Employees motivated by bad news as well, research finds

Bad news is better than no news at all when it comes to motivating staff, according to new research. The study found that withholding important information from staff could mean the difference between a motivated workforce and an unmotivated one – irrespective of whether it was good or bad news for workers.

Leif Brandes, of Warwick Business School, discovered that many managers underestimate the motivational power of bad news.

“If you look at the many online reports on employee complaints about a lack of transparency in their organisations, it is clear that many managers decide to partly withhold information from their employees, opting to keep them in the dark,” says Dr Brandes. “However, our research shows that doing this is more detrimental to their staff’s effort and motivation than previously assumed.”

In the paper The Value and Motivating Mechanism of Transparency in Organizations, published in the European Economic Review, Dr Brandes and Donja Darai, of the University of Zurich, designed a new version of the so-called ‘dictator’ game to study the effect of information sharing on motivation.

It involved two people with the aim being for participant B to motivate participant A to transfer as much money as possible to participant B. A was paid Ksh600 or Ksh1200 (£5 or £10), but didn’t know which, and then had to decide whether to transfer the money or not. B, who knew how much A had been given, could spend Ksh120 (£1) to send a message to A as to whether they had Ksh600 or Ksh1200 (£5 or £10). So effectively they could spend Ksh120 (£1) to give their partner the bad news they had received Ksh600 (£5).

Also See: 10 things I wish I knew before my 20’s

“We had participants play the same game up to 10 times, each time with a new partner. We designed the communication from B to mirror managers’ opportunity cost of communication in the real world,” added Dr Brandes.

Across these 10 rounds of play, Brandes and Darai found that when A didn’t know if they had Ksh600 or Ksh1200 (£5 or £10), the amount they transferred was 48% lower than when they had been given the bad news that they had been given Ksh600 not Ksh1200 (£5 and not £10).

At first glance, this is a surprising finding: even in the absence of information sharing, participant A can be sure to have at least Ksh600 (£5), so how could the sharing of bad news increase the motivation to transfer more money?

Dr Brandes says, “We think that information sharing helps participant B to shape A’s perspective of their relationship: after all, a person who is willing to spend money on information sharing is likely to be a nicer person than a person who does not spend the money. And ample research in economics and psychology shows that people are willing to share more with those who they perceive to be nice.”

Support for this was found in a different version of the game where A knew if they had £5 or £10, irrespective of B sending a message. But transferred amounts were still 40% lower when B had not sent a personal message stating again how much money A had received – even though A already knew.

The study shows that even if the news has already spread around the company employees would still be motivated just by being contacted and told personally.

“Our data provides clear evidence that people are not only motivated by money. Instead, informing them about relevant developments in the work environment – even if it has already started to spread within the organisation – can also boost work performance.

“Managers often have access to relevant information before employees, and can decide whether to share or withhold this information. Unfortunately many managers go for the latter, which demotivates their staff,” says Dr Brandes.

Also Read: Highest paid radio and tv presenters

In the study 50% in the role of participant B decided to disclose their information too restrictively. The consequence was that these participants earned about 30% than what they would have earned by being fully transparent in the experiment. One might expect that our ‘managers’ would have improved at establishing transparency by round 10, but they did not. In fact, they got worse.

The researchers attribute this lack of learning to another parallel between the real-world and their experiment: a manager who does not share information cannot observe how hard employees would have worked after information sharing. This makes it extremely hard to gauge the cost of not being transparent.

“These managers incorrectly believed that information disclosure was ineffective as a motivational tool and stopped sharing their information. Real-world managers should take note: it is not uncommon for uninformed employees to eventually even leave the firm, so sometimes bad news is better than no news at all.”

 

Picture of BUSINESS TODAY
BUSINESS TODAY
editor [at] businesstoday.co.ke

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Social Health Authority (SHA) acting CEO Elijah Wachira has been sent on compulsory leave for 90 days. According to the suspension letter

The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) has announced 5,690 job vacancies for senior teachers, open and available for immediate hiring, with applications closing

Baloobhai Patel, a reclusive billionaire who made his fortune trading equities, has taken a Ksh216.5 million stake in Co-operative Bank of Kenya

With mobile phone penetration increasing at an unprecedented rate and internet connectivity expanding to even the most remote areas, Africa has become