Decentralized Environment's Impact on Employee Performance

Decentralized Environment’s Impact on Employee Performance: A study on how a decentralized environment in the operating & service department impacts employee performance within an organization.

Almohtasib, Tarik

Bergström, Nathalie

Nguyen, Vincent

School of Business, Society & Engineering Course: Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration Supervisor: David Freund Course code: FOA230 Date: 2020-06-08 15 cr

ABSTRACT

Date: 2020-06-08

Level: Bachelor thesis in Business Administration, 15 cr

Institution: School of Business, Society and Engineering, Mälardalen University

Authors: Tarik Almohtasib Nathalie Bergström Vincent Nguyen

(96/09/18) (97/01/17) (98/04/26)

Title: Decentralized Environment’s Impact on Employee Performance: A study on how a decentralized environment in the operating & service department impacts employee performance within an organization.

Tutor: David Freund

Keywords: Employee Performance, Decentralized Environment, Organizational Culture, Job Satisfaction, Motivation, Decision-Making

Research How does an operating and service department’s decentralized environment Question: impact employee performance?

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate how a decentralized environment affects and influences employee performance within their workplace; with a focus on understanding whether a decentralized environment has a significant impact on the employees’ performance or not.

Method: The exploration of this study includes the collection of primary data. The primary data collected for this study was gathered through qualitative interviews with open-ended questions through a Snowball sampling.

Conclusion: Decentralization among other factors mentioned in this paper leads to motivation and satisfaction which the respondents agreed upon leads to an increase in their performance.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Background ...... 5 1.2 Case Company ...... 7 1.3 Problem Background ...... 8 1.4 Purpose of the Study ...... 10 1.5 Research Question ...... 10 2. Literature Review ...... 11 2.1 Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory ...... 11 2.2 The Porter-Lawler Model ...... 12 2.3 Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation ...... 14 2.4 Employee Performance ...... 16 2.5 Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership ...... 17 2.6 Literature Analysis ...... 20 2.7 Conceptual Framework ...... 22 3. Methodology ...... 24 3.1 Scientific Approach ...... 24 3.2 Data Collection ...... 25 3.2.1 Primary Data ...... 25 3.2.2 Selection of the Respondents ...... 25 3.2.3 Qualitative Interviews ...... 26 3.3 Methodology Criticism ...... 29 3.3.1 Criticism of the Sources & Reliability ...... 30 3.3.2 Limitation ...... 32 3.4 Method of Analysis ...... 32 4. Empirical Findings ...... 35 4.1 Managers responsibility ...... 35 4.2 Findings from Employees ...... 38 4.3 Role of Decentralization ...... 40 5. Analysis ...... 42 5.1 The Decentralized Environment ...... 42 5.2 Motivation ...... 46 3

5.3 Job Satisfaction ...... 50 5.4 Employee Performance ...... 53 5.5 Further Discussion ...... 56 6. Conclusion ...... 58 7. Further Research ...... 60 References ...... 61 Appendix 1 ...... 89 Appendix 2 ...... 92

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The following section will include a brief overview of the importance of conducting this study, the background information, and presentation of themes and theories that will be introduced in this study.

For the past decades, there has been an increasing emphasis on the importance of employees and that they are an asset for the organization both internal and external (Bailey et al., 2016). In the present time, it is known that employees expect to be engaged in the organizational working, that is, their role should contribute and affect the business in a greater sense (Deeb et al., 2019).

Abdalla Hagen, Macil Wilkie and Mahmoud Haj (2005) states that in another article that it is now more often accepted that human resources create an important source of competitive advantage for the organization. They further state that the importance of human resources creates an increased interest in finding and adopting progressive management practices that would improve the organization’s performance (Hagen et al., 2005). Motivation has been mentioned in the decentralized environment, which raises questions (in terms of connections) in the field of employee performance (Fiedler, 1972). Therefore it is necessary to address those questions and develop further knowledge in this field of study. Thus, it can be concluded that a decentralized environment can be one of these management practices Hagen et al., (2005) discuss in their article.

There has been an ongoing engagement in determining the most efficient style of decision making that fits organizations. Each organization has to determine the most fitting style that fits 5

their work environment. (Long & Hinkes, 2015) As this thesis focuses on decentralization there must be a definition to it, according to (Seeds & Khade, 2008, p. 99) decentralized decision making can be defined as, “The degree to which decision-making authority is pushed down to lower levels of the firm”. Decentralized organizations based on teams are highly successful when it comes to having people within the organization who feel accountable and responsible for the operation and success of the enterprise and not merely a few people in senior management positions. This enhanced sense of responsibility excites more initiative and effort on the parts where everyone is involved. (Hagen et al, 2005) Furthermore, it is said that people tend to associate themselves with the choice of the team since they try to accentuate their personal characteristics with potential members. (Reimer et al., 2017) Furthermore, having team members put together in order for them to self-identify can result in a common purpose that eventually enhances team initiative. (Turner et al., 2019) Teamwork is essential for an interdependent team.

Additionally, teams allow removal of hierarchy levels and absorption of administrative tasks previously executed by specialists while evading the huge costs of employing people whose exclusive job is to control and watch over other employees do their work within the firm. (Hagen et al, 2005)

Approaches commonly associated with decentralization are often correlated with performance

(Kuhlmann et al., 2011). A paper by Ebinger & Richter (2015), the authors summarized research done by Kuhlmann et al. (2011). The summary established the three Es categories that are essential for performance effects for a decentralized environment. Economy, Efficiency &

Effectiveness are elements that can be used as a help, for managers as an evaluating tool for performance analysis. According to Albdour and Altarawneh (2014), employee performance is related to the employees' involvement and dedication towards their work and achieving the goals

of the organization. A decentralized environment can give employees more opportunities for decision-making, which means the employees are more involved within the corporation.

Employee performance became a hot topic in the literature and research field due to the competitiveness in achieving greater performance (Ojo, 2009). Employee performance is defined as the output and accomplishments of an employee, which are acknowledged by the organization or system in which he works (Robbins, 2004). According to a previous study by Shah et al.,

(2011) concludes that combining abilities, opportunities and motivation will eventually result in performance. Having motivated employees helps the corporation to survive and thrive. These employees are more motivated to work and the performance of employees will be stronger. To be more effective, managers need to understand their employees and how to motivate them.

(Lindner, James R, 1998).

1.2 Case Company

The case company for this thesis is the organization Siemens in Finspång. Siemens Industrial

Turbomachinery AB is a multinational corporation that has subsidiaries in countries all over the world. Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB is located in about 40 cities around Sweden with over 4,200 employees worldwide. Siemens AB has over 385,000 employees working in over 200 countries. Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB which manufactures and services gas turbines all over the world. Today the organization is a global powerhouse with a focus on electrification, automation and digitalization. They are currently a leading supplier of systems for power generation and transmission along with a medical diagnosis. Furthermore, they are one of the world’s largest producers of energy-efficient and resource-saving technologies. (Siemens, 2020)

Alongside their innovations and world-leading production, Siemens is also a great case company

for study since Siemens is working on improvements in working methods and to have a strong will for the internal collaborations to work. (Siemens, 2020) To build an understanding of how to deliver a good job and to make good decisions, it is important to have a smooth procedure of who is doing what and why they are doing that, also continue working on building stronger relationships. Furthermore, Siemens Industrial Turbomachinery AB in Finspång is working with a decentralized environment where the employees have more room for decision-making and having more control instead of a centralized environment where managers are in control

(Siemens, 2020).

1.3 Problem Background

According to the State of the Global Workforce report, 67% are “not engaged” in the workplace,

18% of the employees are actively disengaged and 15% consider themselves highly engaged in their current workplace (Harter, 2017). Employee performance and engagement has become an essential organizational requirement for multinational corporations to gain a competitive advantage (Anitha, 2014). There are ways to measure performance using financial measures that have been criticized because they encourage short-term views, which causes frustration from the management also resistance, lacked strategic focus and the ability to provide data about quality, and failed to provide information about customer requirements and the quality of competitors’ performance (Shahin et al., 2014).

This thesis will explore how a decentralized environment affects employee motivation and performance because we as the authors of this study can see the problems of having a too controlled and strict environment can have a negative impact on employee motivation and performance as they cannot decide much for themselves and not develop within an organization.

As authors of this paper, we hope that this study will generate a great deal of descriptive information regarding the decentralized environment, motivation and performance, which act as a supplement to the knowledge gained from the theoretical sources.

Multinational corporations today grow more and more every year, which can lead to control problems because of the decision-making processes that have to be done. Business relationships are important as they form a basis for the firm’s competence development (Forsgren, 2017). For managers to achieve their goals, leaders need to have authority, power and influence over their followers (Jooste, 2004). It is, therefore, more important for managers to listen to their employees that may have more knowledge about a decision that a manager cannot decide because employee involvement increases organizational effectiveness because of better decision making, better problem solving, less absenteeism, and lower turnover (Lawler, 1988).

From a previous study by Rangus and Slavec (2017), the study partly states that decentralization and employee involvement positively influence a corporation's performance. The study partly states that decentralization and employee involvement positively influence corporations performance (Rangus and Slavec, 2017). According to Griffin (2003), organizational performance refers to the ability of organizations to meet the needs of stakeholders and their own needs of surviving (Griffin, 2003). According to the study by Rangus and Slavec (2017), there is a direct positive relationship between decentralization and employee involvement and motivation.

Motivation has been mentioned in the decentralized environment, which raises questions (in terms of connections) in the field of employee performance (Fiedler, 1972). Therefore it is

necessary to address those questions and develop further knowledge in this field of study. Thus, it can be concluded that a decentralized environment can be one of these management practices

Hagen et al., (2005) discuss in their article.

1.4 Purpose of the Study

This section will highlight the purpose of conducting such a study and its contributing factors to the academic world, researchers, and empirical findings.

The purpose of this study is to research how decentralization is an important driver to employee performance by evaluating employees' involvement and motivation within the corporation through a qualitative approach; with a focus on understanding how a decentralized environment has an impact on the employees’ performance within an operating & service department.

This study will focus on understanding how a decentralized environment within a corporation has an impact on employee performance; not only to understand the impact but to explore the key factors of employee performance. This study is focusing on decentralization because the authors cannot find much correlation between decentralization and employee performance in current researches. The aim of this study is to understand how a decentralized environment has an impact on employee performance.

1.5 Research Question

How does an operating and service department’s decentralized environment impact employee performance?

2. Literature Review

This chapter describes the concepts of employee performance, motivation and decentralization by explaining how they have been defined in the past and through a presentation of the existing related theories. When reading this paper, there should be a feeling of unbiased arguments about the subject, to give the reader the possibility to draw their own assumptions regarding the paper which enhances the dependability of the study (Bryman & Bell, 2011), p.213).

2.1 Victor Vroom's Expectancy Theory

Employees will be motivated when they believe that effort will lead to performance. According to Deci (1992), “People are said to engage in behaviors because they expect those behaviors to lead to their goals”. This theory, referred to as valence-instrumentality expectancy or expectancy theory Vroom (1995), could be used to promote engagement and recognition that is conscious and planned for the employees. “Whenever an individual chooses between alternatives that involve uncertain outcomes, it seems clear that his behavior is affected not only by his preferences among these outcomes but also by the degree to which he believes that these outcomes to be probable” (Vroom, 1995, p. 20).

Vroom’s Expectancy Theory tries to explain the motivating behavior as goal-oriented. He argues that people tend to act in a hedonistic way (Vroom, 1964) preferring the actions that will bring the highest subjective utility. The study will partly discuss how the expectancy theory argues the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depending on the expectations that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual

(Robbins, 1993). The theory states that choices people make among different alternative courses of action are related to psychological processes, particularly perception and the formation of

beliefs and attitudes (Pinder, 1984). The theory was expressed as motivation is determined by three factors: expectancy, instrumentality and valence. M= E×I×V

The theory indicates only the conceptual determinants of motivation and how they are related and does not provide specific suggestions on what motivates organizational members (Luthans,

1989). The study will investigate if a decentralized workplace setting of employees motivation increases the likelihood that they would engage in a certain course of action will increase as well

(Robbins, 1993). It is, therefore, important for corporations to establish a linkage between an increase in effort and higher performance. ‘Expectancy theory holds that people are motivated to behave in ways that produce desired combinations of expected outcomes’ (Kreitner and Kinicki,

1998, p. 227).

According to Smith and Rupp (2003), “expectancy theory provides a general framework for assessing, interpreting, and evaluating employee behavior” (p.109). Pinder (1984) states that if a person judges that he can achieve an outcome, then he will be more motivated to try; the higher the expectancy, then the more likely a person will exert energy to accomplish the outcome and perform stronger, which most likely favors the corporation. For example, a person that does not know how to draw will have a very low expectancy of being able to make a good drawing. In contrast a person who has drawing skills might have a high expectancy of success after being given legitimate feedback that he or she has great potential (Pinder, 1984).

2.2 The Porter-Lawler Model

The Porter-Lawler Model from 1968 argues similar points as Vroom’s theory, (1964) but Porter-

Lawler (1968) goes beyond the limited concept of motivational force to performance as a whole.

The model is associated with two authors L.W Porter and E.E Lawler. In the model, the

motivation process is explained with nine variables. The fundamental aspect of the Porter and

Lawler model is about the relation between performance and satisfaction. This study will see how Porter and Lawler’s model have refined, revised, and expanded on Vroom’s expectancy theory, from a mathematical explanation to a more diagrammatic explanation (J, Newstrom and

K, Davis 1995). According to Porter and Lawler, the model is more dynamic over time than

Vroom’s theory because firstly, to the extent that performance does result in reward, the perceived effort-reward probability is increased. Secondly, when satisfaction is accomplished after receiving a reward, it tends to influence the future value of that reward. The nature of this effect varies with the particular reward (Miner, J B. 2005). The Porter-Lawler model illustrates the different aspects of work motivation and the relationship between performance and satisfaction. The model states that actual performance in a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. In the Porter-Lawler model, performance is the responsible factor that leads to intrinsic as well as extrinsic rewards. The satisfaction of the employee depends upon the fairness of the reward. Employees may not work fully if they do not have value for rewards following efforts (Miner, J B. 2005).

Porter and Lawler classified the rewards intrinsic and extrinsic forms. Here intrinsic rewards are the feel-good factors, reputation and the status given by the employer for the achievement.

Extrinsic rewards are increment in the salary, perks and the promotion in recognition of the deeds (Mohanty, S 2018). According to Mohanty (2018), the Porter and Lawler model overemphasizes the impact of motivation as the main driver of productivity and that the model is more for managers to use. The author’s study will see how motivation is a strong factor in keeping the workforce active and enthusiastic but corporations have to look for talented innovators outside (Drucker, 2004). In conclusion, Mohanty (2018) argues that overall, the

success of corporations do not come only from the rewards they give, rather complete and effective management provides much better results (Mohanty, S 2018).

2.3 Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of Motivation

The two-factor theory, also known as a motivator-hygiene theory authored by Fredrick Hertzberg

& Snyderman in 1959, suggests that there are two sets of factors that distinguish the cause of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al., 1959). Hence, the factors can be broken down into intrinsic “motivators” that work as personal growth and satisfaction motivation that comes from the work placement. Meanwhile, “hygiene factors” or extrinsic factors function as work conditions, relationships with associates, salary, or other types of benefits beyond the employee's reach. Hygiene factors work as a necessity in order to prevent dissatisfaction and do not contribute to any increased grade of motivation. Even though it could seem like the factors are the opposites, they are partitioned due to their diverse set of needs. Satisfaction depends on motivators meanwhile, dissatisfaction is the prime result of hygiene factors. Herzberg argued that motivators are intrinsic to the job while hygiene factors are extrinsic. Therefore, an extrinsic dissatisfaction can cause dissatisfaction to the job if the requirements are not met, even when intrinsic factors are fulfilled satisfactorily (Herzberg et al., 1959, as cited in Alshmemri et al.,

2017). Figure 1 illustrates the above-mentioned statement where the job satisfaction is influenced by the motivational factors which this paper will be more focused on rather than the job dissatisfaction.

FIGURE 1: Herzberg’s two-factor theory

According to Herzberg (1966), an appropriate type of management and use of motivator and hygiene factors improves efficiency & job satisfaction. Herzberg suggested that motivation and hygiene are two separate factors because of their “initial causes” therefore, it is not possible to make them opposites rather count them as influencers since the “initial causes” need to be examined. Above all, it needs to be realized that opposites of both job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are no job satisfaction/no job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966).

Although, Herzberg’s theory got its praised attention, it has also faced a negative backlash by

Schneider & Locke (1971). Herzberg’s theory fails to mention the importance of recognizing considerable individual differences that are confused because of the classification system, for events that state “what happened” & for agents “who made it happen”. This questions the individual differences since individuals tend to have distinctive demands that could influence motivator and hygiene factors therefore the two-factor theory lacks the support in individual differences. On the other hand, other recent studies done by Bassett-Jones and Lloyd (2005) &

Furnham et al. (2009) it was confirmed that the theory is still valid and that it still holds a strong

position as a leading theory in determining the impact on employee motivation despite being half-century old.

2.4 Employee Performance

Shermerhorn (2000) states in Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree’s (2012) article that environment and individual factors such as marital problems and education affect employee job performance.

Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree (2012) believe that there are other factors relating to the employees’ performance, such as motivation and productivity, which they state can be improved by creating a work environment that maximizes these factors.

Extra benefit programs, training programs, weekly group talks, informal meetings, hygiene conditions, orientation, and game competition are typically programs that are on a trial period for about one year and if they show positive results, they will become a part of the company policy.

These programs cause changes in the employees’ attitudes towards their work in a more positive way. They also help develop a sense of responsibility for the work the employee is assigned, the employee shows more attention to quality control and is able to work independently to solve problems that occur instead of causing problems for their supervisors. (Phiphadkusolkul and

Archaree, 2012)

In order for employees to perform better, organizations have to provide them with benefits. If the employees feel that the organization is concerned about them and make them feel valuable they will do their best to reach the company’s goal. Furthermore, the employer or managers have to recognize opportunities to motivate their employees. If the leaders are doing a good job they will be able to create a motivational climate that will impact the employees’ willingness to do a better job and do their best to reach the organization’s goal. (Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree, 2012) In

other words, in order for the employee performance to increase, the first thing the leaders have to do is to motivate and satisfy the employees.

Motivation has been described as a psychological process that gives individuals behavior purpose and direction, which managers have to understand in order to motivate the employees to perform in a way the company wants. (Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree, 2012) Alpander (1982) states in Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree (2012) article that:

“Motivation is effort and desire that influence how vigorously an individual will use one’s ability on the

job’’ (Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree, 2012)

If the employee's motivation is lacking or low, they will probably not be satisfied with their work. Hence they will not have a high employee job performance. (Phiphadkusolkul and

Archaree, 2012)

Sutermeister and Robert (1971) say that several authors state that satisfaction contributes to improved performance and productivity but also that other authors implies that outstanding performance leads to better satisfaction of needs. The chances of motivating good employee performance are higher if the employees' egoistic needs are well satisfied regularly or if the employee feels that their work leads to such satisfaction within the future (Sutermeister and

Robert, 1971). Good employee performance is necessary for the organization since an organization’s success depends on its employees’ creativity, innovation and commitment

(Ramlall, 2008)

2.5 Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership

Fred E. Fiedler states that the leadership contingency model postulates that the effectiveness of a group or a firm is contingent on two interacting variables: 17

“(1) the motivation system of the leader, and (2) the favorableness of the situation; that is, the degree to

which the situation itself gives the leader power and influence.” (Fiedler, 1972)

The leadership contingency model theory has consistency with anecdotal evidence that leaders perform well under different conditions. In order to determine which condition is best suited for leaders, it is necessary to classify different types of leaders and situations first (Fiedler, 1972).

Iqbal, Anwar and Halder (2015) write in another article that the Fiedler leadership contingency model theory is presenting that Fiedler proposes that effective employee performance depends on the correct match between a leader's skills to lead and the behavior and the competence of the employee. This theory is based on the fact that leaders should adopt the style which is best suited to the situation and instantly excite the employee's performance. They continue by stating that an effective leader is responsible for providing guidance and sharing knowledge to the employees to guide them towards better performance and make them experts in their areas to maintain the quality. (Iqbal et al, 2015)

There are different ways multinational firms can coordinate and control their corporations, and headquarters has always been interested in finding ways to control and monitor subsidiaries in an effective and efficient manner (Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S., 1989). In this study, the authors will see and understand how through a decentralized and relaxed atmosphere gives employees more freedom and flexibility to participate in decision-making and implementation processes

(Dodgson et al., 2006). More freedom and flexibility can result in more creative ideas and innovations via employee involvement, where employees can share knowledge and ideas through

R&D processes (van de Vrande et al., 2009).

By having a decentralized environment within your corporation, top, middle and lower managers can make quicker decisions that lead to more committed and empowered performance.

According to Knies (2012), Thomas & Duckerley (1999), middle and lower managers who are more committed, empowered, and flexible have more likely higher levels of intrinsic motivation.

This will benefit organizational performance (Knies, 2012; Thomas & Dunkerley, 1999). The study will investigate if having a more decentralized environment, the CEO has to be willing to transfer some of their managerial decision-making to middle and lower management to enlarge organizational autonomy or result control.

From this previous study by Wynen, J, Verhoest, K & Rubecksen, K (2014) results indicate that reducing the power of top-level managers and empowering middle and lower management decreases the likelihood that lower hierarchical levels within the corporation will be given more autonomy because to much control can result in passivity and lack of initiative (Wynen, J,

Verhoest, K & Rubecksen, K, 2014). From another previous study by Chang and Harrington

(2000), their results show that under decentralization, each store can, in the long-run, more effectively tailor its practices to its market and thereby this organizational form eventually outperforms a more centralized organization which the authors has in mind during the study

(Chang, M, Harrington, J, 2000).

2.6 Literature Analysis

This section will highlight the connection between the concepts found in the literature review to emphasize the importance of this study.

This study will research and understand the gap between decentralization and employee performance to see how a decentralized environment has an impact on employee performance.

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (1964) offered an expectancy approach to the understanding of motivation. Thus the Vroom’s theory is built around the concepts of value, expectancy and force. Vroom’s theory argued that employees are consciously and rationally selecting different job-related behaviors that they believe would yield the most desirable reward (Steers et al.,

2004). The Porter and Lawler Model (1968) goes beyond Vroom’s theory, where the model refined, revised, and expanded on Vroom’s expectancy theory with more fundamental variables of motivation. These two concepts still go hand in hand because Porter and Lawler’s model goes more in-depth of Vroom’s theory so they are connected and the main idea behind them is motivation and employee performance.

A previous study by William, A (2010) states that the majority of the respondents would wish to be free to make decisions so they would have more responsibilities instead of instructions from the hierarchy. This study will investigate how a more decentralized environment will let employees make more decisions and how that affects employee performance. Therefore these concepts of performance, motivation and decentralization can answer the study’s research question.

Another previous study by Dalfol & Åström (2013) suggested further motivational research should be conducted within production facilities where the work tasks are commonly static and 20

uninteresting, which means that the managers must uncover alternative solutions to enhancing the workers level of motivation. The study also argues that motivation is a constantly changing phenomenon, which means that managers should consistently evaluate the motivational orientation of the production worker (Dalfol & Åström, 2013).

Evans (1968, 1970) studied the relationship between the behavior of leaders and employees’ expectations that effort leads to rewards, and he also studied the resulting impact on employee performance ratings. Evans found that when employees viewed leaders as being supportive, there was a positive relationship between leader behavior and employee performance ratings.

According to Evans (1970), there is a connection between leadership and employee performance.

Leaders willing to be open and let employees be more part of the corporation by making decisions will have a positive outcome on employee performance and motivation (Evans, 1970).

Leaders have an important role in influencing their employees effectiveness by communicating priorities, supporting and facilitating performance (Yukl, 1994). According to Yukl (1994), it is hard for leaders to do the right thing all the time and think to do the right thing at the right time.

One challenge with leadership and employee performance in determining where and how to best focus leadership efforts (Singh, 2000). Leaders must learn to effectively balance and adapt to the situations to create the most value (Yukl 1994). The results from a previous study by (Douthitt,

2001) suggest that leaders who successfully create a fair environment are likely to have employees with better performance and with lower turnover. The study did find a positive relationship between perceived fairness and performance. The study suggests that leaders need to be concerned with how they behave towards their employees and how employees perceive that behavior (Douthitt, E.A 2001).

The determinants of discontent are linked to the relation between the individual and the ambience or setting in which the person is doing the work (House and Wigdor, 1967). According to Alpander (1982), desire and effort is the motivation that drives an individual’s vigor in order to perform well on the job. This is the way managers tend to recognize motivation in their employees. It is well known that there is a positive correlation between the two factors, i.e., job satisfaction and motivation, since they have a tremendous impact on the performance of an employee and the organization (Singh et al., 2011).

Furthermore, according to Robbins (1997), job satisfaction is described as a pleasurable state of emotion resulting from the evaluation of one's employment, an effective reaction to one's job, and an attitude towards one's job. This will have an impact on employee performance.

2.7 Conceptual Framework

By looking at all the theories provided in the literature review and the theoretical framework, the authors have created a figure that shows the understanding of the authors. It is believed that within a decentralized working environment, the employees get more motivated since they have been trained and gained the freedom to be creative within the work. As Thomas & Dunkerley,

(1999) stated, top, middle and lower managers can make quicker decisions within a decentralized environment, leading to a more committed and empowered performance. They further say that middle and lower managers are more committed, empowered and flexible and have a higher level of intrinsic motivation. These managers then create a motivational environment for their workers.

Which leads to the fact that, if the workers are motivated they become happier with their work.

Thus, their job satisfaction increases. This is seen in almost every theory provided in this paper,

however, Herzberg lifts this up a bit more than the others. While having their job satisfaction raised they will be more motivated they will also feel that the organization cares for them, which leads them to the fact that they want to work harder in order to reach the company’s goal.

This process can be viewed in the figure below.

FIGURE 2: Conceptual Model (made by the authors of this thesis)

3. Methodology

This section will highlight the process of completing this study so as the design of the study and data collection. This section will define the steps of the research and explore the process behind the work from reliability and trustworthiness. Methodological criticism will as well be elaborated under this section. Deciding what type of methodology to be used while investigating the chosen topic will guide the authors in the right direction towards attaining the aim of the research (Bryman & Bell 2015).

3.1 Scientific Approach

To answer the research question of this paper, a qualitative investigation was conducted in order to see how a decentralized environment within a corporation impacts employee performance. A qualitative method rather focuses on words than numbers and collects less but more detailed answers to get a deeper understanding in comparison to the quantitative method as it is easier to grasp experiences and understand more in-depth information in a qualitative method. (Bryman and Bell 2011) A qualitative approach is more suitable for this paper than a quantitative approach since it is based on an inductive approach. Thus, a comparison between theories and interviews will be made in order to find out the best conclusion for the research question

(Bryman and Bell 2011). Furthermore, since this thesis was based on a Snowball sampling method, where we worked very closely to the theoretical sampling, qualitative research is a better fit than quantitative research. (Bryman & Bell, 2011) In addition, the authors of this thesis want to get a deeper understanding of the topic.

Since there is limited research about decentralization and employee performance has been done, an inductive approach seems like the best choice for this study. An inductive approach is mainly used in qualitative methods and emphasizes the consideration between theory and research when the emphasis is placed on the used theories (Bryman & Bell 2011). However, in this study, several theories about performance, motivation and decentralization are used as the building block to help the authors throughout the paper.

3.2 Data Collection

3.2.1 Primary Data

The only data used in this paper is primary data, collected through interviews and peer-reviewed articles. (Bryman and Bell, 2011) The authors of this paper found peer-reviewed articles through the Mälardalen University database. With these articles found, the authors created the interview questions for the semi-structured interviews held, see Appendix 2.

3.2.2 Selection of the Respondents

The company chosen for this study is Siemens AB in Finspång, where the interviews have been conducted continuously with improving employee performance and motivation since this thesis investigates how a decentralized environment impacts employee performance. After talking to the managers of the operating and service department, the manager and the authors agreed to conduct interviews with the managers’ department.

The selection of respondents was conducted through a Snowball sampling which is a form of convenience sampling method where one of the authors of this study had been in contact with the manager for the case company since the author did her work placement there. As Bryman & Bell

(2011) states in their book regarding snowball sampling, the authors of this study engaged in contact with the vice president of the service department which is relevant to our topic. The vice president further contacted four suitable managers and ten employees within his department to be part of our research. The employees were able to state different reasons for their motivations and the ways their managers could help them and the fact that they come from a workplace with a decentralized environment makes them relevant for this study. The selection of respondents is also based only on the department of choice and on whoever has the time to spare us for an interview.

3.2.3 Qualitative Interviews

For this thesis, the most suitable data collection method for this thesis is qualitative interviews, where the authors hold individual interviews via the communication platform Microsoft Teams with the selected participants and focus on the personal and subjective perceptions to collect the information from the interviews. Having qualitative interviews gives the interviewer a deeper and detailed understanding than questionnaires. In addition, having a more personalized approach, as according to Esposito, Bratanic and Keller (2007), is crucial for mutual understanding. This choice of method allows the authors to get a deeper understanding of how decentralization affects employees motivation to perform better and to draw conclusions from the answers (Bryman & Bell, 2011). With having one-by-one interviews, the participant can feel more comfortable discussing various subjects that the participant may not want to discuss in a focus group. The interviewer’s role is to ask questions that explore why concepts are important to the respondents and how they are related (Bryman & Bell 2011).

Bryman & Bell, (2011) stated that the role of the interviewer is to ask questions that explore why concepts are important to the respondents and how they are related which is why the interview questions were written to cover the theories used in this study of the decentralized environment, employee performance and motivation. Therefore, the research is conducted with an open mindset, where it is susceptible to new information throughout the study. New information is developed and gathered from the responses of the respondents.

The questions were operationalized to fit the relevant theories needed for the investigation of this paper. Under Appendix 2, the operationalization table for the paper's qualitative interviews can be found in order to see how the questions were motivated to fit the chosen theories. This paper had 14 interviews, four of which were conducted by managers and ten of them on different employees within the service department.

It was important to make the participant feel that the interview was a pleasant and smooth experience. Therefore the first few questions were standard questions to get the interview going and to have a good start to later ask the more open-ended questions for discussion. The order in which the questions are asked can vary from interview to interview and the interviewer also has the ability to ask further questions in response to what is seen as meaningful replies by the informant (Bryman & Bell, 2015, p. 213).

The participant that has been interviewed for this thesis received a copy of the questions before the interview took place, to give them time to read through the questions and think about how to answer. This gives the participants time to understand the question and therefore giving the participants the chance to be more confident and prepared for the interview. Giving the

participants a day to prepare was beneficial to the authors because the data collected needed to be thoroughly prepared. The interview questions are developed with a connection to the research questions and the relevant theories and concepts used in order to ensure the gathering of relevant data for a rich analysis and conclusion. The gathering of primary data captures a deeper understanding of how decentralization influences employee performance and motivation within

Swedish premises.

The data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions via the communication platform Microsoft Teams because of the COVID-19 crisis, which appeared during the writing process and made physical interviews impossible. The reason for semi-structured interviews was because it is more flexible than a structured interview

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). The data collected through the interviews are to be analyzed with the theories in hand, in order to reach a conclusion. Furthermore, the interviews held were all anonymous so that the employees can feel free to answer; however, they want without having to fear that the managers know what they said.

The questions for the interviews are going to be based on the theoretical framework of this paper with the research question in mind. These questions served as a base for the interviews to create a more discussion section than a structured interview. This is also a reason the authors chose to have semi-structured interviews rather than structured interviews. Below a table of the interviews is presented. Furthermore, the interviews were, with the acceptance from the respondent, recorded in order for the authors to transcribe and analyze it. The table below shows how long the interviews were and the position of each respondent.

Length of the Date of the Respondent Employee position interview in minutes interview

Manager A Vice President of the Service 38 min 07-05-2020 Department

Manager B Head of Logistics 17 min 12-05-2020

Manager C Director of Supply Chain of Service 28 min 12-05-2020

Manager D Head of Project Manage Office Working 34 min 13-05-2020

Employee A Supply Chain Developer 25 min 11-05-2020

Employee B Logistics Employee 32 min 11-05-2020

Employee C Strategic Purchaser 18 min 15-05-2020

Employee D Business Developer 31 min 11-05-2020

Employee E Senior Technical Advisor 23 min 12-05-2020

Employee F Demand Planning Professional 22 min 13-05-2020

Employee G Project Manager 24 min 13-05-2020

Employee H Project Manager 17 min 14-05-2020

Employee I Specialist in Repair 6 min 12-05-2020

Employee J Application Engineer 15 min 12-05-2020 FIGURE 3: Table of the interviews (made by the authors of this thesis)

3.3 Methodology Criticism

The fact that this paper is based on only one department in a Swedish company means that this study will not be able to generalize the answer. The conclusion will only convey a Swedish perspective and not be representative of the other subsidiaries of this multinational enterprise.

However, doing it in only one department creates an opportunity for the authors to get a more in- depth conclusion for this specific department of the case company.

Qualitative research is often unstructured and reliant upon the researcher’s ingenuity; it is almost impossible to conduct a true replication since there are hardly any standard models or procedures to be followed. (Bryman & Bell 2011). It was, therefore, important as the authors of this paper to have a structured interview model still with open-ended questions for deeper discussions. As authors of this paper, the questions were designed through the concepts and theories discussed as it would explore why these concepts are important to the respondents and how they are related.

A disadvantage with the interviews was that we could not see the body language and expression of the respondents since we conducted the interviews through Microsoft Teams without using webcams. Sometimes it can be good to see the respondents’ and the interviewers' expressions to really understand what they mean. Another disadvantage with interviews is that you never really know what the respondents chose to say and what to hide, you can’t know if they want to hide some factors or lie about something, especially when you cannot see their facial expression or body language. This could not give the paper a false conclusion which the authors do not know about. However, this is countered by looking at the overall view of all the respondents together and analyzing the bigger picture and not from an individual perspective.

3.3.1 Criticism of the Sources & Reliability

An important factor for a scientific paper is how credible it is, and in order for a study to be credible, it is important that the sources used are credible otherwise, the paper will lose its credibility. For this study, only sources from the MDH database were used, as mentioned above.

The authors are fully aware that the use of old peer-reviewed articles from the year 1800-1900 might make the study less credible and trustworthy since the data might have been updated

through all these years. However, the data collected from the old sources have also been mentioned in more recent articles making the authors keep the old sources. Therefore, the articles used for the framework are deemed, by the authors, relatable and acceptable to use for this paper.

The methodology for this paper has been described in a manner that enables the reader to replicate the study. In order to further increase the reliability of this paper, all the interview questions will be presented in Appendix 2.

According to Throne (2000), he characterized data analysis as the most complex phase of qualitative research. As authors of this paper, it is important to be transparent when conducting the data analysis because if the readers are not clear about how the authors analyzed their data evaluating the trustworthiness of the research process is difficult. Trustworthiness is important to the authors of this paper because it is one-way researchers can persuade themselves and readers that their research findings are worthy of attention (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

The interview questions were also chosen to be given out beforehand to the respondent in order for them to come up with as detailed answers as possible. The authors of this study know that this has an impact on the credibility and trustworthiness of the paper since the answers could be biased and fixed. However, the answers could also be more thoroughly thought out and detailed, giving the interviewer a deeper understanding of what's going on. It was important for the authors of this paper that the respondents felt comfortable before, during and after the interview.

All interviews gave a last word question at the end to give everyone the opportunity to give one more comment on the topic that we, as authors, did not ask.

3.3.2 Limitation

This study has potential limitations that could have influenced the findings and conclusions.

Although this paper was thoroughly prepared and conducted, there is an awareness of the limitations of it that needs to be considered. The first limitation the authors recognized was the current COVID-19 crisis that affected the whole study process. This affected the data collection as the interviews were supposed to be in-person at the company but instead were instead conducted via Microsoft Teams. The authors of this study adapted the new guidelines for conducting interviews. The authors could see the limitations with conducting the interviews via digital channels instead of in-person because the digital channels used could have technical difficulties and misunderstandings that would delay the interview. Having an interview would also not have the same feeling and effect if the interview was conducted in-person because the authors and the participant could meet in real-life, which would have a more authentic setting.

The authors of this study also recognize the problem with the definition of employee performance, it is a very complex word to define and measure and will therefore only be measured by the authors through the interviews and having the answers reflect the measurements of the employee performance.

3.4 Method of Analysis

As to being able to answer the research question, we had to establish a scientific approach that could be a base for our thesis. According to Saunders (2012), having a qualitative method means having an opportunity to "probe" the answers, also there is more control over who answers the questions since, in this thesis, there are certain types of interview questions based on if the interviewee is a manager or not. Moreover, there is a significant relevance in choosing to be

interviewed rather than completing a questionnaire, according to Saunders (2012). This can benefit the discussion and build a deeper analysis of this thesis. The primary purpose for analysis of the data collection is to use the obtained data and turn it into useful information (Bryman &

Bell, 2015). During the data collection, we have gathered, transcribed, reviewed and later analyzed all data collected. As for data analysis we chose to use the explorative-type method approach, since it designates areas of the market, consumer and behavioral research. In this approach, there is no intent in providing a solution to the ongoing research problem; rather, it is about investigating the research question (Saunders, 2012). Data analysis is a definitive approach since it helped us create patterns, comparisons, relationships and conclusions. As for patterns we chose to use work-based methods that involve keywords and repetitive words and/or phrases.

This is crucial since it is a definitive way of determining relevant information in secondary sources. The sources’ relevant information was analyzed and later decided if it would be part of the theoretical framework since it holds main grounds for the interview questions that are crucial for collecting primary data.

When we had established relationships, patterns, etc., we had to analyze the data from several sources with a qualitative data analyzation method such as a narrative analysis in order to identify various trends in the data. This type of method is often used as a qualitative approach in qualitative research (Bryman and Bell, 2015). The process of conducting data through qualitative measures does not follow linear steps; rather it is an open-ended way of doing research (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Moreover, when conducting research it is important to focus on facts and statements that are true to nature, meaning we followed an epistemological approach that concerns the question of what knowledge is and what kind of acceptable limits it has in a discipline (Bryman and Bell, 2015).

According to Ghauri and Grønhaug (2010), implementation of theories can be managed either before or after gathering the data. Ghauri and Grønhaug (2010) state that in order to have a forthright study that corresponds with the research purpose, the theories must adjust based on the scope of the thesis. Thus, for this study, it was decided to identify relevant theories, and concepts, and later collect primary data. The theories that have been used came from a realization in need of understanding concepts of decentralization, motivation, job satisfaction and employee performance.

4. Empirical Findings

The following section will present a summarized version of the findings. The structure of this section will be divided into three parts that will be a summary of the findings from the managers, the employees perspective and a connection between decentralization and employee performance. The extensive summary of interview answers is provided in Appendix 1.

Furthermore, the quotes in this section are referenced from the interviews that were conducted.

4.1 Managers responsibility

Looking at all the interviews with the managers, all of the managers agreed that it is the culture, the autonomy, the freedom and the responsibility the employees have that makes the workplace and that's what motivates the employees. They also agreed that it is their responsibility to coach the employees in the right direction if they are going down the wrong path. One of the respondent stated:

“One of the important topics a manager should have is to create an atmosphere to establish the culture in

the team and have meetings with the employees to coach them into the right direction and motivate

them.” (Manager A)

And another respondent discussed how important it is as a manager to be present for the employees:

“as a manager you need to be present, coaching, creating team spirit and environment so they dare to try

new things, if they are afraid to fail you will never win and have a strong team, work a lot with team

building and individually personally, know how you work.” (Manager B)

Both respondents talked for all of the managers, all four of them believed that they have the responsibility to help the employees with their motivation and work tasks. While Manager B states the above-mentioned quote another manager believes that it's their responsibility to coach them towards the organization's goals. It appears that all four managers agreed on how much responsibility and freedom the employees have and that it is the managers’ responsibility to encourage and coach the employees.

In order for the flat organization to benefit from culture, they should create a flexible and transparent one. Respondents stated:

“I help my employees get motivated by giving them support, coach them, understand them and understand the overall picture and communicate rather well with them in order to keep the direction and

be transparent.” (Manager D).

In another statement Manager C mentioned that the organization does annual surveys to measure the employee motivation and the results are rather positive, much to do with the employees' understanding of their work tasks and that shows direct effort as well as being in a flat organization that is broad, communicable and direct in decision making. Manager D also stated that it is important to always give constructive feedback to the employees on their works.

However, she then mentioned that creating a climate where feedback is normal and positive is even more important and it seems that the other managers agree. For example, Manager A stated:

“It is important that each and every person understands their own targets, and that we have regular follow-

ups where each person can present a plan, and the manager can coach and give feedback, support them

and support development.” (Manager A)

While Manager B talks a lot about team spirit and creates an environment where the employees dare to try out new things while the manager stays supportive and present for them.

When it comes to acting against demotivation and setting up measurements that benefit employees, the managers claim that they have the responsibility of helping the employees on the right path when motivation declines. One respondent reasoned that it is in his responsibility to notice his employees signals and act upon them by stating,

“always give feedback as that is the most important thing because everybody would like to be seen everybody likes to have a kind of response that they did a great job and these small and tiny things that I

think is basics and of course if you get more and more difficult motivation problems that is something

else behind but I mean it's these small tiny things that makes good relationship with the employee and

increase the motivation.” (Manager A).

Another response from Manager D pointing out the same concern for the employees by stating:

“you need to be aware as a manager on what has an impact on people's motivation and efficiency.”

(Manager D).

When an employee loses motivation the managers have to step in and help the employee, the different managers stated different ways of doing so, but the most common thing was to be

present, to talk with the employee and coach him or her back on the right track. Another common factor was to try to understand the reason behind the unmotivating factor and help the employee solve it. The managers also believe that they should every now and then commend the employees in order to prevent any demotivational factors. Furthermore, if the employees are not motivated they will not be able to perform.

4.2 Findings from Employees

When it comes to personal motivation, the ten employees agreed that they are aware of the company’s goal and that they were happy and satisfied with their current work. The majority of the respondents thought that the goals were clear, but there were one or two who disagreed; they believed that it was quite hard for newly employed people to understand it due to either too much information or too much complexity. The employees stated several different factors that triggered their motivation and satisfaction for their work. Still the most common factors were the freedom and responsibility they have with their tasks, their colleagues, environment and recognition. Some of the respondents also stated that they get motivated while working towards their goal, which was somewhat the company’s goal and to satisfy customers. There were also some respondents who were motivated by getting feedback from the manager, and one respondent who wished for more feedback from the managers in order for him to feel more motivated. For instance, one respondent said:

“on this department it's very motivating to meet a lot of new, different people.” and “And then it's also

motivates me to help the customers when they need help and I can give them help and then I like you

know always go forward all the time.” (Employee F)

The employees got to answer the question if satisfaction makes one work better than motivation or if satisfaction increases the motivation to work, the majority of the employees could not choose either of them. It appeared that for the respondents, the motivation and satisfaction were dependable on each other and that you cannot have the one without the other one. One respondent stated:

“I would say both it is combined, if you are not satisfied makes the motivation to go down, and vice

versa, I think it is both that is needed in order to feel that this is a good place to work, you need the motivation to go somewhere and I think that the goals we are having in the department is really important but also to have the possibility to feel satisfaction if not reaching the goals then you get unmotivated, feels

like running but never coming to the end.” (Employee B)

As Employee B stated, the majority of the respondents claimed that the motivation would go down if you did not have satisfaction and that the other way around. This also gave the interviewers the view that in order for the employee performance to be high, the employee has to be both motivated and satisfied with their work. Just like the managers, the employees also thought that the managers have to help get them motivated by recognition, for instance.

Further, into the interviews, the interviewer asked the respondents about the environment and culture. They have a culture where the people are willing to help each other and the majority of the respondents are quite satisfied with the environment Siemens has created for them. For example, Employee B stated:

“we work as a team and support each other and I would say the manager too in this case, for me at least it

is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and the clarity,

possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on.” (Employee B)

As Employee B stated,, the environment at Siemens is quite friendly. They work as a team and another respondent said that they often teach each other new things, whether it is about knowledge, life or work and this is motivating and creates a good atmosphere within the work.

But on the other hand, some respondents disagreed with this. For example, one respondent said that Siemens had created an environment where they do not necessarily work hard. He also believed that Siemens could include strict management in order for the employee performance to increase. Nevertheless, the employees within the service department are motivated and satisfied with their work and they all believe that their motivation and satisfaction is the main reason for their performances.

4.3 Role of Decentralization

Looking back at the interviews, all of the managers stated, the employees have a high degree of freedom and responsibility when it comes to their work tasks and that this is among other factors what motivates the employees. One of the managers stated, she believes in a decentralized environment where people can take action in relation to changes, she stated:

“In general I think its important with a decentralize workplace where people can take decisions and it

motivates them with freedom and knowledge’’ (manager D)

Furthermore, while looking at the vice president’s answer, he too believes in a decentralized workplace where he stated: 40

“I strongly believe in a kind a distributed responsibility and more target oriented or I mean guiding people

with target instead of control.’’ (manager A)

Manager A strongly believes in a decentralized environment because he as a vice president tries to create a culture where the employees always strive for improvement.. Manager A encourages the employees to come up with ideas of improving their work.

In addition, the interviews with the employees seem to agree with what the managers stated. For example, one respondent stated:

“I would say that I'm quite satisfied and happy with it and I think one of the big reasons for that is

because as part of the organization that i'm working with my managers we have a lot of sort of personal

responsibility in what we do and also freedom with that.” (Employee F)

It seems like the employees agree with the managers when it comes to the employees having a lot of autonomy within their work which is a cause by having a decentralized environment. One of the respondents was asked the question whether they have a lot of freedom to solve problems on their own or not and he stated:

Yes, I have and that’s for Siemens service that’s one of the top thing that we have. That we have

a lot of space to like to develop both ourselves and the business. (Employee D)

Which also supports what the managers’ state, Siemens service department is a department which truly engages in a decentralized environment where the employees have a lot of autonomy which the employees see as a motivating factor. Furthermore, the employees all agree that this motivation is something that leads to an increase in employee performance.

5. Analysis

This chapter includes a discussion & analysis of the empirical data where the answers are discussed. Furthermore, the information collected by the interviews is connected to the theories described in the literature review and theoretical framework and conclusions are drawn.

During the data collection, the authors of this paper have encountered several different individuals who all possess their own unique set of values. From the data gathered, it can be seen that there is a pattern in regard to decision-making, motivation, satisfaction to performance. The aim of the following study was to explore how decentralization affects employee motivation and performance through the use of a qualitative research study.

5.1 The Decentralized Environment

The data collected from the ten employees and four managers during the interview sessions highlight the importance of workplace culture. The culture at a workplace is important to maintain a good atmosphere for the employees working there. Knies (2012), Thomas &

Dunkerley (1999) believe that managers that have a more flexible and open environment can create higher levels of intrinsic motivation because employees feel more freedom in working at the company. This is according to manager A:

“One of the important topics a manager should have is to create an atmosphere to establish the culture in

the team and have meetings with the employees to coach them into the right direction and motivate

them.” (Manager A)

Manager B also stated:

“As a manager you need to be present, coaching, creating team spirit and environment so they dare to try

new things, if they are afraid to fail you will never win and have a strong team, work a lot with team

building and individually personally, know how you work.” (Manager B)

According to the managers from the interviews the majority thought that they have an important role in supporting their employees to perform better and create a stronger culture where employees can decide for themselves regarding some questions. The Fiedler's Contingency

Theory of Leadership (1972) discusses the topic of the effectiveness of leadership on how leaders should behave and control their employees, which are shown to be very important for both managers and employees to have a good bond between each other. According to Employee

“I see that if you compare with Sweden and England, Lincoln, which are two different cultures within the

company, I can clearly see that the Lincoln employees were less motivated, they do not make their own

decisions and if you never let people make decisions then it is hard to develop and hard to work with because they do not know what to do. Not controlling their job as we do in Sweden, would grow you into

making more decisions and feel more motivated to perform better.” (Employee A)

When evaluating and interpreting the managers’ responses it becomes evident that the managers have a large impact on employees when managing them because they can control their employees and create a more controlling or flexible culture. According to Douthitt (2001), managers that create a culture where employees can decide more and have a more flexible environment are more likely to have employees who will perform better. Van de Vrande et al.,

(2009) states that having more freedom and flexibility can result in more creative ideas and

innovations via employee involvement where employees can share knowledge and ideas.

Manager D stated:

“I help my employees get motivated by giving them support, coach them, understand them and understand the overall picture and communicate rather well with them in order to keep the direction and

be transparent.” (Manager D)

When it comes to the employees responding to the culture, the majority thought that the culture at Siemens did not maximize their productivity and motivation because Siemens is such a large corporation and that decisions and processes take a very long time in this large corporation.

According to Hymer (Forsgren 2017), being a large corporation can impact employees' motivation negatively. Employee A explains that:

“You need to know how to play the game which is not always the most efficient way, working with

different cultures and people, and you need to find the smartest way which is not always the most

motivating and productive. This is how it is, we need to learn it, we try to make the environment also

connected to individuals and managers.” (Employee A)

Therefore, managers have an important role in motivating and satisfying their employees.

According to Yukl (1994), it is hard for leaders to do the right thing all the time and think to do the right thing at the right time. Leaders must learn to effectively balance and adapt to the situations to create the most value (Yukl, 1994). The majority of the respondents think that their managers are doing a good job in supporting them. According to employee H:

“I work closely with my manager that constantly provides me with feedback on my work” in addition he

states how his manager contributes a good share to his satisfaction. (Employee H)

According to Phiphadkusolkul and Archaree (2012), employee motivation is enhanced and improved by creating a work environment that maximizes the factors that affect performance.

The majority of the employees interviewed thought that their department has a safe and flexible environment and that the manager has a large part because they support them. According to employee B:

“For me at least it is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and

the clarity, possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on.” (Employee B)

Having a more flexible environment allows the employees to make more decisions within the corporation. According to Evans (1970), results it states that managers who are a more willing to give their employees more flexible culture and let them make more decisions for the company motivate the employees to perform better and grow within the corporation. Employee F regarding the flexibility within the corporation:

“The management welcomes change, and they really push for changes when they find an idea good or

interesting and this is something that really motivates him. The feeling when you have a good idea and

the managers agree and really push for it is something, he believes motivates him a lot.” (Employee F)

According to Manager D:

“Not every person likes this kind of freedom and also this freedom does not suit every company either.”

(Manager D)

Everyone has different views on management style, some want a more controlled environment and others want a more flexible environment. From this study’s findings the majority of the respondents want a more flexible environment, but it is still okay to not want to make decisions

as much, still, manager C encourages her employees to step outside their comfort zone to explore and develop.

5.2 Motivation

The data collected from the ten employees and the four managers were rather interesting, it appeared that motivation was the key factor in their performances, hence employee performance.

Almost every respondent stated that the reason for them to work well and have a high employee performance is that they have motivation and job satisfaction. An example can be:

“you can never do a good job if you are not motivated, it's impossible. Sure you can maybe do that for a

short while but sooner or later you would just sink deeper and deeper down.’’ (Employee E)

This shows that an employee needs to have motivation in order for them to perform and that their employee performance would be very low, at least for the long term. However, even though the motivation was the key factor, it was not always the decentralized environment that triggered this motivation. For most of the respondents, motivation was formed by the feeling of helping the customers and their colleagues. Within Herzberg's theory, the motivational factors that created satisfaction and increased the respondent’s performance could be seen. Personal growth, responsibility, advancement, achievement, recognition, and work. All of these factors were mentioned more than once among the 14 interviews. For example, one of the respondents answered:

“Of course I think to get responsibility and to get results and that your performance matter I think that’s

the key to satisfaction and motivation.’’ (Employee D)

While another respondent answered:

“and I think one of the big reasons for that is because the part of the organization that I’m working with my managers we have a lot of sort of personal responsibility in what we do and also freedom with that.’’

(Employee F)

As we can see, both respondents get motivated by being able to have responsibility for their own tasks. Employee F further stated in the interview that in order for him to get even more motivated, he would want better recognition from his manager, not just feedback on the result but also on the process. In addition, as stated in Herzberg’s theory, these motivational factors created some sort of satisfaction for the employees, which in turn lead to an increase and in their willingness to work better, hence once again, increasing their employee performance. This also corresponds with what Akah Ndang (2010) stated about how the majority of their study wished to be free to make their own decisions in order for them to become more responsible instead of only following instructions from the hierarchy. Apart from the freedom, the respondents also found their colleagues as one of the factors that motivated them. People are willing to help and are not selfish and also that you, as a senior in the department, can teach and learn new things from the newer employees.

Apart from Herzberg’s theory, both Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory and the Porter-Lawler model can also be seen in this case. Just as Deci (1992) said, many of the respondents become more motivated when they know that their actions lead to their goals, which in many cases are the company’s goal to satisfy the customer. An example can be Respondent D, which says that he really gets motivated when he knows that his effort and hard work pay off and that it leads to a good performance. He states that:

“I really want to see results in what I'm doing and seeing that people are actually seeing benefits from it.

The correlation is quite strong between seeing the results and putting in a lot of effort.” (Employee D)

This was only one among many examples of how a good result from hard work gives them motivation. Still something that would increase their motivation even more in this case as if their managers recognized them and commended them on their hard work.

Lastly, when interviewing the managers about situations where the employees get demotivated and how the manager would act. Many of them said that it is their responsibility as a manager to notice these types of situations and help the employee get in the right direction and be motivated again. Dalfol & Åström (2013) stated that the managers must uncover alternative solutions to enhance alternative solutions for the workers’ level of motivation and that they should consistently evaluate the motivational orientation of the workers. This could be seen in one of the interviews where the respondent stated:

“It's pretty much in the daily discussion, every now and then say great job guys great job and so on and

always give feedback as that is the most important thing because everybody would like to be seen everybody likes to have a kind of response that they did a great job and these small and tiny things that I

think is basics and of course if you get more and more difficult motivation problems that is something

else behind but I mean it's these small tiny things that makes good relationship with the employee and

increase the motivation.’’ (Manager A)

While another manager stated:

“you need to be aware as a manager of what has an impact on people's motivation and efficiency because

in the end we need to be profitable as a company, to be able to communicate changes, being to handle those, being aware of each and every individual's work. I have a huge responsibility in that.” (Manager D)

Just like the respondents and Dalfol & Åström (2913) state, it is important for the managers to notice, help and motivate the employees to be motivated and satisfied with their work, which leads to them doing a better job. One cannot do a good job if he or she is not motivated or satisfied with their job. One of the respondents stated that it is impossible to do so. For an employee to have a good employee performance, he or she has to be motivated and satisfied with their work and this can be triggered by several factors, the decentralized environment meaning that they get freedom and responsibility, the recognition from their managers and colleagues, feedback or from their own and the company’s goals.

Looking back at the conceptual framework, motivation was something that would lead to job satisfaction and then the satisfaction would lead to employee performance. However, while conducting the interviews, it appeared that this was not necessarily the case. Many of the respondents believed that the motivational factor and the job satisfaction was dependable on each other, an individual cannot have job satisfaction if he or she does not have motivation for the work and vice versa. As an example, one of the respondents answered:

“I would say both it is combined, if you are not satisfied it makes the motivation to go down, and vice

versa.” (Employee B)

This could be viewed in figure 1 about Herzberg’s two-factor theory, that job satisfaction is influenced by the motivator factors. Job satisfaction is not something that is created by having motivation but rather influenced, and like the respondent said, you need both in order for the employee performance to stay high. However, some respondents stated other opinions. One respondent stated that motivation is what gives him satisfaction. He gets satisfaction from his motivation which he gains from the feeling of teamwork and appreciation of what he does within the company. But the majority of the respondents believed that motivation and satisfaction are

dependable of each other and that they need both of them because without one of the factors, the other one would also decrease which, in turn leads to a decrease in employee performance.

5.3 Job Satisfaction

The results from the interviews were rather on the same level of confidence in the case of job satisfaction. The interviewees were satisfied in their own way, but one thing they all had in common had a happy customer, which in their case is a type of satisfactory reward (Miner, J B.

2005).

As discussed in the theoretical framework, managers tend to have a tremendous impact in terms of job satisfaction on their employees since managers recognize an individual's desire and effort.

This has a positive impact on the performance of an employee and the organization (Singh et al.,

2011).

This is evident in interviews with both employees and managers. When it comes to motivating and satisfying an employee through feedback the respondent states that:

“constructive feedback and I would say even more important is to create climate where feedback is

normal and positive even though it might be something that the person could have done better. But the

climate sets that and also be very, I believe a lot in to feedback more on the positive and to emphasize

good behavior than working on the bad behavior and the mistakes and to always do those better.”

(Manager D)

In an interview with a topic about the recognition from a manager and others a respondent stated:

“receiving acknowledgement and feedback from a manager and co-workers is motivating and exciting.”

(Employee G)

Moreover, the respondent believes that for him personally, it is important to have a higher degree of satisfaction that eventually makes his line of work better. This can be supported by the

Herzberg Two Factor Theory that argues for increased job satisfaction will eventually lead to a positive influence on work.

With high levels of job satisfaction comes an affective reaction and attitude towards one's job

Robbins (1997). This is apparent in an interview with Employee D, who mentioned how both satisfaction and motivation come mainly from the manager who shows interest in the employee and his work. This can be recognized as a motivator factor that associates with recognition and work. This association to the manager can also be seen in an interview with Employee H, who describes how he works closely with his manager that constantly provides him with feedback on his work. In addition he states how his manager contributes a good share to his satisfaction. The respondent said:

“my manager contributes a lot to my satisfaction because she is a care and care about me and the project

in a good way.” (Employee H)

The empirical information exhibits how Manager A describes the process of gathering higher efficiency in an organization. When Manager A responded to the question if an employee's satisfaction and motivation leads to higher efficiency, the answer was positive and the respondent stated that it leads to higher productivity. Mohanty (2018) and the Porter Lawler model brings this up as one of the main productivity drivers for managerial use that favors an organization.

Meanwhile, when analyzing the connection between improved performance and employee motivation & satisfaction. Sutermeister and Robert (1971) cite other authors who state that satisfaction contributes to improved performance and productivity. Also that outstanding 51

performance leads to better satisfaction of needs. In two interviews with the respondents raised the topic about the statements which they stated that:

“For me, like these two are linked right. Sense the satisfaction is something you get when you get recognition or it could be that when you solve the small problems which is then connected to increasing

the level of motivation I would say. So for me these two are quite tight linked.” (Employee F)

“I would say both but I think the feeling of doing something good is motivating so I can stand on the same line, same time it's fun to get acknowledgement from manager and coworkers, if they think I did a

good job then it motivates me to try to continue doing a good job.” (Employee G)

Again this is supported by another claim by Sutermeister and Robert (1971) that the chances of motivating good employee performance are higher if the employees' egoistic needs are well satisfied regularly or if the employee feels that their work leads to such satisfaction within the future.

The typical work environment one can be in often distinguishes as a hygiene factor, according to

Herzberg (1966). Among other hygienic factors, the work environment is influenced by supervisor quality and working conditions. In an interview with Employee G, the respondent explains that when it comes to the work environment he believes that Siemens does not create a motivational work environment instead, it is something that has to be done by oneself. The respondent states:

“No, I think that is a bubble we have to create on our own so I think this is something that is not served to

us, we have to be part of creating this.” (Employee G)

This explains how something like creating a motivational environment for yourself influences job dissatisfaction since there is a negative influence on the hygiene factors. This phenomenon is

backed up by the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory and acts as a recommendation in order to improve the hygienic factors.

5.4 Employee Performance

Employee performance is more than the ability of the employee alone because employee performance also refers to the managerial side of performance (Herzberg, 1959). According to

Herzberg (1959), performance is: let an employee do what I want him to do. This implies that the corporation’s hierarchy and task distribution are also critical for good employee performance.

Factors that affect employee performance is the environment of the organization, employee motivation and satisfaction. From the results of the interviews in this study, the majority of the respondents thought these concepts had an impact on their performance. Good employee performance is necessary for the organization since an organization’s success is dependent on its employee’s creativity, innovation and commitment (Ramlall, 2008). According to employee B:

“I believe that when being motivated your effort and hard work leads to good performance.” (Employee

From the findings, the majority of the employees thought that the environment and being part of the corporation is very important for them to feel motivated, which leads to the employees performing better. The managers have an important role in supporting their employees at work and in creating a fair and flexible environment for the employees to thrive in. According to

Manager A:

“I believe that it is the managers responsibility to help the employee get motivated, when a manager sees an employee that is not motivated the manager should step in and see the reason behind it and try to help

solve it” (Manager A)

According to Vroom (1964), the more management is able to create the environment, the more likely the employees will become engaged and not only meet the goals and believe in the outcome but also “freeze” the change and sustain the modification. Mohanty (2018) argues that overall, the success of corporations do not come only from the rewards they give, rather complete and effective management provides much better results (Mohanty, S 2018)

Regarding the importance of a manager to create a flexible environment employee B stated:

“because we work as a team and support each other and I would say the manager too in this case, for me at least it is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and the clarity,

possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on.” (Employee B)

According to Vroom (1964), an employee’s performance is based on individual factors, for example, personality, skills, knowledge, abilities and experience. Other researchers state that it is not what performance exactly means, but how it is composed and how it is measured. Vroom

(1964) also states that lack of motivation could result in any number of problems such as inadequate training, negative group dynamics, inadequate feedback, as well as lack of training and tools. This is why a manager's job is crucial to have motivated employees to perform better.

The respondent stated:

“I am self-driven and have my own goals that mostly motivates me but also the culture, where new people go and come and I have the opportunity to learn and teach new things to my new colleagues.” (Employee

Employee F also stated according to feedback:

“A manager that understands the work and gives feedback, not only on the result but also on the process”

(Employee F)

When it comes to satisfaction, the majority of the respondents thought that both motivation and satisfaction are equally important and go hand in hand because from being satisfied, employees are motivated, or that motivated employees feel satisfied. According to Porter and Lawler's

(1968) model, the actual performance of a job is primarily determined by the effort spent. Porter and Lawler’s model (1968) as discussed in section 2 and 3 has similar points as Vroom’s Theory

(1964), but they expand Vroom’s ideas and thoughts. One of Porter and Lawler’s points is discussed: when satisfaction is accomplished after receiving a reward, it tends to influence the future value of that reward. According to Manager C regarding accomplishments:

“It is important to highlight accomplishments that involve creativity and being out of the comfort zone.”

(Manager C)

In this statement employees will see that according to manager C being creative and stepping out of the comfort zone is an accomplishment that is rewarding.

According to Manager D:

“The employees are also very much allowed to be creative and she believes that it motivates them.

However, this can not be said for every employee since some individuals might prefer having tracks laid

out for them already and others do not.” (Manager D)

In this study, the majority thought flexibility is important for employees to thrive in the corporation, be motivated and satisfied, which leads to the employees performing better.

According to Vroom (1995) “Whenever an individual chooses between alternatives that involve uncertain outcomes, it seems clear that his behavior is affected not only by his preferences among these outcomes but also by the degree to which he believes that these outcomes to be

probable” (Vroom, 1995). Employees make decisions that benefit the corporation and themselves to grow within the corporation. According to employee A on this:

“I thrive by working on reaching organizational goals and personal goals, I rather want to work with tasks

that I enjoy instead of focusing on climbing the career ladder.” (Employee A).

5.5 Further Discussion

Concepts such as decentralization, motivation, job satisfaction and employee performance were the conceptual base of this study. From the start, we as authors of this study thought that there was a strong correlation between these concepts in the conceptual model and that the empirical findings will strengthen the model. Since the model got developed through the theories and the analysis of the research question there is a given inaccuracy for having expectations. The empirical findings brought meaning towards the end of the study, where we could correlate decentralized workspace and intrinsic motivation with past studies from Knies (2012), Thomas

& Dunkerley (1999). The operating and service department at Siemens where the interviews were conducted gave the authors of this study great insights about their thoughts on the topic of decentralized environment, motivation and performance.

The thesis research question discussed the topic of how a decentralized environment affects employees motivation and performance. From the results of the interviews conducted, we as authors of this paper could see that some of the findings from the interviews were answered how the authors expected regarding the research question. The results from the interviews conducted show that the majority of the respondents thought that the concepts of the environment of the organization, motivation and satisfaction had an impact on their performance as shown in the conceptual framework which the authors of this paper found had a connection with the

interviews. According to a past study, Evans (1970) discusses the connection between leadership and employee performance. As the results of the interviews found that, the majority of the employer respondents thinks that having an active and interested manager helps them become more motivated and wants to perform better. Yukl (1994) discusses how leaders must learn to effectively balance and adapt to the situations to create the most value. With this statement, the authors of this paper have discussed how a more flexible environment can have an impact on employees motivation throughout the paper and according to the respondents’ managers, a more flexible and open environment has a positive effect on the employees. These results discuss the topic of having a more decentralized environment that affects employees motivation, satisfaction and performance in a good way. The findings of this thesis give an insight into how a workplace views a more flexible and less controlled environment and how the culture at the workplace impacts employees motivation, satisfaction and performance. To answer the research question the environment at the workplace affects partly how motivated and satisfied they are and how they perform in their tasks and projects. This thesis gives an insight into how these factors lead to more effective and most likely better performance because employees feel motivated and satisfied working in a more decentralized environment because they have more possibilities in decision-making. Furthermore, not all the expectations were met since the findings from the interviews pointed out that motivation does not necessarily lead to satisfaction, even though the

Herzberg Theory states that job satisfaction is influenced by motivator factors. Therefore, the theory cannot be taken for granted as a management tool for the use of motivator and hygiene factors.

6. Conclusion

This study aimed to show how an operating and service department’s decentralized environment impacts employee performance and it appears that a decentralized environment contributes to an employees’ performance. The decentralized environment allows the employees to freely take decisions and have their own responsibilities for their own tasks, as long as they work within the company’s frames. While researching this topic, the authors of this paper noticed that what really has an impact on employee performance is employee’s motivation and satisfaction for their work. But in the end, a decentralized environment gives the employee’s freedom and responsibility for their own tasks. The majority, if not every one of them agreed on, gave them motivation and satisfaction to work better and increase their performance. In the end, the authors noticed that the conceptual model was somewhat incorrect; motivation does not necessarily lead to satisfaction. Motivation and satisfaction are two factors that are dependable of each other and an employee needs both factors in order to perform. Thus, the correct analysis is that a decentralized environment brings motivation and satisfaction for the employees, which increases their performance.

In conclusion, the authors of this paper wanted to see how a decentralized environment impacts employees motivation and satisfaction to perform better in their work. From the interviews, the majority of the respondents thought that the culture is important to feel a part of the corporation, to feel that the employee can make decisions by themselves and to have supportive managers.

This paper’s conceptual framework is divided into decentralization, motivation, job satisfaction and employee performance. The authors of this paper wanted to see how these concepts affect employees. Employees that can make their own decisions and feel that they are making a difference will motivate them and be satisfied with their work which can lead to better 58

performance. Thus, decentralization among other factors mentioned in this paper leads to motivation and satisfaction, which the respondents agreed upon leads to an increase in their performance.

7. Further Research

For further research, a bigger study can be conducted where the researchers would investigate other departments outside the service department and in other companies since this paper is based on the Siemens located in Finspång. In order to get a more general answer, bigger research has to be conducted over more decentralized companies. Siemens Finspång has a more decentralized environment than, for example, England, Lincoln who Sweden, Finspång has been working with for the past five years and Lincoln has a more centralized environment where the employees have not much to say and decide within the corporation. There are large cultural differences between Sweden and England, according to some of the interviewees of this study. It is also very difficult to transfer knowledge between different countries because different cultures handle knowledge differently. There are gaps between cultures within the organization of

Siemens.

References

Albdour, A., & Altarawneh, I. (2014). Employee Engagement and Organizational Commitment:

Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Business, 19(2), 178-192. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n16p89

Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life

Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.

Alpander, G.G. (1982). Human Resource management planning. New York: A, Avon, Inc. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164873

Anitha J. (2014). Determinants of Employee Engagement and their Impact on Employee

Performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 308-

323. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2013-0008

Bailey, A., Albassami, F., & Al-Meshal, S. (2016). The Roles of Employee Job Satisfaction and

Organizational Commitment in the Internal Marketing-Employee Bank Identification

Relationship. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(6), 821-840. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbm-06-2015-0097

Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1989). Managing across borders: The transnational solution.

Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279037

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods (Vol. 4th). Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Ethics in business research. Business Research Methods, 7(5),

23-56.

Bassett‐ Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power?. Journal of management development. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710510627064

Champion, M. R. (2008). Creating engagement: The use of expectancy theory in corporate customer service teams (Order No. 3296743).

Chang, M, & Harrington, J. (2000). "Centralization vs. Decentralization in a Multi-Unit

Organization: A Computational Model of a Retail Chain as a Multi-Agent Adaptive System,"

Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0860, Econometric Society. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.11.1427.12085

Crawford, E., Buckman, B., & Bergeron, J. (2014). The Antecedents and Drivers of Employee

Engagement. Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice,2, 57-81. https://doi.org/10.25255/jss.2019.8.1.7.23

Dalflo, L & Åström, L. (2013). The Relationship between Employee Motivation and

Performance. Umeå School of Business and Economics.

Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. W. (1995). Organization Behavior. Mc. Grawhill Inc.

Deci, E.L. (1992). The history of motivation in psychology and its relevance for management. In

V.H. Vroom and E.L. Deci (Eds.), Management and motivation (2nd ed.). London: Penguin

Group.

Deeb, A., Alananzeh, O., & Tarhini, A. (2019). Factors Affecting Job Performance: The Case of

Jordanian Hotels Kitchen Staff. International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpspm.2019.10021730

Dodgson, M., Gann, D., Salter, A., 2006. The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Manager. 36 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00429.x

Douthitt, E.A, 2001. Effects of leader behaviors on service employee role perceptions, fairness perceptions, and performance: Rutgers The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick,

ProQuest Dissertations

Drucker, P. F. (2004), The Daily Drucker: 366 Days of Insight and Motivation for Getting the

Right Things Done, New York, NY: Harper Business.

Ebinger, Falk & Richter, Philipp. (2015). Decentralizing for performance? A quantitative assessment of functional reforms in the German Lander. International Review of Administrative

Sciences. 82. 10.1177/0020852315586916 https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315586916

Esposito, A., Bratanic, M. and Keller, E. (2007). Fundamentals of Verbal and Nonverbal

Communication and the Biometric Issue.

Evans, M.G. (1968). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Evans, M.G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, S,277-298.

Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn JR, Laurence E, & Pollitt, Christopher. (2005). The Oxford Handbook of

Public Management. Oxford University Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1972). The effects of leadership training and experience: A contingency model interpretation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 453-470.

Forsgren, M. (2017). Theories of the multinational firm: A multidimensional creature in the global economy. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Furnham, A., Eracleous, A. & Chamorrio-Premuzic, T. (2009) Personality, motivation, and job satisfaction: Hertzberg meets the Big Five. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(8) p. 765-779. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910996789

Ghauri, P. Grønhaug, K. (2010). Research Methods in Business Studies. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson

Education

Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2003) Behavior in Organizations: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work. 18th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River. p. 195.

Hagen, A., Wilkie, M., & Haj, M. (2005). Progressive management practices as predictors of organizational future performance: empirical evidence. Academy of Strategic Management

Journal, 4, 41.

Harter, J. (2017). “Dismal employee engagement is a sign of global mismanagement”.

Gallup.com. Retrieved 1 April 2020, from http://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/224012/dismal-employee-engagement-sign-global- mismanagement.aspx

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man, Staples Press, New York

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snydermann B.(1959). The motivation to work. New York:Wiley.

House, R. J., & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg's dual‐ factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel psychology, 20(4), 369-390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1967.tb02440.x

Iqbal, N., Anwar, S., & Haider, N. (2015). Effect of leadership style on employee performance.

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2223-

5833.1000146

Jarvis, P., Holford, J., & Griffin, C. (2003). The theory & practice of learning. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203465653

Jerome, N. (2013). Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s performance.

International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(3), 39-45.

John W. Newstrom and Keith Davis, Organizational Behavior, 91h Ed. 1995, p. 148.

Jooste, K. (2004). Leadership: a new perspective. Journal of Nursing Management, 12(3), 217-

223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2003.00450.x

Kaur, A. (2013). Maslow’s need hierarchy theory: Applications and criticisms. Global Journal of

Management and Business Studies, 3(10), 1061-1064.

Knies, E. (2012). More value for and from employees: A longitudinal study of the origins and effects of people management. Ph.D. dissertation, Utrecht University.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1998). Organizational behavior. Chicago, Richard D.

Kuhlmann S, Bogumil J, Ebinger F, et al. (2011) Dezentralisierung des Staates in Europa.

Auswirkungen auf die kommunale Aufgabenerfu¨llung in Deutschland, Frankreich und

Großbritannien. Wiesbaden: VS. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2011.604557

Lawler EE. (1988) Choosing an Involvement Strategy. University of Southern California. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1988.4277254

Lincoln, Y., Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage https://doi.org/10.2307/2987760

Lindner, James R. (1998) Understanding Employee Motivation. The Ohio State University.

Volume 36; Number 3; Research in Brief; 3RIB3 https://www.joe.org/joe/1998june/rb3.php

Long, A., & Hinkes, D. (2015) A COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR CENTRALIZED

AND DECENTRALIZED BUSINESS DECISION MAKING.

Luthans, F., & Thomas, L. T. (1989). The relationship between age and job satisfaction: curvilinear results from an empirical study–a research note. Personnel Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483488910133350

Maximizing Cash in Decentralized Organizations Phillips, Thomas E;Droege, Mark E

Management Accounting; Aug 1984; 66, 2; ABI/INFORM Global pg. 38

Miner, John B. (2005) Organizational Behavior 1: Essential Theories of Motivation and

Leadership. Published by Routledge; Taylor and Francis Group.

Mohanty, S. (2018). Porter and Lawler’s Model of Motivation: Hypes and Realities.

Ojo, O. (2009). Impact assessment of corporate culture on employee job: Journal of Business intelligence, 2/2, 389-37.

Phiphadkusolkul, A. (2012). The Initial Impact of Organization Development Interventions on

Performance Management, Employee Motivation, Job Satisfaction, and Employee Performance at a Thai SME. AU-GSB e-JOURNAL, 5(1).

Pinder, C.C. (1984). Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy Theory. In V.H. Vroom & E.L. Deci

(Eds.), Management and Motivation (pp. 90-102). London: Penguin Books.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391269

Ramlall, S. J. (2008). Enhancing employee performance through positive organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1580-1600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00360.x

Rangus, K, Slavec, A. (2017) The interplay of decentralization, employee involvement and absorptive capacity on firms' innovation and business performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.017

Reimer, T., Lee, S.J.C., Garcia, S., Gill, M., Duncan, T., Williams, E.L. and Gerber, D.E. (2017),

“Cancercenter clinic and research team perceptions of identity and interactions”, Journal of

OncologyPractice, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. E1021-e1029. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2017.024349

Robbins, S.P., Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, 2004.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) “Research Methods for Business Students” 6th edition, Pearson Education Limited

Seeds, D., & Khade, A. S. (2008). Transforming a multinational corporation from a centralized organization to a decentralized organization. International Journal of Business Strategy, 8 (1),

99-104.

Schneider, J., & Locke, E. A. (1971). A critique of Herzberg's incident classification system and a suggested revision. Organizational behavior and human performance, 6(4), 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(71)90027-4

Shah, S.S.H., Jaffari, A.R., Aziz, J., Ejaz, W., Ul-Haq, I. and Raza, S.N., ‘Workload and

Performance of Employees’, 2011, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In

Business, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 256-267.

Shahin, A. Naftchali, J., & Pool, J. (2014). Developing a Model for the Influence of Perceived

Organizational Climate on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Performance based on Balanced Scorecard. International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Management, 63(3), 290-307. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-03-2013-0044

Smith, A. D., & Rupp, W. T. (2003). Knowledge workers: exploring the link among performance rating, pay and motivational aspects. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310463662

Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Shapiro, D.L. (2004). The Future of Work Motivation Theory.

Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159049

Siemens AB (1996-2020) About Us. NewSiemens. https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/about.html

Singh, J. (2000). Performance productivity and quality o f frontline employees in service organizations. Journal of Marketing. 64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.2.15.17998

Singh, S. K., & Tiwari, V. (2011). Relationship between motivation and job satisfaction of the white collar employees: A case study. Management insight, 7(2), 31-39.

Sutermeister, R. A. (1971). Employee performance and employee need satisfaction—Which comes first?. California Management Review, 13(4), 43-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164318

Thomas, R., & Dunkerley, D. (1999). Careering downwards? Middle managers' experiences in the downsized organization. British Journal of Management, 10(2), 157-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00117

Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 3, 68–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebn.3.3.68

Turner, J. R., Thurlow, N., Baker, R., Northcutt, D., & Newman, K. (2019). Multiteam systems in an agile environment: a realist systematic review. Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-10-2018-0355

Van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, W., de Rochemont, M., (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001

Vroom, V.H. (1964) (1995). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

William, A. N. (2010). Employee motivation and performance. Ultimate Companion Limited.

Yukl, G. A. (1994). Leadership in organizations. 3rd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall

Wyhen, J, Verhoest, K & Rubecksen, K., (2014). Decentralization in Public Sector

Organizations, Public Performance & Management Review, 37:3, 496-520. https://doi.org/10.2753/pmr1530-9576370307

Appendix 1

Findings From Interviews

The following section will show the important information gathered from the interviews conducted with fourteen individuals who are working at Siemens AB to discuss the topics of decentralization, employee performance and motivation.

Manager A

The first interview was conducted with the Vice President of the Service department. He is 56 years old and has worked at Siemens for 32 years. The Vice President position is new for manager A as of April 1st of this year, before manager A was managing the R&D and engineering department. According to the manager, he is aware of the company’s goals and how to reach them but with the new organization that is developing the new goals are still unclear, because of COVID-19 the new organization launch is slow and will be complete during the fall of 2020. At the moment Siemens in Finspång are still following the previous organization’s goals. According to manager A it is important that the employees understand and follow the goals set but also to set their own personal goals to get more motivated to work and perform better. It is rather how employees perform their work and how they plan the work is up to the employees, it is important to understand that as a manager we do not control the employees in detail, controlling everything is no way of managing according to the respondent. “It is important that each and every person understands their own targets, and that we have regular follow-ups where each person can present a plan, and the manager can coach and give feedback, support them and support development” explained manager A as talking with the employees is important for both the manager to understand them and for the employee to be heard. The manager has to be available and active to their employees but it is also difficult to know how much to talk to 72

their employees because some employees do not need much guidance or question as other employees need more time from a manager.

When asked if satisfaction and motivation leads to higher efficiency he answered absolutely, if an employee is motivated and satisfied then he or she will become more productive. But he then states that when he is motivated he starts to think of ways he can do his work differently, to understand and find ways to do it better. To always think about how to improve and that is what is important. When he later was asked if he believes Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes their employees motivation and productivity he states that they have a process, they set targets and they follow them on an individual basis and that in Siemens they have a dialog where they really discuss these targets and find ways to get others satisfied. However, something he finds more important than the dialogs are the culture. A culture that always strives for improvement. He believes that the process is good but the culture needs to be combined with it, he states that ‘’you need to have some DNA in the company as well’’.

According to the respondent, Siemens have programs that are only for seniors such as bonuses and so on. But the training programs are for anything which he believes is good, they also have something he calls a dialog that they on a monthly basis have development plans for all the employees to train them and educate them on what’s needed in order to fulfill their targets.

Furthermore, the respondent believes that it is the managers responsibility to help the employee get motivated, when a manager sees an employee that is not motivated the manager should step in and see the reason behind it and try to help solve it. One of the important topics a manager should have is to create an atmosphere to establish the culture in the team and have meetings with the employees to coach them into the right direction and motivate them. They should also

every now and then commend the employees and always give feedback, it's these small things that creates good relationships with the employees and this increases their motivation.

Manager B

Manager B is head of the Logistics Service MGT. She is 39 years old and has worked for the company for 15 years. In manager B’s team they have a high degree of influence on how to perform tasks and why targets are set, how to reach them and what to do. The team can more or less decide themselves with the managers interests at heart explained manager B. The most important thing is team spirit according to her, it takes many years to create a safe environment with a good team spirit so that the team can dare to try new things than they really dare to try new ways of doing things. Climate, culture and team spirit, is as a manager to be present and supporting that is very important but also to develop so that the team sees that they are doing a great job and to develop their work to support the business. According to the respondent

“Siemens is a large corporation but now we are entering a new Siemens Energy organization with the aim to be faster but still Siemens is a large organization and we could have a less bureaucracy would be great, with faster decisions and so on”.

According to manager B Siemens has various programs, education and online courses for individuals to study but for the respondents team they work at regular meetings on development instead. She said “Workload is one of the biggest issues that we have in our team. We have workload sharing, daily meetings so we can share and help each other. I have worked with my team for a few years to redesign their roles and increase the flexibility which increases motivation, help each other much better. Person development, broader their knowledge, what do you want to do in a few years so I can help them to build their knowledge base and to increase the flexibility within the team so they can support each other. They can discuss and help each

other”. She also added that “as a manager you need to be present, coaching, creating team spirit and environment so they dare to try new things, if they are afraid to fail you will never win and have a strong team, work a lot with team building and individually personally, know how you work”.

Manager C

The respondent is a 54 year old woman who is a director of Supply Chain of Service and has been working full time since 2008. She states that the level of autonomy and freedom varies between the employees since it has to do with the kind of a role one has and the designated task.

Furthemore, she believes in standardized or streamlined job tasks that require not as a big of a responsibility and influence if you had a higher level of managerial role. When it comes to motivating her peers and other employees she strongly believes in being supportive and encouraging in situations where it is necessary. The respondent further states that there is a correlation between motivation and an increase in employee performance. She mentions how important it is to feel a connection to a bigger cause, since everyone is working towards similar goals regardless of the field one is working in. Moreover, she mentions that feeling like being part of a “chain” creates a more dynamic, fun and inspirational environment that pushes people to produce better results even when someone has difficulties in understanding the “chain” it makes one more prone to feeling included in an organization. When being asked about finding balance between better effort and better performance instead the respondent mentions how important it is to not be in a business of waste management since spending time, energy on things that do not add value is useless and instead focusing on getting rid of waste processes like overworking and anything that does not add to the customer value. She further states that praising one for 15 hours of work is not the way to go instead it is important to highlight accomplishments that involve creativity and being out of the comfort zone. The respondent is 75

skeptical in thinking that her department's environment maximizes employee motivation and productivity. She mentions that it is a “super ambitious goal” to have. However, she mentions that they do annual surveys in order to review employees' assessment of themselves in terms of motivation. The results are genuinely positive and it has to do with the employees being understanding of one selves work tasks that shows direct effort as well as being in a flat organization that is broad, communicable and direct in decision making. The respondent mentions that there is availability for employees to enter training programs, she highlights the importance of an individual's function and goals since it has a lot to do with the kind of intentions one has in their career.

Manager D

The respondent is 41 years old and has been working full time for the company for over 15 years now as head of Project Manage Office, working with project development. She is well aware of the goals even though it might be changes of the goals due to Covid-19 but then she would get informed through a PowerPoint presentation of the new goals and they would castrate it in the management community. According to the respondent, the employees in her department have both a lot of influence and responsibility in terms of their decisions and work tasks. The biggest reasons are because they have a project management office which have a huge variety of different projects so they can have an influence on what project they take on. When it comes to responsibility, they are all responsible for their own projects and how they want to run it. The employees are also very much allowed to be creative and she believes that it motivates them.

However, this can not be said for every employee since some individuals might prefer having tracks laid out for them already and others do not.

The respondent helps the employees get motivated by giving them support, coach them, understand them and understand the overall picture and communicate rather well with them in order to keep the direction and be transparent. She believes that it is really important to give feedback, both positive and negative feedback when an employee is not going in the right direction. It is also important to coach the employee so they can grow on their own. In addition to this she also states that it is the responsibility of the manager to notice obstacles that makes the employees demotivated. But something that is even more important is to create a climate where constructive feedback is normal and positive. It is also the managers responsibility to notice and help the employees when they get demotivated from their work. Furthermore, the manager also believes that the manager plays an important role in explaining the direction and setting the scene where they are at and where they are going in order for every employee to know what piece of the puzzle they are carrying. The respondent also stated that she believes that she plays an important role in motivating and coaching the employees, giving feedback, sharing their pain and success. She also believes that it is okay to fail and not feel motivated all the time and that it is her responsibility to step in and help.

When asked about programs she states that they have both benefit programs and training programs in different areas. The benefit programs are for the seniors but the training programs can be accessed by having a dialog with the manager and if the manager agrees the employee will be able to attend the training program. The respondent believes that the training programs give you a deeper understanding within your work which in turn will give you motivation to work better.

Lastly, the respondent stated that she thinks it is important with a decentralized workplace where people can take decisions and action in relation to changes. This freedom and knowledge

motivates them. However this is not always the case, in order for this to be true it depends on the individual. Not every person likes this kind of freedom and also this freedom does not suit every company either.

Employee A

Employee A’s position is Supply Chain Developer and has worked at Siemens for 8 years and was born 1977. Employee A works with the organization's goals from the business unit level to personal goals. According to employee A the manager at Operation Department is very good at making the goals clearly stated for every employee to follow. Asking the question on motivation employee explained that some days she is very motivated and other days not so much because she has a hard time working with colleagues that themselves are not unmotivated and that can drag her down as well and makes it hard to reach goals. The respondent thrive with working on reaching goals and wants rather to work with tasks she enjoys instead of focusing on climbing the career ladder. Siemens is a large corporation which means it is a lot of political layers, not always the best for the productivity, according to her “you need to know how to play the game which is not always the most efficient way, working with different cultures and people, need to find the smartest way which is not always the most motivating and productivity. This is how it is, we need to learn it, we try to make the environment also connected to individuals and managers”.

According to employee A the culture at Siemens is not working well because it is such a large corporation and it is hard to have a culture everyone thrive in but the culture at the Operating

Department has the manager doing a good job in making sure that everyone knows about with a special “culture document” everyone can read and follow. The respondent can see an opportunity with the new organization on setting new standards to follow and go by. According to her “ I see that if you compare with Sweden and England, Lincoln, which are two different cultures within

the company, I can clearly see that the Lincoln employees were less motivated, they do not make their own decisions and if you never let people make decisions then it is hard to develop and hard to work with because they do not know what to do. Not controlling their job as we do in Sweden, would grow you into making more decisions and feel more motivated to perform better”.

Employee B

Employee B is working at the logistic department and has worked at Siemens for 5 years and she is 31 years old. Employee B is aware of Siemens goals and feels that her manager is very good at making sure everyone understands the goals and how to reach them. Most of the time employee

B feels motivated but the time limit is sometimes unmotivating and stressful to manage some tasks or projects, meaning you have to prioritize. The respondent believes that when being motivated your effort and hard work leads to good performance. Just like employee A, employee

B does not take decisions based on support of her career more than taking decisions that favor the tasks. According to her “if you are not satisfied makes the motivation to go down, and vice versa, I think it is both that is needed in order to feel that this is a good place to work, you need the motivation to go somewhere and I think that the goals we are having in the department is really important but also to have the possibility to feel satisfaction if not reaching the goals then you get unmotivated, feels like running but never coming to the end”.

Similar to employee A, Employee B thinks that Siemens is such a large corporation and that everything takes time with decisions and processes which makes her unmotivated and feels that

Siemens environment is not maximizing her motivation and productivity but with the new organization the focus is that decisions should be decided faster. She can miss her old job because it was smaller and decisions were made faster and easier and she could understand the

products in the making better than the gas turbines at Siemens “Some people at OPS have never seen a gas turbine” employee B said. Still the possibilities at Siemens is motivating because you can come a long way in the company by being curious and working hard. According to the respondent every year we go through with the manager if there are any gaps that have developed during the year to increase the knowledge. I think a manager contributes a lot, a big part you feel happy when you go to work, feel part of the team. Employee B enjoys working in Operating and

Service department “because we work as a team and support each other and I would say the manager too in this case, for me at lease it is very motivating to feel the trust from them and also the support they give back and the clarity, possibility to discuss goals so we know which direction to work on”. The respondent can take her own decisions to a limit otherwise discuss decisions with the manager and taking her own decisions makes her feel more motivated and satisfied to perform better within the company.

Employee C

Employee C is a Strategic Purchaser at Siemens and she has been working there for 8 years and she is 32 years old. Employee C is also aware of the department's goals and how to reach them, but not the global goals as clear as the department goals because the employees do not need to reach them otherwise they have too much on their mind. The respondent explained that each year the manager goes through the goals of the year and how to work to reach them. She has been working for strategic purchasing since she started and says that she thrives really well there “If you work hard and are willing to work you can thrive and decide in the company”. Just like employee A & B, employee C believes that when being motivated your effort and hard work leads to good performance. According to her “You need to feel satisfied to get motivated. I feel good having flexibility and that I get help from the management team if I need it, which I think

Siemens is good for most of the time. You need to feel that it is fun and satisfying as well to keep the motivation”.

She thinks the culture at Siemens has a nice feeling there and everyone is nice to each other but some takes down the mood. But she likes to work at Siemens and thinks it is important that managers are clear with the culture, so everyone is aware of them and to be nice. Listen to everyone in the group and try to make the culture better. Siemens has tried but needs more. The respondent can make her own decisions, She does not need to take it with the manager all the time, if she has questions or problems she talks to the manager. According to employee C “I am happy here but if I am not then I tell them and am honest. It is a good workplace that I enjoy.

Large companies such as Siemens take so much longer to reach a goal of a project, so many people go through in order to finish a project or task. Siemens has both positive and negative problems, at Siemens you can find the right position within the corporation”

Employee D

The respondent is 33 years old and has been working full time for the company for 5 years now as a business developer within the procurement department. His work tasks are to develop business. How to work and improve their ways of working using digital tools. He is aware of the company’s goals which he got to know when through company meetings where managers explained them. Although he finds them easy and clear he believes that they can be hard to understand for a new employee since there is a lot of information and there are different goals on different levels within the company.

The respondent is motivated and satisfied with his work and believes that motivation and satisfaction are the key to get responsibility and one's performance. He also believes that it is the motivation that gives him satisfaction and the factors that gives him the motivation is the feeling

of teamwork, appreciation and that tasks are on a good level, not too hard but also not too easy.

He believes that one way to motivate employees is through salary, it can not be the only way but it is a good way. If an employee does a good job he would rather see the appreciation in his salary than through soft feedback such as a commend. He also brought up that the environment in Siemens is not one that maximizes your motivation and productivity, it is an environment where they do not necessarily work hard and this is created from a mix of culture with some soft management. He believes that stricter management would increase the employee performance in his department. However he does think that his manager contributes to his satisfaction and motivation, mainly by showing interest in both him and his work.

In his department people do not stay long at their positions, people quit and new people come in and this affects his motivation both positively and negatively, sometimes it feels like you have to start it all over again but the positive side with it is that you meet new colleagues, friends and new ideas.

When asked about if they got any programs he stated that they have some courses they must attend but also development plans together with their manager. However, these meetings and courses are a way to communicate and reflect on their performance which in the end helps them to become more efficient and increases the quality.

Employee E

The respondent is 53 years old and is currently working full time as a technical advisor in

Siemens. He has been working in that specific position for 8 years but has worked for Siemens over 30 years. The respondent is aware of the company's goals and knows how he shall work in order for him to reach them but. He also states that they are presented to him by his manager but since he has worked for over 30 years for the company, he states he has knowledge about how

things work in the company. But when asked about how he would think new employees would understand the goals he stated that the goals are just a couple of sentences that say how one should behave and do. He believes that the most important thing is to learn how the process works and things like that, and that it is quite complicated to do so since their products are complicated and he thinks it takes some years in order to get warm in their clothes. According to the respondent Siemens have some training programs but it is a complete program, it is a plan for you when you are new since an employee should have fulfilled some criteria such as different types of courses before getting employed in the company.

When the respondent was asked about his motivation and satisfaction he stated that he is motivated since he finds it very motivating to meet a lot of new different people since their department has quite a lot of people going in and out. He meets new people from all over the world and gets to teach and learn from them. He also states that helping the customers when and always working forward is something that motivates him. The respondent however thinks that one can never do a good job if the person is not motivated, it might work for a short period but sooner or later the person would sink deeper and deeper down. He believes that motivation and satisfaction for the work equals higher employee performance.

The respondent is allowed to work undependable and is able to do some things off the records, he believes that this comes with a relationship with the manager where they have built up a trust between each other. He knows how to be as efficient as possible and who to go to when help is needed. According to the respondent, he can make his own decisions about some things but there are also some kinds of frames he needs to work within because a company cannot have people doing their own thing otherwise it would become a big disaster he believes. He states that as an employee you have to work as a process.

When the respondent was asked about if he thinks it is the managers responsible to help him get motivated he stated that it is, if he has a lousy manager his improvements would go down and he would be less motivated to work. However, he states that he has pretty good communication with his manager, he believes that the managers know what they are getting from him. He states that a new employee should work hard and prove themselves and create a good relationship with their manager and with that you can get feedback from them. However, it is not the manager that motivates him, he is motivated by having a happy and satisfied customer.

The respondent is self-driven and has his own goals that mostly motivates him but also the culture, where new people go and come and he has the opportunity to learn and teach new things to his new colleagues.

Employee F

The respondent is 27 years old and is working full time for 2 years at Siemens as a demand planning professional where he is more focused at data analytic and setting forecast levels for the business econ. The respondent is aware of the company’s goal and finds them quite clear. The way he gets to know the goals are through information gathering but he also says that whenever they work with development projects, they always must connect it to the company’s goals.

The respondent states that he is quite satisfied and happy with his work and one of the big reasons for that is because he has a lot of personal responsibility and freedom in what he does because the management believes in him. He also states that motivation is something that definitely leads to a good employee performance, at least for him. He really wants to see results in what he is doing and seeing people getting benefit from his work motivates him. The correlation is quite strong between seeing the results and putting in effort according to him. The respondent further states that for him, motivation and satisfaction are linked and that he gets

either one of them by the other one which in turn leads to an increase in his performance. He also believes that the culture within his department is quite good, people are willing to help each other, and nobody is selfish. The management welcomes change, and they really push for changes when they find an idea good or interesting and this is something that really motivates him. The feeling when you have a good idea and the managers agree and really push for it is something, he believes motivates him a lot.

However, something that he would like is to have a manager that could give him close feedback on what he is doing and if it's good or bad. The manager right now in his department doesn't really understand his work and they only see the end results, thus, the manager does not give him the feedback that he wants and this is something that could motivate him to work even better. A manager that understands the work and gives feedback, not only on the result but also on the process.

Siemens has programs where you can get stocks and training programs where you can understand how the business works and as an employee you are able to participate in these programs if the managers see benefit in it.

Employee G

The respondent is a 40 year old male with a position as a project manager within added manufacturing and has been working full time for the past 13 years in Siemens. The respondent is familiar with the company's goals since he mentioned how his department brings up this topic annually. He goes further and mentions how his colleagues and the working environment motivates him at his current job. As for the job description he states that it is an exciting area of work which keeps him motivated regardless of the environment he is in. The respondent further states how crucial it is to how good colleges are since according to him he spends a third of his

life there and having good working conditions is a fundamental baseline to be excited for work.

Furthermore, he states that there is no better feeling of having a happy customer which brings up his effort as being recognized. According to him he is in the beginning of a learning curve since there is a lot to learn on a weekly basis. Even though the respondent is in the beginning of a learning curve he insists on working cost-effective for the organization, and brings up the thought of asking himself if it favors Siemens before doing anything decisive.

When it comes to satisfaction and motivation the respondent states that receiving acknowledgement from a manager and co-workers is motivating and exciting. However, when it comes to the work environment he believes that Siemens does not create a motivational work environment instead it is something that has to be done by oneself. Meaning he needs to take his own responsibility to make his environment motivating. The respondent mentions the training programs he is offered and that according to him it is how “a company rewarding us” since it will contribute the person in the long run like with an increased salary because of the career improvements one gets from the training programs. Lastly the respondent explains that there is not a straight line for doing his job even though there can be a set of frameworks by top management which means that he has his freedom with the framework to work as it fits his job as long as it retains high quality standards and a happy customer.

Employee H

The respondent is a male who has been working full time for the company for the last eight years, he currently manages various engineering projects inside the organization. According to the respondent he has regular appointments with his manager were they go through goals and how to reach them in a sufficient way. According to him his current project involves every department inside the organization, he continues stating how important it is for him to be a part 86

of the process since it is motivating to feel being mattered in the business. For the respondent it is important to have a higher degree of satisfaction that makes his line of work better. Moreover, he continues explaining how he got “free hands” to solve the problems at his department and that he time to time collaborates with other departments in order to solve problems that require advanced contribution. Likewise for the respondent it is important to take individual decisions in bigger projects and that he feels like he can perform independent decisions. When it comes to rating the level of involvement of his managers in his ongoing projects the respondent believes that there is room for improvement.

Apparently, the respondent was going to undergo a training program but due to the ongoing pandemic/crisis everything got canceled. Meanwhile, the respondent describes how he works closely with his manager that constantly provides him with feedback on his work, in addition he states how his manager contributes a good share to his satisfaction. Nevertheless, the respondent sees no room for improvements in his kind of work culture since he believes that he and his colleagues take full advantage of each other's skill sets in order for them to further develop themselves.

Employee I

The respondent is a 64 year old male with an experience of working in the organization for over

22 years as a specialist in repair and project manager. The respondent believes in hard work that eventually leads to good results which in the end makes him motivated to do his best. He states that his decisions are based on the organization's milestones in his projects and that these are the determining factors in his decision making. According to the respondent it is the satisfaction at work that increases his motivation to work. The respondent does not recognize any training programs in his line of work but instead puts emphasis on the possibility to improve the culture 87

at his workplace by saying how the organization should be more straightforward with information that concerns him and his colleagues. Nevertheless, the respondent clarifies that he can make his own decisions and will do what's necessary for the company, he goes further by stating how he does decisions like if it was his company and that it is the same as if he did decisions for himself.

Employee J

The respondent is a 54 year old woman who has been working in the same organization for roughly 32 years, she is an application engineer that works in a diverse department. She is a satisfied employee who thinks highly of her manager, she states that she has built up her influence at the job and that it got her to the point where she can take active decisions on her own. According to the respondent, satisfaction brings joy in her work life and eventually it leads to motivation. She mentions that her department is offering special training programs that are suited for women in her field and that it brings her value to her career. The respondent emphasised on the importance of having a good manager and that it is more relevant than her colleagues. According to her it is acceptable to be more competent than someone else at her department as long as people help each other and that nobody needs to be an expert on everything even though everyone has the same job description.

Appendix 1

Operalization of Interview Questions

Respondent type Question Theoretical Connection

How much influence/responsibility do the Manager employees have in terms of decisions and work tasks?

To what extent are the employees allowed autonomy and assume Manager responsibility for their work tasks? Decentralization

Do you feel like you can take your own decisions and to be a Employee part of the corporation? Why, why not?

How is the culture at your Employee workplace? Can it be improved, how?

How do you as manager make Manager your employee more satisfied with their current work?

Porter and Lawler Would you say that satisfaction makes you work better than Employee motivation? Or does the satisfaction

Do you believe Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes your employee’s Manager motivation and productivity? If so, do you feel that the environment makes them perform better?

Do you have any sort of programs such as benefit programs, training programs or other programs that Manager helps the employees to develop a sense of responsibility for the work?

Are you aware of any Manager motivational obstacles? If so, how are these solved? Employee Performance

Do you believe that you as a manager helps the employees get motivated and satisfied by Manager creating motivational climates in order to raise their willingness to do a better job to reach the organization's goal?

Do you believe Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes your motivation and Employee productivity? If so, do you feel that the environment makes you more dedicated to your work?

Employee Do you have any sort of programs such as benefit programs, training

programs or other programs that help you develop a sense of responsibility for your work? If so, do you believe that you show more attention to quality control and are able to work independently in order to solve problems that occur?

Do you get motivated when you Employee believe that your effort and hard work leads to good performance? Vroom's Expectancy Theory What are your decisions based on Employee for you to work as efficiently as possible?

Do you believe that your manager Fiedler leadership contributes in any way to your Employee contingency model satisfaction and motivation for theory this work? If so how?

Have you experienced high job satisfaction when you filled in the current position Employee Herzberg in this company compared to your previous position with another employer?

Are you satisfied and motivated while working at your current Employee job? why? Why not? Herzberg Follow up question: If answer not, how would you be motivated

Appendix 2

Interview Questions

Starting Questions: 1. Age (years)? 2. Are you working full-time for the company? 3. How many years have you worked for the company? 4. What is your highest level of education? 5. What is your position in the company? 6. Are you aware of the company’s goals, and how to reach them? 7. How did you become aware of them? Are the goals clearly stated?

Managers:

8. How much influence/responsibility do the employees have in terms of decisions and work tasks? (Connection Decentralization)

9. To what extent are the employees allowed autonomy and assume responsibility for their work tasks? (Connection Decentralization)

10. How do you as manager make your employee more satisfied with their current work? (Connection Porter and Lawler)

11. Do you believe Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes your employees motivation and productivity? If so, do you feel that the environment makes them perform better? (Connection Employee Job Performance)

12. Do you have any sort of programs such as benefit programs, training programs or other programs that helps the employees to develop a sense of responsibility for the work? (Connection Employee Job Performance)

13. Are you aware of any motivational obstacles? If so, how are these solved? (Connection Employee Job Performance)

14. Do you believe that you as a manager helps the employees get motivated and satisfied by creating motivational climates in order to raise their willingness to do a better job to reach the organization's goal? (Connection Employee Job Performance)

Employees:

1. Are you satisfied and motivated while working at your current job? why? Why not? Follow up question: If answer not, how would you be motivated

2. Do you get motivated when you believe that your effort and hard work leads to good performance? (Connection Vroom's Expectancy Theory)

3. What are your decisions based on for you to work as efficiently as possible? (Connection Vroom's Expectancy Theory)

4. Would you say that satisfaction makes you work better than motivation? Or does the satisfaction increase your motivation for your work? (Connection Porter and Lawler)

5. Do you believe Siemens has created a work environment that maximizes your motivation and productivity? If so, do you feel that the environment makes you more dedicated to your work? (Connection Employee Job Performance)

6. Do you have any sort of programs such as benefit programs, training programs or other programs that help you develop a sense of responsibility for your work? If so, do you believe that you show more attention to quality control and are able to work independently in order to solve problems that occur? (Connection Employee Job Performance)

7. How is the culture at your workplace? Can it be improved, how? (Connection Decentralization)

8. Do you believe that your manager contributes in any way to your satisfaction and motivation for this work? If so how? (Connection Fiedler leadership contingency model theory)

9. Do you feel like you can take your own decisions and to be a part of the corporation? Why, why not? (Connection Decentralization)

10. Have you experienced high job satisfaction when you filled in the current position in this company compared to your previous position with another employer? (Connection Herzberg)

Interview Questions in Swedish (Employees)

1. Är du nöjd och motiverad när du arbetar på nuvarande jobb? 2. Blir du motiverad när du tror att din insats och hårt arbete leder till goda resultat? 3. Tar du aktiva beslut som ger dig den högsta inflytande på jobbet? 4. Skulle du säga att tillfredsställelse gör att du arbetar bättre än motivation, eller ökar tillfredsställelse din motivation din motivation för ditt arbete? 5. Tror du att Siemens har skapat en arbetsmiljö som maximerar din motivation och produktivitet? 6. Har du någon form av förmånsprogram, träningsprogram eller annan typ av program som hjälper dig att utveckla en ansvarskänsla för ditt arbete? 7. Tror du att din chef bidrar på något sätt till din tillfredsställelse och motivation för ditt arbete? 8. Hur är kulturen på din arbetsplats? 9. Känner du att du kan ta dina egna beslut och vara en del av företaget? 10. Har du upplevt hög arbetstillfredsställelse när du fyllde i den nuvarande positionen i detta företag jämfört med din tidigare tjänst hos en annan arbetsgivare?