Motivating Virtual and In-Person Workers: Management Research

What Is Management Research

One common problem in organizations today is how to maximize motivation in workers, whether in in-person workplaces or in virtual workplaces. However, with the COVID lockdowns of 2020, more workers engaged in virtual workplaces than in in-person settings, which has presented the challenge of motivation more fully to managers. Understanding how to maximize motivation among workers across different settings is therefore a highly suitable research topic and would potentially provide solutions to the organizational problem of maximizing employee performance. This paper describes how such research might be carried out in a manner that is both ethical and effective. It first conceptualizes "management research," then discusses the subject area of research and critically considers leading areas of knowledge within that area. It also discusses the organizational problem suitable for DBA research and explains why it is suitable, examines how to conceptualize a research question to address the problem, explains the different stages that need to be considered in the research process, and concludes with a consideration of ethical issues and a statement on how to design the research ethically.

Management research can be defined as any research that focuses on "the nature and consequences of managerial actions, often taking a critical edge, and covers any kind of organization, both public and private" (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Jackson, 2012, p. 2). Management research therefore necessarily focuses on the decision-making of managers and the interaction between managers and employees. A wide variety of topics can fall under the umbrella of management research for that reason. Any issue that concerns management actions will be of interest — from questions about how to manage an organizational culture, to how to exercise leadership most effectively, to how to hire the right talent for the job. Managers cover many different aspects of work; however, management research is generally people-focused. Business research looks more at how to run a business successfully and is concerned with policies and processes. Management research is invariably concerned with understanding people, their experiences in different settings, and how best to oversee and manage their efforts so that they contribute effectively to the vision of the organization (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012).

For this paper, management research will refer to the topic of motivation and how managers can focus on enhancing the motivation of their employees, whether those employees are in a virtual or in-person workplace. Because of the fallout from the 2020 COVID lockdowns, it is important to understand this need from a managerial perspective (Newman & Ford, 2020). In order to maximize managerial results, decisions should be based on best-evidence practices. That is the point of conducting management research.

Management research can be conducted in a number of ways, using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Qualitative research relies mostly on in-depth interviews with participants, focus groups, or direct observation. Because a researcher is limited in his ability to engage with individual participants one-on-one or to be in one setting at a time to observe, qualitative research tends to use a small sample. Small samples do not always offer the best generalizability, as what might be true for one small sample in one particular setting might not be true for another group in another setting (Leung, 2015). However, if the study is well constructed, the results may have sufficient validity, reliability, and generalizability that the findings are helpful regardless of sample size and setting (Hubbard, Vetter & Little, 1998).

Quantitative research tends to allow for a larger sample size because data is typically self-reported by way of survey. The researcher sends a survey to a large sample of participants, then collects and analyzes the returned surveys. Data is typically analyzed using a statistical method, whereas in qualitative research data is typically analyzed using a descriptive method. Another key difference between the two approaches is that qualitative research tends to be exploratory and aims at arriving at a deeper understanding of a situation and developing a thesis or explanation for why or how something occurs; quantitative research tends to start with a hypothesis and then sets about testing it by focusing on specific variables — usually an independent and a dependent variable — to assess whether any relationship exists between the two. In qualitative research, the interpretation of the data is left to the researcher and is considered somewhat more subjective; in quantitative research, the data speaks for itself because it is statistical and thus more objective in nature (Ercikan & Roth, 2006).

Mixed-methods approaches can include both qualitative and quantitative methods, or multiple methods of data analysis that are either qualitative or quantitative. The point is that more than one data collection method is used: a researcher might choose to collect information from interviews, focus groups, and direct observation — that would be an example of a mixed-methods approach. Or the researcher might obtain data using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. In either case, mixed-methods research is often considered more robust because it provides a triangulation of data that helps to ensure greater validity. The downside is that it is very intensive and often requires substantially more assistance in both data collection and analysis (Strijker, Bosworth & Bouter, 2020).

Leadership and Motivation

With the possibility of a generational shift toward management of virtual workforces, knowledge about how to motivate workers in virtual and in-person spheres is essential. Leadership is the subject area most commonly linked with motivation because it is up to the leader to find ways to motivate workers, whether relying upon extrinsic or intrinsic motivation (Gerhart & Fang, 2015). On the topic of motivation within the subject of leadership, there are many theories that can be useful in understanding how leaders and managers can best motivate workers.

Maslow's (1948) theory of needs and human motivation suggested that in order for individuals to achieve self-actualization — full self-motivation — they needed to have lower- and higher-level needs met first. Lower-level needs include the need for shelter, security, stability, and friendship; higher-level needs include the need for esteem and love. Once a person begins to feel confident in his ability to perform and has a sense of social and emotional well-being, he can attain self-actualization, wherein he is no longer dependent upon extrinsic motivators but is instead compelled by an inner drive to achieve great things.

The study by Gerhart and Fang (2015) built upon this idea of motivation by examining the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivators among employees in an organization. Some managers, the researchers explained, tend to rely upon extrinsic motivators because these are the easiest to offer workers in order to obtain greater performance from them. Extrinsic motivators can include anything from pay to bonuses to vacations to promotions. However, the researchers also pointed out that extrinsic motivators are inconsistent and costly, and that developing the intrinsic motivation of workers is much better in the long term because it helps workers reach a stage at which they are driven to succeed simply by the desire to accomplish great things (Gerhart & Fang, 2015).

The integration of leadership with motivation has been examined by Werner (2017) as well, who showed that in organizations where team building is necessary it requires leaders who have the skills needed to bring people together and help them surmount conflicts within the group. In teams, conflict is often seen as a de-motivator because it creates tension, anxiety, animosity, and negativity. Yet Chauvin (2019) argues that conflict is a natural, normal, and healthy state in any team or organization where there are differences of opinion, perspective, approach, and orientation. Rather than trying to shun or avoid conflict, Chauvin (2019) posits that leaders need to learn to embrace it, because in doing so they create an opportunity for workers to self-actualize and become better motivated to address challenges head-on rather than trying to avoid them. No progress is ever made by trying to avoid a challenge or by trying to keep an environment free of conflict. Instead, progress is made and performance enhanced when people are open and honest about their feelings and thoughts, their perception of their role, their own skills and traits, and where they see themselves in the team.

Indeed, Tuckman's model of forming, storming, norming, and performing was developed for that specific purpose: it explains how a team comes together, develops, and then goes on to perform at a high level — after passing through the necessary stages of forming and storming, wherein individual conflicts are permitted to emerge and be addressed (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). However, in order for the model to be effectively applied, researchers have pointed out the need for a leader to possess social and emotional intelligence so that he can help the team to develop empathy for one another without allowing conflict to become overwhelming or negatively impactful (Lee & Wong, 2019). Embracing conflict can be constructive so long as the leader is able to exercise and demonstrate to others what it means to be socially and emotionally sensitive to the needs of others. And as Maslow (1948) pointed out, tending to the needs of others is what helps them to reach the level of self-motivation that all managers could benefit from helping their employees attain.

Another important way that motivation can be properly cultivated is to bring a moral compass to one's leadership, which is why authentic leadership has received particular focus in recent literature (Johnsen, 2018). When leaders show that they are capable of being open, honest, and accountable, it inspires workers to do the same. But when leaders demonstrate deception and a lack of integrity, it leads workers away from the positive attributes and traits that managers associate with high levels of performance (Johnsen, 2018).

Thus, the subject of leadership and how leaders can properly motivate is one that has received a great deal of attention in recent years as researchers build upon the findings of earlier research and increase their understanding of the ways in which managers can have the most positive impact on employees. Given the fact that the workplace environment has changed dramatically since 2020 as a result of COVID lockdowns and the dramatic rise of virtual teams, it is important that research focus on what it means to motivate, lead, and deal with conflict in both virtual and in-person settings as workers navigate this new post-COVID environment, where the workplace is more complex and likely to include hybridization of in-person and virtual teams.

Andriessen (2012) has pointed out that virtual collaboration tools have both positive and negative aspects when it comes to management, because of the possibilities they afford for more flexible working arrangements but also because of the challenges that arise with respect to management, motivation, and cultural unity. Gilson, Maynard, and Young (2015) have pointed out that managing virtual workers is a topic that needs more research because so little is known about it, given the relative newness of virtual workplaces. This is especially true today, given that managers are now trying to manage teams that are simultaneously in-person and virtual.

Motivating workers in two different settings can be a challenge because it involves different perspectives, different tactics, and different methods of evaluation and maintenance. Virtual workers are not available for face-to-face conversations the way in-person workers are, which makes it more difficult for managers to utilize social and emotional intelligence. It is hard to read the emotions or social attitudes of a worker who is only known through direct messages, email, or phone conversations. Part of what enables a manager to use social and emotional intelligence is the ability to read the non-verbal communications of people — their posture, their facial expressions, their body language, their tone, their interactions with others, and how they present themselves day in and day out. None of this is possible — or else it is possible only in a very limited way — when dealing with virtual workers (Pitts, Wright & Harkabus, 2012).

To help overcome this challenge, researchers have argued that managers must rely upon the quality of communication they use with virtual and in-person workers in order to facilitate the relationships and strengthening of bonds that promote motivation and self-actualization (Pitts et al., 2012). They have also pointed out that leaders and managers must have cultural intelligence, given the fact that there is likely to exist a contrast of cultures in a hybrid organization where in-person workers and virtual workers come together as one (Rockstuhl et al., 2011).

Morrison-Smith and Ruiz (2020) conducted a systematic review of literature to identify and assess the main challenges of managing virtual workers in today's world. They found one key issue to be the need to resolve discrepancies regarding the effect of tightly coupled work on collaboration and the effect of temporal dispersion on coordination. In other words, they showed that managers must be mindful of how to facilitate effective collaboration between in-person workers and virtual workers. Crawford et al. (2020) have shown that the best way to facilitate that process is to promote personal authenticity, which helps everyone become more accountable and in control of their own emotions and actions. Managers today may want to better understand how to promote personal authenticity so as to motivate workers in both in-person and virtual settings within the complex working environments of the post-COVID organization.

Organizational Problem

Some of the most common organizational problems that are universal to management are lack of direction, lack of unity among teams, lack of competency development, lack of feedback and communication, and lack of awareness. These are, in reality, all aspects of the same underlying problem: a lack of effective leadership. When a manager understands how to lead and motivate effectively, these common problems tend to resolve themselves, because that manager focuses on promoting clear direction, cohesion and unity, social and emotional and cultural competencies, communication, and awareness. The organizational problem of applying leadership to achieve this kind of cohesion and competence rests squarely in the issue of motivation, as the most motivated workers are those who have reached the level of self-actualization and are dialed in to communicating, providing clarity, demonstrating empathy, and providing support consistently and effectively for all members of the team.

For managers in today's complex workplace, however, it is very much a live problem: how to motivate workers in both in-person and virtual settings so that everyone is on the same page, operating effectively in a unified and supportive manner.

This is an organizational problem suitable for DBA research because it addresses the fundamental issue of what it means to be an effective manager in the 21st century, where collaborative technology has changed the way people think of work, interaction, and team membership. As Gilson et al. (2015) have pointed out, more research is needed in this area because of the newness of the concept of virtual workplaces and because of the challenges associated with bolstering communication between virtual and in-person teams.

Fang, Chen, and Wang (2014) have pointed out how essential feedback is in the management of workers. This means managers have to be able to obtain feedback from personnel that informs them about their own performance and about the perceptions others have of their interactions. Communication is necessary for obtaining feedback, but in virtual teams, communication occurs differently than in in-person teams, where social and emotional intelligence can be used in conjunction with direct observation to better understand what people are saying.

There is also a need to understand whether today's workers prefer virtual workplaces over in-person workplaces and whether a hybrid situation can effectively maximize performance. Do workers want to work from home? Should they have that option going forward if they prefer it? Can it work for the team as a whole? Can managers effectively manage an organization that allows some people to work virtually and others to work in person? This is a topic that needs to be explored in depth because COVID has changed the way organizations think about doing business, how they bring workers together, and what resources they need in terms of providing a physical workplace. There could even be potential for significant cost savings if organizations were to find that workers can be effectively managed virtually.

Whether virtual workplaces or hybrid workplaces are in the best interests of managers, employees, and organizations remains to be determined. The first place to start is to understand what makes employees happy and motivated. A great deal of an employee's motivation depends upon his job satisfaction levels (Octaviannand, Pandjaitan & Kuswanto, 2017). For that reason, it is crucial to answer the question of whether job satisfaction is increased by providing workers with the opportunity to work from home. After that, it is necessary to understand whether managers believe they can manage teams effectively in a remote or hybrid environment.

One way to conduct this research is to use a qualitative approach, because the problem is one that needs to be explored and understood more deeply. The best way to collect data would be to interview participants and obtain a good sense of their experience with in-person versus virtual workplaces, as well as to understand how managers feel about both. A semi-structured interview could be used to obtain data, which could then be analyzed using grounded theory to identify common themes that emerge (Ladin et al., 2018).

Another potential option for a researcher already in the workplace could be to conduct phenomenological research, because of the unique position of a researcher who is already immersed in the world being studied and can provide information from personal experience and observations (Miller, Chan & Farmer, 2018).

A third potential option could be to conduct a case study analysis, examining a manager who has successfully managed a group of workers — some in-person and some virtual — since the COVID lockdowns, to see what approaches he has utilized to achieve success (Jónasdóttir et al., 2018).

The point is that there are numerous options available for exploratory research of this kind, all of which can yield a deeper understanding of how a manager can use leadership and motivation to successfully manage in-person and virtual workers in the new post-COVID hybrid workplace environment.

Conclusion

Management research is any research that examines the nature and consequences of managerial actions, typically with a critical viewpoint. In management there are many issues that one must take into consideration in order to motivate personnel to perform effectively. However, the COVID lockdowns of 2020 altered in numerous ways the reality of managing the workplace. Whereas the virtual workforce was only marginal in most organizations prior to the lockdowns, by 2021 almost every organization that did not require front-line workers had adopted a virtual workforce approach. Today, it appears that virtual workforces may become a permanent reality for some, while others return to their office jobs. The task that now confronts managers is how to manage and motivate a hybrid workplace, where in-person and virtual workers must come together to achieve the objectives of the organization.

To better understand the manager's role and how to motivate a hybrid environment, it is important to understand the needs of those involved, which means conducting exploratory research to obtain deeper insight. The proposal for this research is to examine the experiences of in-person workers, virtual workers, and managers during the COVID lockdowns so as to understand who liked what, how they performed, what could be better, and what managers need to know to motivate their hybrid workplaces going forward.

The different stages of research that must be observed in this process are: first, to identify the problem; second, to review the background literature on the problem; third, to identify an appropriate research question and a design that complements that question; and fourth, to develop an appropriate research methodology that enables the collection of data capable of answering the research question. Ethical principles should be observed throughout so as to protect participants and preserve the integrity of the research. All participants should give their informed consent to be part of the study, and researcher bias, procedural bias, and sampling bias should all be actively avoided.