Running head: MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES

Motivation and Autonomy in Remote Employees

Dorene Uhrich

Colorado State University

MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 2

Table of Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Purpose and Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Limitations and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 3

Abstract

With a growing number of remote employees, the management of those workers may

need to adapt to fit their unique needs. The research question being examined in this study was:

How does autonomy relate to motivation for remote employees at education organizations? A

weak positive correlation was found between autonomy and motivation in the participants

surveyed, with some subgroups having a moderate positive correlation and others having none at

all. The past research, current research results, and implications are discussed in this study.
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 4

Introduction

How strictly do you supervise an employee if you see him only a few times per year and

what impact does that have on his motivation? With telecommuting more popular now than it

ever has been before (Census Bureau Report, 2012), more managers are being faced with this

issue. Increasingly, employers are saving money by allowing employees to work from home or

remote locations (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014), and managers are being tasked with monitoring

and motivating these distant employees.

It is the role of a manager to assign work and assess its completion, but in most remote

situations the employee has control over their schedule, priorities, and coordination with other

employees (Spector, 1986). The juxtaposition between the autonomy needed for motivated

employees and the need for managerial control (Chang & Cheng, 2014) is heightened in

dispersed work environments.

Some remote employees thrive on the autonomy they experience working outside of a

traditional office, while others struggle with the lack of structure (Barsness, Diekmann, & Seidel,

2005). Being free to plan the days schedule without being physically observed by a manager

leaves some employees happier and more productive, but occasionally the opposite is true. For

those that struggle in a remote environment, they may quit, be terminated, have decreased

productivity, or have lowered quality or output. Some may also feel stifled by the remote

managers requests or abandoned by the infrequent communication.

Literature Review

Extensive research has been conducted on autonomy, motivation, and remote employees

as separate variables. However, the correlation between autonomy and motivation on remote

workers has not been explicitly studied.

MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 5

Autonomy in the workplace is associated with how much freedom the employee has in

regard to their work activities and decision-making (Appu & Sia, 2015, p. 774). Appu and Sia

(2015) elaborate that autonomy at work is the degree of freedom a person is given in carrying out

their tasks and making decisions. Langfred (2000) researched autonomy at work, looking at both

individual and group autonomy. He found autonomy is a contributing factor to group

effectiveness, although warned that individual autonomy could conflict with group autonomy.

Langfred (2000) studied only two groups, and stated that more research must be done in other

organizations to determine if his findings are generalizable.

While autonomy is how much freedom a person has, motivation can be described as how

they feel about their work. Azar and Shafighi (2013) define motivation as energizing and as the

reason a person remains committed to his duties and does his jobs seriously and joyfully (p.

432). The impact of motivation on productivity and employee success has also been the focus of

much analysis. A great deal of this research is in specific situations, like Azar and Shafighis

(2013) research on the employees in Isfahan's Islamic Revolution Housing Foundation where

they determined motivation had a considerable effect on job performance. Hertel, Niedner, and

Herrmanns (2003), examination of the motivation of software developers in Open Source

projects is another very focused example of an analysis of motivation in the literature. Some

generalizations have been made, like Lazarouis (2015) claim that it is a managers growing

responsibility to support employee motivation, creating new, more adjustable, and flexible (p.

101) practices in their work that focus on the individuals needs.

Whether or not they are autonomous or motivated, remote employees can be described as

members of a geographically dispersed workforce where their main form of communication is

via technology (Geister, Hertel, & Konradt, 2005). A study by Barsness, Diekmann, and Seidel
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 6

(2005) examined motivation in remote employees. They found that because of diminished

organizational visibility associated with their reduced physical proximity to their supervisors,

(p. 403) they had to do more self-promotion, not just of what they did but of how they were

performing (p. 417). This self-promotion is sometimes looked down on, particularly if the

manager is a different sex, age, or race. This study did not examine the employees autonomy.

There have been some studies where two of the variables have been examined. For

instance, while Hoch and Kozlowski (2014) did not expressly state they were doing research on

autonomy with remote employees, they found that hierarchical leadership was less strongly

associated with the performance of a team than structural supports and shared team leadership.

They found the more traditional hierarchical leadership was less effective with virtual teams.

They did not examine how this impacted employee motivation.

One limitation cited by multiple researchers was not having pinpointed the varying level

of remoteness in the employees they studied (Barsness, Diekmann, & Seidel, 2005; Hoch &

Kozlowski, 2000). Some work a few days a week in an office, others never see any co-workers,

while others work in the field with their supervisor or peers. Not being able to determine exactly

how remote an employee is made it challenging to be conclusive in their research.

A great deal of the research also deals with the interaction and productivity of virtual

teams (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Langford, 2000; Chudoba & Maznevski, 2000), instead of

looking at the individual implications for working remotely and what could improve that for the

employee.

Purpose and Research Question

The purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between remote employees

perceived autonomy and their motivation. Research on each of these individual variables has
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 7

been extensive, but a study examining that exact relationship with the population of remote

employees has not been conducted.

The research question being examined was: How does autonomy relate to motivation for

remote employees at education organizations?

Methods

The goal of this research study was to examine the correlation between two variables, so

a quantitative approach was chosen. Rather than seeking to explore the detailed reasons why a

remote employee feels motivation or autonomy, I sought to relate the variables to see if they had

an impact on each other. Because of this, a correlation design was employed. A correlation

design allowed me to measure the degree of association between motivation and autonomy. A

quantitative study was also chosen because I was looking to find trends in a large population:

remote employees of educational organizations.

In this study, the target population was virtual teams working for educational

organizations. The sample comes from two educational companies: each with remote employees

and employees working from a main office.

Permission was obtained to survey the participants by reaching out to the Vice President

of Human Resources at one organization and the Manager of Training at the other. Both people

gave their permission to survey the remote employees with the understanding that there would be

no information in this research identifying their organization or their employees.

There are 89 remote employees between the two groups, so I employed a simple random

sampling to select the population to survey. I listed all of the remote employees, gave each a

number, and used a random numbers table to select 35 employees to survey. 35 was chosen

because 30 responses is a good number for a correlation study (Cresswell, 2015) and I
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 8

anticipated a high response rate because I knew all the respondents personally. A simple random

sampling was chosen to get a sample representative of the population, while eliminating a

potential bias in selecting employees.

Because the aim was to compare two variables, no control group was needed and the

responses were all gathered at one time. An online survey was emailed to each participants

work email address with a personalized email requesting they take a short survey to assist in a

research project for my graduate school. Anonymity was promised, as well as the freedom to

stop taking the survey at any time during the process. I shared that taking the survey was their

form of giving me permission to use their anonymous information in my study, and that taking

the survey was optional. I sent personalized emails to each individual since I assumed they

would be more likely to participate if I personally requested their help.

An online survey was selected because it allowed participants to remain anonymous and

to take as much time as they needed to determine their answers. It was also selected because

Google Forms was able to automatically compile the results for easy analysis. No deadline was

given to complete the survey, but the responses were collected and analyzed nine days after the

survey was sent.

In the survey, questions were asked to determine the degree of virtuality due to past

studies indication that it was an unknown in their studies. They were also asked their gender. A

series of questions using the Likert-scale was used in assessing the employees perceived

autonomy and another series of questions to determine their level of motivation in regard to their

work. The full survey can be found in Appendix A.

MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 9

Results

33 people responded to the survey, of the 35 the survey was sent to. In cleaning the

database, all respondents answered all questions, but one of the 33 participants selected No for

the first question asking if he considered himself a remote employee. All of his responses were

eliminated from the analysis because this research is examining remote employees. Only the 32

others were included in the final analysis.

Nine respondents were male and 23 were female. 47% were aged 26-40, another 47%

were aged 41-55, and 6% were aged 56-70. These employees spent an average of 2% of their

time their companys headquarters, and 41% spend no time at all at their companys

headquarters.

There were three questions assessing what percentage of the time the employee spent

his/her time: at the headquarters, at home, or in the field. Participants were given an open

response, but seven of the 32 respondents had numbers totaling more than 100% of their time.

The numbers were left as the participants wrote them, but it must be noted some of the

percentages must be incorrect because a person cannot spend more than one hundred percent of

their time anywhere.

The sum of the four questions assessing autonomy was calculated to find the autonomy

score. The same was done for the three questions assessing motivation the sum of all three was

taken to find a motivation score.

As seen in Figure 1.0 below, the correlation between the autonomy score and the

motivation score was plotted to identify a correlation. With a correlation coefficient of 0.365,

there is a weak positive linear relationship between the autonomy an employee perceives and the
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 10

motivation he/she feels. This means there is weak evidence to support that the more autonomous

a remote employee feels, the more likely he/she will be to feel motivated in his/her work.

Figure 1.0

Correlation between Autonomy &

Motivation in Remote Employees
16

15
Sum of Motivation Scores

14

13

12

11
y = 0.2019x + 9.2159
10 R = 0.13322
R = 0.365
9
10 12 14 16 18 20
Sum of Autonomy Scores

Further analysis was done on subgroups as summarized in Table 1.0 below. Here it was

found that gender did not play a significant role in whether or not there would be a correlation

between autonomy and motivation, but age and how much a person worked in the field did

impact the correlation. Remote employees between 25 and 40 years old experienced a positive

moderate correlation with a correlation coefficient of 0.573. The other standout group was that

people spending less than 50% in the field had a positive moderate correlation between

autonomy and motivation with a correlation coefficient of 0.468, but remote employees spending

more than half their time in the field showed no correlation between the variables at all.
 MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 11

Average Autonomy vs. Motivation in Different Subgroups

Average
Number of Average Motivation
Table 1.0 Autonomy R Score
Participants Score
Score

All n=33 17.413 12.781 0.365

Women n=23 17.955 12.864 0.367

Men n=10 17 12.6 0.402

Age 25-40 n=15 17.867 12.8 0.573

Age 41-55 n=15 17.333 12.933 0.302

Age 56-70 n=2 18.5 11.5 -

Field <50% n=23 17.783 12.826 0.468

Field >50% n=9 17.333 12.667 0

Discussion

The correlation between autonomy and motivation for remote employees was examined

in this study, and the results indicate there was a weak positive correlation. This means a remote

employees level of autonomy does impact his/her motivation for the job. It is even stronger for

workers age 25-40 and for employees working in the field more than half the time. As discussed

in the introduction, if an employee felt stifled or ignored (both extremes of supervision), their

autonomy would be impacted, and this research shows that can then impact the employees

motivation.

There are several possible reasons the correlation is stronger with a younger group of

employees. It could be that employees over 40 are more likely to have previously worked jobs

where they were not working remotely, so they have different expectations for their managers.
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 12

The employees aged 25-40 may also tend to be more comfortable with technology, making

interacting with peers and supervisors less of a stress. It is also likely more employees in this

age range have young children at home, making the autonomy to set his/her schedule more of a

motivating factor. However, because questions were not asked to gather specifics about the

participants lives and past job experience, it is impossible to say for sure why employees in this

group had a stronger correlation between the variables.

On the other hand, employees spending less than half their time in the field, likely had a

much greater correlation between autonomy and motivation because of the nature of the work. It

can be assumed these employees did not engage with people in-person in the course of their

work as often as employees in the field. This is known to be true based on the jobs of the

employees surveyed. It follows that the level of supervision and autonomy played a bigger

factor on motivation because there were fewer outside variables impacting motivation like

people they worked with in-person or places they went other than home or the office.

It is, however, surprising that the employees spending most of their time in the field

showed no correlation at all between autonomy and motivation. This could be because there

were so many other factors impacting their motivation or that they often were not able to choose

themselves where in the field they got to go, but there is no definitive evidence to indicate the

reason for the lack of correlation.

Limitations and Implications

One limitation of this research was that all the employees surveyed felt at least

moderately autonomous and motivated. The correlation was probably not stronger partially

because most of the survey participants scored similarly. Of a possible motivation score of 15,

the average was 12.8 with a standard deviation of 1.3, so there was not much variation in the
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 13

scores. This could be because the all the survey participants were from just two organizations, so

the culture of those two workplaces heavily impacts the results. Future research could be done

with a wider range of organizations to see if the results are generalizable.

Another limitation in this study was the lack of reasons provided which could help an

organization decide how much autonomy to give its employees. It was found there is a weak

correlation between autonomy and motivation, but the questions of how much autonomy should

be given and what that would look like were not answered. Because of this, there are not many

practical implications for a manager looking to set the right level of autonomy for remote

employees. A qualitative follow-up study could be done to determine reasons and rationale for

the correlation that was found in this study.

Another revision to this study would be to set the survey questions about the percentage

of time the employee spent at home, at the headquarters, or in the field to add up to one hundred

percent. 22% of the respondents answers to those three questions added up to more than one

hundred percent of their time, brining all of their answers about how much time they spent where

into question. These questions were added because of past studies indicating it was a limitation

of their studies they did not assess how remote an employee was, but the questioning technique

needed to prevent human error.

Conclusion

The results of this study show there is a weak positive correlation between autonomy and

motivation for remote employees in educational organizations. These exact variables had never

been studied before, and a great deal more research can be done. Future research could be done

in organizations outside of the education field to see if these results are unique to the field or are

true of most remote employees. There could also be more of an emphasis on what causes the
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 14

autonomy or motivation so the results are more actionable for employers. A wider range of

organizations may also help include more employees that do not feel motivated or autonomous,

so their responses can impact the correlation.

In conclusion, with a rapidly growing number of organizations employing distant workers

(Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014), further analysis should be done on the autonomy given to remote

employees and the impact on motivation.

MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 15

References

Appu, A. V., & Sia, S. K. (2015). Work autonomy and workplace creativity: Moderating role of

task creativity. Global Business Review, 16(5), 772-784.

Azar, M., & Shafighi, A. A. (2013). The effect of work motivation on employees job

performance (Case study: Employees of Isfahan Islamic Revolution Housing

Foundation). International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social

Sciences, 3(9), 432-445.

Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. L. (2005) Motivation and opportunity: The role

of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network centrality in impression

management. Academy of Management, 48(3) 401-419. doi:

10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407906.

Chang, M., & Cheng, C. (2014). How balance theory explains high-tech professionals solutions

of enhancing job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 2008-2018.

Chudoba, K. M., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Bridging space over time: Global virtual team

dynamics and effectiveness. Organizational Science, 11(5), 473-392.

Geister, S., Hertel, G., & Kondradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current

empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.

Hertel, G., Niedner, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in Open

Source projects: An internet-based survey of contributors to the Linex kernel. Research

Policy, 32(7), 1159-1177.

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,

structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3)

390-403.
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 16

Langfred, C. W. (2000) The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in

work groups. The Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 563-585.

Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Employee motivation and job performance. Linguistic and Philosophical

Investigations, 14(1), 97-102.

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning

autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 31(1), 1005-1016.

United States Census Bureau. (2012). Census Bureau Report Shows Steady Increase in Home-

Based Workers Since 1999. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/employment_occupations/cb12-

188.html
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 17

Appendix A

The full survey can be found at this link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1SZnZKMHcHunrbzWQDNgZIzK2bzU7TTNUukG51-
36G0o/edit?usp=forms_home&ths=true

A transcript of the survey reads:

Survey for Remote Employees

Your participation in this research is voluntary but appreciated. Your name will not be collected
or shared, and neither will the name of the organization for which you work. The use of this data
will be limited to this research for Dorene's graduate school course and will not be published or
shared outside of her class. This study will be examining autonomy and motivation in remote
employees. If you are not a remote employee, please answer no to question #1 and conclude the
survey. Thank you so much! I genuinely appreciate your time.

1. Would you consider yourself a remote employee (an employee that mostly works away
from your organization's main office)?
a. Yes
b. No
2. Estimate what percentage of time you spend working from your company's headquarters
or other offices.
a. (open ended)
3. Estimate what percentage of time you spend working from home.
a. (open ended)
4. Estimate what percentage of time you spend working in the field (not at home or in your
company's offices).
a. (open ended)
5. What gender do you identify yourself as?
a. Male
b. Female
6. How old are you?
a. 18-25
b. 26-40
c. 41-55
d. 56-70
e. 71+
For the next set of questions, please rate your feelings based on how you feel in a typical
workday.
7. I have control over setting my priorities in my job.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
8. I am responsible for determining when in the day I do my work.
MOTIVATION AND AUTONOMY IN REMOTE EMPLOYEES 18

a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
9. I am able to work with whomever I need to get the job done.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
10. I can work from a location of my choosing.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
11. I feel motivated by my work.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
12. I look forward to my workday.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
13. My work brings me joy.
a. Strongly agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly disagree
Thank you so much for your time!