See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349680337

Motivation in a Business Company Using Technology-Based Communication

Chapter · February 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-61045-6_2

CITATIONS READS

5 2,756

2 authors:

Madara Pratt Sarma Cakula

Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences
10 PUBLICATIONS 72 CITATIONS 62 PUBLICATIONS 398 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarma Cakula on 18 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

Motivation in a business company using technology-

based communication

Madara Pauga1 and Sarma Cakula2

1
Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences, Cesu 4, Latvia
2
Riga Technical University, Kronvalda 1, Latvia

Email: 1madara.pauga@va.lv, 2sarma.cakula@va.lv

Abstract: The world is experiencing many changes due to increased globalization, e-commerce
and modernization. The new modernized work setting offers us many advantages and benefits;
technology-based communication allows to span time and distance among people. Technology
development is moving at such a speed that social human behavior science has not kept pace and
although there is enormous research on human behavior, we lack new models for guiding
managerial practices. Countries and companies will compete in the future on the quality of both
– technology and their human resources. The question is how these two concepts can be brought
together – technology and human resources? How to maintain employees satisfied and motivated
while the company strives to excel in technology? The aim of this research is to investigate
technology-based communication’s effect on the quality of relationships within the company, to
determine factors affecting social relationships and also their effect on motivation and job
satisfaction of employees. The theoretical model developed by the authors is explaining how
technology-based communication is affecting the quality of work relationships. An online survey
was conducted and in a sample of 102 respondents representing 26 different nationalities, it was
found that the factors affecting motivation do not correlate with technology communication-
related constructs, but rather are affected by management. As a conclusion, it is possible to
communicate through technology and motivate employees with the same efficiency as in face-to-
face communication. Also, a need for new and effective communication programs and tools was
recognized.
Keywords: technology-based communication, work relationships, motivation, computer
supported cooperative work, leadership.

1 Introduction
Increased globalization, new economy, and e-commerce has changed the ways of
communication and, in turn, changed the work environment; many companies developed virtual
teams with team members in different time zones, countries and even continents. This has
developed new and more complex challenges for leadership because of issues arising from new
communication formats [20]. The question is how to have high performing, motivated and
satisfied employees within companies where communication is fully or partly technology based.
Within this new context, a motivated workforce has been pointed out as a hallmark of
competitive advantages [34]. Countries and companies will compete in the future on the quality
of both – technology and their human resources [37].

CC-BY Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
license. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the
work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under license in Int. J. of Comp. Sci. Ser. by NSSEL Publishing.

1
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

The traditional work relationship and forms of communication between employer and employee
obviously have changed, but there is not a clear understanding of its replacement. We lack new
models capable of guiding managerial behavior in this new era of work. Steers, Wickham and
Acitelli (2014) believe that it is time to redirect intellectual energies into discovering new
models and research towards new models of work motivation and job performance [34]. Barrier
(2001) emphasizes that companies can not continue to blindly accept and introduce components
into information systems without studying the effectiveness, feasibility, and efficiency of the
individual components of their information systems; these systems have to be managed [3].
Although behavioral and social scientists have done enormous research on human behavior,
researchers and developers have rarely utilized them [21]. In 2004 “ACM conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work” held in Chicago, the topic of how to incorporate group
and organization theory in CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) was discussed [2].
It is clear from discussions that CSCW community should adopt a stronger orientation to social
science disciplines [11].
The aim of this article is to investigate how technology-based communication is affecting the
motivation and satisfaction of employees. Communication can be through richer medium
channels as face-to-face discussions, video conferencing, phone calls and though leaner medium
channels as text messages, e-mails and unaddressed documents. A literature review was
conducted researching motivation and different factors affecting it within the context of
communication through technology, the conceptual model developed. The survey was
conducted in order to understand the technology effect on motivational factors and overall in
technology use. As a result the need for new communication technologies was recognized and
the importance of good management was emphasized.

2 Technology in work communication

Introduction of technology has brought many benefits to business companies. It allowed
employees to be geographically dispersed – located in different places, countries and even
continents. They can work full time, part time and have different shifts.
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is a research area where the use of computing
and communication technologies which support group and organizational activity are studied
[11]. CSCW can be discussed in four general levels- individual, group and team, organization
and industry. Family, occupation, nation, or culture are other discussed factors [11].
In order to improve task performance, increase range and speed of information, and overcome
time and space distance, many companies have developed virtual teams [24]. Additional
benefits of virtual teams are discussions based on knowledge, facts and improved brainstorming
[23]. Virtual communication can happen using phone calls, e-mails, instant messages, video
chats, videoconferences, shared screen sessions, shared files, and others. The degree of virtual
communication within organization or teams can be discussed at three levels- face-to-face teams
that meet personally, low virtuality teams that use synchronous, media-rich technologies and
high virtuality teams that use asynchronous, media poor technologies, such as e-mail [25].
Companies can categorize their meetings in four categories by time and place [26]. STSP (same-
time, same-place) are face-to-face meetings. STDP (same-time, different-place) meetings are a
combination of video, audio or text. Information technology serves as a storage system. DTSP
(different-time, same-place) meetings work as a storage system and are used for example for
employees with different shifts. Within DTDP (different-time, different-place) meetings team
members share the same virtual space and web [22].
Media richness theory ranks communication media according to their ability to convey complex
messages. Most effective are richer medium channels as face-to-face discussions, video

2
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

conferencing and phone calls and leaner medium channels as text messages, emails,
unaddressed documents are less effective [41]. Communication within virtual teams should be
developed with a variety of types of media considering working style and tasks including richer
and leaner medium channels [41].
Although technology offers many benefits, companies have to be aware of many effects it has
on work design, organizational design, communication patterns and secondary social effects
[16]. Communication within this context is based on knowledge and opinions and that decreases
status differences. Taking into consideration that within technology-based communication part
of the intended message can be lost and, thus there is an absence of non-verbal cues, it can lead
to miscommunication, lack of interpersonal relations, social rapport and less satisfied members,
the amount of this communication within the company can be a significant measurement of
quality of relationships among these team members [23]. It is difficult to establish and maintain
mutual knowledge [8]. These misunderstandings can lead to false conclusions and assumptions
about a person’s character especially when communication is across cultures [22; 38].
It was thought that increased levels of video conferencing, which is considered a rich
communication media, would solve these communication problems; however, expectations were
not realized [36]. Video conferencing does not require full attention as face-to-face
communication and mainly matches the name to the face, but doesn’t substitute for face-to-face
communication, because of its inability to read non-verbal cues [15].

3 Quality of work relationships

Communication is an important factor for maintaining social relations in the company and lack
of social information can limit social relations in the company [9]. Two of the impacts of
technology-based communication are increased miscommunication and anonymity [17; 22]. In
this type of communication, there is less pressure and this affects how teams make decisions and
resolve conflicts. Anonymity may have several negative effects. It results in loss of self-
awareness and people would say what otherwise they would not say in face-to-face
communication. Deindividualization can result in social loafing. Having less social pressure can
cause higher levels of conflicts, inability to resolve conflicts and to reach consensus in decision-
making situations [22]. Miscommunication can result in conflicts, because of misunderstandings
and reduced communication [17]. On the other hand, there are also benefits of anonymity –
better generation of ideas, greater willingness to participate and to generate more ideas [22].
For building social relations, it is suggested to have face-to-face meetings including social
activities and to encourage employees to communicate informally on everyday basis; it is
normal practice to use technology for bonding social ties among employees [22]. Vignovic and
Thompson (2010) suggest concentrating on developing social relations and using
communication norms in order to overcome communication problems [38].

3.1 Culture
Impact of communication differs depending on culture and age differences [35]. Cultural
background is an important factor influencing abilities and qualities of technology user for
system developers to consider. Röse & Züblke (2001) recognized a gap in the developer’s
knowledge according to the culture-dependent user requirements of a foreign market [31].
Within the research about specification, analysis, and integration of relevant intercultural
variables, Röse (2004) specified, that modern and user-friendly products have to include cultural
diversity as one of their key features [30].
One might think that communication problems stem from differences in linguistic codes, but
Hall (1976) argues, that the problem lies in the context, which carries varying proportions of the

3
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

meaning [14]. Spoken language, in fact, is an abstraction of thoughts and, in turn, written
language is an abstraction of spoken language. The actual event happening is much more
complex and richer than the abstraction of it within the spoken language and written language.
It is natural that people choose some parts of information and unconsciously ignore others.
According to Hall (1976), any transaction can be characterized as high, low or middle context
[14]. There is much more context and little or no information in High Context (HC)
communications, but Low Context (LC) communication provides a lot of information with little
or no hidden context. Within technology-based communication, the most complex issue is
transmitting the desired message in High Context communication. As most of the meaning is
not transmitted in words, it can lead to misunderstandings. To have sufficient HC
communication programming has to be done; if that is not done, this communication is
insufficient [14]. Controversy in LC communication can be very brief and short and not have all
information explained in sufficient detail and lack emotion and personal relationships.

3.2 Leadership
Thompson and Coovert (2006) emphasized appropriate leadership as an important factor for
improving relationships within technology-based communication [36]. Even if communication
is computer-based, an undeniable part of work management is personal leadership.
Communication between the employee and his manager is critical for the company as it
influences many aspects. The leadership effect on virtual teams is especially important because
they have more complex challenges to overcome structuring team process and providing task
support than face-to-face teams do [20]. Because of communication restrictions, virtual teams
require more active leadership. Employees have difficulties feeling as a part of the team and
have limitations in building social relationships [22].
One of the theories explaining leader-employee communication is Leader-Member Exchange
(LMX) theory. Graen and Cashman (1975) suggested that leaders are establishing either low-
exchange relationships or high-exchange relationships with their employees [12]. This theory is
focused on dynamic relationship between leader and employee. In-group employees are the
ones which leader would consider superior to other employees, more loyal, better at work,
reliable. They receive more attention and benefits. Out-group members have fewer advantages;
they are not trusted and the leader doesn’t involve them as much. A very significant part of this
theory is communication through which leaders and members develop and maintain a beneficial
exchange. Out-group members receive less attention, support, supervision, communication from
leader. [7; 12; 44]. Some of the resulting consequences are turnover intent, lower job
performance, overall organizational citizenship behaviour, organizational commitment and
general job satisfaction [10].

4 Motivation
A motivated workforce has been pointed out as a hallmark of competitive advantages within
new modernized work setting [34]. Communication technology developers should consider this
critical point while developing new systems. Usually, the term motivation reflects a person’s
internal psychological forces which move them to work [29]. Herzberg (2003) recognized the
type of manager who takes direct action by the strategy “kick the person” also called KITA [18].
There are various forms of KITA – negative physical, negative psychological and positive
KITA. He revealed several myths about motivation- reducing time spent at work, spiraling
wages, fringe benefits, human relation training, sensitivity training, communications, two-way
communication, job participation and employee counseling. Each of these approaches can be
effective, but Herzberg argues KITA is not a motivation and mentioned myths also are not long-
term motivators [18].

4
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

Results and discussions of Hawthorne study suggest that the increase of assemblers’
productivity was because they were singled out and made to feel important [42]. Results of
other early research showed that people have natural striving for self realization and that the
most insistent incentive is self-respect and the respect of others [19]. Employees need to feel
that they are a part of a worthwhile project, have responsibilities and they are rewarded for
outstanding performance. Money is not enough to motivate employees [19; 42]. Research in the
Intermountain Health Care organization also concluded that motivating and rewarding work
environment are more important than an increase in salary or benefits [40]. Research in IT
sphere show that for IT professionals pay is not a motivator, but work itself, satisfaction, feeling
of achievement are [1].
Herzberg (1959) in his research “Motivation to Work” was the first one who linked job
satisfaction with motivation in his two-factor theory [19]. Hygiene (extrinsic) factors or
dissatisfaction-avoidance include supervision, interpersonal relations, physical and working
conditions, salary, company policies and administrative practices, benefits, and job security.
When these conditions are below a level that an employee feels acceptable, he gets dissatisfied.
But it is not the same in reverse – when conditions are optimal, an employee is not satisfied, but
he is merely neutral. These are factors, which are essential for avoiding unpleasant situations
[18; 19; 29]. Motivators (intrinsic) are factors that reward the needs of the individual to reach
his aspirations and are the ones that bring actual job satisfaction. These factors are achievement,
recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement [18; 19;
29].
Volkwein’s (2003) findings confirm that positive workplace relationships and atmosphere of
teamwork are the ingredients that have a highly positive impact on most satisfaction measures
[39]. Interpersonal conflicts have a decreasing effect on satisfaction. Job insecurity strongly and
directly influences satisfaction and increases intentions to leave. Satisfaction is influenced by a
complex array of personal and situational circumstances [39].
It is very critical to keep employees motivated and have a proper communication strategy
because these two factors lead to job satisfaction/dissatisfaction [28]. Job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction is a result of motivation and performance [40]. Turnover intent is closely related
to job satisfaction [6; 32]. Results in research in Turkey confirmed that there is a negative
relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intention [43]. The cost of employee hiring
and training can be very high.

5 Conceptual model
Technology-based communication is critical because of its influence on several factors and the
connections between the variables can be arranged in a conceptual model (Figure 1) reflecting
major constructs from a literature review [27; 28]. Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation is
the underlying theory for this model [19]. Technology-based communication is influencing
Hygiene (extrinsic) factors, such as the perception of effective leadership and good relations
with coworkers [28]. It is a factor for dissatisfaction-avoidance rather than becoming more
satisfied. In order to have satisfied employees, the company has to not only maintain a neutral
level of Hygiene (extrinsic) factors, but also maintain Motivators (intrinsic) factors, such as
achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or
advancement [18; 19; 29].
Some of the influencing factors on motivation and job satisfaction relationship are personal
characteristics, job characteristics, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors, commitment, job
satisfaction and turnover intent [1; 33; 39; 43]. Volkwein and Zhou (2003) also added state
characteristics and divided job characteristics in two parts- institutional and administrative work

5
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

climate [39]. For this research, Smerk and Peterson (2007) conceptual model will be used as a
base [33]. Smerek and Peterson (2007) based their model on Herzberg’s two-factor theory.
Ahmed et al. (2017) extended the model, turnover intent was added as a concept influenced by
job satisfaction [1]. Yücel (2012) related job satisfaction and turnover intent with commitment
[43]. Pauga and Cakula (2019) adjusted these models and from presented literature review it can
be concluded that technology-based communication (the amount of technology used) is
affecting quality of work relationships, which is mediated by culture and can be influenced by
face-to-face events [27; 28]. The authors predict that the more work communication is done
through technology-based means, the harder it is to maintain high-quality relationships inside
the company and therefore it would influence work motivation negatively.
Quality of work relationships includes LMX and relations with peers. If quality of work
relationships is good, then it leads to higher motivation [28]. If employees are motivated, then
they are satisfied and this job satisfaction results in negative turnover intent [1; 6; 28; 32; 42].

Figure 1. Conceptual model of technology-based work communication (created by the authors).

6 Methodology
An online survey was conducted, covering topics of work motivation and the use of technology
at the workplace. A total of 102 respondents answered the survey. There was no missing data
and no outliers. The survey was conducted internationally covering 26 different nationalities and
wide age range (19-63 years old). Altogether 60% (n=62) of respondents have a Bachelors
degree and 23% (n=24) have a Postgraduate degree or higher. Gender is distributed rather
equally – 58% (n=59) male and 40% (n=41) female. In total 27,4% (n=28) of the respondents
communicates 100% through technology-based communication tools and 19,61% (n=20) of
respondents communicate 50% or less through technology-based communication tools.
The scale questions ranged from strongly agree (10) to strongly disagree (1) on a 10-point
Likert scale. In addition to 93 scale questions, seven descriptive items and two open-ended
questions were included. Motivation was measured by 59 items taken from Smerek and
Peterson (2007) questionnaire and were adjusted to this survey [33]. Intrinsic motivation
questions included questions about recognition, work itself, opportunities of advancement,
professional growth opportunities, good feelings about organization and clarity of mission.
Extrinsic motivators were measured with questions about senior management, effective

6
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

supervision, good relationships with co-workers and satisfaction with salary. Communication
technology concept was investigated using 27 Likert scale questions including technology use at
work communication, communication programs, and additional features for communication
technologies. This is an initial attempt to investigate technology-based communication in the
context of motivation. Various questions were added by the authors to test possible approach
and factors that could show relevance and correlation. The results were processed in PSPP
program. Within this article, the most important and relevant insights from descriptive statistics
and bivariate correlation will be described.

7 Analysis and Results

From the initial data analysis and overall descriptive measures (Table 1), it can be concluded
that people are positive about their effectiveness of technology-based communication
(mean=7,94).
Fast Internet connection (mean=8,74) and quality of visuals (mean=8,02) are very important for
technology-based communication. Use of images is a popular additional feature (mean=6,21).
Also, it is not uncommon to use emojis/smileys (mean=5,22) in work communication. There is a
trend of less formal communication as emojis/smileys have been used. Respondents confirm
this claim as informal (casual) communication style for work communication has a high mean
(mean=7,64). Writing long messages and long emails are not preferred (mean=4,77), even
though surveyed people are for many different cultures. It shows an overall tendency to use
fewer words and to be more direct in communication. It could be speculated, that within the
new work environment and use of technology, communication style is getting more Low
Context. On top of that many respondents use technology for informal communication with co-
workers (mean=7,64). People are not very concerned about face-to-face meetings and missing
physical presence at work (mean=4,61).

Table 1. Mean comparison for technology-related constructs (N=102).

Variable Mean Variable (The usage of…) Mean
My work communication is 100% technology-based 7.50 Computer 9.02
My work through technology-based communication tools 7.94 Tablet 3.60
is effective Smart Phone 7.56
I use technology-based communication tools for informal 7.07 E-mail 8.62
communication with my co-workers Company chat boxes 5.61
Fast Internet connection is important for my work 8.74 WhatsApp 5.71
The quality of visuals is very important for my work 8.02 Telegram 4.45
I prefer informal (casual) communication style for my 7.64 Linked-in 4.59
work communication Facebook 3.63
I like to write long and formal messages/e-mails 4.77 Skype 5.09
I am missing physical (face-to-face) presence at my work 4.61 Phone (voice) calls 7.33
Conference/group video calls 5.55
Cloud-based apps (ex. Google drive) 6.24
Videos 4.04
Images 6.21
Stickers 4.25
GIFs 4.07
Emojis/smileys 5.22

7
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

The most popular device used for work communication is computer (mean=9,02). The tendency
of using smartphones (mean=7,56) is very high, but the tablet is a very unpopular device for
work communication (3,60). E-mails (mean=8,62) and phone calls (mean=7,33) are the most
popular means of work communication. A company chat box is also one of the communication
channels that people use (mean=5,61). Whatsapp is the most popular application for
communication, but it is still rated low (mean=5,61).
Social media channels and applications are not preferred for work communication among
surveyed people- Linked-in (mean=4,59), Telegram (mean=4,45) and the least popular is
Facebook (3,63). Cloud-based apps (ex. Google drive) seems to be popular (mean=6,24). People
use Skype (mean=5,09) for conference calls (mean=5,55), but it is not very commonly used
communication method.
The results of this analysis show that people don’t mind working using technology-based
communication tools, but most preferred options for it are still e-mails and phone calls. That
means that developers have not offered a better solution. The provided applications seem to fail
to provide all the necessary features to satisfy customers. Technology support for work
communication is insufficient.
For assessing relationships between variables Bivariate (Pearson) correlation analysis was
conducted. All of the scale questions showed significant correlations within their own
categories. Cohen’s standard will be used to evaluate the correlation coefficient, where 0,50 or
larger represents a strong association [5].
Management communication with their employees leads to an overall feeling about the
company and work itself (Table 2). Respondents who think their senior managers keep
employees informed also think their work is interesting (0,56), enjoy the type of work they do
(0,65), have a sense of accomplishment (0,59) and feel they are making a difference in their
organization (0,60).

Table 2. Correlations among senior management and work itself constructs.

Variable (N=102) 1 2 3 4 5
1 Senior management keeps employees informed
2 I enjoy the type of work I do .65
3 My job is interesting .56 .80
4 My job gives me a sense of accomplishment .59 .78 .79
5 I make a difference in my organization .60 .60 .62 .70

Communication leads to an overall feeling about the company. This was unexpected that
employees associate work itself with senior management involvement. Employees who like
their work in general also feel better about their companies (Table 3). Respondents who enjoy
the type of work they do also feel strong sense and belonging (0,55) and commitment (0,62) to
the organization. Also, they are proud to work for this organization (0,55) and care about the
future of the organization (0,54). Those who feel that they are making a difference in their
organization also feel a strong sense of belonging (0,62) and commitment (0,53) as well as
make them care about the future of that organization (0,56).
Employees who enjoy the work they do and like the work itself have a better feeling about the
organization. Results in Table 2 show importance of senior management and communication
within the company. It is important for employees to choose their career path wisely, but the
management also can affect employee feelings about the work they do and if they like the work
they are doing.

8
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

Table 3. Correlations among work itself and good feeling about organization constructs.
Variable (N=102) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 I enjoy the type of work I do
2 My job gives me a sense of accomplishment .78
3 I make a difference in my organization .60 .70
4 I feel a strong sense of belonging to the organization .55 .58 .62
5 I have a strong commitment to the organization .62 .60 .53 .65
6 I am proud to work for this organization .55 .57 .48 .58 .77
7 I care about the future of the organization .54 .57 .56 .61 .69 .77

Another benefit of effective communication is recognition, which is one of the most important
Intrinsic factors for motivation (Table 4). Employees feel that their good work is recognized
with senior managers who keep employees informed (0,70), effectively communicate goals
(0,73) and are consistent with the values of the organization (0.67). Also, employees feel their
contributions are valued with senior managers who keep them informed (0,66). A supervisor has
a high effect on recognition. Employees feel their good work is recognized with supervisors
who manage people effectively (0,70), create an environment that creates a trust (0,71) and
recognizes them for good work (0,73). Also, they feel that their contributions are valued when
the supervisor is considering their ideas (0,67).

Table 4. Correlations among senior management, supervisor and recognition constructs.

Variable (N=102) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Senior management keeps employees informed
2 My employer recognizes my good work .70
3 My contributions are valued by my employers .66 .84
4 My supervisor manages people effectively .67 .70 .67
5 My supervisor creates an environment that fosters trust .54 .71 .61 .77
6 My supervisor recognizes me for doing good work .56 .73 .57 .70 .76
7 My supervisor considers my ideas .52 .67 .51 .61 .74 .75
8 Internal candidates receive fair consideration for open .62 .75 .71 .51 .58 .52 .55
positions

Senior management and supervisors are responsible to make their employees feel recognized for
the work there are doing. It is clear that communication with employees is a very important
factor for work motivation.
From the data analysis, it is clear that management and leadership have the main role in
motivating their employees in both technology-based communication and face-to-face
communication. The amount of technology-based communication within the company
correlates very high with effective work through technology (0,85). Employees who work more
through technology also use it for informal communication with other co-workers (0,51). Those
respondents who prefer communication through technology rather than face-to-face also use
these communication means for communicating with their co-workers informally (0,65). There
were no significant correlations with any other constructs.
Managers have the strongest effect on motivational factors. Analysis of these results didn’t show
the relevance of the way communication happens, but rather on leadership skills managers are
using. It shows that it is possible to communicate through technology and motivate employees

9
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

with the same efficiency as in face-to-face communication. Managers have more challenges in
virtual teams than those who work mostly face-to-face [28].

8 Conclusions
Within this article, the most relevant theory affecting work motivation was described.
Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation was reviewed underlining the importance of
Hygiene and Motivator factors within business companies. Communication technology
integration in the work environment was discussed. An updated theoretical model of
technology-based communication relation with work motivation was presented in Figure 1 [27;
28].
An online survey was conducted and the use of current technologies was investigated. The need
for new technological solutions was recognized. Even though developers have created many
communication technologies, the most widely used are e-mail and phone calls. Other
technologies are not offering the needed solution to replace these basic means of
communication. Videoconferences and video calls are not very widely used and it confirms
Thompson & Coovert (2006) findings of the efficiency of this communication tool [36]. It is
very popular to use smartphones for work communication, which means that developers have to
provide programs that are user-friendly for both – computers and smartphones.
In general, people are satisfied with their work efficiency using technology-based
communication tools. The quality of Internet and visuals were found to be very important and it
can be predicted to gain more importance that technology developers have to keep in mind.
Cloud-based programs are widely used and this could be an increasing trend due to its
practicality.
People prefer to write short messages and emails, use emojis/smileys and send images in their
work communication. It shows an overall tendency to use fewer words and to be more direct in
communication. This survey was conducted among people from 26 different nationalities,
different cultures were presented in the data set. It could be speculated, that within the new work
environment and use of technology, general work communication style is getting more Low
Context.
It was found that effective communication is key for motivational factors in the company.
Senior management and employee supervisors have to inform their employees and
communicate well because it is strongly affecting recognition, overall feeling about the
company and liking the work they do. There was no correlation between motivational and
technology-communication factors, the amount of technology used for work communication is
not directly affecting motivational factors as it was expected by the authors. It can be inferred,
that the management, which is communicating effectively with their employees, can do it
through both – face-to-face meetings and technology-based channels. Communicating through
technology-based channels is more challenging; technology developers should provide
technologies that would increase the efficiency of this communication. For future research
authors recognize the need to test empirical data in a simulation model. Technological solutions
for supporting company management should be created.

Acknowledgment
Technology Enhanced Learning E-ecosystem with Stochastic Interdependences – TELECI. No.1.1.1.1/16/
A/154

10
International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

References
[1] Ahmed, S., Taskin, N., Pauleen, D. J., Parker, J. (2017). “Motivating information technology
professionals: the case of New Zealand,” Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 21.
[2] Barley, S. R., Dutton, W. H., Kiesler, S., Resnick, P., Kraut, R. E., Yates, J. (2004). “Does CSCW
need organization theory?” In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, pp. 122-124.
[3] Barrier, T. (Ed.). (2001). “Human computer interaction development & management,” IGI Global.
[4] Bennett, M. J. (1998). “Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings,”
Intercultural Press, Inc., PO Box 700, Yarmouth, ME 04096.
[5] Cohen, J. (1988). “Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences,” (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
[6] Coomber, B., Barriball, K. L. (2007). “Impact of job satisfaction components on intent to leave and
turnover for hospital-based nurses: a review of the research literature,” International journal of
nursing studies, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 297-314.
[7] Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). “A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making proces,”
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
[8] Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., Salas, E. (2003). “Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on
team performance,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 297–323.
[9] Duarte, D. L., Snyder, N. T. (2006). “Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that
succeed,” John Wiley & Sons.
[10] Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., Ferris, G. R. (2012). “A meta-analysis
of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye
toward the future,” Journal of management, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1715-1759.
[11] Ghaoui, C. (Ed.), (2005). “Encyclopedia of human computer interaction,” IGI Global.
[12] Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). “A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A
developmental approach,” In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press.
[13] Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., Chua, E. (1988). “Culture and interpersonal communication,”
Sage Publications, Inc.
[14] Hall, E. T. (1976). “Beyond Culture,” New York.
[15] Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. (2007). “Virtual team leadership: The effects of
leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes,”
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 103(1), 1-20.
[16] Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C. M., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., Zubrow, D.
(1991). “Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network
technologies,” Written Communication, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79-113.
[17] Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U. (2005). “Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical
research,” Human resource management review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 69-95.
[18] Herzberg, M. (2003). “One more time: How do you motivate employees?” Harvard Business
Review, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 87-96.
[19] Herzberg, M., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B. (1959). “The motivation to work,” New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
[20] Huang, R., Kahai, S., Jestice, R. (2010). “The contingent effects of leadership on team collaboration
in virtual teams,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, pp.1098-11.
[21] Kraut, R. E. (2003). “Applying social psychological theory to the problems of group work,” HCI
models, theories and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science, pp. 325-356.
[22] Levi, D. (2014). “Group Dynamics for Teams,” 4th edition, Sage Publications, Inc.
[23] Levi, D. (2017). “Group Dynamics for Teams,” 5th edition, Sage Publications, Inc.
[24] McGrath, J., Hollingshead, A. (1994). “Groups interacting with technology,” Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
[25] Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., Shuffler, M. (2011).
“A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams,” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 214-225.

11
 International Journal of Computer Science Series 1(1), xxx-xxx doi:10.29167/B1I1Pxxx-xxx

[26] Mittleman, D., Briggs, R. (1999). “Communication technologies for traditional and virtual teams,”
in E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp.
246–270.
[27] Pauga, M., Cakula, S. (2019). "The impact of using technology-based communication on quality of
work relationships",Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference - SOCIETY.
TECHNOLOGY. SOLUTIONS, vol. 1, pp. 17.

[28] Pauga, M., Cakula, S. (2019). “Technology-Based Communication in the Business Company”,
Proceedings EDUCON2019 – IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, IEEE Xplore, pp.
843-850.
[29] Reņģe, V. (1999). “Organizāciju psiholoģija,” Riga: Birznieka SIA “Kamene”.
[30] Röse, K. (2004). “The development of culture-oriented human machine systems: specification,
analysis and integration of relevant intercultural variables,” In Cultural ergonomics Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp. 61-103.
[31] Röse, K., Züblke, D. (2001). “Culture-oriented design: Developers' knowledge gaps in this
area”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 34, no. 16, pp. 11-16.
[32] Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D. (1983). “A longitudinal test of the investment model: The impact on job
satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and
investments,” Journal of applied psychology, vol. 68, no. 3, 429-438.
[33] Smerek R. E., Peterson, M. (2007). “Examining Herzberg’s theory: Improving job satisfaction
among non-academic employees at a university,” Research in Higher Education, vol. 48, no. 2, pp.
229-250.
[34] Steers, M. L. N., Wickham, R. E., Acitelli, L. K. (2014). “Seeing everyone else's highlight reels:
How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms”, Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp.701-731.
[35] Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., Cohen, D. (2012). “Teams are changing: Are research
and practice evolving fast enough?” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2-24.
[36] Thompson, L. F., Coovert, M. D. (2006). “Understanding and developing virtual computer-
supported cooperative work teams, Creating high-tech teams: Practical guidance on work
performance and technology,” Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[37] Thurow, C. (1992). “Who owns the twenty-first century?” Sloan Management Review, vol. 33, no.
3.
[38] Vignovic, J. A., Thompson, L. F. (2010). “Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration:
Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 95, no. 2.
[39] Volkwein, F., Zhou, Y. (2003). “Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction,” Research in
Higher Education, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 149-171.
[40] Whetten D., Cameron, K. S. (2011). “Developing management skills,” Prantice Hall.

[41] Workman, M., Kahnweiler, W., Bommer, W. (2003). "The effects of cognitive style and media
richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams," Journal of Vocational Behavior, Special
Issue on Technology and Careers, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 199–219.
[42] Wren, D. A., Bedeian, A. G. (1994). “The evolution of management thought,” Wiley.
[43] Yücel, İ. (2012). “Examining the relationships among job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and turnover intention: An empirical study,” International Journal of Business and
Management, vol. 7, no. 20, pp. 44-58
[44] Yukl, G. A. (2010). “Leadership in organizations,” Pearson.

12

View publication stats