The pursuit of quality is far easier when you and your fellow testers are fully motivated, as it can inspire people to strive for quality outcomes that benefit themselves and their organization. This workshop will provide individual testers and test managers with valuable insights into how to increase levels of motivation, based on both state-of-the-art theory and the results of a multi-national tester motivation survey.
The workshop will comprise a mix of theory and exercises. The theory will compare the traditional ‘carrot and stick’ approach to motivation with today’s up-to-date approaches based on intrinsic motivators, such as autonomy, purpose and mastery.Autonomy means that individuals have increased control over their time, what they do and how they do it. Purpose reflects whether testers feel that their job contributes to a worthwhile goal (not simply their employer’s profits), such as by helping the wider community; this can take on a variety of forms. Mastery comprises a number of aspects, and would ideally require testers to decide what skills and goals they wish to attain, and also involves designing and optimising tasks that will better keep them ‘in the flow’.
Exercises based on deriving the ‘motivating potential score’ for a job and on identifying the levels of autonomy, purpose and mastery will be used to identify areas where individuals and managers can optimise job design to make testers’ roles more interesting and more efficient. Scenarios will be used to demonstrate a range of ‘improvement situations’ along with possible solutions derived from traditional and up-to-date motivation theory. The results of the tester motivation survey will be used to identify comparable solutions from the real-world experiences of practicing testers and test managers.
By the end of the workshop attendees will have been introduced to a variety of techniques that they can take back to their workplaces and use, to investigate and improve in the area of tester motivation.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Dr. Stuart ReidTesting Solutions Group 117-119 Houndsditch, London, EC3A 7BT, United KingdomTel: +44 (0)20 7469 1500 E: [email protected]
We are all different or we would all want the same job!
Investigation Approach
• Questionnaire– Paper-based
– SurveyMonkey
• 40 Questions– Demographic
– Motivation-related (Likert-scale)
– Open-ended
• Responses from around the world
• Analysed qualitative & quantitative data
Motivation Models
• Reinforcement (carrot & stick)
• Motivating Potential Score
• Equity Theory
• MAP
…or Sticks?
Carrots?
Reinforcement Theory
Reinforcement Theory
Positive(carrot)
Remove Unpleasant State
Punishment (stick)
Works better than…
Works better than…
Reinforcement Theory
• Punishment is a poor managerial tool
– Creates hostility & retaliation
– Reduces morale & job satisfaction
• Positive reinforcement
– Encourages more positive behaviour
– Only works while reinforcement continues
But... how do we get good behaviour to reinforce in the first place?
Performance Related Pay (PRP)
• PRP can be applied to:– Organization – Team – Individual
• Short-termed motivator• De-motivating for cognitive tasks!• Alters behaviour, not attitude or
commitment
Reinforcement Survey Results
Motivation Models
• Reinforcement (carrot & stick)
• Motivating Potential Score
• Equity Theory
• MAP
• Skill Variety (V)– range of different skills used
• Task Identity (I)– degree of completing a whole job
• Task Significance (S)– importance of the job
• Autonomy (A)– level of control of your own time
• Feedback (F)– degree of supervisory & results-based
feedback
• MPS =
FASIV
**3
MPS from Hackman & Oldham, 1975.
Motivating Potential Score
Assign a score of 1 to 7 to
each attribute...
...and then calculate your
MPS
Exercise Outcome…
• What was your Motivating Potential Score?
• What is your lowest score?
• What changes can you make to increase your score?
• Skill Variety (V)– range of different skills used
• Task Identity (I)– degree of completing a whole job
• Task Significance (S)– importance of the job
• Autonomy (A)– level of control of your own time
• Feedback (F)– degree of supervisory & results-based
feedback
• MPS = FA
SIV**
3
MPS Survey Results
Motivation Models
• Reinforcement (carrot & stick)
• Motivating Potential Score
• Equity Theory
• MAP
Exercise
Equity Theory
• Workers expect fairness!
– If perceived effort = perceived reward then productivity increases
– Workers want to believe that all staff are treated fairly
• Workers will try to ‘fix’ inequitable treatment
Equity Theory Survey Results
Motivation Models
• Reinforcement (carrot & stick)
• Motivating Potential Score
• Equity Theory
• MAP
Pink’s MAP
• Daniel Pink’s Motivation 3.0
Mastery
PurposeAutonomy
Autonomy
Autonomy
Being able to decide when, how and who you do your job with
We deliver in 24 hours!
Capability
Level of
Ch
allen
ge
In The Z
one
Mastery
The ‘Spark’
Inspiration
Motivation
Purpose
• A cause larger than yourself– and your organization!
• Not wholly focussed on profit• Goals
– Working in a great team– Giving something back to society
• Words– Is your organization a ‘they’ or ‘we’?
• Policies– Employees choose where to ‘give’– 20% time – but for the community
Purpose
What is your sentence?
MAP Survey Results
Practical Strategies for Managers
• Flow test• Performance review
– Including regular self-appraisals against goals• Tailored challenges• Deliberate practice• Regular critical feedback • Work on weaknesses• Try innovation time (even if only 10%)• Encourage peer-to-peer rewards• Autonomy audit