Industrial and Commercial Training

The Genos employee motivation assessment

Gilles E. Gignac Benjamin R. Palmer
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gilles E. Gignac Benjamin R. Palmer, (2011),"The Genos employee motivation assessment", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 43 Iss
2 pp. 79 - 87
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197851111108908
Downloaded on: 07 March 2015, At: 06:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 20 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6249 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Carolyn Wiley, (1997),"What motivates employees according to over 40 years of motivation surveys", International Journal of Manpower,
Vol. 18 Iss 3 pp. 263-280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729710169373
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

Robert E. Ankli, Ralph Palliam, (2012),"Enabling a motivated workforce: exploring the sources of motivation", Development and Learning in
Organizations: An International Journal, Vol. 26 Iss 2 pp. 7-10
Rafikul Islam, Ahmad Zaki Hj. Ismail, (2008),"Employee motivation: a Malaysian perspective", International Journal of Commerce and
Management, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 344-362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10569210810921960

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540409 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/
authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The Genos employee motivation
assessment
Gilles E. Gignac and Benjamin R. Palmer

Gilles E. Gignac and Abstract

Benjamin R. Palmer are Purpose – This paper aims to describe a new measure of employee motivational fit, namely the Genos
based at Genos, Waterloo, employee motivation assessment (GEMA), its predictive validity and use in learning and organizational
Australia. development activities.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – Within three different organizations, employees completed GEMA

via an online web survey system. Correlation analyses were then performed with a series of job
performance and employee engagement data.
Findings – Motivational fit (i.e. the degree of alignment between what an individual is motivated by and
experiences in their work), within four areas measured by GEMA (namely, role fit, management fit, team
fit, and organization fit), were found to be associated with average predictive validity correlation
coefficients equal to 0.46, .073, 0.67, and 0.52, respectively.
Research limitations/implications – Statistical analyses at the individual level would be beneficial in
future research. Additionally, whether motivational fit can be improved via learning and/or organizational
development interventions, and whether such improvement leads to corresponding improvements in
performance and engagement remains to be determined.
Practical implications – Intervention initiatives designed to improve motivational fit need to be
designed and tested. The findings of this study suggest that successful interventions may result in
improvements in job performance and employee engagement.
Originality/value – This paper will be of interest to professionals in recruitment, learning and
organizational development interested in the improvement of job performance and employee
engagement. This is the first study to examine the validity of GEMA scores and to propose the potential
use of motivational fit as an intervention medium to improve these areas.
Keywords Motivation (psychology), Employees, Job satisfaction, Organizational culture
Paper type Research paper

ost leaders know that at the heart of every productive and successful business lies

M a thriving organizational culture. A culture where hard working people collaborate

passionately to produce great results. This notion has been supported by extensive
meta-analytic research in the area of employee engagement. For example, Harter et al.
(2009) found that organizations at the 75th percentile on employee engagement
experienced 16 percent greater profitability than those organizations at the 25th
percentile. While there are many tools available (such as engagement surveys and
reports), to help managers and human resource professionals build highly engaged and
productive workplace cultures, these cultures are seemingly very difficult to develop. As a
result they are also seen as a critical lever of sustainable competitive advantage.
In this paper, we describe a new assessment designed to help managers and human
resource professionals better understand the motivational characteristics of their employees
and how this compares with their perceptions of the environment within which they work. We
posit that such insight and information may prove useful in the conceptualization of
q Copyright Genos Pty Ltd strategies to facilitate employee engagement and job performance more broadly, at the
2010 group and individual level. We describe the model of motivation the assessment has been

DOI 10.1108/00197851111108908 VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011, pp. 79-87, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 79
 ‘‘ PE fit is defined as the ‘compatibility between an individual
and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics
are well matched’. ’’

designed to assess, report some preliminary research findings on its predictive validity, and,
finally, describe GEMA’s potential utility as a learning and organizational development tool.

Background
Within academic realms, this new assessment, namely the Genos employee motivation
assessment (GEMA), may be identified within the broader person-environment (PE) fit
literature. PE fit is defined as the ‘‘compatibility between an individual and a work
environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched’’ (Kristof et al., 2005, p.
281). Kristof (1996) sub-categorized PE fit into four areas: person-job (PJ),
person-supervisor (PS), person-group (PG), and person-organization (PO). Based on a
meta-analysis, Kristof et al. (2005) reported predictive validity associated with all four areas
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

of PE fit; for example, variables such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
intention to quit. It will be noted, however, that Kristof et al. (2005) failed to identify any PE fit
area as a predictor of job performance.
Rather than a measure of PE fit, we refer to GEMA as a measure of motivational fit.
Theoretically, the differences between PE fit and motivational fit may be relatively minor and
principally semantic in nature. However, the items within GEMA are framed explicitly within
the context of motivational drivers, rather than values or preferences, which is typically the
case within the PE assessment literature (Edwards, 2008). We define employee motivational
fit as the alignment between what motivates an employee to work and the degree to which
those motivational characteristics are experienced at work. On the same basis that PE fit has
been found to be a predictor of variables such as a job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intention to quit (Kristof et al., 2005), it is theoretically proposed that the
degree of employee motivational fit will predict an array of important variables such as
organizational commitment, absenteeism, and job satisfaction, as well as more objective or
outcome-focused measures of job performance. We base this hypothesis on the simple
notion that the more an individual does what they are motivated to do, and the more an
individual works with the type of people they find motivating, the more likely they are to
perform at their best and find satisfaction in their work.

GEMA model of motivational fit

A number of PE fit measures have been published to-date. Fields (2002) lists and describes
seven measures of fit, most of which have been used or adapted in several empirical
investigations (see Kristof et al., 2005). However, based on our survey of the literature, none
of the existing measures could be said to explicitly and comprehensively measure all four
areas of PE fit, as delineated by Kristof (1996). Instead, the existing measures tend to focus
principally upon PO fit related characteristics, and to some degree PJ fit; however, only
relatively little are PS and PG fit represented. Thus, given the abundant research that has
established the importance of management and teams in the workplace (e.g. Hoegl and
Gemuenden, 2001; den Hartog and Koopman, 2001), we set out to design an alignment
measure that provided breadth of measurement across all four areas. Additionally, instead of
using terms such as values or preferences, we chose to develop an alignment measure
within the context of motivation. The importance of motivation in the workplace has a long
history (Goodman, 1971), and, furthermore, may be said to be experiencing a re-emergence
in popularity within the business management literature (e.g. Nohria et al., 2008).
Additionally, from an applied perspective, addressing and discussing individual differences

j j
PAGE 80 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011
 in alignment with respect to motivation may be considered less confronting, in comparison to
doing so from the perspective of personal values.
The model of motivational fit that underlies GEMA is derived from the four areas of PE fit first
identified by Kristof (1996). However, rather than use the words job, supervisor, group, and
organization, we opted for alternatives that may be viewed more receptively by practitioners.
Specifically, the four areas of motivational alignment within the GEMA model are: role,
management, team, and organization.

GEMA motivational characteristics

Within each of the four GEMA areas are motivational characteristics that may be defined as
relatively narrow facets of work relevant motivation for which one would expect
non-negligible individual differences. Table I lists the GEMA motivational characteristics
associated with each respective area.
It can be seen that the role area has 15 motivational characteristics, while the remaining
three areas have ten each. There are of course additional motivational characteristics that,
arguably, should be included within the current GEMA model. However, some consideration
was placed on achieving a balance between breadth of representation and manageability of
administration and report interpretation.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

In addition to the balance of breadth and manageability, an important criterion used in

selecting motivational characteristics was non-negligible individual differences. By this we
mean not all employees would be substantially motivated by the presence of the attribute in
the workplace. Consider, for example, an organizational attribute such as ‘‘career
opportunities’’, or a management attribute such as ‘‘feedback’’. It would be expected that
nearly all employees would be motivated to work in an organization with career opportunities
or for management that provided feedback. Such variables can be considered ‘‘universal
motivation drives’’. Of course, measuring the degree to which employees experience career
opportunities within their organization, or the degree to which they receive feedback from
management, may comprise attributes of an important assessment and indeed are often
included as drivers of engagement in engagement surveys. However, we viewed that such
motivators should not be included in GEMA, where the expectation was that respondents
could learn about their workplace motivational profile as relatively distinct from others.
In summary, the results reported in Kristof et al. (2005) suggest strong support for the
development of a comprehensive applied measure of fit. Consequently, in this study, we
report some predictive validity results associated with GEMA, a comprehensive measure of
motivational alignment.

Table I The four areas and 45 motivational drivers measured by GEMA

Role Management Team Organization

Systems and processes Directive Organizing/planning Bureaucracy

Protect Implementer Norms Structure
Finance Empowering Inclusive Thought leader
Intellectual stimulation Specialist Purpose Experimental
Design Competitive Quality/output Remuneration
Technology Performance-oriented Achievement oriented Competitiveness
Importance People-oriented Camaraderie Social responsibility
Decision making Networker Support People culture
Influence Decisiveness Rotating teams Multi-faceted
Interpersonal-interaction Rotating management Virtual teams Improvising
Customer-interaction
Contribution
Variety
Pace
Employment flexibility

j j
VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 81
 Method
Sample
The analyses were based on three samples. The first sample consisted of 82 employees (76
percent female) working in a call center within an Australian industrial company. The
employees were categorized into nine units with an average of 9.11 employees within each
unit. The second sample consisted of 139 employees (77 percent female) working in a call
center within an Australian insurance company. The employees were categorized into seven
units with an average of 19.9 employees within each unit. The third sample consisted of 460
employees (31 percent female) working in a UK utility company. The employees were
categorized into ten units with an average of 46 employees within each unit.

Measures
The Genos employee motivational assessment (GEMA) was used to measure the degree of
motivational alignment between employees and their role, management, team, and
organization motivational characteristics. GEMA consists of 45 item dyads whereby
respondents rate the degree to which a motivational characteristic motivates them to work
and the degree to which that motivational characteristic is present in their work environment.
Each pair of items are rated on a six-point scale (0 to 5) based on the verbal anchors
provided in Table II. Four example items within GEMA are listed in Table II.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

A substantial amount of discussion has surrounded the issue of determining how fit scores
should be calculated (Edwards, 1995). For the applied researcher and practitioner, a
delicate balance between simplicity and sophistication must be achieved. Ultimately,
precisely what type of score should represent fit versus non-fit is to some degree arbitrary.
However, some demarcation criterion must be chosen to facilitate score interpretations and
statistical analyses. Consequently, we specified that an average absolute deviation score
between desire and experience items within a particular area equal to 1.0 or less was
considered ‘‘aligned’’. An average absolute deviation score greater than 1.0 was
considered unaligned. Using such a procedure allowed for the calculation of a fit score
for each employee, which in turn allowed for the calculation of the percentage of employees
within a unit or organization that were aligned with their role, management, team, and/or
organization[1].
Within the industrial company call center, there were six objectively determined job
performance indicators, all of which were provided to us by the organization’s management.
The job performance indicators included: appointment conversion rate (i.e. percentage of
telephone calls made to the call center by the general public that resulted in the booking of

Table II Example GEMA items

Not at all Very little Little Somewhat Much Very much

1a I am motivated by making a contribution to

society in my work 0 1 2 3 4 5
1b My role involves making a contribution to society
through my work 0 1 2 3 4 5
2a I am motivated by management that makes
decisions quickly 0 1 2 3 4 5
2b I am supervised by management that makes
decisions quickly 0 1 2 3 4 5
3a I am motivated by a team where there is the
opportunity to regularly work with different team
members 0 1 2 3 4 5
3b I work in a team where there is the opportunity to
regularly work with different team members 0 1 2 3 4 5
4a I am motivated by an organization that has clear
levels of management and authority 0 1 2 3 4 5
4b I work in an organization that has clear levels of
management and authority 0 1 2 3 4 5

j j
PAGE 82 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011
 an appointment to see a sales consultant or the booking of a job), calls answered (i.e.
number of calls answered), availability (average percentage of time while at work prepared
to answer calls), hold time (average amount of time callers are placed on hold), percentage
talking (percentage of time while engaged with a phone call that the employee spends
talking), and staff utilization (percentage of time employees spend engaged in work
activities). All metrics correspond to data collected over a three-month period during 2009.
Engagement in the insurance company call center was measured with Hewitt’s engagement
survey. In this investigation, total engagement scores for each unit were provided to us by
management and were utilized in the analyses. Absenteeism, also provided by
management, represented the number of hours spent away from work.
Finally, engagement in the utility company was measured with PriceWaterCooper’s
engagement survey. Total engagement scores for each unit were provided to us by
management.

Procedure
Employees within all three organizations were contacted by an HR representative via e-mail
for the purposes of inviting them to participate in a study that would help the participating
organizations to understand their work relevant motivational preferences. The employees
were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and that the data would be
analyzed only at the group level by an organization external to their place of work. Typically,
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

the organizations allowed the employees two weeks to complete the survey, which was
administered online by Genos Pty. Response rates were 75, 100, and 28 percent for the
industrial company call center, the insurance company call center, and the utility company,
respectively.

Data analysis
In all three samples, a series of Pearson correlations were performed between GEMA fit
levels and outcome variables. As the three samples were considered either complete or
quasi representations of the populations of interest (i.e. a substantial percentage of
employees within the population were included in the sample), it was not considered
necessary to estimate statistical significance levels associated with the correlation
coefficients.

Results
As can be seen in Table III, the overall mean percentage of employees who were aligned
with their role corresponded to 49.8 percent. The area associated with the lowest
percentage of aligned employees corresponded to the organization area (43.0) percent. The
management and team areas were associated with approximately equal levels of alignment,
at 59.2 percent and 56.3 percent, respectively. Thus, it may be suggested that there was a
relatively significant percentage of employees who were not aligned with their role,
management, team, or organization.
As can be seen in Table IV, one or more GEMA fit area scores were found to correlate
substantially with all of the dependent variables, where a large correlation is defined as
equal to or greater than 0.50 (Cohen, 1992).

Table III Means and standard deviations associated with percentage of employees who
were categorized as well-fitting across groups within the three samples of data
Role Management Team Organization
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Call center – industrial 31.3 11.5 49.0 13.6 47.7 25.0 31.2 8.9
Call center – insurance 42.4 9.1 59.4 10.3 61.1 13.4 49.0 12.7
Utility company 75.8 13.6 69.3 20.5 60.1 16.7 48.7 16.1
Overall mean 49.8 59.2 56.3 43.0

j j
VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 83
 Table IV Pearson correlations between group-level motivational-fit and various HR metrics
Role Management Team Organization

Call center – industrial

Appointment conversion rate 0.71 0.94 0.81 0.64
Calls answered 0.40 0.91 0.70 0.57
Availability 0.04 0.35 0.11 0.11
Hold time 20.72 20.79 20.90 20.63
Percentage talking 0.47 0.77 0.84 0.70
Staff utilization 0.49 0.82 0.80 0.70

Call center – insurance

Engagement 0.47 0.50 0.48 0.10
Absenteeism 20.34 20.68 20.70 20.48

Utility company
Engagement 0.46 0.73 0.70 0.75
jAvgj 0.46 0.73 0.67 0.52

Notes: Correlations were calculated as if the population of interest was available; consequently, levels
of statistical significance were not reported; jAvgj corresponds to the average of the absolute
correlations, i.e. the negative correlations (hold time and absenteeism) were reflected for the
purposes of calculated the area average correlations
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

With respect to the industrial company call center sample, very substantial correlations were
found associated to all of the objective job performance metrics. We note, in particular, the
substantial effects between management fit and ‘‘appointment conversion rate’’ (r ¼ 0:94).
This effect means that higher levels of motivational alignment between employees and
management is associated with greater numbers of sales opportunities from calls. Based on
the correlations in Table IV, it may also be said that greater levels of motivational alignment
are positively associated with a greater number of calls answered, somewhat greater levels
of availability, more time spent talking to clients, and greater staff utilization rates.
With respect to insurance company call center sample, substantial effects were observed
between motivational alignment and engagement. Specifically, role, management, and team
motivational alignment were substantially and positively correlated with self-reported levels
of engagement within units (see Table IV).
Furthermore, substantial negative correlations were obtained between management and
team motivational alignment and absenteeism (r ¼ 20:68 and r ¼ 20:70, respectively).
Thus, higher levels of motivational alignment within units was associated with less
absenteeism within units.
Finally, with respect to the utility company, greater levels of motivational alignment were
associated with greater levels of employee engagement. The management and team areas
were, again, two of the larger predictors, which was an observed pattern across all three
samples. In fact, based on the averages of the absolute correlations across all metrics and
samples, the management area was associated with the most substantial predictive validity
(r ¼ 0:73) followed by the team area (r ¼ 0:67).

Discussion
The results of this preliminary investigation on the predictive validity of GEMA are
encouraging. All four of the GEMA area fit scores were found to predict HR outcome
variables and employee engagement to a substantial degree. Perhaps most noteworthy
were the effects associated with the management and team areas, which tended to be
associated with greatest degree of predictive validity. It is interesting to note that, based on
Kristof et al.’s (2005) comprehensive meta-analysis of the PE fit research, both
person-supervisor and person-group fit were associated with far fewer empirical
investigations, in comparison to person-job and person-organization fit. Thus, based on
the preliminary results associated with this investigation, it would appear that researchers

j j
PAGE 84 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011
 should focus more substantially upon management and team motivational alignment, as far
as predictive validity is concerned. To our knowledge, GEMA is the only fit assessment that
measures all four commonly regarded areas of fit within a work environment.
In contrast to the majority of other investigations in the motivational-fit literature, which tend to
use self-report job satisfaction and self-reported intent to leave as dependent variables (see
Kristof et al., 2005), this investigation used a number of objectively determined HR metrics,
such as call conversion rate, average hold time, and absenteeism. The substantial, negative
correlations between motivational-fit and absenteeism may be suggested to have important
practical implications, as they cannot be explained by method effects (i.e. unlike
self-reported intent to leave). Wheeler et al. (2005) provided a theoretical model for the
effects of fit on job related behaviors. They theorized that, in absence of alternative job
opportunities, low fitting employees may stay in their current job, but engage in
counter-productive behaviors such as inactivity and absenteeism. Our investigation
supports Wheeler et al.’s (2005) model in that PE fit was found to be substantially and
negatively associated with absenteeism. Thus, while low fitting employees may not
necessarily leave their job, they may nonetheless engage in behaviors that lead to lower
levels of productivity at substantial expense to an organization.
In addition to measuring all four areas of motivational-alignment, another possible
explanation for the substantial predictive effects reported in this investigation may be due to
the fact that GEMA measures each area fit in a relatively comprehensive manner. That is,
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

some motivational-fit investigations have used as few as three items to measure P-E fit
(Cable and Judge, 1996; Lauver and Kristof-Brown, 2001). Furthermore, the items used in
previous investigations frequently tend to be non-characteristic specific, for example, ‘‘My
values match or fit the values of the organization’’ (Wheeler et al., 2007). In contrast, GEMA
measures a total of 45 specific motivational drivers to help respondents consider, in more
detail, whether their motivational drives match their experiences and circumstances at work.
Much discussion in the PE fit literature has revolved around the issue of scoring and
statistical analysis (Edwards, 1995). In this investigation, we used arguably one of the most
straightforward approaches: absolute difference scores and simple correlations between
the percentage of individuals who were considered aligned (based on a relatively arbitrary
criterion of less than 1.0) and the outcome variables. The limitations associated with the use
of differences scores have been well articulated, particularly in the context of a lack of
reliability (Peter et al., 1993). However, in this investigation, the validity coefficients were so
substantial and consistent that there would appear to be strong support for the contention
that the methodology is robust. Ultimately, as GEMA is first and foremost an applied
measure, its predictive validity should be the number criterion for its psychometric
evaluation, as opposed to other considerations such as internal consistency reliability,
factorial validity, and discriminant validity, for example.

Limitations
A limitation associated with this investigation is that the data were analyzed at the group/unit
level. Thus, unit or group fit levels were correlated with the various HR metrics. Ideally,
individual levels of motivational-fit would have been correlated with individual scores on the
HR metrics. Such an approach would likely have yielded more robust results, as the number
of correlated data points would have been larger (i.e. from an average of nine units to as high
as 460 individuals in the case of the utility company). Furthermore, the motivational-fit data at
the individual level were associated with a greater range of scores, which, all other things
equal, would have yielded, on average, more substantial predictive validity effects (i.e.
range restriction is known to reduce the magnitude of correlations; Stauffer, 2001). However,
we chose to ensure the anonymity of employee responses (a concern expressed to us by
several participants), which precluded the possibility of matching up the individual level fit
data with the corresponding individual HR metric data. Thus, conducting predictive validity
in this area at the individual level should be acknowledged as a challenge. Nonetheless,
although the method of analysis was not ideal, combined across all three samples, the
pattern of results were remarkably consistent, which suggest the possibility of substantial
utility of a measure such as GEMA in the workplace.

j j
VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 85
 Future research
Of course, replication of the effects reported in this investigation across a number of
samples and industries would be valuable. Additionally, it would be useful to implement
various strategies to facilitate motivational alignment within employees to assess whether
there were any concomitant increases in employee engagement and job performance more
generally. Such a study would support a causal connection between the two constructs.

Applications
In addition to facilitating research, GEMA was designed to facilitate useful and practical
applications in the workplace. In this section, we briefly describe uses of GEMA from an
applied perspective within the context of ‘‘finding fit’’ and ‘‘shaping fit’’.
In finding fit, GEMA could be used in recruitment to help identify candidates who are
motivated by what they are likely to experience on the job in terms of the role, manager, team
and ultimately the organization itself. For example, if a small company was comprised of a
number of individuals who scored very high on the camaraderie (team) driver, it may be
beneficial to hire candidates applying for work within that company that similarly report
being substantially motivated by camaraderie. Additionally, GEMA could also be used in
career guidance and counseling. That is, by putting individuals through the assessment
(what they find motivating only), the results may help form the basis of useful
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

coaching/counseling conversations about different occupations, managers, teams and

indeed organizations they might find motivating to work for.
In shaping fit, GEMA can be used at the group level to identify those motivational
characteristics for which there is a substantial misalignment between desire and experience,
and then implement initiatives to help improve the gap. For example, one organization that
used GEMA with their graduate population found that their graduates were highly motivated
by the role driver intellectual stimulation, but were not experiencing it in their work. As a
result, the organization asked the graduates to form their own ‘‘think-tank’’ within the
organization, to survey customers, and to brainstorm what could be done to improve
customer service. Similarly, in shaping fit, GEMA can be used at the group level to identify
things that a team of employees experience a lot of that are de-motivating. For example, at
an airline we were working with, flight attendants reported experiencing a lot of customer
interaction (a GEMA role driver), however, their GEMA results suggested they were not
motivated by it. Focus group findings revealed that the flight attendants felt they were taught
many aspects of their job (such as serving food and drinks and providing safety
procedures), with the exception of delivering customer service under difficult circumstances
(e.g. dealing with an angry customer who’s in-flight entertainment system is not working). As
a result, the organization provided some personal resiliency training to their flight attendants
to help them better cope with this aspect of their work.
In summary, the results of this investigation suggest that motivational alignment, as
conceptualized and measured by GEMA, may be a useful tool for application in industry. As
its potential applications are many and varied, we look forward to both ourselves and others
uncovering further its validity and utility in the workplace.

Note
1. We appreciate that it would be more statistically powerful to analyze the data at the individual level.
That is, correlate individual motivational alignment scores with individual levels of performance.
However, the employees completed the assessment anonymously, which precluded the possibility
of combining performance scores with GEMA fit scores.

References
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), ‘‘Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational
entry’’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 294-311.
Cohen, J. (1992), ‘‘A power primer’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-9.

j j
PAGE 86 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011
 den Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2001), ‘‘Leadership in organizations’’, in Anderson, N., Ones,
D.S., Kepir-Sinangil, H. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), International Handbook of Industrial, Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, Sage, London.

Edwards, J.R. (1995), ‘‘Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of
congruence in organizational research’’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 307-24.
Edwards, J.R. (2008), ‘‘Person-environment fit in organisations: an assessment of theoretical progress’’,
The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2, pp. 167-230.
Fields, D.L. (2002), Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational
Research and Diagnosis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Goodman, T.H. (1971), ‘‘Employee motivation’’, Library Trends, Vol. 20, July, pp. 39-47.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Killham, E.A. and Agrawal, S. (2009), Q12 Meta-analysis: The Relationship
between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes, Gallop, Omaha, NE.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001), ‘‘Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects:
a theoretical concept and empirical evidence’’, Organization Science, Vol. 12, July-August, pp. 435-49.
Kristof, A. (1996), ‘‘Person-organisation fit: an integrative review of it’s conceptualisations, measurement,
and implications’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-49.
Kristof, A., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), ‘‘Consequences of individuals’ fit at work:
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)

a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit’’,

Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.
Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A. (2001), ‘‘Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit’’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 454-70.
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. and Lee, L.-E. (2008), ‘‘Employee motivation: a powerful new model’’, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 86, July-August, pp. 78-84.
Peter, J.P., Churchill, G.A. and Brown, T.J. (1993), ‘‘Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer
research’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 655-62.
Stauffer, J.M. (2001), ‘‘On the proper sequence for correcting correlation coefficients for range
restriction and unreliability’’, Psychometrika, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 63-8.

Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L. and Sablynski, C.J. (2007), ‘‘When person-organization
(mis)fit and dis(satisfaction) lead to turnover: the moderating role of perceived job mobility’’, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 203-19.
Wheeler, A.R., Buckley, M.R., Halbesleben, J.R., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2005), ‘‘‘The elusive
criterion of fit’ revisited: toward an integrative theory of multidimensional fit’’, in Martocchio, J. (Ed.),
Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 24, Elsevier/JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 155-304.

Further reading
Edwards, J.R. (1996), ‘‘Person-organization fit: an integrative review of conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-9.
McCulloch, M.C. and Turban, D.B. (2007), ‘‘Using person-organization fit to select employees for high
turnover jobs’’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 15, pp. 63-71.
Yu, K.Y.T. (2009), ‘‘Affective influences in person-environment fit theory: exploring the role of affect as
both cause and outcome of P-E fit’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, pp. 1210-26.

Corresponding author
Gilles E. Gignac can be contacted at: gilles.gignac@genosinternational.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
VOL. 43 NO. 2 2011 INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING PAGE 87
 This article has been cited by:

1. Chandra Sekhar, Manoj Patwardhan, Rohit Kr. Singh. 2013. A literature review on motivation. Global Business Perspectives
1:4, 471-487. [CrossRef]
2. Benjamin R. Palmer, Gilles Gignac. 2012. The impact of emotionally intelligent leadership on talent retention, discretionary
effort and employment brand. Industrial and Commercial Training 44:1, 9-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 06:47 07 March 2015 (PT)