, hence sufficiently meets the requirement to fulfill the purpose of this study.

The conceptual model developed in this paper is based on deduced assumptions based on

contemporary theoretical frameworks in order to explain the possible threats on employee

motivation of a current phenomenon. Due to the conceptual nature of this study, no empirical

data is used in an attempt to observe the real world, assumptions are made through deductive

reasoning. It should therefore be emphasized that the propositions generated by this study

should be tested at a later stage.

1.7 Thesis outline In order to give the reader a sense of structure and the content of this master thesis, we will in

this section provide an outline of the study. This master thesis is based on current knowledge

about motivation and adaptation to change. Chapter 1 begins with an introduction of the subject

where the background is discussed, followed by a discussion of the problem. We present the

purpose of this study and the research question that will guide this study. We further introduce

the reader with the objective, aim, and added value together with our scope and delimitations

for this study. In chapter 2 we present our research design and the methods used to answer our

research question and ultimately fulfill the purpose of this study. We describe how our

conceptual model is constructed followed by a detailed layout on how we framed the literature

pool used in this study. In addition, we provide a description on how we ensure validity and

credibility for our study. In chapter 3 we first define motivation, then we successively present

and build up a framework for employee motivation used for this study. First, we focus on “what

drives employee motivation”, then we focus on “what keeps employees motivated”. The

chapter generates 9 propositions that are used to build the final model. In chapter 4 we elaborate

on “how employees may react to change” and “how change impacts motivation”. We begin by

introducing time and change. Thereafter we discuss how employees react to change, how

employees accept and adapt to change and also how employees may deny and resist to change.

The chapter ends by connecting expectancy theory (motivation) to the constructs discussed in

chapter 4. This chapter generates 6 new propositions that are used to construct the final model.

Chapter 5 begins with drawing links between the different elements presented in the theoretical

framework. Then we discuss the 15 previously generated propositions from chapter 3 and 4

while mounting these into the model. Every proposition is described by its purpose, effects,

6

and placement in the model. The chapter ends with a short explanation of the model. Chapter

6 concludes our conceptual research and argue for how this paper contributes to current

theories. In addition, we provide research limitations and suggestions for future research.

2 Methodology

The following section describes this study’s methodological toolbox. The research approach is

explained and how the conceptual model is intended to be constructed together with this

paper’s analytical approach. The literature review is described in detail in two steps. One

focused on the domain theory, while the other one is focus on the method theory used to acquire

the literature pool for this paper. Finally, the study’s quality is treated in terms of validity and

credibility.

2.1 Research approach The methodological approach in this study took its stance in two major predicaments: (1) lack

of frameworks and (2) the impossibility to gather data from the future. As far as we know, there

are no current frameworks that can predict the causes and relationships between motivation,

time, and uncertainty. By the second predicament, we acknowledge that the collection and use

of empirical data would have enabled us to measure the current motivational state among

employees. However, it would have been impossible to determine what this contemporary

phenomenon means for individual employee motivation over a future time horizon. What we

did uncover in our initial theoretical overview was that employee motivation and employee

adaptation to change were discussed separately by scholars. Thus, our aim was to identify

existing theories in these two separate fields of knowledge and link them together. This is

possible without collecting empirical data by conceptualizing relations based on existing

knowledge (Yadav, 2010; MacInnis, 2011; Jaakkola, 2020).

The purpose of conceptualizations is to integrate or suggest new relationships between previous

constructs (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015) by combining and assimilating evidence from previous

research (Hirschheim, 2008). This implies that conceptual models are not fully detached from

reality but places the researcher in the center of collecting, analyzing, and deducing novel

connections between these constructs (Yadav, 2010). Empirical data still has an indirect

association to conceptualizations as it is based on conclusions derived from previous empirical

findings (Jaakkola, 2020). Hence, we argued that a composition of not yet linked theoretical

understandings which supported us in simulating potential future outcomes was the most

7

suitable approach in our endeavor. As noted by Jaakkola (2020), there is no shared

understanding among scholars on how to construct a proper research design for a conceptual

paper. However, the author proposes four common types of research designs in regard to

conceptual research: Theory synthesis, Theory adaptation, Typology, and Model. Theory

synthesis is used when knowledge is fragmented across multiple theories and literature streams.

The goal is to achieve an integration between these by summarizing what is currently known

(MacInnis, 2011; Jaakkola, 2020). Theory adaptation seeks to change the range of perspective

in one domain by informing it with novel theoretical lenses. Typology aims to categorize and

organize similar and overlapping concepts into distinct types of constructs (Jaakkola, 2020).

Last, Model concerns “building a theoretical framework that predicts relationships between

constructs” (Jaakkola, 2020, p. 22). For example, Huang and Rust (2018) adopted this

approach in their research to understand how artificial intelligence (AI) might replace people

in service-based professions. By synthesizing a literature pool from multiple disciplines, they

were able to identify what human tasks could be replaced by AI and thus, owing to their

conceptualization, it enabled them to predict the future. This paper sought an answer to ‘What

role does time and uncertainty play in employees’ ability to adapt and stay motivated in the

event of unexpected change?’. Based on these four approaches, we argued that a conceptual

model would best suit our endeavor towards understanding and illustrate the relations between

employee motivation and employee adaptation.

2.2 The conceptual model The model in this paper needed to be able to predict the causes and relationships between

motivation, adaptation, time, and uncertainty. The aim was therefore to illustrate the

connections between these variables. Jaakkola (2020) stresses three considerations that must

be taken into account when constructing a model. First, what is the phenomenon we seek to

understand by this model? Second, what domain theories will be used? A domain theory

(Lukka & Vinnari, 2014, p. 1309) is “a particular set of knowledge on a substantive topic area

situated in a field or domain”. In other words, what theories will we use to address the key

elements in our chosen phenomenon? Third, what method theories will be used? (Jaakkola,

2020). A method theory is “a meta-level conceptual system for studying the substantive issue(s)

of the domain theory at hand” (Lukka & Vinnari, 2014, p. 1309). In other words, what theories

will be used in order to understand the relationship between the phenomenon and the domain

theory? As elaborated in the introductory chapter, this pandemic has brought a new

phenomenon into the business world which entails uncertainty and a shift in motivational

8

influences caused by an unexpected change. Hence, theories in employee motivation were used

as domain theories to serve as a foundation in our model. Theories concerning employee

adaptation were used as method theories in order to understand how employees’ responses to

change may influence their motivation to work.

Palmatier et al. (2018) list three ways of presenting a conceptual work: narratively, tables, or

figures. Narratives discuss the result in pure text, tables organize different works and are

helpful when summaries or comparisons are made together with the text. However, figures are

both mentioned by Palmatier et al. (2018) and Hulland’s (2020) to be most suitable when

illustrating conceptual relationships between constructs. Therefore, the final model in this

research is illustrated with a figure that takes several parameters into account that was

uncovered in the literature. The system of relationships depicts our view of how these are

interconnected and may help to better understand the complexity of employee motivation and

what effects we propose if one motivational influence moves along its continuum (Jaccard &

Jacoby, 2010). Further, the key is to explain “how” concepts are related and “why” these are

suggested to influence another part of the construct (Patton, 2002). The model presented in this

paper is based on 15 proposals deduced from our review and discussion of reviewed domain

and method theories. This method was first proposed by Meredith (1993), however, a similar

approach was implemented by a highly cited study conducted by Roy et al. (2004). They were

studying the nature of innovation in supply chain relationships in which they argued for a

conceptual model based on their theoretical framework. By analyzing their conceptual model,

they ultimately generated 9 propositions for future research. Accordingly, we were inspired to

follow the same route for our endeavor. First, we illustrate the very fundamental ideas of

external and internal motivation and how these are related to the level of an individual’s

perceived motivation. Then we added time and change as two independent mediators in which

motivation to a-motivation and restrainment to adaptation are represented as an outer

devastating atmosphere. The whole model is relying on the critical foundation of hygiene

factors which implies that if these are taken away, motivation is most likely to fade. The model

consequently illustrates different theoretical understandings which are, from our knowledge,

never linked before. As mentioned, this system of relationships depicts our view of how these

are interconnected (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2010), it is therefore suggested that the generated

propositions should be tested in future studies (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015).

9

2.2.1 Our analytical process

The final model is partially determined by the given literature pool but also highly dependent

on us as researchers. As MacInnis (2011, p. 140) noted; ”conceptualization is a process of

abstract thinking involving the mental representation of an idea.”. Therefore, while the

conceptual review will be presented and argued for in 2.3, we here present our analytical stance

in this thesis. As mentioned, a clear and “good” conceptualization relies on the researcher’s

ability to demonstrate “how” concepts are related and “why” these are suggested to influence

another. Further, deductive reasoning is the key when establishing relationships between

constructs, meaning drawing conclusions from what is already known in current literature

(Patton, 2002). In this paper, we did this by first discussing the current theory, then deducing a

proposition in connection to that discussion. Hence, in accordance with the studies conducted

by Huang and Rust (2018) and Roy et al. (2004), the relationship between these was

consequently established through deductive reasoning. The theories used in this study are

reviewed and presented narratively. Narrative reviews are reviews that present a topic of

interest in a broader sense in order to invite novel perspectives. Hence, this paper aims to

provide an overview rather than being comprehensive (Gregory & Denniss, 2018). The aim of

this paper is to identify new links between constructs, the focus is not to systematically review

the current literature in detail. Therefore, we argued that this approach allowed us as researchers

to be flexible with our design as there is no standard procedure for conducting narrative reviews

(Gregory & Denniss, 2018). The narrative review was however influenced by Hulland (2020,

p. 31) and Gregory and Denniss (2018, pp. 895-896) suggested structures. First, we search for

and defined our domain and method theories. Second, we critically analyzed and discussed

them narratively. Third, we generated propositions (ie. “insights”) based on our discussion.

Fourth, we constructed a model based on our proposals that can be studied in future research,

see figure 1.

Figure 1. The Narrative Review Process

10

2.3 Literature review In addition to a researcher’s analytical abilities mentioned in 2.2.1, another great challenge in

a conceptual paper is to gather, review, and present a thorough and honest image of the intended

domain and scope of interest (Hulland, 2020). By thorough, the author implies that the

researcher does not miss any important or vital theories that would have been of great value in

the study. By honest, the author stresses the importance of not overlooking contradicting and

instead shines a light on them to deliver an authentic depiction of the contemporary literature.

2.3.1 Domain theory

To orient us in the broad field of motivational concepts, we began with an initial search using

the database Business Source Ultimate (BSU). BSU includes over research articles from more

than 3000 journals in the field of business and economics. We limited our search to only include

full-text articles from scholarly (peer-reviewed) Journals, and to only show articles written in

English. No specific timespan where selected. The search string was as follows: work

motivation [OR] employee motivation [OR] organizational motivation. To focus on previous

reviews of employee motivation a complementary string connected with “[AND]” was

included: literature review [OR] review of the literature [OR] overview [OR] systematic review

[OR] meta-analysis. This yielded a result of 169 articles. After reading through the abstract of

each of them, we could conclude that the two latest reviews on employee motivational theories

were a minor review by Isac (2016) and an extensive review by Kanfer and Chen (2016). These

reviews were carefully read through in which we selected four concepts to be used as a

foundation for our presented domain theory: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943),

Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000) and (Deci et al., 1999), Two-factor

theory (Herzberg et al., 1993), and Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). These are both

established and highly cited theories and together cover the overall understanding of employee

motivation. The choice is motivated by Isac’s (2007; 2016) framework of content and process

theories regarding motivation and Kanfer and Chen’s (2016, p. 7) model of socio-

environmental and intra-individual influences, the coverage is illustrated in table 1. Thus, the

selected domain theories for this study fulfill the purpose of depicting employee motivation.

11

Table 1. Coverage of Chosen Work Motivation Theories

2.3.2 Method Theory

To frame our method theory that aims to explain how employees respond to change, our initial

search string in BSU was simply: employee* [AND] react [AND] change. We limited our

search to only include full-text articles from scholarly (peer-reviewed) Journals, and to only

show articles written in English. No specific timespan where selected. Based on this

delimitation, our search generated 126 hits. By examining the search results, we were able to

detect two prominent researchers in relation to change (Lewin, 1947) and adoption to change

(Kübler-Ross, 1968). According to Kübler-Ross (1968), facing critical changes involves

restrainment, adaptability, and resilience, therefore, new keywords such as self-regulation,

adaptive performance, restrainment, adaptability, resistance to change, resilience, and adaptive

were tested. However, some of these keywords generated a too broad search result and were

removed in the final search string. Further, the keywords to frame the phenomena to which

employees are reacting to, we detected: change, organizational change, unexpected change,

sudden change. A refined and definite search string based on collected keywords was

ultimately set to: react [OR] self-regulation [OR] adaptive performance [OR] restrainment

[OR] individual resilience [OR] personal resilience [OR] adaptability. To fit the topic of this

study these were limited to; sudden change [OR] unexpected change [OR] organizational

change (American-English) [OR] organisational change (British-English). The search string

generated 448 hits. The exclusion criteria were set to focus on the individual employee,

therefore we excluded; Management perspectives (eg. sensemaking and change leadership) and

12

organizational perspectives (eg. organizational resilience and preventative measures). We

identified, in particular Vohs and Schmeichel (2003), Vohs and Baumeister (2016) regarding

Self-regulation, Jundt et al. (2015) and Park and Park (2019) regarding adaptive performance

and adaptability, and Duchek et al. (2020) and Park and Park (2021) regarding resilience. While

Lewin (1947), Kübler-Ross (1968), and Rashford and Coghlan (1989) all involve reactions and

Sherman and Garland (2007) and Robbins and Judge (2017) involve employee restrainment.

2.4 Ensuring validity and credibility Assessing a conceptual paper is complicated as there is no widely accepted understanding of

how it should be assessed. The generally accepted tools and guidelines made to assess empirical

studies are seldom applicable to conceptual papers (ie. non-empirical work) (Jaakkola, 2020).

Therefore, Hulland (2020) stresses the importance of explaining the research process and

clearly show how and why the researcher arrives at a particular conclusion. This should be

done with “honesty”, meaning reviewing and clearly show that the researcher acknowledges

the strengths and weaknesses of a particular theory. In this study, we did this by providing a

detailed research approach and narratively describe the concepts and create arguments based

on the included theory. In regard to the theory, MacInnis (2011) argued that the most

provocative ideas come from the practitioner community. He indicates that what is written in

practitioners’ literary work is seldom entirely rooted in scientific research. Therefore, we only

included scientific articles or literature based on research. In our conceptual review, we limited

our search to only include peer-reviewed articles. Also, in those cases, we follow citings from

other articles, we always made sure to cross-check them towards Ulrischsweb. Ulrichsweb is a

database where the user can check if a journal applies "peer review". The use of peer-reviewed

articles compared to practitioners’ literature provides higher credibility and enables a platform

for trustful scientific communication (Kelly et al., 2014). Another criterion is to provide a

thorough review, and including “relevant” literature (Hulland, 2020). Therefore, the choice of

a particular set of models included in this study may be questioned. As mentioned, the included

domain theory is motivated by Isac’s (2007; 2016) framework of content and process theories

regarding motivation and Kanfer and Chen’s (2016, p. 7) model of socio-environmental and

intra-individual influences. These two models depict the most fundamental cornerstones of

motivation in which the chosen domain theories are covered by Maslow (1943), Deci and Ryan

(1985; 2000), Herzberg et al., (1993), and Vroom (1964). We are aware that the choice of

conducting a narrative review both in regard to the domain and method theories has a high

probability of being biased (MacInnis, 2011; Yadav, 2010). Therefore, we put extra emphasis

13

in providing an honest depiction of our review as we present the theories to allow the reader to

follow our reasonings (Hulland, 2020). Also, as the aim was to link two constructs, not to

systematically review these two theoretical fields, we argue that the risk of bias will not impact

the result of this study (Gregory & Denniss, 2018).

3 Understanding motivation

This chapter discusses employee motivation. It begins with defining motivation based on a

managerial and a behavioral perspective. This chapter then successively builds up an

understanding of employee motivation by first discussing motivational drivers, then continue

a discussion on how motivation is maintained.

3.1 Defining motivation

This paper is built on our pre-assumption that motivation is somewhat exclusively positive in

its nature. In this sense, motivation is an important component in our society, individual-, and

organizational life to develop, improve, and advance. Attempts to frame motivation have been

made by many scholars who seem to share our pre-assumptions of motivation as such. For

example, from a managerial perspective, Robbins and Judge (2017, p. 247) define motivation

as “the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction, and persistence of effort

toward attaining a goal”. From a behavioral aspect, motivation could be understood as the

force “that gives impetus to our behavior by arousing, sustaining, and directing it toward the

attainment of goals” (Wortman et al., 1999, p. 364). What is apparent in how scholars

understand motivation is their emphasis put on individuals’ goal-directed behavior. Cook and

Artino (2016) dissect motivation even further into four distinct components: (1) motivation is

a process; (2) motivation is goal-oriented; (3) motivation deals with initiation of activity; and

(4) motivation deals with the continuation of activity. The two latter (ie. 3 and 4) are explicitly

directed towards, with the intention to reach, desired goals. Based on the given definitions we

will hereinafter refer to motivation as a process in which individuals are putting considerable

additional effort in order to achieve a particular objective. However, the cues and incentives

for what drives motivation will be dealt with in the following sections.

3.2 Human motivational drivers

Edwin has just turned on his laptop in his home kitchen after taking a

morning lie-in. His management has ordered him and his colleagues to work

14

from home during the Covid-19 pandemic and he is skimming through his

email. It is with a vague interest that he chooses to respond to the most urgent

emails, the rest he re-marks as unread. Edwin does his absolute bare

minimum yet balancing his efforts to not risk losing his job. At the same time,

Anna, who is a colleague to Edwin, sits in her apartment on the other side of

the town. Today, she got up extra early to check off as many work tasks as

possible. She makes several calls to the company’s customers while

answering questions from her colleagues in the company’s internal work

chat. Edwin and Anna differ considerably in how much energy they put into

their work, but how can this difference be explained in theory? Motivational

psychologists believe that individuals are encouraged to work when there is

a motivating incentive to do so.

The drivers for human motivation could be understood from a plethora of theoretical

understandings. A recurring element among scholars is however the individual strive towards

one’s satisfaction of needs that acts as a sort of leverage for human motivation. We can see

how these discussions already surfaced in the paper A Theory of Human Motivation by

Abraham Maslow (1943). His model, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, demonstrates how human’s

basic needs such as Physiological needs (eg. food and water) and Safety needs must be met

before an individual’s motivation increases to make people ‘climb’ onto the next levels of the

hierarchy, these are, belongingness and love needs, followed by esteem needs and ultimately

self-actualization. Although there is empirical evidence that the satisfaction of Maslow’s

hierarchical needs contributes to individuals’ well-being (Tay & Diener, 2011), his model has

been widely criticized by scholars. For example, Wahba and Bridwell (1976) exposed the

model’s insufficiency to explain motivational drivers. The sense of well-being is simply not

sufficient in itself to motivate people. Maslow’s (1943) model has also been criticized for its

inability to universally describe human motivators in various cultural settings (eg. Tay &

Diener, 2011), what motivates Swedish people is not necessarily equivalent to what motivates

Cambodian people. In addition, a recent revision of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs suggests that

different levels are overlapping and could motivate humans independently from any other

levels (Deckers, 2018). This implies that humans do not need to satisfy the lower levels of

human motivation before reaching for higher levels of satisfaction. Despite the criticism,

Maslow’s model continues to appear among both scholars and practitioners since it is claimed

to explain human nature as “something that most humans immediately recognize in themselves

15

and others” (Abulof, 2017, p. 508). Hence, its simplicity becomes its weakness, but also its

biggest strength. We may argue that humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, but we

should perhaps accept that these needs are neither universal (Tay & Diener, 2011) nor

sequential (Deckers, 2018). If we look at the initial case with Edwin and Anna, we cannot yet

explain why Anna seems to be more motivated to work. However, we may assume that Anna

satisfies her need or at least striving towards needs satisfaction when performing her job. Edwin

on the other hand seems to lack motivational drivers as he manifests a lukewarm strive to ‘work

hard’. Given the attributes of human needs of satisfaction, we propose the following

proposition:

Proposition 1: Humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, however, needs are

not universal.

3.2.1 The “when” in human motivation

In organizational research, the relationship between employee motivation and job performance

is widely supported by scholars (Susilo, 2020; Hemakumura, 2020) as well as the link between

employee motivation and increased employee’s well-being (Steers et al., 2004). As noted, the

wide spectrum of potential needs that drives individual motivation cannot be covered by solely

applying Maslow’s (1943) model. Accordingly, other attempts have been made to propose

additional motivational drivers such as David McClelland’s (1965) need for achievement (n

Ach) in which some people “achievers” are motivated by independently controlling objects,

plans, and other individuals. As these people are ultimately focused on increasing their own

self-esteem by practicing their skills, it is arguably just one component of Maslow’s higher

levels of motivational drivers, namely self-fulfillment needs. However, it is not in vain as

researchers approach the various components of human motivational drivers. With these, it is

possible to better understand and connect particular motivational drivers to work from home

environments. In the case of Edwin and Anna, how much feedback do for example Anna get

from her colleagues by continually having contact with them through their internal work chat

in comparison to Edwin? Does Edwin feel excluded, at least not involved in the group? and

what motivational needs are missing in Edwin’s case?

The most extensive framework that covers motivational needs is the Self-Determination

Theory (SDT). SDT is based on the assumption that humans have a natural tendency or urge

to constantly strive towards psychological growth, internalization, and well-being (Deci &

Ryan, 2000). With psychological growth, SDT assumes that individuals have an active strive

16

to actualize their inherent potential (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This includes constant learning and

development of oneself, which in turn can be integrated into a meaningful sense. As a result,

the individual can grow as a person and create personal meaning. Internalization aims at the

individual’s orientation to interact and feel connected to their surroundings (Bénabou & Tirole,

2003). To realize this growth, individuals are assumed to “actively interact with their

environment and to engage in activities that support their development and connectedness with

others” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.10). Hence, instead of statically responding to the

surroundings, individuals actively seek interactions to engage with and potentially even

participate in shaping their environment. Last, the pursuit of prosperity (ie. well-being)

arguably speaks for itself, humans want to feel happy about their situation and where they are

in life. However, it should not be overlooked as it is an important component within SDT when

understanding human motivational drivers (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Based on above discussion,

we propose:

Proposition 2: Humans are motivated to act when they believe the action serves their

psychological growth, internalization, and well-being.

3.2.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

We now recognize individuals’ inherent strive towards psychological growth, internalization,

and well-being. These three inclinations are acted simultaneously in an environment that

bidirectionally facilitates or limits this natural progression (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). The

two “forces” could be understood from an SDT perspective as internal and external motives

that influence human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). On one side

it recognizes the dominant role of intrinsic motivation and on the other side the conditions

under which extrinsic motivation may serve human motivation (Heyns & Kerr, 2018). Intrinsic

motivation derives from an individual’s own will of performing one particular activity and the

satisfaction that comes from successfully fulfilling it. Deci and Ryan (2000) discovered that

people find certain activities inherently interesting and enjoyable and therefore participate in

these activities without being dependent on extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation on the

other hand is stimulated when humans are engaged in an activity “for reasons other than the

behavior being inherently interesting and enjoyable” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.1197).

Extrinsic motivation however extends over a continuum of four external influences, reaching

from being solely controlled by external incentives to be integrated into an individual’s

personal endorsement. The type of extrinsic motivation and whether it controls or supports the

need for autonomy will impact the lasting effect of that motivational driver (Deci & Ryan,

17

2000; Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). We will revisit this continuum with a more thorough

discussion in 3.3.3.

Over the years, several studies (as noted by Benabou and Tirole, 2003) have shown that

extrinsic motivation in the form of contingent rewards (eg. rewarding someone for participating

or reaching a goal) in some cases conflicts with intrinsic motivation. People who are rewarded

for their efforts are significantly less interested in taking part in the same task at a later stage

without a promise of new rewards. In contrast, people who never received a reward for

performing the same task are more open to taking part in the same activity at a later stage. It is

also recognized that people who are initially motivated in performing an activity by an external

reward, entail a greater risk of losing compliance over an extended period (Benabou & Tirole,

2003). Based on this discussion, we can assume that intrinsic motivation is the most effective

force in regard to individuals’ perceived motivation, we propose:

Proposition 3: Intrinsic motivation surpasses extrinsic motivation regarding its

effective influence on human motivation.

3.2.3 The need for satisfaction

The conflicts between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation underpin the concept of SDT which

argues that “humans are optimally motivated and experience well-being when they have three

basic psychological needs satisfied: the need for autonomy, the need for competence, and the

need for relatedness” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.1196). The first need, ‘need for

autonomy’ is defined as an “individual’s inherent desire to act with a sense of choice and

volition and to feel psychologically free” (Ibid., p.12). Hence, autonomy refers to our ability to

make our own choices. Despite its individualistic perspective, it should however not be

confused with independence. The need for autonomy does not suggest that we need to be

independent of other people but being able to make our own decisions with people around us

(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Heyns & Kerr, 2018). When Anna (in our introductory case) is assigned

a task by her leader, she may execute that task in a non-independent manner. But if she sees

the value in performing the task and is volitionally engaged in it, she will also satisfy her need

for autonomy. Edwin, on the other hand, may be independent in his duties without fulfilling

his need for autonomy and therefore lacks the fundamental elements that drive motivation. The

second need, ‘need for competence’ refers to humans’ desire to feel that they are capable of

controlling an outcome through their own skills, knowledge, and expertise (Deci & Ryan, 1985;

2000). People satisfy their need for competence when they “explore and actively seek out

18

challenges in which they can extend their physical and psychological skills” (Van den Broeck

et al., 2016, p.12). As people are having confidence and the perception of being able to perform

a pleasing result, they are more likely to remain motivated to proceed (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The need for relatedness refers to our connection to other people and our sense of security with

that connection (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000). The third need is the need for relatedness. People

satisfy their needs for relatedness when they “experience a sense of communion and maintain

close and intimate relationships.” (Van den Broeck et al., 2016, p.12). In other words, humans

are motivated as we feel we are a part of a community and that we are all cared for. As SDT

assumes that the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is innate, these do not

develop as a result of a certain type of experience as suggested by some researchers (eg. Vroom,

1964). These inherent needs are instead something that is constantly present regardless of

whether the person is aware of them or not. Consequently, motivational drivers should not be

a discussion about how strong they are, but to what extent an individual’s needs are satisfied

(Deci & Ryan, 2000). In Anna and Edwin’s case, we may assume that it is not the variation

they experience in their work that is predictive in their psychological well-being, but to what

extent they feel that their need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is satisfied.

Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 4: Motivational drivers are related to the extent people perceive an activity

serves their need for satisfaction.

3.2.4 When extrinsic motivation works

Recognizing intrinsic motivation as the conquering force between internal and external drivers,

people are still motivated by extrinsic stimuli. Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory suggests that

“the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation

that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to

the individual” (Robbins & Judge, 2017, p. 267). Further, the expectancy theory describes

motivation as a process of cognitive considerations concerning internal efforts, results,

rewards, and perceived value. The model implies that people are motivated because they

believe that their effort will lead to the desired reward (Vroom, 1964). Quick (1988) provided

a simplified yet useful description of human motivation through the lens of the expectancy

theory: “Human behavior, expectancy theory explains, is a function of two factors: the

perceived value of the reward that certain behavior yields [and] the expectation in the doer

that certain behavior will yield that reward.” (p. 30). What people expect from their effort

hence becomes a determinant of how much effort they intend to put into the task. What must

19

be noted, however, is what is considered ‘sufficient’ is on the other hand highly objective

(Quick, 1988). We will return to the expectancy theory in 4.6.1 where we present a more

detailed discussion on how uncertainty might have a negative impact on motivation, but for

now we propose:

Proposition 5: Employees are extrinsically motivated to perform if they believe that their

effort will be sufficiently rewarded.

3.3 What keeps us motivated? In the previous section, we presented the basics of what has been understood by scholars as

human motivational drivers. These have been broadly explained as external and internal

influences (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000; Bénabou & Tirole, 2003). We have understood that

motivation is most likely driven by the individual’s self-actualization, which is considered to

be intrinsically motivated. But since there are indications that: (1) people are likewise driven

by external factors (Vroom, 1964; Quick, 1988), and (2) the long-term effect on motivation

varies depending on the origin of the driver (Van den Broeck et al., 2016), we here seek answers

to how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relates to the retention of motivation. Hence, in this

section, we dig deeper into ‘what keeps us motivated’. We are also looking for answers to what

factors in a remote work environment prevent or enable motivation to be maintained. As a

starting point of our discussion, we begin with Herzberg et al.’s (1993) two-factor theory. We

consider this to be the most reasonable port for our endeavor as his theory together with

Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs is the most widespread and discussed concepts of human

motivation (Kanfer & Cheng, 2016).

3.3.1 The importance of hygiene

Scholars has recently pointed out the great conversion it means to move the whole business

from regular offices to home offices. This implies of course a change in the environment, both

in how employees lose the physical room with their colleagues, but also their working

conditions (Kniffin et al., 2021). Here we are investigating with the help of two-way theory

how this change may affect employee motivation. Herzberg builds his theory upon two

dynamics, “motivators” and “hygiene factors”. Motivators are those factors that lead to

employee satisfaction such as achievement, self-recognition, or work itself. Just as we

discussed in the previous chapter in which humans are driven by intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation, the two-factor theory accordingly expresses similar characteristics, see table 2.

What is unique with his theory is that if the motivators are taken away from us, we do not

20

automatically become dissatisfied (Herzberg et al., 1993) as traditionally assumed, but rather

perceive a lack of satisfaction (Lambert, 1980). On the other hand, he proposes hygiene factors

(see table 2) as a separate continuum to prevent the development of dissatisfaction. Simply put,

“the motivator factors all involve psychological growth [...] the hygiene factors involve

physical and psychological pain avoidance.” (Sachau, 2007, p.380). Consequently, hygienic

factors only act as custodians while their absence leads to employee dissatisfaction (Herzberg

et al., 1993; Lambert, 1980). Motivators and Hygiene factors conclusively become two

unconnected dynamics that serve employee motivation independently of each other.

Motivators Hygiene factors

Achievement Company policy and administration

Recognition Supervision-technical

Work itself Salary

Responsibility Interpersonal relationship-supervision

Advancement Working conditions Table 2. Motivators and Hygiene factors. Adopted from Motivation to work by Herzberg et al. (1993).

It is however necessary to note that Herzberg’s two-way theory has constantly been an object

for criticism. Some critics argue that the nature of his chosen methodology has paved the way

for the final result. For example, critics say that the answers generated by the type of questions

he gave his participants during his research automatically lead to the two dynamics on which

Herzberg’s theory is based (Ewen et al., 1966; Vroom, 1964). The reason for this outcome is

according to Abrahamsson and Andersson (2005) that people describe positive events based

on themselves while negative events are described based on external conditions. However,

what draws our attention is not necessarily his creation of separate continuums. Instead, we are

directing our interest to the long-term effects of the environment (ie. hygienic factors) in which

an employee is surrounded. His model demonstrates that in order to maintain employee

motivation, one must first ensure a certain level of hygiene (Herzberg et al., 1993). In other

words, hygiene factors such as salary, interpersonal relationship, and working condition are not

determinants of whether an individual will feel motivated to work, rather it allows for

motivators to be effective. Thus, the hygiene factors are fundamental components for

motivation to be maintained. A more recent study concluded that motivators generate long-

term satisfaction while the presence of hygiene factors only causes satisfaction for a limited

period of time (Sachau, 2007). As the hygiene factors only affect the employees for a limited

period, we may assume that motivators are the only factors that drive motivation between these

21

two. However, despite the fact that motivators are the only force that can drive and motivate

people over an extended period, hygiene factors are the fundamental base on which motivation

can rely upon. To put into context, in those cases where a decrease in motivation has been

reported during the pandemic, people might have suffered by the absence of hygiene factors.

Therefore, we propose:

Proposition 6: Hygiene factors are necessary components for the retainment of

motivation.

3.3.2 What makes humans motivated in the long run?

Another approach to the question ‘what keeps us motivated’ is to study employee turnover.

Employee turnover refers to the rate of employees that leave an organization being replaced by

another person. The close relationship between motivation and satisfaction is demonstrated

(Herzberg et al., 1993; Sachau, 2007), as well as the relationship between satisfaction and

employee turnover (Ramlall, 2004). By studying the determinants behind why employees stay

in an organization, we can arguably deduce the facilitating elements to motivation through

perceived satisfaction and thereby encompass what keeps us motivated. Samuel and Chipunza

(2009) studied how intrinsic and extrinsic motivational variables influenced employee

retention. Their results showed that employees stay in the organization due to a combination

of intrinsic and extrinsic variables: “training and development; challenging/interesting work;

freedom for innovative thinking; and job security” (p.514). These variables are strikingly

similar to Herzberg et al.’s (1993) motivators. Accordingly, as these are both found in

employees’ motivational drivers and reasons to stay in an organization, we argue that these are

strongly associated with keeping employee motivation alive. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 7: Motivators are related to long-term employee motivation.

3.3.3 The detrimental effects of extrinsic motivation

Revisiting the discussion regarding extrinsic motivation in 3.2.2, we stated that the type of

extrinsic motivation and whether it controls or supports the need for autonomy will impact the

lasting effect of that motivational driver. Deci and colleagues studied what long-term effects

extrinsic motivation has on individuals’ perceived motivation. The study revealed that some

types of extrinsic motivation could eventually shift to have a negative effect on motivation.

The determinant for this phenomenon is explained as to which degree the extrinsic motivation

copes with the individual’s inner values and autonomy (Deci et al., 1999; Deci & Ryan, 2000).

The match between extrinsic motivation and the individual’s autonomous drivers is grouped

22

into a continuum of four types (see figure 2) of extrinsic motivations accordingly: External

regulation; Introjected regulation; Identified regulation; and Integrated regulation (Deci &

Ryan, 2000).

Figure 2. The Self-Determination Continuum. Adapted from The “What” and “Why of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-determination of Behavior by Deci & Ryan (2000).

First, SDT recognizes external regulation as the most controlling form of extrinsic motivation.

In this group, we find motivating incentives that are induced by external rewards such as bonus

systems that concern monetary compensation or work benefits (Deci et al., 1999; Deci & Ryan,

2000). On the other hand, external regulation also includes the avoidance of being punished for

performing badly. Individuals may find themselves being motivated to work in order to avoid

the risk of getting fired or facing other material punishments. However, the strive for rewards

and the efforts to avoid punishments could likewise be socio related. Individuals may find it

motivating to work as they expect high appraisals from their supervisor or to avoid the risk of

being disregarded. The second group along the continuum is introjected regulation. Similar to

external regulation, individuals are still motivated by external influences to perform. However,

these are more accepted in oneself as the individual experience pride by performing well, hence

avoiding guilt and shame. The third group called identified regulation concerns individuals

endorsing the reason for their efforts and support why these are important and valuable. A

specific task is not performed because a person believes it is fun and enjoyable, but because

that person fully supports its importance and its positive impact on the surroundings. The fourth

group called integrated regulation holds the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation.

Despite its external nature, people view these motivational drivers as aligned with their

23

personal beliefs and values. Efforts put into an activity are not only considered to help the

surroundings but serves as a self-fulfilling activity (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

It is clear from this continuum that external and introjected motivation is characterized by the

feeling of being controlled (ie. “has to”) and is less related to autonomous motivation. In terms

of maintaining motivation, the controlled influences held by these will consequently impede

the individuals’ basic needs of autonomy. The feeling of pressure initially acting as motivators

is considered to be detrimental in the long run. Identified and integrated regulation is however

considered to be internalized by the individual causing a synergy between the external forces

and the individual’s beliefs and values. As these external motivators better cope with personal

need satisfaction, these are regarded to endure extended periods of time. In other words, despite

its external nature and its limited effectiveness on motivation (Deci et al., 1999), extrinsic

motivation is able to generate long-lasting effects on motivation if internalized by the

individual. Based on this discussion, we add two new propositions:

Proposition 8: Extrinsic motivation, by nature, has a detrimental effect on long-term

motivation.

Proposition 9: Extrinsic motivation is related to long-term motivation if the reason “why”

to perform a particular activity is internalized by the employee.

4 Unexpected change

The following chapter begins by presenting change and time. This is followed by a presentation

of the antecedents of individual change reaction theories. The main theme of this chapter

concerns how, why and if employees adapt to change. In this includes employee adaptation,

employee resistance and uncertainty. Finally, the chapter ends with a discussion on the

devastating effects of uncertainty.

4.1 Change and time Bareil et al. (2007) notice the absence of scientific research regarding the employee situations

in change as most of the current literature is focuses on how change management should

prevent change or transition disasters. However, change in isolation as a phenomenon has been

considered since the Greek philosophers speculated around change. Heraclitus once said: “No

man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same

man.” (Heraclitus, c.535 BC - 475 BC). Hence, change could be regarded as an ongoing

24

[constant] process (Paton & McCalman, 2008) or as a realization by a “caused occurrence”

through intentional manipulation (Kostman, 1987). It is present from the most visible and

tangible to the most ethereal and impalpable (Mathur, 2013). Another understanding of change

is that “change happens when something starts or stops, or when something that used to happen

in one way starts happening in another. It happens at a particular time, or in several stages at

different times.” (Bridges, 1988, p. 25). Ford and Ford (1994) represented this view with a

simple model where change occurs between something and the result of the change, see figure

3. This implies that change is limited between its beginning and its ultimate end. However, this

model does not account for time as an irreversible ongoing force that constantly pulls change

away from “something”. Change is accordingly a phenomenon related to time. Time is a

“linear continuum divisible into uniform units that are all equivalent to each other. Time is

independent of the objects and people who experience it. Time can be measured objectively

and is reversible since it is simply an abstract dimension.” (Van den Ven & Poole, 2005, p.

1388).

Figure 3. The Basic Understanding of Change. Adapted from Logics of Identity, Contradiction, and Attraction in Change by Ford and Ford (1994).

In this paper, we regard change as something that is everywhere and is constantly occurring.

That is, change is either intended, unintended, or uncontrolled. Change is also inseparable from

time, which could be translated as a ”timeless interplay of the forces of creation and

destruction” (Sherman & Garland, 2007, p. 54).

In managerial literature, scholars distinguish between two reasons why organizations change:

(1) external powers that force organizational change (needed change), and (2) an opportunity

that drives internal change (opportunistic change) (Pennington, 2013). The Covid-19 pandemic

has unquestionably been a matter of “needed change” for many organizations and their

employees. New external requirements as a result of the pandemic have simply eliminated

many opportunities for companies to control their own change. So, what happens with

25

employee motivation when the expected becomes unknown? In the previous chapter, we have

discussed what drives employee motivation and what motivational incentives that determine

long-lasting motivation. However, these discussions assume that incentives and motivational

drivers are given and do not account for any cognitive deliberations. In this chapter, we bring

in the psychological process employees experience when perceiving critical changes and how

these are reacted upon in terms of acceptance (adopting) or denial (resistance) behaviors. We

also invite the notion of the human ability to choose their level of engagement in an activity

based on what they expect as an outcome (Vroom, 1964). This adds a novel perspective to eg.

Maslow (1943) and Herzberg et al. (1993) who put the emphasis on human needs as a

prominent motivational driver.

4.2 The antecedents of individual change reaction theories Humans maintain an inherent need to both understand and connect their surroundings to their

own frame of reference. Experiencing new situations caused by change may contradict that

need and therefore induce exhaustion as the individual attempts to make sense of the new

situation (Sparr, 2018; Iuliana, 2020). However, what is “one’s world” and the “real world” is

explained as disparate realities in which humans are incapable to separate. One’s world hence

becomes what people react and take action upon (Westenholz, 1993). How humans feel and

react to change has been regarded in writings for thousands of years. Already in the Old

Testament, the prophet Isaiah’s own experiences of critical change was described. Elrod and

Tipped (2002) summarized the sixth chapter of the Old Testament:

The chapter begins by recording the prophet’s sense of shock and denial, then his moving through the

emotions of awe and guilt, followed by redemptive bargaining, and the working depression as he faces

the reality of the true cost of his commitment, to the final acceptance of his prophetic task. (p. 275).

The description of different phases that humans experience when faced with critical events or

change can still be recognized in today’s models of change processes. Despite the tale of Isaiah

from the Old Testament, Kurt Lewin (1947) is considered to be the first researcher to study

how people react to change (Elrod & Tippet, 2002; Burnes, 2020). Lewin (1947) is also

regarded as the “intellectual father” of organizational change (Schein, 1988 p. 239). He

recognized two opposing forces; (1) the driving forces positive to change, and (2) the

restraining forces that resists change. By definition, status quo is an equilibrium state, in this

case, two forces balancing each other. Change occurs when status quo becomes unfrozen. This

happens if the driving forces are intensified, the restraining forces are weakened, or both. While

unfrozen, the driving force is enabled to move from a current state towards a new desired state.

26

From a change managerial perspective, the last step is particularly important. When the new

(desired) state is reached, the driving force must refreeze the new setting, meaning anchoring

the new state as “the new normal”. This prevents the restraining force to push back to the

former state (Robbins & Judge, 2017). The shift from status quo to a new state will

consequently induce an emotional expense for the opposing force. Employees’ motivation is

therefore more or less affected by the change process. However, Lewin’s (1947) model

suggests that despite its chaotic transition, following his three-step model, the final stage is

associated with compliance between the two forces. Hence, there are reasons to believe that if

working from home becomes the new normal, the restraining force will eventually decrease. It

should be noted that Lewin’s model is a tool to understand how managers (normally the driving

force) should deal with change (Elrod & Tippet, 2002; Burnes, 2020). The aim of our presented

framework is not to provide managerial implications or how to best manage change processes.

Still, Lewin’s model is a necessary cornerstone toward understanding how change may stir up

individual emotions.

4.2.1 React to change from an employee perspective

How employees react to change has been widely discussed in the literature concerning

organizational change, however, these discussions are mostly focused on how to persuade or

prevent disasters that are connected to change reactions (Iuliana, 2020). A general

understanding noted by Bareil and colleagues was that employees are predisposed to change,

in this context, “planned change”. Employees are according to this belief supposed to have a

natural tendency to initially react to change in similar ways, regardless of type of planned

change. These dispositional patterns were not supported in their study, instead, the results

indicated a diversity of potential reactions (Bareil et al., 2007). Hence, employees react in

different ways when perceiving change, for example, change can be met with acceptance,

apathy, or resistance (see Coetsee (1999) for a comprehensive list). The reaction depends on

the individual’s previous experiences, values, personality, level of motivation, and individual’s

social and demographical characteristics (Coetsee, 1999; Raišienė at al., 2020). Iuliana’s

(2020) study categorizes the different levels of reactions into three groups; victims of change,

neutral to change, and masters of change. Individuals belonging to the group “victims of

change” are people who barely cope with the new situation. These are individuals are

characterized by being emotionally unbalanced and tend to resist or complain over the new

situation which was shown to be persisting restraining behaviors. Individuals that are neutral

to change will react and have difficulties at the beginning of a perceived critical change but

27

tend to cope with change rather quickly. Individuals identified as masters of change are

however people who regard change as something that develops themself. Self-improvement is

hence often aligned with their self-actualization (Ibid.). By this, we may recognize that people

react differently to change. Hence, the employees’ perception and assessment of their work

environment influence how they evaluate organizational actions which then defines their

satisfaction at work (Cullen et al., 2014). What is important to note here is that Iuliana’s (2020)

three categories do not account for eventual post reactions or self-exhaustions that could

indicate future restrainments, only that “victims of change” will persist in their restraining

behaviors.

4.3 The psychological change processes The model of grief is one of the most widely accepted theories concerning change and human

adjustment (Downe-Wamboldt & Tamlyn, 1997; Friedrich & Wüstenhagen, 2017). It was

originally developed as a description of the grieving process people experience when faced

with a terminal illness. However, despite its original purpose, the model has also been used to

describe other critical changes in human lives (Elrod & Tippet, 2002). Levinson (1976) argued

that all change is related to loss. For change to take place, it must be done at the expense of the

past. From a business perspective, change can involve loss of knowledge, routines, and security

(Ujhelyi et al., 2015). Kübler-Ross (1969) illustrates five stages of grief that an individual may

experience after facing a critical event, these are denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and

acceptance. The stages are as follows: (Denial) The person is in denial towards the news and

refuses to believe or validate its authenticity. (Anger) Individuals often build resentment and

frustration towards the one who initiated the change. (Bargaining) The person accepts the

situation but still tries to bargain for more time or different outcomes. (Depression) The person

gets depressed and agonizes about the poor current condition, often by claiming a better past.

(Acceptance) Sooner or later the person accepts the inevitability of the new reality. This stage

is crucial for an individual’s ability to both learn from the process and accept the new current

state (Friedrich & Wüstenhagen, 2017).

The model of grief has been criticized over the years, which Corr (2020) recently noted in his

review. The most widespread and notable criticism is whether step-based models, by their

nature, are generalizable. He concludes that “all individuals need not experience all five stages,

nor need they be experienced in an orderly or fixed sequence” (p. 317). Another question that

is raised is whether the Kübler-Ross’s (1969) model is applicable to other types of losses than

the extreme change that terminal illness entails. Even if the model is widely used by

28

practitioners, it lacks empirical evidence for describing how people react to change in business

contexts (Corr, 2020). However, a recent conceptualization claims that there are many reasons

to assume that the model is applicable to organizational change. Employees are in fact passing

through different stages of grief but not necessarily the ones provided in the Kübler-Ross model

(Friedrich & Wüstenhagen, 2017).

We acknowledge that Kübler-Ross’s (1969) model is more than 50 years old, and many other

attempts have been made to illustrate the grieving process after she first published her model.

However, little has been added to the main elements of the process. For example, Rashford and

Coghlan (1989) presented an updated model for business contexts including denying, dodging,

doing, and sustaining. The first stage in their model (denying) overlaps Kübler-Ross’s first

stage, the individual refuses to believe that the change will have an effect on them. The second

stage (dodging) is a combination of Kübler-Ross ́s anger and bargaining stage. Dodging occurs

when all signs indicate that the change will be realized. It is characterized by anger, decreased

motivation, or employees refusing to work. Employee efforts are focused on preventing the

change rather than accepting the new fact. The third stage (doing) is entered when the

restraining force has been heard, the frustration fades as an agreement of proceeding with the

change has been reached between the counteracting forces. The fourth and last stage of

Rashford and Coghlan ́s (1989) model is ‘sustaining’ where the authors stress the importance

of anchoring the change. Similar to the last stage of Lewin’ (1947) three-step model, the authors

recognize the risk of turning back into old habits if not integrating the new change as the new

normal (Rashford & Coghlan, 1989). What strikes us is that regardless of what labels

researchers within change management put on the different stages, the level of employee

performance and motivation during a change process always follows the same curve. The initial

shock and denial of a change are followed by a decrease in energy and motivation as the

individual turns their focus on restraining activities. But as soon as the individual is moving

towards some kind of acceptance and the uncertain becomes known, the level of energy and

motivation will ultimately increase (Lewin, 1947; Kübler-Ross, 1969; Rashford & Coghlan,

1989; or see Elrod & Tippet, 2002 for an extensive review of change models). Based on above

discussion, we propose:

Proposition 10: The level of acceptance to change is closely related to employees’ level of motivation.

Even if this paper is focusing on the individual psychological process, employees are seldom

acting in a vacuum. It is shown that the level of feedback (Ashford, 1986) or support (Tan &

29

Tiong, 2005; Cullen et al., 2014) given by the organization to aid the individual in their process

to understand their surroundings is a strong determinant of how individual employees will

adapt. The more support that is given to the employee, the greater likelihood for the employee

to accept and adapt after a change has occurred.

4.4 Adapting to change The ability to adapt ”is an individual’s ability to change without great difficulty and be able to

fit into new conditions. Adaptation means a continuous change in response to new

situations.” (Wulandari et al., 2020, p. 859). Humans are constantly looking for answers to

what occurs in their surroundings. By mapping and organizing their environment, humans can

create an understanding (ie. “make sense”) of how their surroundings mold together and

functions. To achieve mastery, individuals are constantly exploring their world until it is

mentally categorized and understood. These activities, which include exploration, interpreting,

mapping, and organizing, belong to the human behavioral category of adaptation (Ashford,

1986) and are referred to by several scholars as resilience (Duchek, 2020; Park & Park, 2021;

Kuntz, 2017).

Resilience is defined by Duchek et al. (2020, p. 388) as “the ability to anticipate potential

threats, to cope effectively with unexpected events, and to learn from these events”. Hence,

resilience displays a process in which individuals react to unexpected events based on their

knowledge and previous experiences. Accordingly, the authors divide the process into three

stages; (1) the anticipation stage, (2) the coping stage, and (3) the adaptation stage (Ibid., p.

390). The same elements are described by Park and Park (2021) as (1) readiness and

preparedness, (2) response and adaptation, and (3) recovery or adjustment. Therefore,

resilience does not only reflect a person’s ability to recover from unexpected events but also

involves the capacity to employ and proactively develop their own abilities to cope with these

(Kuntz, 2017). Resilience ultimately becomes a determinant for how individuals will perceive

happiness, commitment, and satisfaction (Park & Park, 2021), and allows for effectively coping

with unexpected change (Duchek et al., 2020). Further, it is shown that resilience has a positive

impact on psychological health while negatively related to anxiety, posttraumatic stress

disorder, and depression PSD (Park & Park, 2021). This implies that people belonging to the

group “neutral to change” and especially “masters of change” (Iuliana, 2020) hold resilient

qualities and will therefore have easier to adapt to unexpected events.

30

4.4.1 Adaptability and adaptive performance

So far we have investigated how employees react to change and their psychological change

process. We have also noted the diversity of employee reactions to change. Regardless of how

carefully an organization implements strategies to better cope with the change, it all comes

down to the individual’s resilient adaptabilities (Marks, 2006; Iuliana, 2020; Park & Park,

2021). Hence, there is a growing consensus among scholars that the key factor whether

employees will adapt to [any] type of change involves their individual’s adaptability (Marks,

2006; Bartunek, et al., 2006; Park & Park, 2019; 2021).

Ahearne and colleagues conducted a study on employees’ long-term adaptability to change.

Their study showed that strategic change (ie. planned change) not surprisingly had an initial

detrimental effect on employee performance. As we will discuss more thorough in 4.6, change

is closely related to uncertainty and uncertainty is related to restrainment. However, what was

a more remarkable finding was that some employees recovered relatively quickly while others

did not. Contradictory to what the researcher initially had assumed, employees who had the

most prominent drop in performance were those who quickly recovered from a change event

and ultimately showed a higher performance output than before the change. In contrast, the

employees who did not show any significant drop in their performance output never recovered

to their former performance level (Ahearne et al., 2010). An explanation for this is found in the

employee’s individual goal orientation. Goal orientation refers to “the clusters of actions

undertaken in the pursuit of achievement goals in specific situations.” DeShon & Gillespie,

2005, p. 1120). The literature (eg. DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Coget, 2010) suggests that people

are goal-oriented towards either learning or performing. To clarify, some people are motivated

by being recognized by their performance while others are motivated to improve and develop

themselves. The study conducted by Ahearne and colleagues showed that employees with a

learning orientation focused on embracing and understanding the new surrounding and were,

therefore, closer to acceptance and coping with the new situation. These employees could

consequently perform better in this new environment and they recovered both quicker and

performed better. On the other hand, employees who were performance-oriented focused on

holding onto their performance level while neglecting the new conditions caused by the change.

Not only did they fail to adapt but ignoring to embrace and understand the new conditions made

them less productive (Ahearne et al., 2010). Another study showed that there were no positive

effects of acceptance and adaptability to change (Wulandari et al., 2020). This implies that

employees who are accepting the new situation but lack previous experiences of changing

31

conditions are not necessarily the ones who are best in coping with change. Instead, people

with previous experiences of change are better prepared and resilient to change. We can

therefore conclude that the ones who are able to make sense of their new environment by

previous experiences (ie. frames of references) or hold high learning abilities are those who

have the highest capability of coping with change. Based on these discussions, we propose:

Proposition 11: Knowledge or previous experience of change events

facilitates employees adapting activities in the event of unexpected change.

Park and Park (2021) recognized the broad set of studies of employees’ adaptability, however,

the phenomena has been labeled differently:

Researchers have used various terms to describe employees’ abilities and behaviors, as they face

unexpected changes. These terms and concepts include proactivity, resilience, role flexibility,

workforce agility, and learning agility (p. E2).

Instead of the spread set of terms and concepts that basically describe the same characteristics,

the authors use an umbrella term that recognizes all these concepts. Park and Park, (2019)

define adaptive performance as:

Flexible work behaviors that help employees adapt to change by demonstrating excellence in problem-

solving, uncertainty/stress/crisis control, new learning, and adaptability related to people, culture, and

their environment (p. 298).

Therefore, individuals with a high level of adaptive performance are more likely to challenge

the status quo, indicating less restraining behavior (Costanza et al., 2016). In other words, how

effective employees adapt to change is highly determined by their own flexible work behaviors

which are all performance directed (Park & Park, 2019; 2021).

Proposition 12: Employees’ flexible work behaviors facilitate employees

adapting activities in the event of unexpected change.

4.4.2 Self-regulation activities

In an attempt to explain how flexible behavior is shaped within the individual when change is

critical and uncertain, we invite the notion of self-regulation. Self-regulation theories have been

widely used when seeking an understanding of for example students’ motivation to study

(Zimmerman, 2008). This encourages us to apply this framework in the context of employee

motivation as motivational cues arguably do not differ between motivation to study and

motivation to work. Most motivational theories explain motivation as a result of an intrinsic or

32

extrinsic stimuli (eg. Maslow, 1943; Deckers, 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2000). We argue that self-

regulation theories add a parameter of being able to regulate oneself to establish motivation in

a non-motivative setting: “Self-regulation is the dynamic process by which people manage

competing demands on their time and resources as they strive to achieve desired outcomes,

while simultaneously preventing or avoiding undesired outcomes” (Neal et al., 2017, p. 3).

Individuals that are currently demotivated may instead be motivated to adapt to external

conditions. The Self-regulation Theory focuses on “the ways individuals direct the course of

their development as they select and pursue goals and modify goal pursuit based on personal

and environmental opportunities and constraints” (Newman & Newman, 2020, p.213). Hence,

the self-regulation theory proposes that internal motivation to reach one’s desired outcome

facilitates self-regulation and should therefore not be confused with motivation as defined in

3.1.

Self-regulation theory defines the human ability to change and adapt habitual and unreflective

responses. It describes how humans choose to act more in line with their long-term goals and

values, rather than falling for the impulsive and ill-considered (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003).

This fills a gap in Iuliana’s (2020) different levels of reaction which supposes that employees

instinctively act on their reactions. In theory, self-regulation means that an individual distorts

the meaning of a response, for example by remaining in discomfort and letting the

uncomfortable feeling “disappear”. Instead of having to either reflexively act on it or vice versa

- replacing an automatic way of behaving towards a more adaptive alternative (Vohs &

Schmeichel, 2003; Vohs & Baumeister, 2016). However, self-regulation is not an inexhaustible

resource, but something that requires a lot of energy to function. After a long period of adjusting

our responses, individuals often end up with a reduced ability to exercise self-regulation, eg.

resisting demotivation (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003). A component of self-regulation theory

includes self-control and habits. By acting habitually “people efficiently capitalize on

environmental regularities, even ones of which they may not be consciously aware” (Vohs &

Baumeister, 2016, p.107). Hence, the change that takes place in the employee’s life from no

longer performing their normal transition from their home to a different work environment can

affect the person’s positive experience of the situation (Vohs & Schmeichel, 2003; Vohs &

Baumeister, 2016).

To summarize, the self-regulation theory indicates that people are able to adapt to critical

events without being primarily motivated by what current literature (eg. Deckers, 2018; Deci

& Ryan, 2000) refers to as internal and external stimuli. The rationale for this behavior rests

33

upon an inner human drive to function. It becomes a sort of meta-motivation - humans may

therefore be motivated by motivating themselves. However, as Vohs and Schmeichel (2003)

noted, long-term exercising of self-control is associated with self-exhaustion. Therefore, we

think it is reasonable to argue that individuals’ acceptance to change is the single most effective

way to adapt to change and ultimately become motivated to work. Hence, we provide following

proposal:

Proposition 13: Motivation through self-regulation has a positive effect on an employee’s adaptation to change during a limited period of time.

4.5 Resistance to change

Openness to change is rare, in the matter of fact, change is often met with resistance. In

organizations, the resistance often resides within the individual but may also occur on a group

level (Tan & Tiong, 2005). Employees’ unacceptance of a new situation is one of the key

reasons behind decreasing productivity after a change has occurred. Therefore, several scholars

stress the importance of leadership when coping with employee resistance to change (Oreg,

2003; Bordia et al., 2004; Sherman & Garland 2007; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Here, we discuss

resistance from the individual perspective. Resistance could be explained by fear of the

unknown and the inherent need for security (Sherman & Garland, 2007; Robbins & Judge,

2017). When something unexpected or uncertain occurs, people tend to fall back into their pre-

programmed patterns, by relying on what they know and are capable to make sense of. The

response of reacting with resistance towards change is explained as the “fear of loss” of security

or “fear of the unknown” (Ujhelyi et al., 2015).

Employees’ resistance to change can be understood as a tridimensional [negative] reaction to

change which includes cognitive, affective (or emotional), and behavioral elements. The

cognitive dimension of resistance is based on the employee’s cognitive beliefs (Sherman &

Garland, 2007; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). For example, employees might think that working from

home is unnecessary as they think it is plenty of space to secure safety distance (required by

the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions) between colleagues at the office. The affective dimension

of resistance includes the negative attitudes towards change. This involves stress and the short-

term inconvenience perceived by the employee (Oreg, 2003). For example, an employee may

think it is cumbersome to work from home or that the possibilities for effective “corridor

decisions” have disappeared. Last, the behavioral dimension describes the employee’s

inclination to stick to their regular routines (ie. “I will perform my duties as I have always done

it”) (Oreg, 2003; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). This habit often reflects adverse action in a changed

34

situation. For example, people who are obliged to work from home might oppose tasks that are

not considered “as usual” (Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Following an unexpected change, affective

resistance tends to fade over time but has a lasting reduced effect on their functioning (ie.

motivation) at work (Oreg, 2003; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Likewise is behavioral resistance to

change a matter of habituation of the employee, and there is no evidence of any lasting negative

effects on their functioning at work. However, cognitive resistance is shown to be the most

hazardous to employee satisfaction and there is no evidence that this type of resistance naturally

fades over time (Imran & Iqbal, 2021). Employees who manifest cognitive resistance are

consequently more susceptible to fall into a demotivational state.

Wulandari and colleagues demonstrated a relation between previous job experiences and how

employees tend to cope with change. Employees with limited or no previous job experience

often behave reactively to change. This reactive behavior causes stress, fatigue, and frustration

when facing change. On the other hand, employees who have a set of previous job experiences

tend to regard change as a natural part of life. Instead of restraining change, they usually

perceive change as an opportunity to evolve by learning, exploring, and develop themselves

(Wulandari et al., 2020). This discussion has revealed three types of resistance, cognitive,

affective, and behavioral. What is common between these is that they all reduce the level of

satisfaction. We previously illuminated the close relationship between motivation and

satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993; Sachau, 2007). Hence, it is logical to assume that restrictive

behavior reduces employee motivation. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 14: The level of denial (or resistance) to change is closely related to employees’ level of motivation.

4.6 The devastating effects of uncertainty

We have so far recognized that humans react differently to change, but a recurring theme in

the literature is employee resistance due to their lack of knowledge or experience. Uncertainty

is defined as “an individual’s inability to predict something accurately”, this could be due to

lack of information or contradictory information (Boardia et al., 2004, p. 508). In an event of

unexpected change, employees have reduced opportunities to prepare, nor knowing what the

future holds. Normally, employees tend to extract cues from their surroundings to make sense

of their surroundings. In unexpected, unplanned or critical change, these options may arguably

be reduced. Lack of experience or external information creates uncertainty and confusion

(Cullen et al., 2014). Hence “change involve the emotions of the employees as they feel

uncertain post-change scenarios” (Imran & Iqbal, 2021, p. 95). Uncertainty or ‘lack of

35

information’ about the present and the future undermines employees’ ability to control, make

sense of, or influence these events. This in turn leads to anxiety, psychological strain, learned

helplessness, and lower performance (Boardia et al., 2004).

4.6.1 Expectancy theory and uncertainty

Applying the expectancy theory, we can uncover that uncertain outcome does not only impact

employees’ psychological well-being. Earlier we proposed, based on the expectancy theory,

that ‘Employees are extrinsically motivated to perform if they believe that their effort will be

sufficiently rewarded’. Here, we add a layer to our understanding of employee motivation. The

expectancy theory suggests (Gagné, 2014) that the motivation we feel is reliant on three

expectancies. First, the expectancies that “a given level of effort will result in a desired level of

performance” (Ibid., p. 201), this is referred to as expectancy. Second, expectancies that

“reaching a given level of performance will result in a given reward” (Ibid., p. 201), this is

referred to as instrumentality. And third, it is the “affective value of the reward obtained” (Ibid.,

p. 201) which is referred to as valence. Motivation ultimately becomes the product of these

three. Vroom (1964) demonstrates the relationship between these expectancies by a simple

equation:

𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑦𝑥𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦𝑥𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ( 1 )

If any of these are low, so is motivation. However, if any of these are zero, there are no

incentives for motivation to arise (Vroom, 1967; Quick, 1988). So, what happens when the

environment changes and the expected becomes harder to predict? From this model, we can

assume that uncertainties derive from novel work situations which may negatively affect

motivation. Employees that are not familiar with for example new work routines might struggle

to determine the desired level of performance.

Working from home during the current pandemic has, as we mentioned earlier, caused a work

enigma for many employees. Questions about how long the pandemic will last? what the new

work routines are? and in some cases even questions about the employment itself - will the

employment endure the company’s financial difficulties? are complex and sometimes

impossible questions to answer. In addition, working conditions have changed (Kniffin et al.,

2021) and the employees’ frames of reference based on pre-pandemic work setups (Coetsee,

1999; Raišienė at al., 2020) become less sufficient. The expected outcomes of their effort put

into the working tasks are thus more uncertain and in turn, might therefore inhibit motivation

36

(Gagné, 2014). Expectancy theory could help us understand why for example Edwin from our

fictional case in chapter 3 lacks the motivation to work and only performs on his bare minimum

to secure his job. First, he might not believe that he will be recognized for his performance

even if he puts in his maximum effort. Second, he might not think that even if he receives a

good performance appraisal, there will be no reward for his extra effort. Third, even if Edwin

is rewarded for his efforts, he might not believe the reward is attractive to him. If we add the

element of uncertainty into the new remote work setting, a fourth reason becomes apparent.

Quick (1988, p. 31) argued that “uncertainty about one’s ability to meet a manager’s

expectations may cause demotivation - that is, a lack of expectancy to succeed”. Edwin might

simply worry about his own ability to adapt to new routines imposed by the environment and

therefore ‘turn off’ his motivation to work. Based on above discussion, we propose:

Proposition 15: The uncertain outcomes of change have a negative impact on motivation.

5 Constructing the model

Throughout our theoretical discussion, 15 propositions were established upon which the

conceptual model will be built. This chapter presents and discusses the conceptual model by

first, arguing for the link between these constructs. Second, arguing for how proposition 1 to

9 from the motivation chapter contributes to the final model. Third, arguing for

how proposition 10 to 15 contributes to the final model. Last, presenting and briefly explains

the final model.

5.1 The links between constructs This model paper sought to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings that

supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. Specifically, this paper has aimed to draw

links between current understandings of human motivation, employees' adaptability to change

in which we use uncertainty and time as two mediating forces to simulate unexpected change.

Earlier we argued that time and change are interconnected. Change cannot take place without

time passing. Nor can time pass without change taking place. This, of course, challenged the

Ford and Ford (1994) model which illustrated change as something between "something" and

"result". From our view, we see time as an important factor in change and use time as a force

that does not necessarily affect but accompanies change, see figure 4. Result is never definite

and should therefore only be recognize as a point of time and change.

37

Figure 4. The Relationship Between Time and Change.

Using time as a mediator in our model we can illustrate how different motivational elements in

our model may change over time. Through our review of the motivation literature, we

discovered that time has in some cases a detrimental effect on motivation. What we did not

encounter was theories suggesting the contrary - that time would have a positive effect on

motivation. For this reason, we suggest a relationship between time and a-motivation.

Furthermore, one of the recurring effects of change in the adaptation literature was the well

mentioned uncertainty that employees may experience during a change. Uncertainty is

something that can occur in all employees regardless of their ability to handle the uncertainty.

By using uncertainty as a mediator in our model, we are able to illustrate the level of uncertainty

thereby demonstrating how this affects certain adaptive elements during change.

Figure 5. The Relationship Between Constructs.

Through our review of the adaptation literature, we discovered that restrainment and

uncertainty are closely related. Humans have an inherent behavior to restrain in uncertain

situations (Oreg, 2003; Imran & Iqbal, 2021). This behavior is noticed both when individuals

are unable to make sense of their surroundings and when the present or the future is uncertain.

However, the adaptation literature has not shown that awareness would drive restrainment, nor

is there any indication to the contrary. What we can state with confidence is that there is a

relationship between uncertainty and restrainment. What is prominent in both the motivation

38

and the adaptation literature is the emphasis on satisfaction. The close relationship between

motivation and satisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1993; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sachau, 2007) and

increased employee's well-being (Steers et al., 2004) is demonstrated as well as the close

relationship between change adaptation and satisfaction (Cullen et al., 2014; Park & Park,

2021). Humans strive for well-being and satisfaction which is manifested in the way they adopt.

Motivation and adaptations hence become interconnected in employees' endeavors towards

satisfaction. Further, satisfaction drives motivation to work. Hence, we argue that the link

between motivation and adaptation is established. We illustrate these links between the

presented constructs in figure 5.

5.2 Modelling motivation In the two previous chapters, we have dealt with motivation and unexpected change separately.

The objective of chapter 3 was to frame motivation with current employee motivation theories.

We learned that motivation can be divided into four distinct components (1) motivation is a

process; (2) motivation is goal-oriented; (3) motivation deals with initiation of activity; and (4)

motivation deals with the continuation of activity (Cook & Artino, 2016). We also noticed the

link between motivation and increased employee well-being (Steers et al., 2004). What is most

prominent in the theory, however, is the individual's constant drive towards self-actualization

by continuously develop and learn. This includes psychological growth, internalization, and

well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). To realize this, people are motivated by activities that they

believe support this self-development. We humans also need to feel a certain kind of autonomy

in what we do. The feeling that we "must" perform an activity has proven to be devastating to

motivation (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). In Chapter 3, we generated 9 propositions based on

the current theory.

In regard to Proposition 1: ‘Humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, however, needs

are not universal.’. We place the satisfaction of needs at the center of our model. We believe

that humans are motivated by the satisfaction of needs, in which humans are actively striving

to fulfill their desired needs. What is important to note is that needs are not universal. What

one defines as a ‘need’ can therefore differ from one individual to another. Needs are however

assumed to vary depending on geographical settings, values, and socioeconomic factors. In this

respect, in order to allow our model to be generalizable, we use the broader understanding of

satisfaction of needs in our model. For example, two employees working at the same company

can both be equally motivated but for different reasons. As proposition 5 also suggests, we can

assume that not all motivational drivers are directly connected to the intrinsic satisfaction of

39

needs: 'Employees are extrinsically motivated to perform if they believe that their effort will be

sufficiently rewarded.'. To put it into context, an employee’s motivational drive may derive

from taking on extra courses online (internal) in order to satisfy their need for competence

(Satisfaction of needs). Another employee may take on a "boring" course in Excel (external)

in order to satisfy his or her need for relatedness (satisfaction of needs).

Using Deci and Ryan’s (2000) understanding of human motivation, we are motivated to act

when we believe that the action serves our psychological growth, internalization, and well-

being. Proposition 2 suggests that ‘Humans are motivated to act when they believe the action

serves their psychological growth, internalization, and well-being.'. Hence, we are inclined to

act in order to reach our inherent drive for autonomy. In this regard, we assume that

motivational drivers are related to the extent people perceive if an activity serves their need for

satisfaction. Humans strive for self-actualization and to develop themselves as much as

possible. External factors would prohibit the possibility for psychological growth or self-

actualization which means that proposition 2 must be placed in the middle of our model,

closely related to human action. To put this into context, employees that are working in an

environment that lacks stimuli for self-development and psychological growth are facing

higher risks of losing their motivation. They are further away from taking action and their

productivity decreases. On the other hand, employees that are in an environment that enhances

their possibility of psychological growth or internalization will consequently be closer to take

action and therefore ultimately generate a higher productivity.

By using Deci and Ryan’s (2000) understanding of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, we

conclude that intrinsic motivation derives from an individual’s own will of performing one

particular task and the satisfaction that comes from successfully fulfilling it. With Proposition 3

we suggested that ‘Intrinsic motivation surpasses extrinsic motivation regarding its effective

influence on human motivation.’. Hence, intrinsic motivation should be the inner layer of

motivation as it is closely related to an individual’s inner beliefs. While it surrounds

psychological growth, internalization, and well-being, this does not imply that extrinsic

motivation lacks influencing power. However, we should recognize that it is less effective than

intrinsic motivation and closer to a-motivation. Motivation to perform a task based on one’s

own interest or enjoyment without being dependent on extrinsic motivators is thus more

sustainable. Hence, our model suggests that an employee who genuinely enjoys performing a

particular task is probably at the center of the model. That employee is closer to motivation and

has a higher probability of maintaining that motivation. The outer layer of the model illustrates

40

motivation that is stimulated when individuals are engaged in an activity for other reasons than

their own interest or enjoyment (Van De Broeck et al., 2016). From our understanding, we

assume that people may not be motivated to perform any task if they believe that their effort is

not sufficiently rewarded. Since the tasks are not intrinsically orientated, the outcome of the

performed task must live up to the person’s expectations in order for that person to act.

Both Vroom (1994) and Deci and Ryan (2000) connect motivation to people’s need for

satisfaction which our proposition 4 embraces: ‘Motivational drivers are related to the extent

people perceive an activity serves their need for satisfaction.'. We argue that this assumption

is strongly related to proposition 2. First, people who are motivated are driven to act. Second,

people act because they see how it serves their satisfaction of needs. Accordingly, we illustrate

this force in the center of intrinsic motivation as a sphere of activity.

Our model stands on the foundation of proposition 6: ‘Hygiene factors are necessary

components for the retainment of motivation.'. We believe that motivation is highly facilitated

by, for example, human relationships, salaries, and supervision. Therefore, we

illustrate proposition 6 at the very bottom of the model by demonstrating that the hygiene

factors have a crucial role, at least in the long-term effects on the environment in which

motivation occurs. In accordance with our suggestion, employees may experience less

satisfaction in their work if one or more hygiene factors would be taken away. Related to this,

during critical times as the Covid-19 pandemic, many employees were forced to change from

their normal working environment to work from home. Our model implies that if employees

perceive a loss of hygiene factors, motivation will ultimately become suppressed.

A less surprising finding yet important to address is shown in proposition 7: ‘Motivators are

related to long-term employee motivation.’. There is no evidence that motivators by themselves

would decrease over time without other factors affecting it. This proposition may be criticized

as there are of course those who may claim that we humans can change interest or focus in life,

hence losing our motivational drive towards a particular stimuli. That is of course true, but we

differ between motivational drivers as one single stimulus and motivators as a unity of what

people perceive as motivating for the moment. We illustrate this assumption as a line stretching

from the very core of the model across the edge into internalized motivation. Contradictory,

as proposition 8 suggests: ‘Extrinsic motivation, by nature, has a detrimental effect on long-

term motivation.’. This implies that despite the long-term attributes of proposition 7, if the

person is extrinsically motivated, the motivators will ultimately have a detrimental effect on

41

motivation over time. This is illustrated with the curvy route that completes the line of

motivators. In other words, employees can be satisfied at their workplace if a combination of

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation exists, but motivation will decline if motivation is solely

dependent on extrinsic motivation. Throughout our analysis, we detected another exception

regarding motivators. We suggest that extrinsic motivation will adopt the long-term features of

intrinsic motivation if that person holds a personal importance or endorsement towards

performing a task. In proposition 9 we proposed that ‘Extrinsic motivation is related to long-

term motivation if the reason “why” to perform a particular activity is internalized by the

employee.’. In this case, external factors become internalized by the individual causing a

synergy between the external forces and the individual’s beliefs and values (Deci et al., 1999;

Deci & Ryan, 2000). Internalization is illustrated as an extension of extrinsic motivation as it

stretches towards the inner circle of intrinsic motivation.

5.3 Modelling adaptation In Chapter 4, we argued that change is related to loss, that is, a change process is the process

in which humans react to what they perceive is sacrificed as a result of the change. During

times of change such as the Covid-19 pandemic, we can assume that people react differently.

Some employees are passing through all stages of their grieving process, some may not even

feel loss, while some might get stuck on a particular stage throughout the process. What is

prominent here is that acceptance to change is the ultimate cure to allow for motivation to

occur. The more an employee accepts the new conditions caused by a change, the higher is the

likelihood for them to feel motivated to work. We show this assumption in proposition 10: ‘The

level of acceptance to change is closely related to employees’ level of motivation.’. We also

assume the opposite which is shown in Proposition 14: 'The level of denial (or resistance) to

change is closely related to employees’ level of motivation.'. If the employee is in denial by not

accepting the new conditions, they ultimately move out from the inner circle of motivation

towards restrainment as illustrated in our model. This implies that change is devastating to

motivation if not accepted.

The literature review revealed that knowledge (or previous experience of change) of situations

related to uncertainty led to increased adaptability. The opposite was also demonstrated by

scholars. Employees who have no previous experience of change or lacked knowledge of

similar situations hold a greater risk of experiencing uncertainty and thus restraining it. The

relationship between these was therefore suggested in Proposition 11: 'Knowledge or previous

experience of change events facilitates employees adapting activities in the event of unexpected

42

change.'. Knowledge is illustrated in the inner circle of the model as it is closely related to

adaptation. The line from the center of the model reaching out into the atmosphere of

restrainment represents the level of experience. In other words, as an employee moves inwards

the continuum, implying more knowledge, they will ultimately increase their adaptation and

motivation.

Flexibility or 'flexible work behaviors' are the umbrella term for describing an employee's

adapting performance. These involve problem-solving and uncertainty-, stress-, and crisis

control. The literature review showed that these all facilitate the employee when coping with

change, regardless of perceived uncertain outcomes and lack of frames of reference (Park &

Park, 2019; Park & Park, 2021). Hence, we suggested in proposition 12: 'Employees’ flexible

work behaviors facilitate employees adapting activities in the event of unexpected change.'.

This implies that employees who possess these skills are not motivationally reduced by

uncertainty. This is illustrated by the dotted line running from the center of the model to the

end of the extrinsic circle. In other words, if the employee holds flexible work behaviors, the

detrimental effects of uncertainty become dormant and the risk of individual restraining

becomes low.

We have understood that acceptance is an important part of the adaptation process in the event

of unexpected change. We have highlighted how individuals adapt differently to change.

However, the extent of their acceptance is related to their level of motivation. In addition to

acceptance, there are signs that humans can self-regulate their motivation, which means that

we adapt as we are inherently motivated to function. However, as self-regulating activities are

exhaustive, exercising these will have a detrimental effect on motivation from a long-term

perspective. We suggest by proposition 13 that: ‘Motivation through self-regulation has a

positive effect on an employee’s adaptation to change during a limited period of time.’. We

illustrate this assumption as a line leading from the very core of motivation towards a-

motivation as time passes. We acknowledge that employees may be motivated in a new setting

caused by critical or unexpected change without accepting the actual change. However, if not

accepted in one’s inner self, that employee will sooner or later become demotivated.

Throughout this study, we have been discussing change with a focus on unexpected change in

particular. By applying the expectancy theory, we could understand how people are motivated

by the known and the expected valance of performing an action. Humans are thus partly driven

by the expectations we have from the results of the actions we perform. The explanation lies

43

within Vroom’s (1964) equation in which motivation is the product of expectancy,

instrumentality, and valence. We see valence which refers to the expected outcome of an action

to be the key in this manner as indicated in proposition 15: ‘The uncertain outcomes of change

have a negative impact on motivation.'. The current pandemic, particularly as an unexpected

event is impeccably fraught with uncertainty. Employees will ultimately move away from the

core of motivation as the outcome uncertainty increases. As illustrated in our model,

uncertainty springs from the outer line of the model and moves outwards into the atmosphere

of a-motivation and restrainment. As previously noted, the Covid-19 pandemic has created

uncertainty for employees in terms of not being able to declare the duration of the pandemic or

what actual effects the pandemic will bring in terms of job security or other economic factors.

As suggested by our model, these are critical elements that impact motivation negatively.

5.4 The model explained Based on the above discussion, we now have fully constructed our conceptual model, see figure

6. The model is presented as a multidimensional structure surrounded by an atmosphere of a-

motivation and restrainment. The closer employees are to the center, the further away are they

from being demotivated or restraining change. In addition, the model demonstrates time and

uncertainty as two mediators of motivation and adaptation. Motivation and adaptation are

presented at the very core of the model. These are intertwined by humans' need for satisfaction.

We are motivated towards these needs and we are satisfied if we understand and adapt to our

surroundings. Hence, the model suggests that motivation and adaptation are simultaneously

present. Also at the very core of the model, it is illustrated how intrinsical incentives that serve

individuals' satisfaction of needs (ie. autonomy, competence, and relatedness) are those drivers

which most effectively motivate employees to act. Satisfaction of needs provides leverage for

employee motivation, while employee motivation provides leverage back to satisfaction of

needs. In other words, these two are mutually supportive – ”the circle of motivation”. The outer

layers of the model represent extrinsic motivation, it illustrates that external incentives to act

may also motivate employees, however, these are less effective and are most likely to decrease

in their effectiveness over time. Nevertheless, there are two exceptions. First, if the employees

believe that their efforts for taking action yields sufficient rewards. Second, if the reason for

taking action becomes internalized by the employee, meaning the reason why performing a

particular task is in line with his or her own beliefs and values. Both of these are accordingly

closer to or connected to the center of the model which suggests long-lasting motivation. The

model relies on the platform of hygienic factors (eg. work conditions, salary, colleagues,

44

internal relations). These factors do not drive motivation by themselves but if these are

insufficient, motivation will sooner or later fade or "collapse".

The model illustrates five additional continuums that are reliant on either time or the level of

uncertainty. First, motivators are illustrated as most effective in the center of the model. In

relation to time, it illustrates that motivators are effective unless these are extrinsically

engaging. In that case, motivators are detrimental over time. Second, Self-regulating activities

(ie. regulate oneself to be motivated) are initially effective, but as time passes, motivation will

decrease due to self-exhaustion. Third, change illustrated on the opposite side of the model are

reaching from the center out to the atmosphere of restrainment. If the change is not accepted

by the individual, it will mostly induce restraining behaviors. Fourth, the individual's flexible

work behaviors (ie. problem solving and uncertainty-, stress-, and crisis control) are

demonstrated inside the inner circle. The dotted line suggests that not all employees own these

skills, however, if an employee holds these abilities, that person is immune to the detrimental

effects of uncertainty. On the other hand, if the employee lacks flexible work behaviors, they

will ultimately reside in the outer solid line of the continuum, implying uncertainty, hence

restrainment. Fifth, knowledge is illustrated as an continuum of experienced or inexperienced

employees. If the employee is experienced change, he or she will ultimately be in the inner part

of the model and therefore better cope with uncertainty. However, if the employee is

inexperienced, he or she will consequently move out from the model into the atmosphere of

restrainment.

The presented model ultimately illustrates how time and uncertainty relate to motivation and

adaptation and illustrates how different skills, techniques, or employee behaviors affect how

well employees cope with change. To ensure long-term motivation and acceptance, employees

must reside within the inner circle. It is to a large extent a leader's role to facilitate this by

providing a good work environment and learning opportunities. Consequently, this model can

serve as a template for which parts that require improvement.

45

Figure 6. Conceptualization of Motivation in Times of Change

46

6 Conclusions

In the following chapter, the conclusions are made on the initial research question and purpose

of this paper. In addition, the contribution of this paper is argued for and what these

contributions means, both practically and theoretically. Last, research limitations are

discussed and suggestions for future research are proposed.

6.1 Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to construct a model of not yet linked theoretical understandings

that supports a simulation of potential future outcomes. But in order to achieve our goal, we

needed to seek answer to following question: What role does time and uncertainty play in

employees’ ability to adapt and stay motivated in the event of unexpected change? By this

paper, we introduced a conceptual model that connects motivation to time and uncertainty. The

model proposes time as a non-self-healing process that instead risks impairing motivation if (a)

self-regulatory activities are supporting the current motivation, and/or (b) the employee denies

the change. In other words, there is no indication that the old saying ‘time heals all wounds’

fits in this context. In addition, the model indicates that the uncertainties derived from

unexpected events drive employee’s individual restraining behaviors. The thorough discussion

in chapter 5, we argue that we successfully answered our research question and fulfilled the

purpose of this study.

Research on motivation is extensive and we acknowledge by this paper we were only able to

scratch the surface of the current understanding of motivation. Yet we managed to cover the

different aspects of employee motivation. We argue that proposition 10-15 presented in our

study contributes to novel understandings of motivation in the event of unexpected change.

The ultimate objective of this study was to construct a conceptual model by drawing links

between current theories and our framed phenomenon. This to be able to demonstrate and

understand how a new phenomenon may affect employees’ motivation when they work from

home for an extended period. The value of being able to anticipate possible fluctuations in

employees’ motivation to work is based on the understanding that motivation boosts

productivity. While business leaders need to know how to foster and maintain motivation

among their employees, it is likewise critical to understand when and why motivation may

fluctuate in order to prevent demotivation. Furthermore, this paper contributes to the existing

literature on employee motivation which previously lacked a framework for how motivation

may be affected through unexpected change and extended work from home. This

47

conceptualization can also be used for future research where it will benefit from empirical data

to further strengthen or develop the model.

6.2 Research Limitations Studies within motivation exist in a wide spectrum, we have during our literature review

acknowledged the extensive amount of research that has been made on the subject. Therefore,

we gathered and critically reviewed relevant and existing topics within the field of motivation

and in individual change. In order to get an even more holistic view of these phenomena, future

research can use lesser recognized theories on motivation and link them into our model. In our

endeavor, we did not collect any empirical data to test our model in a real-world context as our

findings are theoretically limited. However, we assume that new empirical data will be

available in the future on what the current pandemic has inflicted employee motivation which

we welcome in order to test our model. Our model brings in the novelty of illustrating the

relationship between time and employee motivation, time and adaptability to change,

uncertainty and employee motivation and uncertainty and adaptability to change. In this regard,

we encourage future studies to study these relations in isolation. These limitations are

considered and acknowledged due to the limited timeframe that the authors were provided

during the writing of this thesis.

6.3 Theoretical Implications We stated in research limitations that our model is created from theories and is not derived

from collecting empirical data, thus we believe that in order to determine the validity for our

model, it must be empirically tested. Hopefully, when the pandemic is fading worldwide and

employees are returning to their regular offices, both qualitative and quantitative studies could

be employed to verify the conceptual model on how employees adapted to the change and its

impact on their motivation. In this regard, our conceptual model can serve as a starting point

for future research. This thesis is solely relying on current theories in order to construct our

conceptual model. We highlight the possibility to further conduct studies using our model as a

foundation, researchers may add more theories, change theoretical segments, and add empirical

data. Also, we stress the possibility to use it to build a new theory based on our conceptual

model with different aspects of analysis (eg. the driving forces in change) in order to further

develop the model and also get a multilevel perspective to the concept.

48

6.4 Managerial Implications We have previously presented theoretical implications for upcoming research and for future

scholars to continue to use and add novel insight to our model. In this section we address

managerial implications for practitioners to use our conceptual model. Our model is based on

theoretical findings and connections between motivational studies and uncertainty in

unexpected change. Practitioners can work proactively to avoid a fading employee motivation

during unexpected change by strategically analysing the work environment with aid of our

conceptual model. We propose that practitioners need to be aware of the hygiene factors that

might disappear in relation to changing working environments. To fill that void, practitioners

can replace the normal social interactions with more frequent non-work-related digital

meetings with the employees. Also, to take into consideration that employees’ competencies

are fulfilled when working from home as the normal role at work may alter and the sense of

feeling useless or stressed in relation with this change may impact the motivation. Practitioners

need to be able to provide continuous information about the company’s situation, as the model

suggests. The more uncertain an outcome is, the higher the risk of employees falling into a

demotivational state. So, keeping the employees up to date with the changes may help increase

employee motivation. Clear and open communication is therefore suggested in order to

increase the probability of having employees accepting the new situation. Employees that do

not accept the new change and still are in denial are also not motivated. Practitioners will need

to consider that our model is based on general terms of what drives motivation and how people

may adapt to change. Humans are different and what motivates an individual can differ

substantially from another.

I

List of References Abrahamsson, B. and Andersen, J.A., 2005. Organisation: att beskriva och förstå organisationer.

Liber: Malmö.

Abulof, U., 2017. Introduction: Why we need maslow in the twenty-first Century. Society, 54(6), pp.508-509.

Ahearne, M., Lam, S.K., Mathieu, J.E. and Bolander, W., 2010. Why are some salespeople better at adapting to organizational change?. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), pp.65-79.

Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J., 2020. The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6), pp.1290-1304.

Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management journal, 29(3), pp.465-487.

Aropah, V.D.W., Sarma, M. and Sumertajaya, I.M., 2020. Factors Affecting Employee Performance during Work from Home. International research journal of business studies, 13(2), pp.201-214.

Bareil, C., Savoie, A., & Meunier, S. 2007. Patterns of discomfort with organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), pp.13-24

Bartunek J.M., Rousseau D.M., Rudolph J.W., DePalma J.A., 2006. On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42, 182–206.

Bénabou, R. and Tirole, J., 2003. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The review of economic studies, 70(3), pp.489-520.

Bonacini, L., Gallo, G. and Scicchitano, S., 2020. Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19. Journal of Population Economics, 34(1), pp.303-360.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. 2004. Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of business and psychology, 18(4), pp.507-532.

Bridges, W. 1986. Managing organizational transitions. Organizational dynamics, 15(1), pp.24-33

Burnes, B., 2020. The origins of Lewin’s three-step model of change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), pp.32-59.

Chen, I.S., 2020. Turning home boredom during the outbreak of COVID-19 into thriving at home and career self-management: the role of online leisure crafting. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(11), pp.3645-3663.

Coetsee, L., 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), pp.204-222.

II

Coget, J. F. 2010. Performance Orientation or Learning Orientation: Which Helps Salespeople

Better Adapt to Organizational Change?. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), pp.106-108.

Cook, D.A. and Artino Jr, A.R., 2016. Motivation to learn: an overview of contemporary theories. Medical education, 50(10), pp.997-1014.

Corr, C.A., 2020. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross and the “five stages” model in a sampling of recent American textbooks. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 82(2), pp.294-322.

Couch, D.L., O'Sullivan, B. and Malatzky, C., 2021. What COVID‐19 could mean for the future of “work from home”: The provocations of three women in the academy. Gender, Work & Organization, 1(28), pp.266-275.

Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. 2016. The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), pp.361-381

Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. 2014. Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), pp.269-280.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science: New York.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M., 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin, 125(6), p.627.

Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M., 2000. The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), pp.227-268.

Deckers, L., 2018. Motivation: Biological, psychological, and environmental. Routledge Press: New York.

DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. 2005. A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), pp.1096-1127.

Downe-Wamboldt, B., & Tamlyn, D., 1997. An international survey of death education trends in faculties of nursing and medicine. Death Studies, 21(1), pp.177-188.

Duchek, S., Raetze, S., & Scheuch, I. 2020. The role of diversity in organizational resilience: a theoretical framework. Business Research, 13(2), pp.387-423.

Elrod, P.D. and Tippett, D.D., 2002. The “death valley” of change. Journal of organizational change management. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), pp.273-291.

Ewen, R. B., Smith, C., Hulin, C., & Locke, E., 1966. An empirical test of the Herzberg two-actor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(6), 544-550.

III

Friedrich, E. and Wüstenhagen, R., 2017. Leading Organizations Through the Stages of Grief: The Development of Negative Emotions Over Environmental Change. Business & Society, 56(2), pp.186-213.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of management review, 19(4), pp.756-785.

Gagné, M. and Deci, E., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), pp.331-362.

Gagné, M. ed., 2014. The Oxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory. Oxford University Press: New York.

Gilson, L.L. and Goldberg, C.B., 2015. Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper?. Group & Organization Management, 40(2), pp.127-130.

Gupta, N. and Pandla, K., 2020. Leveraging Employee Experience during Crisis Situation for Higher performance-special reference to COVID-19 pandemic. Scholedge International Journal of Management & Development. 7(10), pp.150-160.

Hein, E., 2012. The macroeconomics of finance-dominated capitalism and its crisis. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham.

Hemakumara, M.G.G., 2020. The Impact of Motivation on Job Performance: A Review of Literature. Journal of Human Resources, 8(2), pp.24-29.

Heyns, M.M. and Kerr, M.D., 2018. Generational differences in workplace motivation. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(1), pp.1-10.

Hirschheim, R., 2008. Some guidelines for the critical reviewing of conceptual papers. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(8), 432–441.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B., 1993. The motivation to work. Transaction Publishers: New York. 40

Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T., 2018. Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), pp.155-172.

Huelin, R., Iheanacho, I., Payne, K. and Sandman, K., 2015. What’s in a name? Systematic and non-systematic literature reviews, and why the distinction matters. The evidence, 1(1), pp.34-37.

Hyde, K.F., 2000. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative market research, 3(2), pp.82-90.

Imran, M. K., & Iqbal, S. M. J. 2021. How change leadership affects change adaptability? Investigating the moderated mediation effect of cognitive resistance and change efficacy. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 15(1), pp.94-117.

IV

Iuliana, S. T. 2020. The Employees´Reaction to Change - Key Factor in Implementing Organisational Change. Annals of Constantin Brancusi´University of Targu-Jiu. Economy Series, (3) pp.36-41.

Jaccard, J. and Jacoby, J. 2010. Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists, Methodology in the social sciences, Guilford Press: New York.

Jaakkola, E., 2020. Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, pp.1-9.

Kniffin, et al., 2021. COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), pp.63-77.

Kooij, D.T., 2020. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on older workers: The role of self-regulation and organizations. Work, Aging and Retirement, 6(4), pp.233-237.

Kostman, J., 1987. Aristotle's definition of change: History of Philosophy Quarterly. 4(1), pp.3-16.

Kumar, P., Kumar, N., Aggarwal, P. and Yeap, J.A., 2021. Working in lockdown: the relationship between COVID-19 induced work stressors, job performance, distress, and life satisfaction. Current Psychology, pp.1-16.

Kuntz, J. R., Malinen, S., & Näswall, K. 2017. Employee resilience: Directions for resilience development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(3), pp.223–242.

Kübler-Ross, E. 1968, On Death and Dying. Touchstone: New York.

Lambert, R.L., 1980. Herzbergs Theory of Hygienes and Motivators. American pharmacy, 20(2), pp.43-44.

Levinson, H., 1976. Psychological man.

Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human relations, 1(2), pp.143-153.

Lopez-Leon, S., Forero, D.A. and Ruiz-Díaz, P., 2020. Recommendations for working from home during the pandemic (and Beyond). Work, (Preprint), pp.371-375.

Lukka, K. and Vinnari, E., 2014. Domain theory and method theory in management accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(8), 1308–1338.

Mahesh, V. and Kumar, S., 2020. Work from home experiences during COVID -19 pandemic among IT employees. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 26(2), pp.639-645.

Marks, M.L., 2006. Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions, and downsizings:: facilitating individual adaptation to major organizational transitions. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), pp.384-399.

Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), pp.370-396.

V

Mathur, A., 2013. Employee motivation, adjustment and values as correlates of organizational change. Review of HRM, 2, p.35.

Mirela, B., 2020. The impact of working from home on productivity: A study on the pandemic period. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 29(2), pp.267-275.

McClelland, D.C., 1965. N achievement and entrepreneurship: A longitudinal study. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 1(4), p.389.

Monica, B. and Ghayathri, N., 2020. Impact of work from home on employee wellbeing during pandemic. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 26(2), pp.442-446.

Neal, A., Ballard, T. and Vancouver, J.B., 2017. Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4, pp.401-423.

Newman, B.M. and Newman, P.R., 2020. Theories of Adolescent Development. Academic Press: Waltham.

Oreg, S., 2003. Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of applied psychology, 88(4), pp.680-693.

Palumbo, R., 2020. Let me go to the office! An investigation into the side effects of working from home on work-life balance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 33(6/7), pp.771-790.

Park, S. and Park, S., 2019. Employee adaptive performance and its antecedents: review and synthesis. Human Resource Development Review, 18(3), pp.294-324.

Park, S. and Park, S., 2021. How can employees adapt to change? Clarifying the adaptive performance concepts. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1), pp.E1-E15.

Paton, R.A. and McCalman, J., 2008. Change management: A guide to effective implementation. Sage: London.

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3. ed., SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks.

Pennington, R., 2013. Make change work: staying nimble, relevant, and engaged in a world of constant change. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken.

Quick, T.L., 1988. Expectancy theory in five simple steps. Training & Development Journal, 42(7), pp.30-33.

Rashford, N.S. and Coghlan, D., 1989. Phases and levels of organisational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 41, pp.17-22.

Raišienė, A.G., Rapuano, V., Varkulevičiūtė, K. and Stachová, K., 2020. Working from Home—Who is Happy? A Survey of Lithuania’s employees during the COVID-19 quarantine period. Sustainability, 12(13), pp.1-21.

VI

Ramlall, S., 2004. A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American academy of business, 5(1/2), pp.52-63.

Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A., 2017. Organizational behavior. 17th ed. Pearson Education: Harlow.

Sachau, D.A., 2007. Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive psychology movement. Human resource development review, 6(4), pp.377-393.

Samuel, M.O. and Chipunza, C., 2009. Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational variables as a panacea. African journal of business management, 3(9), pp.410-415.

Schein, E. H., 1988. Organizational psychology. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

Sherman, W. S., & Garland, G. E. 2007. Where to bury the survivors? Exploring possible ex post effects of resistance to change. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 72(1), pp.52.

Sparr, J. L. 2018. Paradoxes in organizational change: The crucial role of leaders’ sensegiving. Journal of change Management, 18(2), pp.162-180.

Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Shapiro, D.L., 2004. The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management review, 29(3), pp.379-387.

Susilo, D., 2020. Revealing the Effect of Work-From-Home on Job Performance during the Covid-19 Crisis: Empirical Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Issues in

Business and Government, 26(01), pp.23-40.

Tan, V., & Tiong, T. N. 2005. Change management in times of economic uncertainty. Singapore Management Review, 27(1), pp.49-69.

Tay, L. and Diener, E., 2011. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(2), pp.354-365.

Toniolo-Barrios, M. and Pitt, L., 2021. Mindfulness and the challenges of working from home in times of crisis. Business Horizons, 64(2), pp.189-197.

Tovmasyan, G. and Minasyan, D., 2020. The Impact of Motivation on Work Efficiency for Both Employers and Employees also During COVID-19 Pandemic: Case Study from Armenia. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(3), pp.25-25.

Ujhelyi, M., Barizsné, E. H., & Kun, A. I. 2015. Analysing Organizational Changes- The Connection between the Scale of Change and Employees Attitudes. Annals of The University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 24(1), pp.1191-1198.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D.L., Chang, C.H. and Rosen, C.C., 2016. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42(5), pp.1195-1229.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. 2005. Alternative approaches for studying organizational change. Organization studies, 26(9), pp.1377-1404.

VII

Venkatesh, V., 2020. Impacts of COVID-19: A research agenda to support people in their fight. International Journal of Information Management, 55(1), pp.1-6.

Vohs, K. D., & Schmeichel, B. J., 2003. Self-regulation and the extended now: Controlling the self alters the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 217-230.

Vohs, K.D. and Baumeister, R.F. eds., 2016. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications. Guilford Publications: New York.

Vroom, V. H., 1964. Work motivation. Wiley: New York.

Wahba, M.A. and Bridwell, L.G., 1976. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 15(2), pp.212-240.

Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference. Organization studies, 14(1), pp.37-58.

Wortman, C., Loftus, E. and Weaver, C., 1999. Psychology. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill: Boston.

Wulandari, F., & Dwiatmadja, C. 2020. The mediating roles of pro-commitment to learning and adaptability to technological change: professional experience portfolio toward employee performance. Business: Theory and Practice, 21(2), pp.859-868.

Zimmerman, B.J., 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American educational research journal, 45(1), pp.166-183.