Raise productivity, improve worker autonomy

In a capitalist model like the current one, the dream of many entrepreneurs is to increase the productivity of workers so that their organizations generate more profits. And, although there is no definitive answer to how to increase the profits of the company, the ways to do it or the tools that exist for it, one of the methods in which the business system has been based in recent decades, has been (and, unfortunately, mostly is) control over workers (Jódar and Alós, 2008).

However, there is evidence that the way to improve productivity is, in fact, the opposite: enhance staff autonomy.

• Related article: "Types of Leadership: The 5 most common types of leader"

Control and productivity in companies

Many authors (e.g. Peña, 2004) agree that as humans we always seek to eliminate insecurities, keep our self-image in good condition or simply feel less dependent on factors outside of us, which usually converge in a tendency to control the environment and we themselves. This in psychology is called the well-known "need for control." Of course the feeling of control or, in this work context, of being controlled, greatly affects how a worker perceives an organization.

Today we can speak of a degree or scale on the level of control in companies. ANDAt one extreme would be those very controlling companies, in which the worker normally feels that he is obliged not to depart from the norms and only is there out of necessity (mainly economic) and is limited to following orders from "above", want or not.

On the contrary, at the other extreme we find those companies that leave and distribute control over the workers, increasing their autonomy (for example, companies such as Zappos, Google and Twitter).

At this point, certain basic premises can be established relating the level of control and productivity. From the clear daily examples that reflect the reality of our day to day, where we see that if we do something that arises from we do it ourselves in a much more efficient way than if we are ordered, even empirical studies that already in their day they showed that transformational leadership (Mendoza et al., 2007), in the face of other more authoritarian leadership styles, is associated with a greater feeling of control on the part of the person (internal locus of control), as well as a significant improvement in job performance (Howell and Avolio, 1993).

The way the different organizations perceive is key in the production process, since the intrinsic motivation (the main engine for productivity) is usually diminished in the first case exposed above in the degree-scale, that is, the more control there is.

Unfortunately the world has been built under this construct and a large percentage of companies still have a hierarchical pyramidal model where the leader is the one who is higher, has more control and the power to make decisions. In this type of company, it is clearly seen that the workers "work for" and do not feel committed to the values ​​of the company.

The importance of motivation

With the evolution of the market and human resources systems, the need has been seen to give more value to the user and give him more power and motivation, both for rights and for comfort in the workplace (in addition to eliminating certain psychosocial risks at work that could pose a problem for the company).

But what is also being seen is that the more autonomy or control the user has, the more productive it is and increases their sense of belonging, as many authors theorized. It should be noted Deci and Ryan, who in 1985 already explained with their theory of self-determination (TAD) that there are three psychological needs that they must be satisfied for individuals to develop both personally and professionally: autonomy, feeling competent and relating.

To give the importance it deserves to the motivation of the worker linked to his productivity, we bring the latest survey State of the Global Workplace (O'Boyle and Harter, 2013) of the prestigious Gallup firm, stating that 63% of employees worldwide, a majority, are unmotivated, and this means that they will spend less effort to achieve the objectives of the organizations. Furthermore, another 24% of the total are actively unmotivated, indicating that in addition to being unmotivated and unproductive, they are prone to infecting their co-workers with negativity.

Boosting innovation: the GAMeeP case

However, there are already numerous success stories where it is stated that the company provides the worker with self-management tools or reinforces and motivates him additionally not only with economic resources, following the multiple theories related to increased productivity and job satisfaction.

This is where an applied research project in the area of ​​quality of working life comes in, co-financed by the Center for Industrial Technological Development, CDTI (2015-2017) within the framework of research and development projects and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) linked to the ERDF smart growth program 2014-20. The project is called GAMeeP (Gamified Employee Engagement) and has been developed by Compartia, a small Spanish company.

GAMeeP, following the plot line, raises a gamified team management system whose objective is to improve the quality of working life and increase the overall productivity of teams and organizations in addition to simplifying the management of human resources, while increasing the feeling of well-being and the commitment of employees.

The power of gamification

In the context of games, a study by Ryan, Rigby and Przybylski (2006) concludes that individuals are attracted to the game through of computers (video games, but extensible to gamification) in part because we experience autonomy, competition and interrelation while playing (precisely the three psychological needs mentioned above for a person to develop optimally).

In the virtual platform already developed a system of tasks and incentives has been designed, endowing the worker with the power and autonomy to be able to choose and carry out the tasks that are desired freely always within a margin of time. Not happy only with the development of the platform, an investigation was carried out (pre-post test model) to really demonstrate how the innovative gamified system improved the behaviors of workers. The indicators that were measured were, on the one hand: Autonomy, Competence and Interrelation (Spanish version of Scale of satisfaction of basic psychological needs at work; Vargas Téllez and Soto Patiño, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2000) and on the other, performance indicators (Involvement / Commitment, Collaboration, Efficiency, Productivity).

The conclusions were very clear: thanks to the GAMeeP system, users are more engaged, collaborate more and are more productive, in addition to increasing levels of competence in certain contexts.

• Related article: "Gamification: taking games beyond leisure"

Conclution

With the data on the table and previous research, we can conclude that the world evolves and with it companies and leadership styles. Moreover, with the change in the management methods of organizations changes in people's behavior come hand in hand. Having more control over tasks, being more motivated or having more flexible hours are just some of the changes that enhance the feeling of job satisfaction that we see today.

With the change seen and anticipated in leadership styles and business management models of human resources, envision current and future market needs (especially in certain sectors such as entertainment, technologies, contents, etc.).

Currently, moment when the information age gives way to the age of people and talent, are identified, on the part of the workers, skills (of a creative nature) and, on the part of the companies, new models such as GAMeeP to empower humanity and certain business values ​​that lead to greater job satisfaction and productivity.

Bibliographic references:

• Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Boston, MA: Springer US.

• Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268.

• Howell, J. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational Leadership, Transactional Leadership, Locus of Control, and Support for Innovation: Key Predictors of Consolidated-Business-Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (6), 891-902.

• Mendoza, M. I. A., Ortiz, A. M. F. and Parker, R. H. C. (2007). Two decades of research and development in Transformational Leadership. Journal of the Research Center, 7 (27), 25-41.

• Jódar, P. and Alós, R. (2008). Business strategies, employment and labor relations. Union Gazette: reflection and debate, 11, 221-241.

• Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S. and Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30 (4), 344–360.

• O'Boyle, E. and Harter, J. (2013). State of the Global Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for Business Leaders Worldwide. Washington, DC.

• Peña, M. D. (2004). Need for control: conceptual analysis and experimental proposal. Spanish Professional Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, 2, 70-91.

• Vargas Téllez, J. TO. and Soto Patiño, J. C. (2013). Preliminary validation of the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale for its Spanish version. In: XVII INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES. Guadalajara Mexico.