Effective Teamwork and Its Correlates in Organizations - Essay Example

Effective Teamwork and its Correlates in Contemporary Organizations Teamwork and Employee Motivation Neff (2002) undertook a study en d What successful companies know that law firms need to know: the importance of employee motivation and job satisfaction to increased productivity and stronger client relationships. She deployed questionnaires to a small law firm that was composed of 35 lawyers and staff members. The instruments were drafted to validate the relationship between lawyers and their staff. It has been found that there exists from inaccuracies in lawyers’ perceptions in certain areas. Their perceptions have been found to be accurate in the following dimensions: personal compatibility, similarities in work ethic, mutual respect, and staff members desired benefits. The critical inaccuracies lied in the factors of overall motivation and job satisfaction, and positive firm and lawyer acknowledgment of good performance. Apart from self-determination and autonomy, teamwork also exerts a significant influence on work performance and motivation. The affiliation or membership in a firm goes with multiple group memberships, including that of the department, team or section. Identification to a team influences behavior and may be a source of motivation for employees. In fact, researches have demonstrated that the psychological oneness that one feels for a firm compels employees to identify with the firm’s way of seeing things, attaining its goals, and striving for its benefit. Eventually, the employee will exhibit ownership of the company’s goals. Thus, it is critical that the organization be able to effectively foster teamwork among the members of its workforce for sustained productivity (van Knippenberg, 2000). Critique The paper by Neff (2002) has failed to consider the effect of task complexity on perceptions of teamwork. In general, it has only focused on teamwork as a general construct, and has not integrated the more important correlates of this concept. Jassawalla & Sashittal (2003) assert that the building of collaborative teams is not enough, specifically for highly complex projects such as the institutionalization of novel product processes. He conducted a study of new product development (NPD) processes in 10 mid size to large high-technology firms; among these, 8 utilized teams. The results of the study were culled from in-depth interviews with those involved in NPD processes. The authors have put forth contradictory outcomes from two distinct high-innovation organizations that upheld collaborative teamwork. The most apparent findings from Jassawalla & Sashittal (2003) assert that the simple establishment of teams does not guarantee effective teamwork for NPD processes. Moreover, it does not ensure that seamless transition from “linear-sequential to concurrent-organic new product-related workflows.” One implication of the results is the need for different representatives hailing from various departments to be “primed” into working collaboratively. One very clear means of accomplishing this is to clarify erroneous perceptions and miscommunication (Bishop, 1999; Donnellon, 1993). Teams represent a good venue for synergy of expertise from various sections of the organization; however, without enthusiasm, effective interaction, trust, a spirit of integrity, and openness to sharing information, these will prove difficult to realize. Specifically, Jassawalla & Sashittal (2003) uphold that teams can be expected to accomplish effective NPD tasks if they have senior management support. These are the same factors that distinguish high innovation organizations from low innovation firms. These include “constructing a rationale for change based on scrutiny of past failures, recognizing the complexity of change, building commitment to teams and teamwork, and expecting and managing resistance to change.” Managers have a keen awareness that simultaneous task completion, synergized decision making, and potent teamwork can expedite the accomplishment of complex tasks such as NPD processes. Of particular note are cross-functional teams which are widely acknowledged because of the ease with which they are formed and the perception that management has detected and acted on an urgent concern through the establishment of such a team. In reality, the difficulties are not related to teamwork but have to do with their capacity to deploy the complicated modifications that have to be initiated to allow authentic cross-functional collaboration. While teams do pose much promise, these are rarely realized in NPDs, and perhaps in similar complicated tasks. The findings of Jassawalla & Sashittal (2003) illustrate that the establishment of teams without specific focus on organizational changes is futile. Teams may even yield negative outcomes in such a case including strong cynicism and unproductive behavior among members. To evade these repercussions, senior management is accountable for determining and articulating the reason for change, ensuring the equitable allocation of power within the firm and soliciting commitment (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2003). Cultural Nuances of Teamwork Another important facet that has been missed in the current paper of Neff (2002) is the culture component, which critically affects teambuilding concepts. Apart from the difficulty or complexity of the task, the effectiveness of teamwork is also affected by the cultures of those who shall prospectively form the team. Literature on the cultural nuances of teamwork has flourished over the past twenty years. There have been distinct findings in team mechanisms, such as social loafing and conflict, dependent on the culture of the team members (Cox, Label, & McLeod, 1991; Earley, 1994; Oetzel, 1998). Such cultural nuances also exist for team leadership (Ayman & Chemers, 1983; Pillai & Meindl, 1998), goal setting (Earley & Erez, 1987; Erez & Somech, 1996), teams beliefs about performance (Gibson, 1999), and employees receptivity to working in teams (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Kirkman, Gibson, & Shapiro, 2001). In combination, these researches indicate that there are critical distinctions in the teamwork construct influenced by culture. Taking these into consideration, Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn (2001) crafted a theoretical framework to present the various conceptualizations of teamwork across cultures. They have gathered distinct metaphors for teamwork, namely military, sports, community, family, and associates from the language team members have utilized in one-on-one interviews in 4 geographic locations and 6 multinational firms. The outcomes suggest that the utilization of teamwork metaphors in itself is different across nations and even firms. This has been found after controlling for the variables of gender, team function, and total words in an interview. Their analysis of the particular association between cultural values and metaphor categories and between organizational culture dimensions and metaphor use showed that there are trends of expectations and understanding regarding team roles, scope, membership, and objectives that arise in different cultural contexts (Gibson & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). Differentiators of Effective Teams Recardo & Jolly (1997) assert that previously, the formation of teams has been driven by the intent to increase productivity, improve quality and to boost productivity. They intended to clarify the differentiators of teams which have succeeded in these goals from those which did not. They also intend to spell out the prerequisite conditions that must be present before forming teams. These encompass the level to which teams uphold organizational strategy, the commitment of senior management, the synthesis of other critical business and people systems and apt training and resources. While majority of firms today run the show through an autocratic management style, some of their experiences do show that this is an obstacle to the effectiveness of teams and is not conducive to team development. Recardo & Jolly (1997) propose that if a firm intends to establish teams, particularly self-directed work teams and cross-functional teams, they should first undertake a thorough cultural analysis. If they miss out on this diagnosis, they are likely to fail due to several reasons. The most widely acknowledged is the lack of clarity about the firms strategic direction, and this is closely linked to its culture. A comprehension of this relationship is critical for firms which are under dynamic change. The beliefs, values, and practices called for in a firms strategy as it moves ahead and tries to compete more effectively in the marketplace may not always be compatible with its existing cultural beliefs and practices. Failure to determine and answer or act based on these gaps is one of the most critical challenges confronting management as they move toward a team structure. Successful companies know that motivated, satisfied employees increase customer satisfaction and hopefully, profit margins. Because of the link between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction, companies have implemented an array of strategies to help increase employees internal motivation. One of those is NVIDIA, which manufactures graphics cards for computers and is headquartered in Silicon Valley (Shimpi, 2002). The CEO of this billion-dollar company, Jen-Hsun Huang, works in a cubicle along with many other employees (Shimpi, 2002). He chose this physical layout because he believed it would create an atmosphere that would be conducive to teamwork. As a result of this configuration, employees at NVIDIA see Mr. Huang as a "teammate" and one who is easily accessible. teamwork often has an affect on work performance and motivation. When employees identify themselves as a member of a team, this affects their behavior. The ultimate goal for any organization that makes teamwork a focus is to have employees who will experience the organizations goals and interests as their own (van Knippenberg, 2000). References Ayman, R., & Chemers, M. (1983). Relationship of supervisory behavior ratings to work group effectiveness and subordinate satisfaction among Iranian managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 338-341. Bishop, S. K. (1999). Cross-functional project teams in functionally aligned organizations. Project Management Journal, 30 (3), 6-12. Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. & MoLeod, L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827-847. Donnellon, A. (1993). Cross-functional teams in product development: Accommodating the structure to the process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10 (5), 377-392. Earley, P. C. & Erez, M. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across cultures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 658-665. Earley, P. C. (1994). Self or group? Cultural effects of training on self-efficacy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 89-117. Erez, M. & Somech, S. (1996). Is group productivity loss the rule or the exception? Effects of culture and group-based motivation. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1513-1537. Gibson, C. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: an intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2). Gibson, C. B. (1994). The implications of culture for organization structure: An investigation of three perspectives. In J. L. C. Cheng & Peterson, R. (eds.) Advances in International Comparative Management, 9: 3-38. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Jassawalla, A. & Sashittal, H. (2003). SAM Advanced Management Journal, 68(1), 27-35. Kirkman, B. L. & Shapiro, D.L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 557-569. Kirkman, B. L., Gibson, C. & Shapiro, D. (2001). Exporting teams: Enhancing the implementation and effectiveness of work teams in global affiliates. Organizational Dynamics, 29. Neff, T. (2002). Increased productivity and stronger client relationships. Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Culturally homogeneous and heterogeneous groups: Explaining communication processes through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 135-161. Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. (1998). Context and charisma: A meso level examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism, and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24: 643-671. Recardo, R. & Jolly, J. (1997). Organizational culture and teams. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 62. Shimpi, A. (2002). Inside ATI & NVIDIA: How they make frames fly. Retrieved on June 1, 2006 from http://www.anadtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1711&p=10 van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 3. Appendix What Successful Companies Know That Law Firms Need to Know: The Importance of Employee Motivation and Job Satisfaction to Increased Productivity and Stronger Client Relationships. by Theresa M. Neff INTRODUCTION   I. INTO THE PRESSURE COOKER: THE DEMANDS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AFFECT LAWYERS RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR STAFF MEMBERS II. BUILDING AND SUSTAINING RELATIONSHIPS: MOTIVATED AND SATISFIED EMPLOYEES MEAN HAPPY CLIENTS III. EXAMINING EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND SATISFACTION IN LAW FIRMS: A CASE STUDY A. Survey Design B. Results C. Discussion D. Conclusions IV. A THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF MOTIVATION A. Expectancy Theory B. Herzbergs Theory C. The Impact of Teamwork V. STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS: EXAMPLES OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND SATISFACTION IN CORPORATE AMERICA VI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN LAW FIRMS VII. CONCLUSION   INTRODUCTION Legendary business icon and General Electric CEO Jack Welch was once asked which was more rewarding to people: money or recognition. (1) His answer was simple: "you have to get rewarded in the soul and the wallet." (2) Mr. Welch understood that it is not enough that companies pay their employees well and expect great work in return. Companies must also empower their employees and provide incentives for them to perform at high levels. Motivating employees and understanding the psychology behind employee motivation are essential to any successful organization. The most productive companies in the world, like Jack Welchs General Electric, make employee motivation and job satisfaction a top priority. Why? Because satisfied employees improve the bottom line. They work harder, longer, and more efficiently because they know they are critical to the success of the organization. Law firms should adopt this same philosophy. Running a law firm is a business. Indeed, one author has noted that because of the changing nature of the legal profession, lawyers who refuse to view the practice of law with a business mentality will be left behind. (3) Employees of law firms who are content and motivated are not only more productive, but also improve client perceptions of and strengthen clients relationships with their firms. The idea for this note was based in large part on my business education in addition to my own experiences as a legal secretary at four different law firms. While in college, the underlying concept that my business professors drove home was that customer satisfaction is inherently dependent on employee satisfaction. Employee attitudes can mean the difference between a repeat customer, and one who discourages their friends and family from going back. (4) Yet, while working at the law firms, I was struck by how many secretaries were dissatisfied with their jobs and the lawyers for whom they worked. Most of the complaints centered around feelings that the lawyers they worked for did not value them as employees. They described their superior attorneys as pushy, controlling, easily agitated perfectionists. The most common complaint was that the lawyers expected them to stay late into the evening and come in on weekends. Many secretaries felt that these expectations were in complete disregard for the fact that they had other demands on their lives and were not receiving the same benefits for long hours that the attorneys did receive or could anticipate receiving, such as job security through partnership, high wages, and prestige. The secretaries dissatisfaction affected how they treated and responded to clients needs, and in some circumstances, impaired the attorney-client relationship. (5) My experiences and education led me to question whether my perceptions were accurate and, if so, whether law firms could learn and apply the experiences of the corporate sector to strengthen these relationships. This note examines the importance of employee motivation and job satisfaction to increased productivity and stronger client relationships with law firms. In Part I, I discuss how the pressures of the legal profession can affect lawyers relationships with their staff members. My analysis will center on recent studies on lawyer job satisfaction, the impact of stress on lawyers, and the publics perception of lawyers. In Part II, I discuss the law firm as a "service" organization and the implications of that orientation. In this section, I also emphasize the importance of building and maintaining relationships with clients and how law firm employees may affect that relationship. In Part III, I describe the results of a case study of one law firms employee satisfaction levels, and in Part IV of the note, I focus on the psychological theory of motivation. I identify specific theories of motivation, including the expectancy theory, and both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Part V, I discuss "real world" motivational techniques used in one of Americas most successful corporations: Southwest Airlines. In the concluding section, Part VI, I recommend specific motivational techniques that lawyers can use to boost employee morale. I. INTO THE PRESSURE COOKER: THE DEMANDS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AFFECT LAWYERS RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR STAFF MEMBERS As lawyers experience increased workplace stress, their relationships with support staff can become more strained. Numerous studies have indicated that job satisfaction among lawyers has decreased in recent years. (6) Specifically, a 1990 survey by the American Bar Association found a 27 percent increase in job dissatisfaction among lawyers since 1984. (7) Internalizing the never-ending pressure of the legal profession is common for lawyers, and "ones capacities for simple decency and caring may be further eroded by regular dealings with other attorneys affected by the same stressors." (8) In addition, lawyers are taught to maintain professionalism and objectivity, and often the pressures of meeting the billable hour quota impact their "human values" and relationships with others. (9) Therefore, it is no surprise that the "pressure cooker" atmosphere of most law firms impact lawyers relationships with their staff members. Lawrence S. Kreiger, in his article on revitalizing the legal profession, states that certain factors create "occupational hazards" with which lawyers must contend. (10) Some of these include: (1) the focus on analytical skills and the suppression of personal feelings; (2) compartmentalizing feelings and values in order to be an objective advocate for clients; and (3) the negative public perception of lawyers. (11) All of these factors can and do affect lawyers relationships with others and certainly have an effect on employee satisfaction levels. The stress that lawyers endure begins in law school. A 1986 University of Arizona Study found that the mental health of some lawyers is compromised once they are immersed in the legal culture. (12) The study concluded that by the end of the spring semester of the first year of law school, students had higher than average depression, anxiety, paranoia and hostility rates. (13) Other studies have concluded that lawyers and law students are more likely to suffer from emotional problems such as depression, anxiety, addictions, and as a whole tend to be unhappy people. (14) Yet another study found that 20 to 35 percent of lawyers are "clinically distressed" or in need of professional help. (15) The stress and demands of the legal profession are not the only source of problems for lawyers. The publics poor perception of lawyers is an additional "weight" on their shoulders and impacts their relationships. According to some polls, the public opinion of lawyers has worsened in the last decade. (16) The respondents in a 1993 American Bar Association poll reported that lawyers are less caring and compassionate today than in the past, and only two-thirds were happy with the representation they had received. (17) Lawrence R. Kreiger stated that people should "not underestimate the impact on lawyers and law students of the intensely negative public perception of the profession," and that internalizing the negative perception will affect ones self-esteem. (18) When lawyers are unhappy, whether because of work pressures, public opinion, or both, their unhappiness often permeates the workplace. The greater their dissatisfaction the more likely they are to become anxious, hostile and depressed. (19) There are a number of explanations for the high levels of dissatisfaction among lawyers. A 1990 study by the American Bar Association concluded that "it is the work environment, the particular mix of positive and negative work environment factors, that accounts for most of the variation in satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels." (20) Specific aspects of the profession seem to compound stress levels. These include work overload, competition, and time pressures. In addition, the adversarial nature of the profession, and conflict levels in certain areas of practice, which are unique to the legal profession, add to lawyers stress and unhappiness. (21) Lawyers dissatisfaction can have a negative effect on their employees, which will ultimately affect their clients. Evidence from the health care field reveals that there is a direct correlation between employee satisfaction, client satisfaction and physician satisfaction. (22) The authors of one study discovered that physicians who create a positive work environment for their employees may be able to increase their own job satisfaction. (23) In contrast, lawyers who are dissatisfied may create a negative work environment for employees, which, in turn, effects client perceptions and relationships with firms. II. BUILDING AND SUSTAINING RELATIONSHIPS: MOTIVATED AND SATISFIED EMPLOYEES MEAN HAPPY CLIENTS One feature of law firms is that they are "service" oriented, as opposed to being "goods" oriented. Unlike goods organizations, which sell tangible products, service organizations have unique features that influence customer relationships. (24) In order to build and sustain customer relationships, service providers must consider three factors: (1) the intangible nature of services makes a consumers choice of competitive offerings more difficult than with goods providers; (2) very often, the service provider and the service are inseparable so long-term customer relationships are essential to the organizations success; and (3) the human nature of services makes them more variable than with goods. (25) In applying these factors to law firms, it is clear that most clients have difficulty assessing the quality of legal services they receive from one firm to another, unless they are very experienced. Also, lawyers are inseparable from their services so if clients are unhappy with their attorneys, they will most likely seek new firms. Lastly, legal services are extremely variable because of the human element involved with the performance of these services. Therefore, the level of service provided can fluctuate. Because they are providing services, law firms must assess and perform the services that their clients value most. One study of consumer behavior identified the following factors as critical to customer satisfaction in service organizations. (26) If one looks closely at these factors, it is clear that support staff are instrumental at every stage. "Front line" employees are the most critical because they are often the first contact clients have with law firms. When clients walk in the door they are greeted by a receptionist. Also, when clients call their lawyers at firms, secretaries are often the first to speak with them and direct messages and other correspondence to the lawyers. If these "front line" employees are satisfied, it is more likely that they will be pleasant, accurate, responsive and understanding toward clients. In contrast, just as unhappy lawyers make for unpleasant workplaces, dissatisfied employees will cause dissatisfaction among clients. Data from one study indicated that customers decide whether to recommend a companys services to others as a direct result of their experiences with contact representatives. (28) Customers are more likely to report high levels of satisfaction with contact employees based on personalized attention, receipt of materials in a timely fashion, and courteous and knowledgeable advice. (29) Customers with high levels of satisfaction will have an impact on a companys bottom line. (30) III. EXAMING EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND SATIFACTION IN LAW FIRMS: A CASE STUDY (31) In order to better understand the nature of the relationship between lawyers and their staff members, I conducted a case study of one law firm. (32) The goal of the research was to determine the quality of the relationship between lawyers and their staff members as well as to ascertain what features of the workplace would most likely have a positive effect on employees motivation and loyalty. I hypothesized that the lawyers would not have strong relationships with their staff members. My other expectation was that the lawyers and staff members surveyed would have different ideas as to what workplace benefits and conditions would maximize employee satisfaction and motivation. A. Survey Design The law firm that I studied was a small firm, with thirty-five lawyers and staff members total. Fifteen lawyers and eleven paralegals and secretaries responded to the questionnaire. I sent separate questionnaires to each group (lawyers and paralegals/secretaries). (33) I specifically targeted paralegals and secretaries because of their close working relationships with the lawyers, as opposed to other law firm employees. After I received all of the questionnaires I held an informational interview with the managing partner of the firm. (34) My first step in the data gathering process was sending the questionnaires to the managing partner of the firm. The managing partner distributed them to all lawyers, paralegals and secretaries. The questionnaires could be completed in five minutes. I asked the participants to complete the questionnaire and return it to my faculty advisor in a pre-addressed stamped envelope. All responses were anonymous and confidential. The lawyer questionnaire contained fifteen questions. (35) The majority of the questions asked the lawyers to answer from the perspective of the staff member that performed the most work for them. (36) If more than one staff member performed a substantial amount of work, the lawyers were to choose the staff member whose name fell earliest in the alphabet. (37) Some of the questions focused on rating the quality of the relationship from both the staff members and the lawyers perspective. (38) Other questions focused on the benefits staff members received through the firm and asked the lawyers to choose benefits that they thought their staff member would prefer out of a maximum dollar amount of $800 per month. (39) The staff questionnaire contained thirteen questions. (40) Unlike the lawyer questionnaire, the participants were asked to answer only for themselves. Because many of the staff members worked for more than one lawyer, the staff questionnaire asked the participants to provide information about the one lawyer for whom they worked the most. (41) Some of the questions focused on rating the quality of the relationship the staff members had with the lawyers, while other questions asked staff members to select benefits that they desired most out of the same $800 used in the lawyer questionnaire. (42) The questionnaires were designed in order to ascertain the nature of the relationship between the lawyers and their staff members. For purposes of data analysis, it was important to be able to quantify the relationship between the staff members responses and the lawyers responses. Asking the lawyers to answer questions from their support staff members perspective was essential to this analysis. B. Results The results indicated that the lawyers perceptions of staff member satisfaction levels were accurate in some areas, while lawyers perceptions were not accurate in other areas. The lawyers perceptions were accurate in personal compatibility, similarities in work ethic, mutual respect, and staff members desired benefits. The major discrepancies occurred in the identification of specific factors relating to overall motivation and job satisfaction, and also in the area of positive firm and lawyer acknowledgement of staff members work. C. Discussion Based on the analysis of the data, the lawyers perceptions were accurate in many important areas surveyed. Lawyers were asked how they thought their support staff member would rate the quality of their relationship based on three factors: personal compatibility, similarity in work ethic, and mutual respect. (43) A five-point scale was used to rate the factors, with "1" being extremely poor, and "5" being very good. (44) The staff members were asked to rate the same factors using the same five-point scale. (45) The results are summarized below. As Table B indicates, the lawyers perceptions of how the staff members would rate the factors were consistent with how the staff actually rated the factors. When the lawyers were also asked how they would rate the quality of the relationship with their staff member, (47) 53.3 percent rated their personal compatibility as "very good," 40.0 percent rated their similarity in work ethic as "good," and 53.3 percent rated mutual respect as "very good." (48) The lawyers perceptions were also accurate with respect to the staff members desired benefits. The lawyers were asked to allocate $800 of benefits per month among different categories based on what they thought their staff members would consider most important. (49) The staff members were asked the same question based on what they deemed most desirable. (50) Figure 1 depicts the results. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] As Figure 1 demonstrates, lawyers perceptions of what benefits their staff members desired was consistent with the responses from the staff members. The benefits that staff members desired most were paid parking (100 percent), profit sharing/401(k) (90.9 percent), and paid vacation (72.7 percent). (51) The benefits that the staff members desired least were employer contribution toward childcare (9.1 percent), and paid health club membership (18.2 percent). (52) The managing partner of the firm stated that uniform benefits such as health insurance, 401(k), paid vacation, and sick pay were available to all employees. (53) However, some benefits that the firm offered fluctuated depending on individual preferences. For example, staff members could choose between having their parking paid or receiving a larger bonus at the end of the year. (54) Bonuses were given on an individual basis, and the lawyers determine the amount of the bonus, if any, that their staff member received. (55) In addition, staff members received one week of paid vacation per year for the first two years at the firm, and after two years, they received two weeks paid vacation per year. (56) Despite consistencies in lawyers perceptions and staff members desires in some areas of the analysis, there were areas of concern. The discrepancies occurred in the identification of specific factors relating to overall motivation and job satisfaction, and also in the area of positive firm and lawyer acknowledgement of staff members work. There were additional discrepancies in responses relating to whether firm gatherings included support staff. Lawyers perceptions and staff members desires differed considerably with respect to what factors influenced overall motivation and job satisfaction. Lawyers and staff members were asked to rate eight factors influencing staff motivation using a five-point scale ("1"= not important, "5"= of the utmost importance). (57) Figure 2 depicts the results. [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Figure 2 illustrates that many of the discrepancies between the lawyers perceptions of what staff would deem important, and the actual importance to staff occurred in factors that were "intrinsic" in nature. These include respect/positive recognition from employer, having an enjoyable work environment, and camaraderie with other employees. On a five-point scale, staff members rated salary and retirement benefits an importance level of 4.6. (58) Respect and positive recognition from the employer were almost as important to the staff as salary and retirement benefits. Staff members gave respect and positive recognition an importance level of 4.5, while lawyers felt it was only "moderately important," giving it a 3.9. (59) These results indicate that the lawyers perceived that monetary benefits were relatively more important to staff members in terms of their motivation and satisfaction. In addition, Figure 2 demonstrates that lawyers perceived that an enjoyable work environment and camaraderie with other employees were only "moderately important," giving these factors, respectively, a 3.5 and 3.1 rating out of 5.60 In contrast, staff members rated an enjoyable work environment at 4.3, and camaraderie with other employees at 3.8 points. (61) Other areas where discrepancies existed were in the firm and lawyer acknowledgement of staff members work as well as whether firm gatherings included support staff. Lawyers were asked whether they thought their support staff member felt their work was acknowledged by the lawyers they worked for and by the firm. (62) Comparing Tables C and D, it is apparent that the lawyers perceived that staff members felt more appreciated than staff members actually reported feeling. Staff member beliefs about whether the firm valued their work generated the largest discrepancy; 73.3 percent of the lawyers reported that staff members feel valued, and only 45.5 percent of the staff feeling that the firm valued their work. (63) I also asked the lawyers and staff members whether firm parties and gatherings ever included support staff. (64) While 6.7 percent of the lawyers answered "no," 86.7 percent indicated that the staff members were "sometimes" included. (65) In contrast, 36.4 percent of the staff members surveyed indicated that they were never included, while 63.6 percent indicated that they were included "sometimes." (66) When asked why the discrepancy was so large, the managing partner could not offer an explanation. He stated that support staff members are not always included because of the lawyers "perceptions" that staff members would be uncomfortable. (67) He indicated that it was his belief that the staff members would prefer to be with those they socialize with on a regular basis, which generally does not include the lawyers. (68) In addition, he stated that although he had overheard some staff members complaining that there were no joint activities, when the lawyers had made efforts to include the staff members, they often would not attend the functions. (69) He also emphasized that from a "relationship building perspective," when the lawyers in the office held these rare functions, it was more important that they be able to visit with each other. (70) D. Conclusions Through the analysis of the data, I was able to better understand the nature of the relationship between the lawyers and their staff members at this particular firm. Also, the informational interview with the managing partner helped to clarify some of the results. I had hypothesized that the lawyers and staff members who participated in the survey would have different views of what workplace benefits and conditions would lead to higher levels of employee motivation and satisfaction. In some areas of the survey, my hypothesis was accurate, while in other areas it was not supported by the data. Generally, the lawyers perceptions of what benefits the staff members desired were accurate. Also, the lawyers perceptions regarding the quality of their relationships with their staff members were consistent with staff beliefs regarding the quality of their relationships. However, perceptions differed when it came to overall staff motivation and job satisfaction. Many of the discrepancies existed in the areas of respect, having an enjoyable work environment, and camaraderie with other employees. There was also a large discrepancy in whether firm gatherings included support staff. The majority of the lawyers surveyed seemed to focus on monetary benefits such as salary and medical benefits as most important to staff. The staff members surveyed indicated otherwise. The survey results demonstrated that respect and positive recognition from the lawyers was almost as important to staff members as salary and retirement benefits. IV. A THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF MOTIVATION The theory of motivation has roots in the behavioral science of psychology. In fact, this theory was the foundation of Sigmund Freuds concept of psychoanalysis. (71) Motivation is generally defined as an internal state of arousal that often precedes ones behavior. (72) Therefore, in order to exhibit a particular behavior, or change a behavior, one must induce an internal state of arousal. (73) A. Expectancy Theory The expectancy theory is one of the most accepted explanations of motivation. This theory states that, "motivation depends on how much an individual wants something (the strength of the valence) relative to other things, and the perceived effort-reward probability (expectancy) that they will get it." (74) The exchange is economic in nature and it is assumed that individuals will have expectations regarding the rewards they receive versus the resources and time they must expend in getting them. (75) The expectancy theory explains why some workers only do the minimum to get by, while others push themselves to receive desired rewards. (76) In order to achieve a state of equilibrium, an employees "wants" and "gets" must match up, and the possibility of turnover, performance problems, and poor productivity are greatly decreased. (77) The challenge for employers is to find the set of rewards that will most efficiently motivate workers. B. Herzbergs Theory One pioneer in motivational theory, Fredrick Herzberg, (78) posited that the only way to motivate employees long-term is to give them challenging work where they can assume responsibility. (79) Herzberg reached this conclusion after interviewing employees and asking them two sets of questions: (1) think of a time when you felt especially good about your job; and (2) think of a time when you felt especially bad about your job. In each case why did you feel that way? (80) Based on the answers to these questions, he concluded that there are "two dimensions to job satisfaction: motivation and hygiene." (81) "Hygiene" refers to variables that relate to an employees environment: company policies, supervision, salary and working conditions (see Table E below). (82) Herzberg perceived the hygiene factors not as motivators, but as areas of potential dissatisfaction. (83) Herzberg claimed that if employers satisfactorily address hygiene issues, there is greater employee satisfaction. (84) If, in addition to providing the requisite "hygiene," employers also put in place various tools for motivating their employees, the employees will be even more content and more productive. (85) The results of the interviews established that both motivators and hygiene factors effected job attitudes. (86) Table E, below, outlines these two factors and the percentage of employees who mentioned them in the interviews. Although one often thinks of salary as a motivator, Herzberg did not classify it as such. (88) Rather, he characterized salary as a prodder or pusher (89) that either sanctioned behavior or rewarded behavior, but did not generate any internal motivation among the respondents. (90) As shown by Table E, the factors that motivated employees consisted primarily of internal, non-tangible rewards, as opposed to external rewards, or hygiene factors. Both concepts are important to the discussion of the psychology of motivation and can be explained in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic rewards or intrinsic motivation refers to the degree to which a person wants to work well in his or her job in order to achieve internal satisfaction, while external rewards, or external motivation refers to external, material rewards that pertain to the work environment. (91) As Table E indicates, 42 percent of the employees interviewed by Herzberg cited achievement as a motivator. These results formed the basis of Herzbergs theory stated above: that the only way to truly motivate employees is to give them challenging work. (92) This is the concept of employee empowerment and is used in many organizations as one strategy for long-term success. Herzbergs late 1950s theory has stood the test of time and scientific study. In one study published in 2002 on performance appraisal systems and motivation at East Carolina University, employees who responded to the survey reported that they were not motivated to do any better than "good" to get raises. (93) In addition, the study found that many employees were motivated by factors that did not relate specifically to the performance appraisal system, but were "self motivated or motivated by the enjoyment of their work." (94) Two studies regarding supervisory personnel have produced similar results. In the first, the investigators found that the participants who experienced the highest levels of intrinsic motivation and perceptions of competence and self-determination had autonomy-supportive supervisors, whereas those with controlling supervisors were less motivated. (95) The investigators stated that these results were in accordance with the cognitive evaluation theory, which states that factors such as supervisory style may influence employees feelings of self-determination, competence and intrinsic motivation. (96) The second study, which dealt with motivation of supervisory and non-supervisory municipal employees, concluded that both groups felt the need to contribute to their work environment, feel included in important decisions, and wanted to use their special abilities in performing their jobs. (97) Citing Herzberg, the study also concluded that, "providing opportunities for public personnel to satisfy these needs would be a step toward increased productivity and organizational commitment. The cost for doing so may be minimal and the rewards substantial." (98) As these studies indicate, more than thirty years of research has not diminished the validity of Herzbergs theory. (99) The findings in my study also support Herzbergs theory. As discussed above, the support staff indicated that intrinsic factors such as achievement and recognition were just as important to them in influencing their overall motivation and job satisfaction as salary, or other extrinsic factors. Respect and positive recognition from the employer were given an importance level of 4.5, (100) and salary and retirement benefits an importance level of 4.6. (101) If the law firm in my study focuses on the intrinsic, non-tangible factors that the support staff value, this will most likely lead to higher levels of motivation and job satisfaction among the support staff. C. The Impact of Teamwork In addition to the concepts of self-determination and autonomy, teamwork also affects work performance and motivation. (102) Membership in an organization involves multiple group memberships including membership in ones own department, team, or work unit. (103) Identifying oneself as a member of a team affects behavior and can motivate workers. (104) Studies have shown that the psychological oneness with an organization induces individuals to adopt the organizations perspectives, achieve the organizations goals and work for its interest. (105) Ultimately, an individual will experience the organizations goals and interests as their own. (106) Having an atmosphere that promotes teamwork is one way to have motivated employees who perform at high levels. V. STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS: EXAMPLES OF EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION AND SATISFACTION IN CORPORATE AMERICA Successful companies know that motivated, satisfied employees increase customer satisfaction and hopefully, profit margins. Because of the link between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction, companies have implemented an array of strategies to help increase employees internal motivation. One of those is NVIDIA, which manufactures graphics cards for computers and is headquartered in Silicon Valley. (107) The CEO of this billion-dollar company, Jen-Hsun Huang, works in a cubicle along with many other employees. (108) He chose this physical layout because he believed it would create an atmosphere that would be conducive to teamwork. (109) As a result of this configuration, employees at NVIDIA see Mr. Huang as a "teammate" and one who is easily accessible. (110) As discussed above, teamwork often has an affect on work performance and motivation. (111) The employees at NVIDIA who identify as part of the "team" may be more motivated and work for the organizations best interest. (112) Similarly, Southwest Airlines, the self-named "symbol of freedom" (113) has had tremendous success because of its emphasis on employee satisfaction. Southwest was founded in 1969 by Herb Kelleher with only 195 employees and 3 planes. (114) Today, Southwest has grown to 29,000 employees and 332 jets. (115) In 1998 Southwest reached number one on Fortune magazines "100 Best Companies to Work for." (116) Much like NVIDIA, Southwest emphasizes teamwork (117) because of the "high demands of service work" (118) in the airline industry. Further, Southwest believes that "teamwork helps employees to better support each other to continually provide high quality service in an otherwise stressful job." (119) In addition, Southwest de-emphasizes its hierarchy (as NVIDIA does as well) which helps employees to feel empowered. For example, Southwest allows employees to make their own decisions regarding customer needs. (120) Sunny Stone, Southwest Airlines Manager of Culture Activities stated that many of the positions at Southwest require employees to work in unsupervised areas, which "gives people more of a sense of ownership and pride in what they are doing. They feel that they are entitled to make a decision, even to step outside the boundaries, if necessary, to help someone." (121) Southwest Airlines also prioritizes treating employees with respect. Colleen Barrett, President and Chief Operations Officer has stated, "there have been a lot of Southwest wanna-bes, but they have not succeeded. You have to talk and talk and talk to your people all the time ... we are very proud of our employee relationships. We treat people with respect." (122) Indeed, every Southwest employee with a birthday, anniversary, or other special event in their life receives a card, and if they are sick or have a death in the family, Southwest Airlines offers them sympathy and comfort. (123) Treating people with respect makes employees feel more valued, and that has an effect on their motivation and overall job satisfaction. (124) Southwest also "invests" in its employees. The company refers to its employees as "Warrior Spirits" and spends two billion dollars annually on employee benefits. (125) Although Southwest is 82 percent unionized, (126) the airline takes a proactive approach with negotiations. Of course, this has greatly impacted Southwests success, especially in recent years. Southwest has retained at least 90 percent of its employees who have passed a six-month probation period and also has boasted a 15 percent annual growth rate. (127) Also, Southwest has the lowest number of customer complaints in the industry, with 0.47 complaints per 100,000 customers carried. (128) After September 11, 2001, when the airline industry suffered huge losses, Southwest employees donated 1.3 million dollars to help the company survive. (129) Most of the donations were derived from voluntary wage cuts. (130) In addition to the emphasis on employee empowerment and de-emphasis on hierarchy, (131) Southwest offers its employees "Inventive Incentives." (132) This 50-page book contains different awards that employees can receive, including departmental employee of the month, and the "winning spirit award," presented every other month by CEO Herb Kelleher ("Herb" as he is known to employees). (133) These non-cash, intrinsic rewards compliment the extrinsic rewards employees receive for outstanding performance. Southwest provides free travel for employees and their immediate families, profit sharing, bonuses, retirement savings programs and stock options. (134) Collectively, Southwest employees own eleven percent of the Company. (135) Southwest Airlines is a leader in the airline industry in part because of its emphasis on employee satisfaction and motivation. The executives at Southwest know that satisfied employees translate into better customer service and happier customers. When asked how caring for employees translates to caring for customers, Sunny Stone replied:   I think it translates directly. If our employees feel they are valued in the company, which goes back to having a sense of ownership, they feel that this is their company. If they feel that we sincerely care about them, that we are happy to have them here, this feeling is transmitted to the customer. Customers can tell when employees are happy to be where they are. (136)   Ms. Stone is not the only executive at Southwest with this view. CEO Herb Kelleher has said, "if you treat [employees] right, then they treat your customers right. And if you treat your customers right, then they keep coming back, and shareholders are happy." (137) Because Southwests strategy builds employee capabilities and motivation, a higher level of service quality is achieved, which leads to greater customer satisfaction, retention and ultimately, greater profitability. (138) VI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION IN LAW FIRMS Lawyers today work under tremendous stress, which impacts their staff members and clients, both indirectly and directly. Clients demand high quality services from the lawyers and law firms they hire, and motivated and satisfied staff members are an integral part of providing these services. In order to motivate staff members, law firms need to implement both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational techniques, demonstrated both theoretically by Frederick Herzberg and empirically by my study and others. The question then becomes, how can law firms increase their staff members extrinsic and intrinsic motivation? There are many ways that law firms and lawyers can build strong relationships with their staff members. One way is through a formal incentive program. Law firms should use a formal incentive program, much like it may have a business plan or partnership agreement. There are two important elements that must be taken into consideration when creating an incentive program for employees: (1) as much as possible, tailor the incentives to the individual employees needs; and (2) use both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Law firms do not have to break the bank to have motivated employees. As discussed above, monetary awards are not the best motivators, and according to motivational theorist Frederick Herzberg, money alone is not an effective long-term motivator. (139) For an incentive program to be successful, law firms should incorporate both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational techniques. It is important to strike a balance between both. Stanford associate professor, Chip Heath, has conducted research on extrinsic motivation. (140) The results from his research suggest that often times, an extrinsic incentives bias exists. (141) This term refers to a tendency for people to assume that others are driven more by external rewards. (142) In one study, Heath found that the managers overestimated the importance of pay and other extrinsic incentives to their employees, and underestimated the value that their employees placed on intrinsic rewards. (143) In another study conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, the individuals surveyed were asked to rank the importance of five aspects of their jobs: pay, security, free time, advancement opportunities, and the ability to do "important work [that] gives a feeling of accomplishment." (144) The respondents ranked important work as number one, and pay as the third most important aspect of their jobs. (145) When managers stress extrinsic motivators over intrinsic ones, they may develop incentives that do not reflect their employees needs. (146) Although people appreciate bonuses, these alone will not satisfy employees if managers overlook their employees desire to contribute to their organizations. (147) Frederick Herzberg made this same argument over fifty years ago. (148) Some people have argued that extrinsic, material rewards are the best motivators. Although material rewards work, they teach people to seek another reward. (149) When material rewards run out, people revert to their old modes of behavior. (150) Herzberg sums up his theory of motivation best in his allegory of the battery and the generator:   Through an incentive you can charge a persons battery and get him to move. If you want to move him again you have to recharge his battery and keep recharging it each time you move him. But its only when the person has his or her own generator that you can say the person is motivated. Motivated people need no outside stimulation--they want to move. They seek more hours of work, not fewer. (151)   The results from the case study I conducted indicated that employees valued extrinsic rewards such as salary and retirement benefits to the same degree they valued respect and positive recognition from the lawyers. (152) When I asked the managing partner how the firm acknowledged strong staff members, he stated that the recognition came in the form of external rewards. (153) These included year-end bonuses and increases in salary. (154) The firm did not have a formal program that used intrinsic rewards to help motivate employees. (155) Given that staff members responses indicated that intrinsic rewards were very important for influencing their overall motivation and job satisfaction, the firm would benefit from emphasizing these rewards. (156) There are three fundamental principles that must be implemented to achieve success with an incentive program: (1) rewarding incentives must be concretely linked to firm objectives; (2) employees must understand the objectives and how their individual performance is linked to attaining them; and (3) employees must be able to realize the objectives through performance. (157) Below is a discussion of examples that could be used to motivate employees. However, to be most effective, law firms should make an effort to discover what its individual employees desire. For example, in the case study I conducted, I found that the benefits staff members desired most were paid parking, profit sharing and paid vacation. (158) The staff members, on average, were not interested in employer contribution toward childcare or having a paid health club membership. (159) The first step in implementing an incentive program is to communicate with employees in order to ascertain accurate information about what benefits would increase their motivation and satisfaction. (160) Studies have shown that disconnected employees often do not work to their fullest potential. (161) Although lawyers are taught to stay emotionally disconnected from lawsuits and clients, (162) lawyers must connect with their employees to understand what workplace benefits their staff members value most. Lawyers should ask employees what workplace changes would increase their motivation. (163) This information can be learned through a questionnaire, focus group, or individual meetings with employees. Each law firm should strive to understand its employees, and the most effective methods that will motivate them individually. (164) For example, in the case study I conducted, (see Part III) I found that in some instances, the lawyers did not communicate adequately with their staff members. One question that I asked both lawyers and their staff members was whether firm gatherings included support staff. (165) Through analysis of the data, I discovered that a large discrepancy existed in the responses. In fact, 36.4 percent of the staff members surveyed indicated that they were never included, while only 6.7 percent of the lawyers surveyed indicated this. (166) The majority of the lawyers surveyed (86.7 percent) indicated that the support staff members were "sometimes" included in firm gatherings. (167) The managing partner attempted to explain this discrepancy by stating that some invitations to gatherings were extended to support staff members, but many chose not to attend. (168) He also stated that the decision not to include support staff members in some gatherings was based on the "perception" of whether or not they would like to be included. (169) Although he had heard that staff members wanted to be included, (170) he did not indicate whether lawyers ever asked their staff members specifically what their desire was. An obvious communication disconnect exists when decisions are made based on ones perception of what staff members would prefer. In addition to keeping the lines of communication open so that lawyers can ascertain what benefits their staff members desire, lawyers and firms should thank their employees each day. Harvard professor, author, and management consultant Rosabeth Moss Kanter has concluded that, "high-performing companies have abundant [employee] recognition." (171) By thanking and acknowledging employees for outstanding contributions in front of others on a regular basis, experts say that managers (and lawyers) can foster a strong sense of loyalty and increase interest in work activities. (172) Leaving a sticky note on an employees desk to compliment them can energize and motivate them. (173) Non-cash awards and incentives serve as valuable tools to boost morale, (174) increase productivity and improve client service. (175) A "Thanks Program" (176) entails providing employees with a number of small non-cash awards such as gift certificates, movie tickets, and written thank-you notes. (177) However, to be effective, the awards should be customized for each employee. Law firms should use a web-based award system, where an employee can go to an interoffice web site and pick something from a category of merchandise at a level that the attorney chooses (movie tickets would be level one, restaurant gift certificates would be level two, et cetera). (178) This method is quick and easy and it would help to give the employee solid, lasting enforcement. (179) Law firms can also offer no-cost perks, such as casual-dress days. (180) Implementing these benefits can help empower employees and improve performance. This costs law firms nothing, and is an expression of appreciation, which will help to increase staff motivation. For example, the law firm I studied established year-round casual-dress Fridays. (181) In addition, during the summer months, the office closed early on payday Fridays. (182) Another way to empower employees is to give them different job titles. For instance, at Starbucks Coffee Company, all retail workers are called "partners." (183) Obviously, calling secretaries "partners" would be very misleading in a law firm, but a job title such as "administrative assistant" would be more empowering and increase their motivation dramatically because they would feel valuable to both the lawyer they worked for and the firm. Law firms should not underestimate the importance to staff members of having their work valued. In the case study I conducted, one of the biggest discrepancies was between lawyers perceptions and staff members beliefs about whether the firm valued their work. On average, only 45.5 percent of the employees felt that the firm valued their work, while 73.3 percent of the lawyers surveyed perceived that their staff member felt valued by the firm. (184) Law firms should also make an effort to focus on teamwork, and de-emphasize hierarchies. As discussed in Part III, teamwork influences work performance and motivation. (185) When employees identify themselves as a member of a team, this affects their behavior. (186) The ultimate goal for any organization that makes teamwork a focus is to have employees who will experience the organizations goals and interests as their own. (187) Southwest Airlines has made teamwork an integral part of its strategy for employee motivation and satisfaction because of the high service demands it faces. (188) The legal profession is also service oriented, and clients command high levels of service from their lawyers and firms. Law firms that emphasize teamwork will encourage employees to perform at high levels. For example, if a law firm is structured internally so that staff members work with lawyers in a collaborative-effort to provide the services for clients, (both legal and customer-oriented) staff members are more likely to experience the case-by-case successes as their own, which will increase their motivation and job satisfaction. De-emphasizing law firm hierarchies can also be used to create an atmosphere where employees will be motivated and feel empowered. Southwest Airlines excels in this area as well. Southwest allows employees to make their own decisions regarding customer needs and includes employees in the decision-making process. (189) NVIDIA also de-emphasizes its hierarchy, and its CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang, works in a cubicle along with many other employees. (190) I am not suggesting that lawyers should work in cubicles. However, it is important that lawyers are accessible to their staff members, and that law firms organizational cultures emphasize this. Instead of focusing on staff members "working for" lawyers, the emphasis should be on staff members "working with" lawyers, to provide the best services for clients. Although incentive programs can be very useful and valuable, firms that use these must have clear goals and the rewards must be based on performance. Law firms should establish the criteria necessary to determine who receives rewards. (191) The goals should be attainable, but not so easy that they lose their meaning. (192) Ultimately, the program must be based on performance, or it will be meaningless and breed hostility between workers. (193) Harvard professor and author Rosabeth Moss Kanter emphasizes that, "its important that the incentives that do exist support the goals employees are expected to achieve--not that managers should walk around with rolls of dollar bills to hand out every time someone does the right thing." (194) When awards become a personality contest rather than a way to recognize top performers, this can be devastating to a united workforce. (195) When companies pay awards that have not been earned, employees may feel a sense of entitlement, which erodes the effectiveness of the Read More