Chapter 5 DF
Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose
It is hard to believe that any employee would avoid autonomy—the ability to act with choice—in the workplace. The opportunity to work in an environment that is trusting and supportive, where new ideas are encouraged, criticisms are accepted positively, and information flows transparently, sounds like a motivational dream come true. Unfortunately, that is not always the reality; workplaces may be both autonomous and controlling and several shades between.
Self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000) provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between perceived job characteristics—autonomy being one of them—and employee motivation. An important distinction is made concerning the nature of motivation: Not only do people invest in an activity to varied degrees—a quantifiable aspect—but they also do so for various reasons, a qualitative aspect. Specifically, two broad forms of motivation—autonomous and controlled—capture the underlying reasons (motives) for performing a job (for reviews, refer to Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Ultimately, SDT reveals the distinction between autonomous motivation and nonautonomous motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Autonomous motivation occurs when people engage in an activity because they find it interesting, enjoyable, or rewarding, as well as when they perform the activity voluntarily. Autonomous motivation involves acting with volition, such as when employees engage in their job for the inherent pleasure and satisfaction (intrinsic motivation) and/or because they personally endorse the importance or value of a task. Nonautonomous motivation or controlled motivation involves acting under a sense of pressure, with a sense of having to engage in an activity in spite of one’s desires, or performing an activity for instrumental reasons, such as pay and recognition. SDT-based research underscores the importance of considering the different forms of motivation because they are differentially associated with affective, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Autonomous motivation has been positively associated with psychological well-being, job satisfaction, work engagement, and occupational commitment, whereas controlled motivation has been positively associated with negative consequences for employees, including workaholism, burnout, and turnover intention (Fernet, 2013).
Pink (2011) notes in Drive that although complying (controlled environment) can be an effective strategy for physical survival, it is a poor one for personal fulfillment. It could be argued that young people, through the educational system they were raised in, are taught to adhere to a certain standard, and then a reward will be given in the form of a grade. Sometimes the classroom emphasizes performance goals over learning goals. It is hard to dispute this, given the emphasis on standardized testing and GPAs. The college classroom is meant to be less compliant, providing a safe space for learners to think through their burgeoning ideas. Pink concluded that we enter the world ready to be active and self-engaged. He expresses his worry that work environments are not giving employees a long enough leash to be curious and engaged. He has a message for leaders of 21st-century organizations:
[E]conomic accomplishment, not to mention personal fulfillment, more often swings on a different hinge. It depends not on keeping our nature submerged but on allowing it to surface. It requires resisting the temptation to control people—and instead doing everything we can to reawaken their deep-seated sense of autonomy. (2011, p. 89)
Mastery is the second component of Pink’s engagement equation. Mastery is the opportunity to become better at something that matters. That opportunity needs to be afforded by organizational leaders through an organization’s governance structure and overall culture, but it also needs to be understood and grasped by employees. According to Pink, there are three tenets of mastery: Mastery is a mindset; mastery is a pain; and mastery is an asymptote. Mastery as a mindset assumes that our intelligence can grow, much like building a muscle. In other words, we can continue to learn more and more about how to do our jobs better as long as we work in a supportive environment and, personally, we have the mindset to actually seek out new knowledge and “perform” the learning. But not everyone is in a supportive work environment, or they might possess what is called a fixed mindset rather than a growth mindset. These phrases were coined by Carol Dweck (2007), a psychology professor at Stanford University. Employees with a growth mindset consistently demonstrate a motivation to learn more. Employees with fixed mindsets are motivated to get the job done and give little thought to how they can get better at a certain task or job. There is no hunting for new knowledge; there is no challenging oneself. Professional athletes often reinvent themselves after struggles or a slump or having to change their approach following an injury. Often, this “reinvention” takes place after coming across a bit of newfound knowledge from a coach, mentor, fellow athlete, or even a physician. The newfound knowledge is not the key finding here; it is the fact that the athlete sought out new knowledge to continue trying to master their sport. In sport organizations, both large and small, the best employees are the ones who continue to learn by growing their intelligence, which improves the organization’s goal achievement and helps employees move toward self-actualization. The second law of mastery—mastery is a pain—argues that if employees want to achieve something substantial, they need to put in the work. Staying motivated to master something that matters or reach a personal work goal is grit, a relatively new concept in the research landscape. Grit is finding the consistent motivation to keep pursuing a long-term goal in the face of all of the peaks and valleys (Duckworth et al., 2007). Angela Duckworth, who has pioneered research on grit, says, “I’d bet that there isn’t a single highly successful person who hasn’t depended on grit. Nobody is talented enough to not have to work hard, and that’s what grit allows you to do” (Lehrer, 2009, para. 7). Duckworth has also used the word passion as an ingredient of grit. For someone to be “gritty,” they need to find something that they truly care about achieving. Once they find that, it is much easier to stay motivated. The final law about mastery is that mastery is an asymptote. An asymptote is a combination of a curve and a line on a graph that never quite comes together; the curve comes closer and closer to the line but never quite gets there. That is how mastery is. You will never quite master anything. You can always strive to get better, and that hunger to get better drives motivation.
Pink’s third building block of intrinsic motivation, purpose, involves people working in the service of something larger than themselves. PeacePlayers International, a conflict resolution nonprofit that uses basketball to bring groups of youth together in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, the Middle East, and South Africa, is an example of an organization pursuing and achieving a great purpose. Brothers Brendan and Sean Tuohey started the organization in 2001, motivated to use basketball to bring together diverse groups as they had done in their own diverse Washington, D.C.–area neighborhood. The Tuoheys’ story was built on motivation. In their early 20s, they wrote letters to everyone they knew to solicit contributions, raising about $7,000, which Sean used to start an effort in South Africa. “I don’t know that anybody could have done what he did in terms of his ability to go to a country and build this—knock on doors, hire coaches, build trust,” Brendan said. “He didn’t fear much. He lived there for three years. Sean was great being the face and inspiration, while I helped build the organization” (Madkour, 2018, para. 7). But the organization struggled financially—as many nonprofits do—until it received a $100,000 grant in 2004. The organization now has a $5 million operating budget and a partnership with Nike that aims to use sport to improve relations between youth and police in some inner cities (Madkour, 2018).
Only a small percentage of sport industry employees work for nonprofits with a great purpose like PeacePlayers International. So, can employees who work at for-profit organizations work with the same great purpose? Gallup published its State of the American Workplace report in 2017, and it had this to say about purpose:
Most workers, many of whom are millennials, approach a role and a company with a highly defined set of expectations. They want their work to have meaning and purpose. They want to use their talents and strengths to do what they do best every day. They want to learn and develop. They want their job to fit their life. (p. 5)
In sport organizations, many employees work with the greater purpose of making experiences memorable for customers. Many employees in sales and marketing are dedicated to making sure customers who come to their arenas, stadiums, or events have the best possible experience. Part of this is about retaining that customer for future business, but many employees truly want customers to enjoy themselves. Creating this memorable experience motivates a salesperson to go into the stands and shake hands with a particular customer and determine if they and their family are enjoying the game. It takes leaders to create the type of organizational culture needed for employees to care deeply about the customer experience.
Leadership That Motivates
Leadership involves an influence relationship between leader and follower, as you learned in Chapter 3. This influence can be both positive and negative. Leadership effectiveness is critically contingent on, and often defined in terms of, leaders’ ability to motivate followers toward collective goals or a collective mission or vision (Shamir et al., 1998). Relationships between the leader and the followers are important because these have perceptual, motivational, attitudinal, and behavioral consequences for each party. The leader–follower relationship reveals itself through a worker’s social interactions with their supervisor and is commonly expressed as leader–member exchange (LMX) quality. LMX quality refers to the worth of a relationship between leader and follower. Research has shown that high-level LMX exchanges result in elevated levels of mutual trust, respect, loyalty, and obligation among the two parties (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Ilies et al., 2007; Sias, 2005).
Several millennials were contacted for this chapter and asked specifically about leadership in their organizations and how it connects with their motivation.
Empirical evidence has consistently supported positive results emanating from high-quality LMX relationships: Leaders show influence and support beyond that specified in formal job descriptions, and the followers are given more autonomy and responsibility, thereby shaping employees’ work attitudes and behaviors, such as overall job satisfaction, organization commitment, well-being, task performance, organizational citizen behavior, role conflict, role clarity, and turnover intention (Gerstner & Day, 1997; Ilies et al., 2007; Wayne et al., 2002). Matt Delmonte, who works for the event and facilities staff in athletics at the University of Massachusetts–Lowell (UMass-Lowell), endorsed the importance of trust and how it can lead to more responsibility: “When I get handed more responsibilities, it makes me feel like they appreciate the work that I have currently put in and they trust me to complete more difficult tasks and in an ideal work world, it eventually leads to a promotion” (M. Delmonte, personal communication, June 26, 2018).
Leadership style affects interpersonal relations, rewards, and punishments, which shape employee behavior, motivation, and attitude; this can affect an organization’s performance (Puni et al., 2014). It can lead to either inspiration or disenchantment among employees, resulting in increased or decreased productivity (Kahn & Katz, 1952). The style of leadership also influences LMX quality, as some of the millennials interviewed for this topic confirmed. Ryan Coburn, director of partnership services at Spartan Race, Inc., says that it is important that leaders are observed sweating right along with their followers:
Simply put, a leader’s display of effort and attitude are the reason their employees are driven to keep pace. The level of effort and the type of attitude ultimately dictate what that pace is. It’s certainly not the most leisurely or easily sustainable tactic to execute from a leadership position, but in my experience, it is my motivation for quality output from the top down, and what I anticipate is the reason for quality output among my employees. (R. Coburn, personal communication, June 22, 2018)
Delmonte of UMass-Lowell also highlighted the importance of a leader’s work ethic: “When I see my boss coming in early or staying late just to complete a task, it motivates me to work even harder and assist in any way possible” (M. Delmonte, personal communication, June 26, 2018).
But leaders need to know when to keep the mood light as well. Nate Weissman, who works as an assistant director of stadium operations for the Midland (TX) Rock Hounds (AA affiliate of the Oakland Athletics), said the work culture of Minor League Baseball dictates a more upbeat, fun environment:
Leaders can best motivate employees by keeping the mood light yet making sure everybody involved is working towards the same goal as well as making sure everybody is valued. Our GM does a great job motivating us because he jokes around with us yet we are constantly reminded what we are working towards and it genuinely seems like he values everybody’s work because he talks with people regularly. (N. Weissman, personal communication, June 14, 2018)
When supervisors are supportive, they show concern for employees’ feelings; provide nonjudgmental, informational feedback about their work; and encourage them to voice their own concerns (Deci et al., 1989). By contrast, controlling supervisors closely monitor employee behavior, make decisions without involving employees, and generally demand that employees follow strict rules and guidelines (Deci et al., 1989). Looking at supportive versus controlling styles of leadership, it should not be hard to discern which is more motivating for the 21st-century employee. Many of the millennials queried for this chapter confirmed the importance of supportive leadership styles as a source of empowerment.
Empowerment Motivates
This text has already dedicated a lot of space to breaking down different leadership styles.
The word that comes up often in the research literature on leadership styles that best motivate is empowerment. Empowering leadership, whether it is termed transformational, servant, or authentic leadership, motivates employees to achieve organizational goals that exceed their individual interests (Bass, 1985).
Empowering leadership is also a leadership style that aims to transform followers into their own self-leaders (Pearce & Sims, 2002). It emphasizes the development of follower self-management skills (Pearce & Sims, 2002) by prompting followers to develop self-control and act on their own (Vecchio et al., 2010). This style is concerned with leaders’ actions in sharing power or giving more responsibility and autonomy to subordinates (Srivastava et al., 2006). Some representative behaviors of empowering leadership include encouraging independent action, opportunity thinking instead of performance thinking, thinking of obstacles as opportunities to challenge oneself, self-development, and the use of participative goal setting (Pearce & Sims, 2002). As such, the roles of empowering leaders are to assist subordinates to become their own self-leaders, roles that are different from those in more traditional organizational designs. Further, empowering leadership involves providing decision-making autonomy, expressing confidence in employees’ abilities, and removing constraints on performance (Ahearne et al., 2005). These factors are vital conditions for creative outcomes (Amabile et al., 2004); thus, leaders’ empowering behavior can encourage employees to think beyond their comfort zone and explore new and creative alternatives.
Feelings of confidence from leaders, as mentioned earlier, can be empowering, as Elise Brogan, Global Social Media Community Manager at Reebok, notes:
Leaders in sports organizations can structure their leadership to motivate employees by establishing a foundation of trust, communication, and empowerment. The more confidence you feel generated from the top down, the more you are willing to take risks and complete quality work within your role. Also, by feeling trusted and empowered, employees will be happier in the workplace and, therefore, will want to be a better employee for their manager and company as a whole. (E. Brogan, personal communication, June 14, 2018)
Employees also feel empowered when leaders notice their efforts. Jason Mlodzianowski, an associate director of events, facilities, and operations at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, says that it is important for leaders to keep track of the progress employees are making in accomplishing both the organization’s goals and their personal goals and then acknowledge that this goal accomplishment has taken place:
Checking in and tracking on these goals periodically to evaluate performance and provide feedback keeps employees engaged and connected in a way that rah-rah/inspiring speeches cannot. If you are not plugged into the motivations behind your direct reports’ work, a disconnect develops, which can lead to inconsistent work during periods of increased workload and stress. (J. Mlodzianowski, personal communication, June 14, 2018)
Mlodzianowski is referring to the importance of task visibility in his advice to leaders. Task visibility is employees’ belief that what they do at work is noticed by others, such as their leaders (Liden et al., 2004). Low task visibility means employees’ tasks are not noticeably observed by their leaders; this is likely to result in employees being less motivated to put in extra effort. Conversely, when employees’ perception of task visibility is high, they believe leaders notice their work and are motivated to exert high effort (Vroom, 1964). Thus, employees may respond more to empowering leadership when task visibility is high. Individuals’ motivation is likely to increase as their perceptions of the relationship between performance and outcomes become more positive.
The importance of empowering leadership cannot be understated. Not only does it garner intrinsic motivation among followers, but it also teaches those followers how to become leaders by modeling leadership’s best practices. Shannon Lahiff, a customer support specialist at ISlide, has found someone to model in Peter Roby. Lahiff heard Roby speak as part of a speaker series; Shannon notes, “He said something that really stuck with me. He said it is important for leaders to live their values. . . . I want to work for someone who respects me and what I bring to the company while also working just as hard as I am” (S. Lahiff, personal communication, June 20, 2018). This is what motivates Lahiff: When she sees someone working just as hard despite having the leadership title, it compels her to want to achieve for that person.
Motivating Millennials
The birth years defining the millennial generation are not precise but correspond to the end of the 1970s through the middle of the 1990s (Levenson, 2010). This means that millennials have already entered the workplace in droves—and they are becoming leaders, too. This generation entered the professional workplace starting in the early 2000s. Although it is dangerous to make sweeping generalizations about a group of people conceivably born almost 18 years apart, Gallup’s State of the American Workplace study provides insight into millennials’ work motivations. The research organization concluded that millennials want their work to have meaning and purpose and that they approach a role and organization with their expectations highly defined (Gallup, 2017). And if they cannot find an organization that fits their values, millennials have no problem looking elsewhere for work.
Another Gallup report, How Millennials Want to Work and Live, represented a wide-reaching research effort. Gallup gathered data from a variety of sources, including the Gallup Panel, Gallup Daily tracker, Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, and Gallup’s employee and customer engagement databases. The report presents many key findings with implications for motivation. Millennials have the highest rates of unemployment and underemployment in the United States, and only 29% of employed millennials are engaged at work. The report notes that this lack of engagement is concerning because if people are not engaged at work, companies’ profitability, productivity, and innovation will suffer. The Gallup report also reveals that 21% of millennials report changing jobs within the last year, which is more than three times the number of non-millennials who report the same. Gallup estimates that millennial turnover costs the U.S. economy $30.5 billion annually. Forty-four percent of millennials who report that their manager holds regular meetings with them are engaged, whereas only 20% of millennials who do not meet regularly with their manager report being engaged at work (Gallup, 2016). Millennials crave close relationships with their supervisors. Millennials have been encouraged to have, and continue to maintain, similarly close relationships with parents, teachers, mentors, and advisors. As a result, they are much more likely than Gen Xers to want their supervisors to take an interest in them (2016).
This chapter has shared the thoughts of millennials who work in sport organizations regarding motivation and leadership. They speak to the importance of leaders’ willingness to “row the boat” right along with the lower-level employees. This shows millennials’ penchant for flatter organizational structures with more frequent communication with an organization’s leaders. It is therefore not surprising that organizational tensions may occur when new hires circumvent the system and go immediately to the top to vent their frustration, vet their ideas, and build relationships. On the other hand, organizational structures provide not only accountability but also protection for more senior managers so that they are free to focus on higher-level issues. One proactive approach is to build occasional opportunities for hierarchy-skipping interactions into the system. In doing so, it is possible to emphasize the chain of command, proper protocol, and the process for bringing ideas forward while providing an approved forum for millennials to reach up through less formal interactions, such as town hall meetings. Another means of creating an appropriate vehicle for millennials to interact with higher levels of the organization is through mentoring programs. These relationships have been proven effective in socializing employees, enhancing career paths, and building institutional networks for every generation, but millennials are the first population to have been fully immersed in mentoring programs throughout their lives, starting with “big buddy” programs in elementary school.
As the youngest generation fully in the workplace, millennials are more invested in development than are employees who are perhaps closer to retirement or who may have already obtained their career goals. Organizations should ensure that their attraction and retention strategies highlight and deliver on learning opportunities, career paths, and performance management standards (Gallup, 2017). In How Millennials Want to Work and Live, Gallup (2016) reported that 87% of this generation rates “professional or career growth and development opportunities” as important to them in a job. However, only 39% strongly agree that they have learned something new in the past 30 days that they can use to do their job better.
Some portrayals of millennials have been less than flattering. The generation has been described as “needy” or “high maintenance.” Managers of all generations may find the millennials’ need for structure and reassurance draining. As “trophy kids” who spent their childhood receiving gold stars and shiny medals just for showing up, millennials were indoctrinated from their earliest moments to seek approval and affirmation. In the workplace, this has led to a sometimes excessive propensity to continually seek guidance and direction. Managers, therefore, often find themselves in the unenviable position of having to spend a disproportionate amount of time managing people who were presumably hired to help them (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).
Generation Z
There is only emerging work on Gen Z—born between the mid-1990s and early 2000s (1996 to 2010)—in the workplace because although many of its oldest members are in the workplace, its youngest members are still in high school or just entering college. Early findings have shared what seems to be motivating this group. The norms of Gen Z are different from those of millennials. Because members of Gen Z were born into the world of technology, it is primarily important for them to be a part of a technology-rich environment. They are always online on any number of technical devices. Other forms of socialization are difficult for them. Compared with millennials, Gen Zers are more impatient and more agile than their predecessors, and they look for new challenges and interests continually. To solve problems, they try to find solutions on the internet (Tari, 2011). Gen Z employees, along with younger millennials, report higher levels of stress and burnout compared with Gen X or the baby-boomer generation (Pendell & Vander Helm, 2022). These higher levels of stress and burnout can negatively affect job performance and lead to job turnover (or job hopping) (Gallup, 2023).
Importantly, Gen Zers want to choose a career of their own interest, not because they want to meet someone else’s demands. The result of this behavior is an intrinsic motivation; they have a tough, enterprising spirit, and they want to influence the world. So, these characteristics speak to both autonomy and purpose. At the same time, their most important career goals are work–life balance and workplace stability. Gen Zers are not as optimistic as their predecessors were from the viewpoint of the workplace. They worry about unemployment and whether they will get stuck in their careers and be unable to develop their talent (Bencsik et al., 2016). This idea of not being able to develop their talent shows a similarity to millennials and their need for development.
Universum, a global employer branding company, surveys over 1.5 million students each year to gather insights meant to help employers understand how to identify, gather, and retain a youthful, talented workforce. In its 2015 report Generation Z Grows Up, 50,000 high school graduates in 46 countries were asked about their future careers, the necessity of higher education, and their attitudes about work and life (Universum, 2015). Because members of Gen Z are digital natives, they will be in demand for organizations that use digital means to innovate.
The survey asked students whether they would consider joining the workforce before attending college. While only 15 percent accepted the idea outright, 47 percent indicated that they would consider it. Sixty percent expressed that they welcome information about how companies offer education to those with no university degree. What drives these attitudes? In some countries—including the United States—Gen Z is spooked by the massive student loan debts saddling millennials. Other key findings from the Universum research include the following: (1) Of those polled, 55% indicated that they were interested in starting their own businesses because it would give them more control over their financial destiny and because there would be a greater potential for them to make an impact on society; (2) Gen Z, despite being digital natives, indicated that they wanted to be contacted about jobs through more personal forms of communication and not through job advertisements on social media; and (3) approximately 37% of those polled worried that they would not find a job that fits their personality (Universum, 2015).
Sparks & Honey, a New York advertising agency that spots trends to help companies target groups of consumers, surveyed 1,000 13- to 17-year-olds in the United States about the future of work, money, technology, and education (Peterson, 2014). Hayley Peterson, reporting for Business Insider, highlighted some key findings, which include Gen Z’s desire to change the world, a drop in affection for advanced college degrees compared with how millennials feel, their entrepreneurial spirit, their desire to work on multiple screens at once (digital overconnectedness), and their preference for working independently rather than in groups. The entrepreneurial spirit has much to do with the Great Recession and a distrust for large companies. Ultimately, Universum and Sparks & Honey had similar findings. What do these characteristics mean for leaders? If leaders are to connect with Gen Z, they need to communicate more frequently and in shorter bursts because Gen Z members have short attention spans, tap into their entrepreneurial spirit, understand their need to fight for social causes, help them master something because they want to become experts, and feed their curiosity (Sparks & Honey, 2015). The onus is not just on the leaders, however. Members of Gen Z have to exhibit grit by working hard to gain professional experience before they enter the workplace. Furthermore, they need to learn how to think through problems critically rather than turning to the internet to find answers. Finally, Gen Zers must work on their ability to concentrate and not succumb to the short, fragmented attention spans that the digital age has imprinted on them.
Motivation to Become a Leader
What motivates someone to emerge as a leader? Researchers have found a variety of factors, such as certain personality traits, self-efficacy, early leadership opportunities, a feeling of collectivism, and a duty to serve, just to name a few. According to Chan and Drasgow (2001), a potential leader with a motivation to lead (MTL) falls under three categories: affective identity, noncalculative, and social normative. Affective identity means that a person likes to lead others. It feels like a natural action for them. These people are typically extraverted, display vertical individualism (the acceptance that inequality exists among individuals), possess leadership self-efficacy, and have past leadership experiences. A noncalculative MTL is characterized by agreeableness, emotional stability, and collectivist values. If someone possesses collectivist values, it means that they seek out collective harmony and equity in the workplace and are willing to subordinate their goals to those of the majority. Finally, a social-normative MTL perspective consists of individuals who feel a sense of social duty and obligation to lead. These individuals also tend to have past leadership experience and are confident in their leadership abilities. Also, personality, sociocultural values, leadership self-efficacy, and past leadership experiences are predictors of MTL (Chan & Drasgow, 2001).
Traits of Emergent Leaders
The Big Five personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness have been used to predict emergent leaders (Judge et al., 2002). Neuroticism represents the tendency to exhibit poor emotional adjustment, which leads to feelings of anxiety, insecurity, and hostility. Extraversion describes people who are sociable, assertive, active, and energetic. Openness to experience is the disposition to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional, and autonomous. Agreeableness is the tendency to be trusting, compliant, caring, and gentle. Finally, conscientiousness is composed of two related facets: achievement and dependability (Judge et al., 2002).
Bass (1990) indicated that almost all studies on the relationship of self-confidence—indicating low neuroticism—and leadership “were uniform in the positive direction of their findings” (p. 69). Evidence also indicates that neurotic individuals—those with anxiety, worry, or negative feelings—are less likely to be perceived as leaders (Hogan et al., 1994). In light of this evidence, we would not expect these individuals to emerge as leaders, and if they did, they would not be as effective. Extraversion provides a contrast to neuroticism. Hogan et al. (1994) noted that extraversion is related to being perceived as leader-like. Extraverts tend to be energetic, lively people. Adjectives used to describe individuals who emerged as leaders in leaderless group discussions included active, assertive, energetic, and not silent or withdrawn (Gough, 1988). These are the characteristics of extraverts. Indeed, Gough (1990) found that both of the major facets of extraversion—dominance and sociability—were linked to self- and peer ratings of leadership. Considering this evidence, extraverted individuals should have little difficulty motivating themselves to take on leadership roles when they identify a void. Individuals who display openness to experience are strongly considered to have “the right stuff” of leaders. Openness correlates with divergent thinking (McCrae, 1987) and is strongly related to both personality-based and behavioral measures of creativity (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Creativity appears to be an important skill of effective leaders; it was one of the skills contained in Yukl’s (1998) summary of the skills of leaders. Someone with an agreeable personality, or possessing agreeableness, is not necessarily motivated to emerge as a leader. On the one hand, cooperativeness tends to be related to leadership (Bass, 1990), and Zaccaro et al. (1991) found that interpersonal sensitivity was related to leadership. The fact that altruism, tact, and sensitivity are hallmarks of an agreeable personality suggests that leaders should be more agreeable. On the other hand, agreeableness is associated with modesty (Goldberg, 1990), and leaders tend not to be excessively modest (Bass, 1990). A conscientious individual is one who achieves and someone on whom others can depend. Bass noted, “Task competence results in attempts to lead that are more likely to result in success for the leader, effectiveness for the group, and reinforcement of the tendencies” (p. 109). Furthermore, initiative and persistence are related to leadership. As Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) noted, “Leaders must be tirelessly persistent in their activities and follow through with their programs” (p. 51). Because conscientious individuals have more tenacity and persistence (Goldberg, 1990), we would expect conscientious individuals to emerge as effective leaders.
Narcissism and Humility
Because the Big Five personality traits are such a popular framework for research, the effects of “many more narrow, but also possibly more powerful” traits have been neglected (Judge et al., 2009, p. 857). For example, narcissism, a dark trait that is characterized by arrogance, self-absorption, entitlement, high self-esteem, and hostility (Kausel et al., 2015), and humility, a bright trait that connotes a realistic and accurate self-view, a displayed appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, and teachability (Owens et al., 2013), have received increasing attention in leadership literature.
Because an individual’s motivation to lead is largely determined by their personality, it is expected that both narcissism and humility would be positively related to the affective-identity MTL and the social-normative MTL. Narcissists have been condemned as having less integrity and showing more arrogance and high-handedness than other people, which may lead to negative consequences within organizational settings (Kausel et al., 2015). However, narcissism’s positive components, such as confidence, high self-esteem, entitlement, and self-sufficiency (Judge et al., 2009), may activate individuals’ motivation to emerge as a leader. With a positive self-view, narcissists may show extreme self-confidence and self-esteem and are more likely than others to self-promote and self-nominate (Nevicka et al., 2011). Moreover, because of their unwavering desire to increase or maintain the positivity of the self (Nevicka et al., 2011), assuming leadership positions is a natural means for achieving narcissists’ need for self-enhancement.
In contrast to narcissism, humility carries with it positive components such as a realistic self-concept, appreciation of others, and self-transcendent pursuits (Ou et al., 2014), all of which can nurture individuals’ motives to take leadership roles. First of all, an unexaggerated understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses helps humble people gain an accurate awareness of intrapersonal resources, allowing them to put their strengths in perspective and avoid arrogance or self-contempt (Ou et al., 2014). Furthermore, with a balanced self-view, humble people tend to be psychologically healthy and have high self-confidence and self-esteem (Owens et al., 2013), which drives them to embrace leadership roles with positive-affective identification. Humble people are also more likely than others to be engaged in self-transcendent pursuits to embrace a collective organizational vision that is oriented toward the greater good rather than a vision of personal glory (Ou et al., 2014). Therefore, humble people tend to view leadership as their responsibility (Ou et al., 2015), which results in a strong social-normative MTL.
The desire for dominance has also received attention from researchers. Some empirical evidence indeed implicates dominance motivation, or the desire to hold a position of power and influence over others, in self-serving leadership behaviors. Because individuals high in dominance motivation strongly value power, they may do more to keep it—even to the point of harming others. In a series of studies, Maner and Mead (2010) investigated the implications of dominance motivation for leaders whose hold on power was tenuous, contingent on continued high performance. Under such circumstances, leaders high in dominance motivation were likely to consider talented subordinates as threats to their own power rather than as assets to the group, and they tended to act against them in response. For instance, high-dominance-motivation leaders were especially likely to keep information necessary for problem-solving to themselves, exclude subordinates from the team, give subordinates poor evaluations, or banish them to lowly positions. Each of these behaviors had the effect of making the leader appear good by boosting their comparative individual performance but hurting the group’s performance by suppressing the contributions of talented team members.
Leadership self-efficacy refers to an individual’s self-perceived capabilities for general leadership tasks (Murphy & Johnson, 2016). Korman (2001) stated that self-enhancement is the motivation to attain outcomes that signify personal growth. Having leadership self-efficacy enhances individuals’ confidence in their leadership-related capabilities and competencies and motivates them to put in more effort on leadership tasks, thus leading to affective-identity MTL (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Compared with individuals low in leadership self-efficacy, those with a high level of leadership self-efficacy are encouraged to devote more effort to their work and to persist longer in the face of obstacles (Murphy & Johnson, 2016). Thus, people with strong leadership self-efficacy are more likely than others to have a positive response to the responsibilities and duties associated with the leadership role, which results in a high level of social-normative MTL. Thus, both narcissism and humility can help an individual achieve greater MTL through the enhancement of leadership self-efficacy.
Motivating Volunteers
Sport organizations rely heavily on volunteers, particularly for event management. The 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang used more than 16,000 volunteers. The New York City Marathon typically uses around 10,000 volunteers for the race and related events leading up to the race. The week-long Travelers Championship in Cromwell, Connecticut, relies on approximately 4,000 volunteers. Chelladurai (2006) concluded that nearly 20% of the volunteers in America were involved in some form of sport or recreation volunteering. These volunteers contributed about $50 billion in economic value.
In sport organizations, research has specifically noted the importance of volunteers, both for community sport (Edwards, 2015; Misener & Doherty, 2009) and sporting events, including mega-events such as the World Cup and the Olympics (Bang et al., 2008; Bang & Chelladurai, 2009; Kim et al., 2019). It has been noted that sport managers struggle to retain long-term volunteers for several reasons, including a lack of personal growth and community involvement (Bang et al., 2008, 2014; Giannoulakis et al., 2007). Several studies have sought to identify factors that would increase volunteer satisfaction and experience at a single event, thereby encouraging these short-term volunteers to volunteer again in the future (Bang et al., 2009, 2014; Cho et al., 2020; Giannoulakis et al., 2007). These studies found, among other factors, that a positive work climate, event image, congruity with personal values, development of personal contacts, community involvement, and personal growth were factors motivating sport volunteers.
Volunteers are essential for the sport industry because they enable event managers to maximize economic efficiency by minimizing staff costs and contribute innovative ideas in their area of expertise (Cuskelly et al., 2004). Prior research has indicated the value of volunteers, noting the critical role that they play in the success of sport-related organizations and sporting events (Cuskelly, 1998; Green & Chalip, 1998; Shilbury & Moore, 2006). More specifically to the sport industry, volunteers are essential for the successful operation and overall management of sporting events (Berlonghi, 1994; Daly, 1991; Farrell et al., 1998; Green & Chalip, 1998). This is particularly true for one-time events requiring many personnel for a limited amount of time.
It is not surprising that the research literature on volunteer motivation suggests a complex system of reasons for volunteering that differ depending on the characteristics of the event or organization (Schlesinger & Gubler, 2016), but motivation is a central construct when attempting to understand an individual’s decision to become a volunteer (Wang, 2004). To maintain volunteer services for community and society, it is of considerable practical interest for volunteering organizations to know how to retain their volunteers for long-term engagements, especially because volunteer turnover can be extremely costly and time-consuming in terms of decreased organizational morale, volunteer replacement costs (recruitment and training), and decreased ability to serve the public (McElroy et al., 2001; Musick & Wilson, 2008). This knowledge is likely to become even more pertinent because of the shift from traditional volunteering, with a lifelong commitment, to a new type of sporadic and episodic volunteering, with a decreased commitment to any particular organization (Vantilborgh et al., 2011). Therefore, it has become even more challenging to motivate volunteers to stay within an organization for continuing and long-term engagements. Table 5.1 contains six areas likely to motivate volunteers.
TABLE 5.1 Volunteer Functions Inventory: Six Areas Likely to Motivate Volunteers
Area
Explanation
Example
Values
Express concern for others through helping those who need assistance; volunteer is motivated by altruistic or humanitarian concerns
Special Olympics is likely an event where values are a motivation for volunteers.
Understanding
Gain learning experience while sharing one’s knowledge, skills, and abilities
A runner interested in understanding how to manage running events might volunteer for a local 5K.
Social
Motivated by the opportunity to work with others and enhance social relationships
Sport management students might be motivated to work at events in their field of interest to enhance their network of social relationships.
Career
Career-related benefits whereby people who volunteer can prepare for a new career or maintain career-relevant skills
Someone who is a referee might volunteer at a state game (Nutmeg State Games) to maintain their officiating “edge.”
Protective
Motivating the volunteer by reducing guilt related to being more fortunate than others
Events that donate money to charity or donate money to fight a disease serve to help protect a volunteer’s ego.
Enhancement
Centers on personal development and obtaining satisfaction related to individual growth and self-esteem
Springfield College students volunteer at the Spalding Hoophall Classic to grow as event managers.
Reproduced from Clary, G. E., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., & Haugen, J. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1516–1530. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
Volunteer coordinators, as part of the organizational context, play a major role in inducing feelings of autonomy or control because they are directly involved in activities to attract, orient, retain, and organize the volunteers in their charge (Studer & von Schnurbein, 2013). Volunteers stated that coordinators who enable them to act autonomously (e.g., offering opportunities for personal initiative) and who were not too controlling (e.g., establishing tight rules on work schedules) greatly increased their motivation to volunteer (Leonard et al., 2004; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Vantilborgh et al., 2011). Research has shown initial evidence that inducing a feeling of acting autonomously through volunteer management has a positive effect on volunteering, whereas a feeling of being controlled or pressured by the volunteer coordinator (i.e., a feeling of being micromanaged) has the opposite effect, although further consideration on this topic is needed (Vantilborgh et al., 2011).
Because of the valuable contribution that volunteers make to sporting events, a better understanding of such distinct motivation-based profiles of sporting event volunteerism would greatly help event volunteer managers in developing more effective recruitment, selection, and retention strategies. Table 5.2 contains four profiles of interest to organizational leaders that rely on volunteers. The researchers, Schlesinger and Gubler, used a sample of 1,169 volunteers working at the 2014 European Athletics Championships in Zurich to form their profiles. An inadequate handling of current trends in voluntary engagement and a lack of knowledge of the differences in motivation among volunteers could negatively affect their performance and behavioral intentions (Borzaga & Tortia, 2006) and have negative consequences for the events themselves.
TABLE 5.2 Types of Volunteers: Four Profiles to Help Organizations’ Recruiting Efforts
Cluster Name
Explanation
Community Supporters
They donate their time to support the event in order to be part of the local community and out of concern for others, the success of the event, and society.
Material Incentive Seekers
These volunteers expect to be recompensed materially in the form of getting free uniforms, food, accommodation, and admission.
Social Networkers
These volunteers are particularly motivated by developing interpersonal contacts. Through their voluntary activity, these individuals want to meet and interact with people, form friendships, and build up social networks. The motive of helping the event as part of the local community is combined with the motive to help in order to establish new social contacts.
Career and Personal Growth Orienteers
The main motives for these volunteers are career orientation and personal growth. People engage voluntarily in order to gain both valuable career contacts and new perspectives or experiences that they consider to be important and necessary in other life areas.
By developing accurate knowledge about who sport event volunteers are and reasons for their engagement, sport event managers are better equipped to target the recruitment of volunteers.
Motivating in Remote and Pressured Environments
As remote work has become more common in the sports industry, sport leaders have had to adapt to new ways of engaging, motivating, and directing their teams. Unlike traditional office environments where direct, face-to-face interactions foster relationships and accountability, remote work introduces challenges in communicating, building trust, and maintaining motivation. The pressures of the industry—whether in professional sports, intercollegiate athletics, or sport marketing and event management—are not reduced because employees are working from home or in hybrid settings. Instead, the demands of productivity, creativity, and efficiency remain high, and leaders must find ways to sustain engagement despite physical distance. Research indicates that successful remote leadership requires a shift from traditional command-and-control leadership toward a more transformational and empowering approach, where communication, trust, and autonomy are central (Mach et al., 2022).
One of the most important factors in leading remote sport organizations is effective communication. Without regular, structured, and meaningful interaction, employees may feel isolated, disconnected from the mission of the organization, and uncertain about their role. This can lead to decreased motivation, job dissatisfaction, and ultimately, turnover. A study by Cruickshank and Collins (2012) found that in elite sport environments, structured communication strategies were essential to maintaining effectiveness in high-performance teams. In remote settings, this means leaders must be proactive in scheduling consistent team meetings, utilizing multiple communication platforms (such as videoconferencing, messaging apps, and collaborative workspaces), and ensuring that all employees have clear expectations for their tasks. Beyond logistics, sport leaders must also be intentional in fostering social connectivity because casual office conversations and spontaneous collaborations are more difficult to replicate in virtual environments. This can be accomplished through regular check-ins that focus not only on work-related topics but also on employee well-being, personal development, and career aspirations.
In addition to structured communication, leadership style plays a significant role in motivating remote teams. Transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, individualized support, and empowerment, has been shown to be particularly effective in maintaining engagement in remote environments. Mach et al. (2022) found that transformational leadership fosters team cohesion, which is strongly correlated with team performance. When employees feel connected to a shared vision and are supported by their leaders, they are more likely to stay engaged and perform at high levels. For sport leaders, this means going beyond assigning tasks and monitoring productivity. Instead, they must inspire employees by articulating organizational goals, demonstrating confidence in their teams, and encouraging innovation and problem-solving. Autonomy is a key element here—giving employees the freedom to take ownership of projects while still providing necessary support fosters a sense of responsibility and intrinsic motivation.
Another crucial factor in leading remote sport teams is understanding the challenges to work–life balance that come with working outside of traditional office settings. The sport industry is known for its demanding schedules, and for many employees, remote work does not necessarily equate to greater flexibility; instead, it can lead to work–life spillover, where the boundaries between personal and professional life become blurred. Huml et al. (2023) examined how remote work affected sport employees’ family and work dynamics, finding that leaders must be particularly aware of burnout risks and take active measures to support their teams. This might involve setting clear expectations for work hours, discouraging excessive after-hours communication, and promoting mental health resources. Leaders who model healthy work–life balance themselves—by taking breaks, prioritizing personal well-being, and encouraging team members to do the same—help create a culture where employees feel supported rather than overworked.
Finally, in high-pressure environments such as professional sports and intercollegiate athletics, building resilience among employees is essential. Sport leaders must foster a psychologically safe work environment where employees feel comfortable discussing challenges, seeking support, and taking calculated risks. Research suggests that adaptive leadership, which emphasizes flexibility, emotional intelligence, and responsiveness to change, is particularly important in volatile and fast-paced industries like sports (Cruickshank & Collins, 2012). Leaders who acknowledge difficulties, provide constructive feedback, and celebrate progress—even small wins—help to cultivate a resilient workforce. Encouraging a growth mindset, where employees view challenges as opportunities to learn rather than as threats, can also help maintain motivation and performance in remote settings.
In conclusion, leading and motivating in remote sport environments requires a shift in traditional leadership approaches. Leaders must prioritize structured and transparent communication, embrace transformational leadership styles that empower employees, be mindful of challenges to work–life balance, and cultivate resilience within their teams. By implementing these strategies, sport leaders can ensure their teams remain motivated, engaged, and high-performing, even in virtual and high-pressure settings. As the sports industry continues to evolve, the ability to adapt leadership styles to remote and hybrid environments will be a defining factor in long-term organizational success.
1. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Motivation Types
Autonomous Motivation:
Occurs when individuals engage in activities out of interest, enjoyment, intrinsic satisfaction, or aligned personal values.
Positively associated with psychological well-being, job satisfaction, work engagement, and occupational commitment.
Controlled (Nonautonomous) Motivation:
Driven by external pressures, obligation, or instrumental rewards (e.g., pay, recognition, avoiding punishment).
Positively associated with negative outcomes: workaholism, burnout, and turnover intention.
2. Pink’s Triad of Intrinsic Motivation (Drive)
Autonomy: The ability to act with choice and volition; environments that foster trust over control reawaken intrinsic drive.
Mastery: The opportunity to continuously improve at something that matters. Composed of three tenets:
Mindset: Requires a growth mindset (belief that abilities/intelligence can grow) over a fixed mindset (Dweck).
Pain: Requires grit—perseverance and passion for long-term goals despite obstacles and setbacks (Duckworth).
Asymptote: Complete mastery is impossible to fully achieve; the continuous drive toward an unattainable ideal fuels motivation.
Purpose: Working in service of a cause larger than oneself, which drives deep personal fulfillment and sustained engagement.
3. Leadership Dynamics & Employee Motivation
Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) Theory:
Refers to the quality of the interpersonal relationship between a leader and a follower.
High-quality LMX fosters mutual trust, respect, autonomy, higher job satisfaction, and reduced turnover.
Empowering Leadership:
Focuses on transforming followers into self-leaders through delegated autonomy, participative goal-setting, and confidence-building.
Task Visibility: An employee's belief that their work is observed and valued by leadership; high task visibility maximizes the motivating effect of empowering leadership.
4. Generational Motivation Profiles
Millennials:
Motivated by meaningful work/purpose, career development opportunities (87%), and supportive manager relationships.
Prefer flatter organizational structures and frequent feedback/interaction.
Generation Z:
Digital natives motivated by autonomy, work-life balance, financial stability, and continuous personal growth.
Prefer direct, concise communication and opportunities to apply entrepreneurial thinking.
5. Motivation to Lead (MTL) and Personality
Three MTL Categories (Chan & Drasgow):
Affective-Identity: Natural desire to lead based on extraversion and high leadership self-efficacy.
Noncalculative: Willingness to lead without evaluating personal costs/benefits, driven by collectivist values.
Social-Normative: Leadership driven by a sense of social duty and obligation.
Big Five Personality Traits:
High Extraversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness, combined with low Neuroticism, predict leader emergence and effectiveness.
Narcissism vs. Humility:
Narcissism increases MTL through self-enhancement and high self-esteem, though it may result in self-serving behaviors.
Humility increases MTL through self-transcendent goals, realistic self-awareness, and appreciation of others.
6. Volunteer Motivation Models
Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI): Identifies 6 core motives: Values, Understanding, Social, Career, Protective, and Enhancement.
Four Volunteer Profiles (Schlesinger & Gubler):
Community Supporters: Driven by local community impact and helping others.
Material Incentive Seekers: Driven by tangible perks (apparel, free food, access).
Social Networkers: Driven by social interaction and forming friendships.
Career & Personal Growth Orienteers: Driven by networking, resume building, and skill acquisition.