Advertisement

Assessing the impact of motivation and ability on team-based productivity using an agent-based model

  • Josef Di Pietrantonio
  • Rachael Miller NeilanEmail author
  • James B. Schreiber
Manuscript
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

It is common for organizations to hire workers based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities. However, despite capable workers being hired, productivity may suffer if employees’ motivational needs are not satisfied. We developed an agent-based model to simulate the completion of tasks by teams of workers in an organization. Each worker is described by an ability value and a 3-parameter motive profile expressing the individual’s needs for affiliation, achievement, and power. During each time step, each worker contributes to an assigned task at a rate determined by the worker’s ability and motive profile, the task’s difficulty and proximity to completion, and the team’s experience. When a task is completed by a team, the workers are re-assigned to a new team and task. At the end of 365 time steps, the model outputs the total number of completed tasks, which is the primary measurement of productivity. Model simulations demonstrate that hiring workers based on their ability and motivational strengths can lead to increased productivity. Additional model simulations illustrate the benefit of identifying failing tasks and re-assigning new teams to these tasks in real-time.

Keywords

Agent-based models Simulation Motivation theory Organizational performance Productivity 

Notes

References

  1. Albanese R, Van Fleet DD (1985) Rational behavior in groups: the free-riding tendency. Acad Manag Rev 10(2):244–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand N, Daft RL (2007) What is the right organization design? Org Dyn 36(4):329–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett N, Naumann SE (2005) Withholding effort at work: understanding and preventing shirking, job neglect, social loafing and free riding. In: Kidwell Jr RE, Martin CL (eds) Managing organizational deviance. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 113–126Google Scholar
  4. Bowen DE, Ledford GE Jr, Nathan BR (1991) Hiring for the organization, not the job. Exec Acad Manag 5(4):35–51Google Scholar
  5. Cerasoli CP, Nicklin JM, Ford MT (2014) Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 140(4):980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chatterjee N, Das N (2015) Key psychological factors as predictors of entrepreneurial success: a conceptual framework. Acad Entrepreneurship J 21(1):102–114Google Scholar
  7. Condly SJ, Clark RE, Stolovitch HD (2003) The effects of incentives on workplace performance: a meta?analytic review of research studies 1. Perform Improvement Q 16(3):46–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goodman SA, Svyantek DJ (1999) Person organization fit and contextual performance: do shared values matter. J Vocat Behav 55:254–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene RJ (2011) Rewarding performance: guiding principles, custom strategies. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Heckhausen J, Heckhausen H (2008) Motivation and action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kathuria R, Joshi MP, Porth SJ (2007) Organizational alignment and performance: past, present and future. Manag Decis 45(3):503–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kreitner R, Kinicki A (1998) Organizational behavior. Mcgraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Kozlowski SW, Bell BS (2003) Work groups and teams in organizations. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology, vol 12. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 333–375Google Scholar
  14. Levine DI (1995) Reinventing the workplace: how business and employees can both win. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. McClelland DC (1961) The achieving society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McClelland DC (1975) Power: the inner experience. Irvington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. McClelland DC, Koester R, Weinberger J (1989) How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychol Rev 96(4):690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merrick K, Shafi K (2011) Achievement, affiliation, and power: motive profiles for artificial agents. Adapt Behav 19(1):40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merrick K (2015) The role of implicit motives in strategic decision-making: computational models of motivated learning and the evolution of motivated agents. Games 6(4):604–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterson TM (2007) Motivation: how to increase project team performance. Project Manag J 34(4):60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinder CC (1998) Work motivation in organizational behavior. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  23. Railsback SF, Grimm V (2012) Agent-based and individual-based modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmitt N, Chan D (1998) Personnel selection: a theoretical approach. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  25. Schreiber JB (2016) Motivation 101. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schultheiss O, Brunstein J (2010) Implicit motives. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shin Y (2004) A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. J Manag 30(5):725–743Google Scholar
  28. Shivani S, Mukherjee SK, Sharan R (2006) Socio-cultural influences on Indian entrepreneurs: the need for appropriate structural interventions. J Asian Econ 17(1):5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stasz C (2001) Assessing skills for work: two perspectives. Oxf Econ Pap 53(3):385–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tremblay MA, Blanchard CM, Taylor S, Pelletier LG, Villeneuve M (2009) Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: its value for organizational psychology research. Can J Behav Sci 41(4):213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tracey JB, Sturman MC, Tews MJ (2007) Ability versus personality: factors that predict employee job performance. Cornell Hotel Restaur Admin Q 48(3):313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wickham H (2011) The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw 40(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilensky U (1999) NetLogo [Computer software]. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.School of NursingDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations