At the time when the European Union faces sluggish growth (Catan, 2013), a strong preference of a portion of the population to retire early (Norris, 2010) combined with a longterm unsustainability of pension schemes in many Member countries (Cendrowicz, 2010), and overall pessimism about the future outlook (McKay, 2008), it is more important than ever to get the work incentives right: How can firms and institutions motivate their employees to stay in the labour force longer and improve their productivity?
Previous research has shown that there are many factors which are crucial for work satisfaction and productivity. First, Ariely et al (2008) show that work that is perceived as meaningless is associated with lower labour supply. Second, acknowledgement of one´s work
(Ariely et al, 2008) as well as compliments – even insincere (Chan & Sengupta, 2010)– can have a positive impact on a person´s attitude, and, in turn, willingness to work. Third, high bonuses awarded for difficult cognitive tasks as well as social pressure negatively impact performance (Ariely et al, 2005). However, to my best knowledge no large-scale studies outside of laboratory setting have been conducted to verify these findings.
In line with these results I propose the following two-step study:
In the initial phase a random sample of 6000
1
firms and institutions across all EU Member states will be surveyed. All employees will be asked to participate; additionally, the company accountant or the firm owner will be asked to provide aggregate company data for comparison. (Model questions to be found in Appendix.)
These surveys aim to gather not only basic characteristics of the companies such as the payment structures, industry of operation or the number of workers, but they foremost aim to collect data on both formal and informal job requirements and duties, structure of a typical workday, and internal relationships. The questions of utmost importance for this research are the following five
2
:
1
I believe firms will be motivated to join this project as they are likely to reap its early benefits.
2
The scale used below ranks feelings and attributes from “not satisified/meaningful/.../pressured“ to “extremely satisfied/meaningful/.../pressured“.


On a scale 1-7, how satisfied are you with your job?

On a scale 1-7, how meaningful do you think your job is?

On a scale 1-7, how well do you get on with your colleagues and superiors?

On a scale 1-7, how well appreciated do you feel?

On a scale 1-7, how pressured do you feel?
In the second phase, based on the collected data, the sample of firms will be stratified and randomly split into five treatments. These treatments will be applied for a period of 10 months. Each treatment will have a set of 8 recommended actions. Table 1 describes these treatments in detail and gives examples of the proposed actions to be taken.
Table 1: Treatment Design
Treatment
Baseline
Meaning
Relationships
Acknowledgement
Pressure
Description
No change to any firm policies
Make the job more meaningful
Improve relationships
Acknowledge hard work
Scrap bonuses and unnecessary stress
Application
N/A
For example, allow employees see the products of their labour or show how individual tasks contribute to the company vision
For example, organise teambuilding activities or compliment employees on their work
For example, bosses can allocate 20 minutes of their time to discuss the outcomes of the projects the workers had done
Eradicate performance-based payment schemes and, for example, delay deadlines that have proven to be too strict or reallocate workload
A fundamental advantage of all of these treatments is that their implementation is often simple and/or cheap: Praising an employee when she submits a report costs effectively nothing, yet it can visibly boost her productivity; similarly, scrapping large bonuses decreases costs and can relieve stress of a given employee.
After the treatment period is over, a final survey will take place. In particular, we are interested in three things:
1.
Did the companies in the treatment groups apply the treatment? To what extent?
2.
Was this treatment effective, i.e., is there a measurable impact on perceived stress, meaningfulness, and other variables of interest?

3.
If there is a measurable impact on the variables of interest, does it translate to higher productivity and/or profits?
The data analysis will be two-fold, as our design allows us not only to compare a single firm over time, but also to compare it to other firms with similar characteristics that either applied or did not apply the particular policy. Essentially, this way we can control for time trends related to productivity, job satisfaction, etc.
Therefore we can determine if the abovementioned results of behavioural studies hold also outside of a laboratory setting, and which of the motivators seems the most effective.
Finally, we will be able to sketch a blueprint for companies in the EU area and provide them with cheap, country specific and easy-to-implement solutions that will motivate their employees to perform better and derive greater enjoyment from work in process, thereby benefitting the whole EU area.

Ariely, D. et al. Large Stakes and Big Mistakes . Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Woking
Papers. 2005
Ariely, D. et al.
Man’s search for meaning: The case of Legos.
Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization. 2008
Catan, T. Europe Officials Expect Slow Growth . The Wall Street Journal. Apr 2013.
Cendrowicz, L. Will Europe Raise the Retirement Age?
Time. Jul 2010.
Chan, E. Sengupta, J. Insincere Flattery Actually Works: A Dual Attitudes Perspective .
Journal of Marketing Research. Feb 2010.
McKay, S. Europeans pessimistic about prospects for future regarding jobs and pay .
European Working Conditions Observatory. Sep 2008.
Norris, F. Rethinking Early Retirement in Europe . The New York Times. Oct 2010.
A) General (targeting firm owners and accountants) a.
Please indicate your industry. b.
How many employees does the company have? c.
How many employees annually receive performance-related bonuses? d.
What were the company´s profits in the last year? e.
Is the company publicly listed?
B) Attitudes (targeting employees) a.
On a scale 1-7, how satisfied are you with your job? b.
On a scale 1-7, how meaningful do you think your job is? c.
On a scale 1-7, how well do you get on with your colleagues and superiors? d.
On a scale 1-7, how well appreciated do you feel? e.
On a scale 1-7, how pressured do you feel? f.
What are your formal duties? g.
What are your informal duties? h.
Please describe your typical workday. i.
Have you recently participated in any team-building activities?