Image Source: Vantage Circle Blog 2019
As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, I watched many friends lose summer internships or have bosses cut their hours, and felt extremely fortunate to be employed at a company which the Ontario government deemed an essential service. However, when the government released their plans for job-loss compensation via the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and the Canada Emergency Student Benefit (CESB), I did not feel quite as lucky.
Both CERB and CESB were initiated by the Canadian federal government alongside the standard Employment Insurance to support those whose jobs had been affected due to COVID-19. CERB offered $2,000 per month to Canadians who lost their full-time employment, while CESB granted $1,250 per month to Canadian students who either lost or could not find part-time or seasonal employment (1). These social welfare programs relieved students of enormous amounts of stress, and many opted to collect CESB instead of job hunting due to factors including a poor job market, school, and mental health (2). As a student who held a summer job, I strongly considered whether collecting CESB would reap greater rewards than working– this was ignited after a pattern of unsupportive behavior arose from my supervisors. There were a limited number of check-ins on my progress or well-being, no specific goals or targets in place, and I was given no voice in decision-making as a senior employee. The purpose of workplace motivation during a crisis became quite apparent – it is connected to crisis management, and how leadership must transform to better suit employee needs. With regards to my experience, leadership should have transformed to support employee motivation during a crisis, especially considering the introduction of new forms of compensation.
Leaders must consider their employees’ emotional needs through adaptive and communicative behaviors in order to maintain optimal performance.
There has been a lot of research connecting crisis management with employee motivation and performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, including ideas focusing primarily on positive, interactive leaders. A 2020 German study explains the importance for employers with employees working digitally to be supportive leaders by allowing “participative decision-making” in an “open error culture”, particularly because of the transition to remote, online work (3). Another recent paper emphasizes the necessity of frequent, transparent communication from leaders to workers, as well as encouraging loyalty and trust by installing a system of positive reinforcement for employees during a crisis (4). Moreover, a unique study looks at the motivation of Millennial employees during the COVID-19 pandemic and how Millennials perceive their relationships with their leaders. The study highlights Millennial employees’ priorities for mentorship, teamwork, and fulfilling work. It suggests that leaders must consider their employees’ emotional needs through adaptive and communicative behaviors in order to maintain optimal performance (5). This summer, had I been part of a work culture where I could communicate openly, ask for support, and make mistakes without fear of being reprimanded, I never would have considered abandoning my work to collect CESB instead.
Looking at the above sources, it is evident that factors including communication, emotional intelligence, and flexibility frequently appear in crisis leadership studies for motivating employees to ensure a satisfying employment relationship. However, there is little mention of compensation and how it can incentivize employees. Over time, scholars have altered their view of monetary compensation from being a central motivator in the workplace to being a background motivator at the back of factors such as relationships, work conditions, and personal needs. An example of this is found in Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, which breaks down job satisfaction into two categories with various elements besides money: hygiene factors (e.g. salary, work conditions, status, etc.) and motivator factors (e.g. recognition, achievement, possibilities for growth etc.) (6). However, a recent article by multiple Quebec scholars observes the use of income supports (specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic) as a disincentive to find work. This article examines how income supports, such as CERB and CESB, are very generous to those with previous jobs earning less than the given program amount, which can ultimately lead to decreased motivation to return to work when industries begin reopening (7). With the option to stay on income support programs, monetary compensation becomes a critical issue to consider when workers and students (like me) weigh their options between working and not working. This is especially crucial when leadership may negatively impact personal job satisfaction.
Although monetary compensation cannot be ignored as a motivating factor, it cannot stand alone.
I truly wish that the management team at my summer job had taken time to research and understand the motivational issues that arose as individuals went back to work during the COVID-19 pandemic. I would have benefitted from leaders who considered the challenges I faced as a student working from home and supported me by advocated for my needs. For many other organizations, COVID-19 undoubtedly prompted change in the way they organize and manage employees, and has encouraged leadership to embody a more sympathetic role under such unfamiliar circumstances. The introduction of income support programs has been an integral part of the Canadian pandemic response, although it questions employee motivation and their desire to work at all. Although monetary compensation cannot be ignored as a motivating factor, it cannot stand alone. This is where the influence of supportive leaders becomes a vital component for employee motivation – having access to various compensation pathways combined with quickly-adapting leadership creates an interesting labor dilemma of employee motivation during the pandemic.
Comments