the relationship of workload with three types of motivation, physical symptoms and recovery

The Relation of Workload with Motivation, Physical Symptoms and Recovery.

1

Master Thesis

The Relationship of Workload with Three Types of Motivation, Physical Symptoms and

Recovery.

MSc: Work & Organizational Psychology

Vasileios Zaralidis

I6092758

Supervisors: Dr. Lambros Lazuras- Dr. Tobias Otto

Maastricht University


2

Abstract

This study assessed the relationship between workload, intrinsic extrinsic and motivation,

self-reported physical symptoms, and recovery. The study took place in Greece and 207

employees participated (60 males and 123 females). Participants completed a battery of

questionnaires including the adapted versions of the Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI),

Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS), Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) and

Recovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ). Correlations analysis (Pearson’s r) showed that

extrinsic social motivation had a positive correlation (p=. 039) (r.144) with workload, and that

extrinsic material motivation correlated with recovery (p=.036)(r.-013). Additionally gender

differences in the subscales of the variables were found in terms of significance. Additionally

regression analysis suggested that in males and in females various predictions of variables could

be made. In total, relationships between workload, motivation, physical symptoms and recovery

were found which were positive. More specifically, three types of motivation can significantly

predict workload, physical symptoms and recovery subscales.


3

Table of Contents

Title Page ........................................................................................................................................1

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................2

Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................4 Work Environment...............................................................................................................4

Workload Stress & Effects...................................................................................................5

Motivation ............................................................................................................................7

Self Determination Theory ..................................................................................................8

Recovery after Work ............................................................................................................9

The Current Study ..............................................................................................................11

Method ..........................................................................................................................................12

Sample................................................................................................................................12

Measures ............................................................................................................................12

Procedure ...........................................................................................................................14

Design ................................................................................................................................15

Results ...........................................................................................................................................15

Table 1 ...............................................................................................................................18

Table 2 ...............................................................................................................................19

Table 3 ...............................................................................................................................20

Table 4 ...............................................................................................................................20

Table 5 ...............................................................................................................................20

Table 6 ...............................................................................................................................21

Discussion......................................................................................................................................22

Limitations .........................................................................................................................25

Implications........................................................................................................................26

Future Suggestions .............................................................................................................27

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................28

References .....................................................................................................................................29


4

The Relationship of Workload with Three Types of Motivation, Physical Symptoms and

Recovery.

Work Environment:

Over the past three decades work environment has been changing consistently. One of the

contributing factors to these changes is an accessible mode of travel and transportation, open

borders of neighbor countries and across continents. Furthermore, migration from economically

less developed to more developed countries are now more available then ever before. These

transformations of work patterns have led to workforce in which psychological risks have

increased in priority (Sparks, Faragher & Cooper, 2001). Therefore it can be suggested that

physical and mental well being is now becoming inseparable part of working environment. Work

place well being refers to all parts of working life, including quality and safety of physical

environment, work climate and feelings of workforce in relation to their work. The aim of every

organization must be adjusted to workforce law and EU workforce directives, such as OSH,

which states that workers must be safe, healthy, satisfied and engaged at work. Hence, workers

well being is actually revealing organizational long term effectiveness. Studies revealed that

there was a significant relation between productivity levels and general well-being of the

workers (Cotton & Hart, 2003)

Positive work environment is a concept that depends on emotional, physical and social

factors, inside and outside of work. Moreover, in order to have a positive work environment,

organization must be concerned with occupational health and safety, provide human resources

services, have senior management and labor inspectors). (Amabile et, al. 1996) However, besides

organizations duties towards workers in creating positive working environment, worker need to

ensure work-life balance, be involved in the company, and have proper communication. When

above mentioned are present, positive workplace is formed and it consists of fully engaged

employees willing to help their co-workers and also receive recognition from management.

(Peyton, 2003). However, work demands, conflicts, working relationships, roles and changes are


5

also inevitable part of work environment and usually the manner in which these are handled and

solved defines positive and negative working environment.

In a competitive labor market, salaries usually compensate for several unwanted working

conditions, such as workload. A study revealed that workers exposed to heavy workload or

adverse working environment usually take up to five years to quit their job (Cottini, Kato &

Nielsen, 2009). During this period they face workload, burnout and recovery from the

psychological damage caused by constantly over demanding working environment. Furthermore,

the study mentioned above also revealed that workers are prone to quit their jobs more if their

physical health is compromised in comparison to their psychological health. This revealed that

workers are more willing to deal quietly with workload, burnout, stress, lack of motivation and

find ways to recover than with possible direct physical damage. Workers that suffer from such

environments are significantly more likely to leave the company they work for. Hence voluntary

turnover is a rational worker response, which occurs after long term suffering within the

workplace.

Workload, Stress and its effect:

Individuals are more likely that they will suffer from health problems when they

encounter stressful work conditions that lead to poor psychological well-being and health. When

an individual feels that his or her work demands exceed their capacity to cope with them, they

are occupationally stressed. Occupational stress has two different dimensions, which are good

stress (eustress) or bad stress (distress). What dimension of stress an individual may experience

depends on how he or she perceives and interacts with the workplace they are in. (Wagner et. al.,

2013). Occupational stress which is also known as workplace stress can occur work overload,

high hours of working, pressure from work, lack of control over work and lack of autonomy,

unclear management, poor social support, poor management style and unclear work role (Michie,

2002). Individuals that are affected by various job stressors, have higher chances of developing

burnout and many symptoms that suggest poor well-being. Additionally, individuals who face

stressful work events and situations are more likely to have a poorer job performance.

(Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).


6

Heavy workload leads to the increase of stress and reduced efficiency in individuals.

There are two types of workload that are currently identified. These types are qualitative and

quantitative workload. The amount of work required to be completed is known as quantitative

workload. On the other hand, qualitative workload is referred as the level of complexity a task is

characterized by, and the effort required in order completing the task. Both types of workload are

connected ultimately with goal setting. Depending on the type of individuals, the types of goals

set in terms of workload vary. Individuals that are striving in order to complete goals in high

levels of work tend to be exposed to high levels of quantitative workload. Qualitative workload

though, is taken upon individuals that function best in tasks of increased complexity, which

defines their preference of operating in high qualitative workloads (Glaser et al., 1999).

Heavy workload is described by the excessive amount of quantitative workload that

individuals face at their jobs. There are various effects that intense workload and stress may

cause to workers physical and psychological well-being while it also has a toll on the

organization the individuals work for. High levels of workload are related with decreased job

satisfaction and job performance. Additionally, high workload is related with absenteeism,

organizational aggression, interpersonal aggression and turnover effects. From a psychological

point of view, high levels of workload are associated with frustration. Hence individuals, who

have to deal with excessive amounts of work or intensively cognitively demanding tasks, tend to

feel frustrated (Whinghter et al., 2008).

Additionally, excessive amount of work for a long period of time can produce burnout.

To be precise, chronic and excessive amount of workload contributes significantly to emotional

exhaustion which acts as a main process and symptom behind burnout. Additionally, it should be

noted that emotional exhaustion comprises a subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI).

Generally, heavy workload is likely to contribute directly to cynicism and emotional exhaustion,

while it affects in a minor way the individuals’ professional efficacy. Generally, stressors at work

can contribute to cynicism that may form a hostile, disparaging and suspicious behavior of

individuals within the workplace. It is also stated that individuals that score high on cynicism are

less motivated to exert change in organizations, they expect less in terms of their personal

success, and score less in intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. If the workload is increased without


7

decent support for the individual to succeed at performing the task, the individual will express

intense feelings of anger. Anger is an emotional state defines by individuals’ subjective feelings

that vary in levels of intensity. These feelings can be mild such as annoyance or if they are very

intense they can be described as fury and rage (Greenglass, Burke & Moore, 2003). Hence

stressors affect the health of individuals and heavy workload is a stressor that can affect physical

and psychological well-being of workers.

Motivation:

To have motivation, means to have the will to begin an action. When a person does not

feel inspiration or impetus he is characterized as an unmotivated individual. On the contrary,

when a individual feels activated and energized he or she is considered motivated. There are

three major types of motivation, as said above they are intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation

and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation is characterized as the doing of an activity not for the

separable consequences but rather for the inherent satisfaction it grants to individuals. To be

more precise, the motivated person to act for fun or challenge entailed reasons defines intrinsic

motivation. Biologically engineered, humans are intrinsic motivated in their behavior, especially

when they are in a healthy state. By birth, as individuals humans are active creatures that seek to

learn and explore the environment and humans do not need extraneous incentives to behave in

such a manor (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Even though intrinsic motivation is a very important type of motivation, in society many

behaviors are not triggered by individuals’ intrinsic motivation. For example, when an individual

starts attending school, intrinsic motivation grows weaker in terms of attending and completing

school related tasks. Hence individuals act many times, because they expect to attain certain

outcome from their actions. That is called extrinsic motivation. Hence, intrinsic motivation

contrasts with extrinsic motivation, since the first is based on performing an action for the

personal satisfaction of the individual, while the second is based on the gain of the actions

outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The Self Determination Theory (SDT) suggests that extrinsic

motivation can vary greatly into the degree it can be autonomous. To be more precise, an

individual may be extrinsically motivated to study at school, because of his or her beliefs that by

doing so, she will get to have the chance of a better future career. That is extrinsically motivated,


8

she behaves for her actions instrumental value. What differs though from a child studying

because he is afraid of his parents’ reaction is the degree of autonomy in the action (Ryan &

Deci, 2000).

Finally, amotivation is defined as a state, in which humans can’t understand or perceive

that the outcome of their behaviors is related to their initial behavior. To be more precise

individuals that are amotivated have a difficulty of predicting the consequences their behaviors

will cause. Additionally they can’t see the motive behind their behaviors. In terms of feelings,

amotivated individuals detached or disintegrated from their actions, which results in them putting

very little effort and energy in it. It is common that amotivated individuals perceive that their

behavior is out of their control. Hence it is linked to learned helplessness, and in the academic

domain its associated with poor concentration in class, high amounts of perceived stress and poor

psychological adjustment to college and university life (Legault, Green-Demers & Pelletier,

2006). Thus there are various types of motivation, which are affected by the work environment,

the job structure and the individuals’ satisfaction and perception of his or her own work.

Self Determination Theory (SDT):

Various theories have been created on motivation and how many different moderators

affect it. One of the most prominent theories in motivation is The Self – Determination Theory

(SDT). This theory provides a multidimensional view on motivation, and focuses on how the

types of motivation it states, can be promoted or discouraged. The major types of motivation are

three. One of the three types of motivation is is amotivation, while the other two types are

extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Amotivation is described by the individuals’ expression of

absence or lack of motivation in performing activities. On the contrary intrinsic motivation is

described as an individuals’ willingness to perform an activity, because he or she considers the

activity interesting and enjoyable. Hence it is the inner will of individuals to perform activities

for the satisfaction of their own personal needs. The last type of motivation in the Self

Determination Theory is extrinsic motivation. This type of motivation is described by the

motives of individual behavior. Depending on the activities that are performed, extrinsic

motivation emerges from instrumental reasons. For example these reasons could be monetary,


9

such as working in order to gain more money or completing an action in order to avoid a

negative outcome such as punishment (Gagné et al., 2014).

As it is understandable, The Self – Determination Theory specifies three different types of

motivation, which are affected by the basic needs of individuals. There are three basic needs,

which have to be sufficient for each individual within the workplace. To be precise, the needs are

competence, autonomy and relatedness. Competence is described as the individuals’ belief and

feeling of being capable to perform a given task. Hence it is based on the sense of an individual

in being effective and confident to complete the tasks appointed. Autonomy is described as the

individual ability to perform actions with a sense of volition, personal choice and self-

determination. Finally relatedness is known as an individuals need to feel connected and loved

and giving love. It’s based on caring and to be cared for (Jannsen, Vuren, de Jong, 2013).

Recovery after Work:

Recovery is described as a process, in which individual functional systems have been

affected during a stressful experience, and they are to be restored at the individual’s levels before

he or she was stressed. This process can be seen as opposite to the strain process. The results of

the recovery process can be characterized by the restoration of impaired mood. Additionally

action prerequisites are often reflected through the possible decrease of physiological strain

within the individuals (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). During a working day, individuals confront

various demands. These demands may be categorized as physical demands, cognitive demands

and emotional demands. In order to face these demands, the use of physical work, concentration

and attention may be demanded for a successful completion of work tasks. Hence, every day

work for individual is energy draining. The expenditure of energy in a physical or mental form

may cost energy depletion by the end of the working day. Feelings of fatigue require individuals

to take a rest, so they can replenish their energy and continue their efforts. Hence, recovery after

working is regarded as a very important process (Ziljstra & Sonnetag, 2006).

In the field of recovery, there are two prominent models. The Effort Recovery model

(ER) and the Conservation of Resources model (COR). The ER model is based on the


10

assumption that recovery can take place only when stressors stop and the lost resources of an

individual are replenished. On the other hand, the COR suggests that employees have the ability

to collect additional resources on off job time. Instead of an individual returning to a pre-stressor

state, he is able to achieve a state of surplus in terms of collecting resources. By combining these

two theories, a general model of how recovery can be accomplished made by three clear steps

(Brummelhuis & Trougakos, 2014)

The first step is that recovery occurs when stressors cease. Hence if demands continue to

exist for a long period of time, employees will keep depleting their energy and resources, which

will lead individuals into dealing with demanding tasks with fewer resources. When that

happens, employees risk ending in a downward spiral in which stressors accumulate and their

personal resources decline which can lead in exhaustion. Thus in order for recovery to occur, it is

necessary that recourse depletion ends after working. The second step is that off job activities

can contribute to recovery, if they allow replenishment of personal resources. For example,

relaxation can contribute to recovery through reading a book. This can allow employees to

replenish used resources. The final step is that recovery may be established by collecting new

resources after work. This may be accomplished by learning new skills and perspectives during

off job activities. These skills may boost an employee’s performance by adding resources in his

arsenal (Brummelhuis & Trougakos, 2014).

Finally, there are two important ways an individual can recover. The first is leisure,

which in today’s world is considered a way to escape from work. Leisure activities just like work

activities can have a major benefit on mental health and development of personality. The essence

of leisure though, is intrinsic motivation and perceived freedom in engaging in activities.

Additionally from a psychological perspective, it is always best if individuals engage into

hobbies that are challenging which can be dealt with their skills. However in today’s society

leisure is used as an escape from work. The second way individuals can recovery properly is

sleep, which a very important process in recovering. Lack of sleep or poor quality of sleep is

usually associated with reduced productivity, absenteeism and increased risks in accidents due to

poor fatigue. Hence good quality of sleep, helps individuals recover and wake up re-freshened

(Zjilstra & Sonnentag, 2006).


11

The Current Study:

This study aims to examine the relationship between workload with intrinsic extrinsic and

amotivion, physical symptoms and quality of recovery. This study can provide insight on if there

is a relationship between the workload, motivation, physical symptoms and recovery, while it

would provide a clearer image on the relationship between the subscales of the examined

variables. Additionally, this study explains partial predictability of variance for the significant

relationships found between the variables. Workload is a known stressor and stressors can

consume physical and psychological resources. Hence the reason of work can be affected by how

tiring and consuming it is for the individual. Thus motivation can be related with workload. The

drive of an individual to perform demanding tasks such as working can affect his performance,

his resources and his physical and psychological well being. That is why the relationship

between the three is examined. Finally, experience of recovery can be affected by how tired,

stressed, motivated and in perceived physical pain an individual is, that is why this study aims to

examine how all these variables relate to each other.

Given the fact that stressors affect psychological and physical well being, due to

diminishment of resources and various other reasons, it is rational to examine how the amount of

workload which functions as a stressor, it relates to three different types of motivation. To be

more precise, this study aims to see if workload relates with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

and amotivation. Additionally, the relationship between motivation, physical symptoms and

recovery is examined. It is believed that since emotional and psychological resources are

diminished due to high workload, motivation will be affected by it, which will relate with the

reporting of physical symptoms and the quality of recovery.


12

Method

Sample

The sample that was used in this study was convenient. The only inclusion criterion to the

study was that participants were employed at some profession. For this reason the sample

consisted of participants from many different types of work fields. The number of participants

that took place in the study was 207 and they were collected from many different business

environments. The males, which reported their gender, were 60 and the females that reported

their gender were 123. Hence, the study had 183 questionnaires, which clarified the participant’s

gender. The age mean in the study was M=39.235. Thus the participants that took place in this

research were middle aged. The data was obtained from three public service departments, one

private company, which focused on producing and selling eye wear, one private high school and

a gym. Hence, the questionnaires were distributed in different workplaces of different types.

Measures

One of the measures that were used in this study is the Multidimensional Work

Motivation Scale (MWMS). The MVMS is a self reported measure, which is based on the Self

Determination Theory (SDT). It measures three different types of motivation. These types of

motivation are extrinsic motivation, amotivation, and intrinsic motivation. The questionnaire was

created from eleven different questionnaires that measure autonomy support, supervisor

leadership style, need satisfaction, job design, vitality, burnout, affective commitment, work role

performance, job effort, and turnover intentions. One of the questionnaires that was used in the

creation of this tool is The Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction scale (W-BNS), the

Cronbach’s a scores have been found to be high by previous studies. The MWMS autonomy

component was created with the use of the subscale of the Perceived Autonomy Support Scale.

The Cronbach’s alpha scores were .86, .92, and .94 for the French, German, and Norwegian

samples, respectively. In order to assess the leadership styles in MWMS components of the The

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire were used. The Cronbach’s alpha scores for this tool were

.94, .70, .33, and .86 for the French sample, and .92, .55, .55, and .87 for the English sample.


13

The Job design component of the MWMS is measured with the use of items from The

Work Design Survey. The Cronbach’s a score of the whole tool was of .88. The vitality

components of the MVMS was assed with components of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale,

in which the Cronbach’s alpha scores were of .87, .88, and .90 for the French, English, and

Dutch samples, respectively. In order to measure Work Role Performance in the MVMS Griffin,

Neal, and Parker’s scale is used from which items were taken and adapted to it. The Cronbach’s

alpha levels of the scale were .85, .89, and .92 for its subscales in a Chinese version. Job effort is

measured with the MWMS with a five-item scale that has a Cronbach’s alpha score of .89.

Additionally Turnover Intentions are measured with with two items adapted from Hom and

Griffeth and from Jaros in French and Norwegian samples scored in Cronbach’s a .81, and .90

The Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) was used in order to assess the scores of

quantitative workload in this study. The QWI is a five-scale questionnaire, of which scores range

from 1 to 5 and its consisted b five items. The Cronbach’s alpha of this questionnaire is .88

(Haun, Steinmetz & Dromann, 2011). The Greek translated version of the QWI was used in this

study. (Lazuras L, 2006).

The Recovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ) was used in order to measure the quality

of recovery. This tool measures four dimensions. These dimensions are psychological

detachment, relaxation, mastery experiences and control, and recovery experiences. The

Recovery Experience Questionnaire is consisted of 18 items, and the scores range from 1 to 5 as

in a five point likert type scale. The Japanese version of the REQ had a Cronbach alpha of .89

for relaxation,.85 for control, .87 for mastery and .85 for psychological detachment, (Sonnentag

& Fritz, 2007).

The MWMS is considered one of the most valid and reliable self reported measures for

gathering data on recovery. This questionnaire was used after it was translated in Greek and a

few alterations have been made in order to fulfill more accurately this studies purpose. Hence a

translated version of the Quantitative Workload Inventory was also used, which is a very reliable

measure. Regarding the Recovery Experience Questionnaire, it was also translated in Greek and

due to its high Cronbach a scores, it is considered very reliable.


14

Procedure

The researcher handed out the questionnaires that were jointly created. This procedure

lasted for almost two weeks, where the researchers visited various companies in order to gather

data. To be more precise, he started by handing out questionnaires at an eyewear company in

which we were previously granted access for our study reasons. The researcher initially informed

to the employees that taking part in this study is not mandatory, and at any point if they feel

unease, they can stop taking part in it. Additionally, the participants were told that the study will

be anonymous, and they will not be harmed in any possible way and if any questionnaires

occurred related with the questionnaires, they would be provided an answer. After they were

informed, the participants were given the questionnaires and once they completed the self

reported measures, they returned them back to the researcher. The participants were thanked for

their corporation.

After gathering data from the eyewear company, the researcher went to a private high

school from which he was granted access. The researcher visited the teachers’ offices, and

informed them about his study and handed out to them the questionnaires. As done in the eye

wear company, the participants were initially informed them that it is not mandatory to take part

in the study, that the information they will share will be safe due to anonymity and if they felt

unease at any point, they could stop taking part in it. Once they completed the questionnaires

they returned them back the researchers, and they were thanked for taking part in the study. The

next work place, which was visited, was a public service faculty. In which the researcher were

initially granted access to give out their questionnaires. He entered one service department at the

time, and he informed them about our study, the fact that its anonymous and it isn’t mandatory, if

they felt unease they could stop taking part in it and if they did answer our questionnaires they

would be really helpful. Then he distributed the questionnaires and once they had completed

them, they returned them to us and he thanked them for their time and their cooperation.

The next company, which was visited, was a private gym, in which the researcher had

been granted access to distribute his questionnaires. After individuals completed their workout,

they were asked if they were employed, and if so, if they wanted to take part in their study by

answering a questionnaire. The individuals that decided to take part were informed in advance


15

about anonymity, safety, etc. Once they finished answering the questionnaire, they returned them

to the researchers and they were thanked for taking part in the study. Finally, the researcher

visited two more public services branches, in which he was granted access to distribute his

questionnaires. The same procedure was followed as in every company, which was visited, by

informing the employees that it is not mandatory to take part in the study, that it’s anonymous

and if they felt unease at any point they could stop taking part in it. The questionnaires were

distributed and received once the employees had completed them. In total 207 questionnaires

were used in the study and 220 questionnaires were distributed in total. Once the data was

collected, it was submitted in SPSS and various statistical techniques were used as seen in the

result.

Design

This study is a correlational study, which focuses to research how and if workload and

other variables relate with three different types of motivation and finally how they all relate with

recovery. This study is also a non-experimental study, which will also be cross-sectional.

Results

The data was analyzed in SPSS version 21. After running internal consistency on the

translated questionnaires that were used in the study, extremely high Cronbach a scores were

reported. The MWMS had a total Cronbach a. 835, while on the subscales this study focused on,

amotivation had a Cronbach a. 822, extrinsic motivation materials had a. 895, extrinsic

motivation social had a. 888 and intrinsic motivation had a Cronbach a score of a. 944. Hence the

use of the MWMS in this study can be described as extremely valid. Additionally the

Quantitative Workload Inventory (QWI) had a Cronbach a score of a. 908 and the Physical

Symptoms Inventory (PSI) had a score of a. 779. The Recovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ)

had extremely valid Cronbach a scores. The psychological detachment subscale had a Cronbach

a. 871, recovery relaxation subscale had a score of a. 883 while recovery mastery had a score of


16

a.860. Finally recovery control scale had a very high Cronbach a score of a.919 and in total the

questionnaire had a Cronbach a of a. 897. Thus, all questionnaires used in this study, scored very

high in validity.

Correlational analysis was performed, more specifically Pearson’s correlation after which

the regression analysis was done. The correlational analysis between workload (M= 17.31, SD=

5.64), motivation (M= 70.94, SD= 17.88), physical symptoms (M=23,39, SD=3,80) and recovery

total scores (M= 13.09, SD= 2.85) was performed. The correlational analysis included four

subscales of recovery. Recovery subscale “psychological detachment” (M= 10.64, SD= 4.29),

recovery “ relaxation” (M=13.72, SD=3.72), recovery “mastery” (M= 15.20, SD=3.75), and

recovery “control” (M=15.20, SD= 3.83). Furthermore the correlational analysis also included

subscales of motivation: “amotivation” (M= 5.65, SD= 3.84), “extrinsic social” (M=7.76, SD=

4.38), “extrinsic material” (M= 10.25, SD= 5.47), and “intrinsic” (M=13.97, SD= 5.18). Based

on the results of the study, “extrinsic motivation social” subscale is significantly related with

workload, r=. 144, p= .039. Linear regression showed positive prediction with (F (1, 203), 4.327,

p=.039) and R2= .021. Linear regression was performed assessing effects of motivation on

physical symptoms. The analysis revealed amotivation does predicts physical symptoms, but

only in females (F (1, 115), 4045, p= .047) with an R2= .026

Correlational analysis for males revealed that “extrinsic motivation materials” was related

with recovery “control” with p= .036 and Pearson’s r= .274. Correlational analysis for males also

revealed relation between recovery total scores and “extrinsic motivation social” with p=043,

and Pearson’s r= .264. This correlation also revealed significant relation in females between

recovery “control” and intrinsic motivation with p= .041 and Pearson’s r= .186.

Correlational analysis for females in workload and motivation showed that “extrinsic

motivation materials” is significantly related with workload with p= .018 and Pearson’s r= .214.

Intrinsic motivation in females had significant relation with workload p= .012, and Pearson’s r=

.228. The correlational analysis in females between physical symptoms and motivation showed

p= .047 with Pearson’s r= -.186. Regression analysis in females revealed that intrinsic

motivation predicts recovery control (F (1,119), 4.274, p= .041) and R2= .027. Regression

analysis in females showed that extrinsic motivation materials predicts workload (F (1,112),


17

5.785, p= .018) and R2=.038. In females it was also shown that intrinsic motivation predicts

workload with (F (1,119), 6.513, p= .012) and R2= .044. The regression analysis in males

showed that extrinsic motivation materials predicts recovery control with (F (1, 57), 4.638, p=

.036) and R2= .059. Furthermore, extrinsic motivation social in males also predicts recovery

total scores with (F (1,57), 4.270, p= .043), and R2= .053.


18

A summary of the basic descriptive results, correlational analysis and regression is

presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 & Table 6.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Cronbach a scores of the Study’s Variables

M SD Cronbach a

Motivation 70.94 17.88 .835

Amotivation 5.65 3.84 .822

Intrinsic Motivation 13.97 5.18 .944

Extrinsic Motivation

Material

16.25 5.47 .895

Extrinsic Motivation

Social

7.76 4.38 .888

Recovery 13.09 2.85 .897

Recovery

Psychological

Detachment

10.64 4.29 .871

Recovery Mastery 12.83 3.75 .860

Recovery Control 15.20 3.83 .919

Recovery Relaxation 13.72 3.72 .883

Workload 17.31 5.64 .908

Physical Symptoms 23.39 3.80 .779


19

Table 2

Correlation analysis between the variables including Pearson’s correlation and p value

Workload Recovery

Mastery

Recovery

Relaxation

Recovery

Psychological

Detachment

Recovery

Control

Recovery

Total

Recovery Total -.003

Recovery

Mastery

-.040

Recovery

Psychological

Detachment

.035

Recovery

Relaxation

.059

Recovery

Control

-.058

Motivation Tot .256** .025 .089 -.054 .128 .064

Amotivation .011 -.032 .054 .252** -.100 .068

Intrinsic

motivation

.110 .033 .007 -.249** .197** -.011

Extrinsic

Materials

.269** -.108 .027 .061 -.034 -.013

Extrinsic Social .144* .041 .128 .106 -.048 .080

Physical

symptoms

.230** -.038 -.012 .015 -.134 -.060

Note *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01.


20

Table 3

Note: DV- Extrinsic Motivation; p<0.05

Table 4

B SE B β Sig. R2

Workload

(Females)

.213 .089 .214 .018 .038

Recovery

Control

(Males)

.201 .093 .274 .036 .059

Note: DV- Extrinsic Motivation Materials; p<0.05

Table 5

B SE B β Sig R2

Recovery

Control

(Females)

.131 .063 .186 .041 .027

Workload

(Females)

.237 .093 .228 .012 .044

Note: DV- Intrinsic Motivation; p<0.05

B SE B β Sig. R2

Workload .133 .054 .144 .036 .059

Recovery

Total

(Males)

.167 .081 .264 .043 .053


21

Table 6

B SE B β Sig. R2

Physical

Symptoms

(Females)

.165 .082 .184 .047 .026

Note: DV- Amotivation; p<0.05


22

Discussion

This study intended to examine the relationship between workload and three types of

motivation, physical symptoms and recovery. It was hypothesized that workload will be related

with three different types of motivation. This was hypothesized because in order to complete

work individuals need to be motivated somehow to successfully complete it. What was also

hypothesized is that motivation would have some relationship with physical symptoms and

recovery. As seen in the introduction, extreme amounts of stress or workload can affect recovery

and physical symptoms. Due to the diminishment of resources, it would be interesting to see if

motivation is related with the quality of recovery and the reporting of physical symptoms at the

workplace.

Qualitative workload as a stressor, by default suggests that individuals are stressed by an

overwhelming amount of work, which may turn out to be impossible to complete in time. This

would result in creating stress, which would affect the psychological and physical well-being of

the individual. (Spector & Jex, 1998). So depending on the individuals’ perception of workload,

three types of motivation which the researcher examined (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic

motivation and amotivation) would be affected due to resource depletion.

The results suggest that the individuals that took part in this study had the perception that

they were under relatively high workload. In terms of motivation, the three types of motivation

that were researched (amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation) suggested that

individuals scored low amotivation, low scores of extrinsic motivation in the two subscales that

formed the scale (materials and social). Finally in intrinsic motivation individual had reported a

medium score. The physical symptoms inventory scores suggested that the individuals that took

place in the study had a high score of somatic symptoms. Hence from the data obtained, the

participants perceived their workload high in quantity and they were more intrinsically motivated

to perform their jobs instead of being extrinsically motivated or amotivated and they felt very

high physical discomfort through their work.

According to the results, quantitative workload has a positive significant correlation with

extrinsic regulation in the subscale of social. This suggests that the higher the quantitative


23

workload the higher the social subscale of extrinsic motivation in MWMS and the regression

analysis suggests that workload can predict extrinsic motivation social in a variance of fifty one

percent. This could be because individuals tend to identify themselves through work. This is also

known as social identity. Because they identify their selves through work, they are interested in

their contribution in the work group. (Ellemers, Gilder & Haslam, 2004). Thus by increasing

workload, there would be an increase of extrinsic social motivation. Females on the other hand,

scored positive significance on extrinsic motivation materials with workload and workload can

also predict extrinsic motivation materials at thirty eight percent of variance. Hence females are

materialistically motivated to complete work. This may be because extrinsic rewards such as

material rewards are connected with performance at work. To be more precise, it is common that

individuals that perform well in the workplace are rewarded from the organization they work for

with either a promotion or a higher pay (material). (Bell & Freeman, 2001). This may be a reason

why there is a significant relationship between workload and external motivation (materials

subscale). Hence the increase of workload could lead to an increase of external material

motivation for females.

It is known that off job activities lead to recovery through relaxation and psychological

detachment. (ten Brummelhuis & Bakker, 2012). Working for the purchase and gain of materials

may provide the ability to recover through detaching from your daily job. As found in this study,

extrinsic motivation (materials subscale) had a significant positive correlation with recovery

detachment in male participants and according to regression analysis, recovery control can

predict extrinsic motivation materials in variance of fifty nine percent in males. Additionally by

being motivated extrinsically and specifically for due to materialism, such as monitory rewards,

it is a common perception that individuals may buy themselves some freedom. To be more

precise, individuals historically have perceived the monetary reward as a form of a social reward,

which came in the form of economic motivation. (Hemmingway, 1996). Hence individuals

perceive that if they work for materials such as money, they can later on be free to purchase or

enjoy any activity they prefer. If individuals perform activities they prefer after work, it is likely

that they will be psychologically detached from their work and be able to recover in an effective

way. Thus by increasing the extrinsic material motivation of males, it would lead to an increase

of psychological detachment, and ultimately in better recovery for the individuals. Additionally


24

regression analysis suggested that recovery can also predict extrinsic motivation social of fifty

three percent in variance in males. This may be because individuals identify their selves through

their jobs, they are affected by social beliefs on how they are perceived in their workplace.

Hence if an individual feels good within the workplace and he is acknowledged as a good

performer or worker, it is more likely that he will be able to recover swifter and better.

Intrinsic motivation showed strong positive correlation with physical symptoms. Self-

determined work motivation (also known as intrinsic motivation) is likely to promote daily

hassles to individuals who are intrinsically motivated. These daily hassles may lead to physical

symptoms of discomfort. (Otis & Peletier, 2005). Thus with an increase of intrinsic motivation, it

is possible that an increase of physical symptoms would follow. This could be triggered by an

over effort of individuals to perform well because they enjoy the action they are performing,

which could lead to over effort and cause of physical symptoms.The results of this study are

aligned with our findings, which suggested a positive correlation between intrinsic motivation

and psychological detachment. As seen in the psychological syndrome known as burnout,

individuals that suffer from it confront various effects.

One of these effects is lack of motivation. After suffering from stressors for a long period

of time, individuals become amotivated. Additionally burnout can serve as a reality shock. When

that happens, individuals tend to rethink their lifestyle and choices, which can lead to

psychological detachment. This would serve as a defense mechanism for the individual who is

suffering from stress and lack of motivation in order to regain his psychological and physical

strength. (Schabracq, Winnubust & Cooper, 2003). Hence the increase of intrinsic motivation

would increase psychological detachment. This could also be because the individual is motivated

to perform actions, which fulfill his personal needs. These actions could be spending leisure time

in something he or she enjoys, which would increase psychological detachment. While

perception of control is a very important factor in ones well being. To be more precise,

exhaustion, unhappiness, stress can be moderated if an individual perceives that he can control

his life and his actions. Thus, if he can control his life, his recovery and his actions, he is able to

perform activities he prefers, which are intrinsically motivated. This comes in line with what

regression analysis suggested that in females, recovery control can predict twenty seven percent


25

in variance of intrinsic motivation. Additionally, workload can predict forty-four of variance in

intrinsic motivation in females. This could be because excessive amounts of workload can be

performed if an individual is enjoying his job and wants to complete it for his satisfaction.

Finally amotivation was significantly correlated with physical symptoms in females and

physical symptoms can predict twenty six percent of variance in amotivation in females. Lack of

motivation occurs commonly when an individual is burned out. Emotional exhaustion, lack of

motivation and physical symptoms are related with each other when this process occurs. Hence

that would justify the fact that females showed a positive correlation between amotivation and

physical symptoms.

Limitations

This study stumbled upon various limitations. One of the most important limitations that

this study met was the period of time that it was performed. Greece was going through a very

difficult period (2015), which had to do with financial instability and uncertainty. The nature of

the study itself is a limitation. Because this study was a cross-sectional study, all data was

collected at one point. Greek people did not know if their country would remain in the European

Union and what would be the after effects of a possible exit. Hence the study was performed in a

very stressful period for the nation. This of course, may have affected the answers and patterns of

answering in the questionnaires that were distributed. Thus if the study was performed in a

different time period, the results may have been very different. Additionally, a major limitation,

which this research faced, was that due to the difficult times Greece was experiencing, it was

very difficult to gather data.

Another major limitation was that there was no clarification in the questionnaires used

about which sector the participants worked for. This is important because state law protects

public employees and this makes it very unlikely to lose their jobs. Hence it is possible that they

would not feel overwhelmed by the amount of workload given to them, because even if they do

not perform it in given timelines, they do not feel insecure about maintaining their job. Finally

the validity of self-reported measures is a limitation itself. Due to the fact that employees report


26

themselves how they perceive the answers to the questions asked, it is likely that they give

different answers because they would like to satisfy the researcher with their answers or they

could feel unsafe to report discomfort at their workplace and their physical and psychological

state, due to perceived possible penalties.

Implications

High workload and stress are known to cause various problems to individuals. Such

problems are the risk increase of alcohol abuse and drug abuse. Additionally intense stress and

extremely heavy workload can cause issues in social relationships while they increase the risk of

causing anxiety and depression. (van den Hombergh et al, 2009). According to other studies,

burnout is also positively correlated with workload. Burnout is a psychological syndrome which

is characterized by individuals emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishments, ,

depersonalization and the tendency that individuals view themselves negatively, and lose the

positive feeling of accomplishment. (Jacobs &Dodd, 2003). Generally intense workload can

cause various problems to individuals. This study examined the relationship of workload with

three different types of motivation, physical symptoms and recovery.

The results suggested that workload has a significant relationship with extrinsic motivation, more

specifically with the social subscale. Hence, there is a connection between the two. With this

information given, employers and managerial staff could focus on boosting extrinsic motivation

for their employees in terms of social matters. This could be by linking given workload with

social events as a reward system. In general this correlation provides new insight to the

relationship of workload and motivation and it could be used to form techniques that could

strengthen the relationship between the two. Another relationship was found between workload

and extrinsic motivation materials subscale for females. This correlation suggests that females

relate workload and the performance or completion of it with material motivation. Given this

relationship managerial staff and employers can focus on workload distribution to females by

accompanying it with a possible material reward system. This study also found a significant

relationship between workload and physical symptoms. This comes in line with various studies

that suggest that stressors cause physical and psychological problems to individuals, which

supports previous findings. On the other hand females showed significant results with intrinsic


27

motivation and physical symptoms. This is a relationship that is considerably hard to explain, but

it could mean that

In terms of motivation and recovery, the results of this study suggested that males

showed a significant relationship in extrinsic motivation materials and psychological

detachment. This suggests that males are extrinsically motivated in order to psychologically

detach from work and problems while concentrating on materials. Hence it is likely that males

connect the obtainment of materials with a recovery dimension. This could mean that they

perceive materials as a way of recovering which is information that can be useful to human

resources managerial staff.

The questionnaires used in the study were of very high validity according to the

Cronbach’s a score. These questionnaires can be used in Greece in various studies, which can be

conducted in the future. Hence, they are valid and reliable tools that can be used in psychological

research to come in Greece.

Future Suggestions

Future researchers could perform a similar study, in a different time, which can provide

much different results. Additionally, it would be very interesting to see distinguished results

between employees in the private sector and in the public sector. The laws that protect public

employees can really affect the answers public employees give, due to excessive job security and

lack of fear if they do not meet possible work submission deadlines. It would be also interesting

to have a separation of types of jobs collected in the sample. For example a suggestion could be

that employees could classify their type and position of work, in order for researchers to have a

clearer image of who perceives what in terms of workload, motivation, physical symptoms and

recovery.


28

Final Conclusions

This study provided adequate information on the relationship between recovery, intrinsic,

extrinsic, amotivation and physical symptoms and workload. It was difficult to obtain data due to

the difficulties Greece was facing due to uncertainty and financial insecurity, but ultimately the

results suggested various relationships between the variables examined. In the future the

questionnaires used in this study can be used into other studies to come due to their reliability.

Aspects of recovery showed significant correlations with types of motivation, while workload

showed significant correlations with types of motivation, physical symptoms and subscales of

recovery.


29

References

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work

environment for creativity. Academy of management journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.

Bell, L. A., & Freeman, R. B. (2001). The incentive for working hard: explaining hours worked

differences in the US and Germany. Labour Economics, 8(2), 181-202.

Cotton, P., & Hart, P. M. (2003). Occupational wellbeing and performance: A review of

organisational health research. Australian Psychologist, 38(2), 118-127.

Cottini, E., Kato, T., & Westergaard-Nielsen, N. (2009). Adverse workplace conditions, high-

involvement work practices and labor turnover: Evidence from Danish linked employer–

employee data. Labour Economics, 18(6), 872-880.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work:

A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of

Management Review, 29(3), 459-478.

Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Broeck, A. V. D., Aspeli, A. K., ...

& Westbye, C. (2014). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation

evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, (ahead-of-print), 1-19.

Glaser, D. N., Tatum, B. C., Nebeker, D. M., Sorenson, R. C., & Aiello, J. R. (1999). Workload

and social support: Effects on performance and stress.Human Performance, 12(2), 155-

176.

Greenglass, E. R., Burke, R. J., & Moore, K. A. (2003). Reactions to increased workload: Effects

on professional efficacy of nurses. Applied psychology, 52(4), 580-597.

Haun, S., Steinmetz, H., & Dormann, C. (2011). Objective work–nonwork conflict: From

incompatible demands to decreased work role performance.Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 79(2), 578-587.


30

Hemingway, J. L. (1996). Emancipating leisure: The recovery of freedom in leisure. Journal of

leisure research, 28, 27-43.

Jacobs, S. R., & Dodd, D. (2003). Student burnout as a function of personality, social support,

and workload. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 291-303.

Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. D. (2013). Identifying support functions in

developmental relationships: A self-determination perspective.Journal of vocational

behavior, 82(1), 20-29.

Lazuras, L. (2006). Occupational stress, negative affectivity and physical health in special and

general education teachers in Greece. British Journal of Special Education, 33(4), 204-

209.

Michie, S. (2002). Causes and management of stress at work. Occupational and Environmental

Medicine, 59(1), 67-72.

Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). A Motivational Model of Daily Hassles, Physical Symptoms,

and Future Work Intentions Among Police Officers1.Journal of applied social

psychology, 35(10), 2193-2214.

Parker, S. L., Jimmieson, N. L., & Amiot, C. E. (2013). Self-determination, control, and

reactions to changes in workload: A work simulation. Journal of occupational health

psychology, 18(2), 173.

Peyton, P. R. 2003. Dignity at work: Eliminate bullying and create a positive working

environment. Psychology Press.

Schabracq, M. J., Winnubst, J. A., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2003). The handbook of work and

health psychology. John Wiley & Sons.

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: development and

validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of

occupational health psychology, 12(3), 204.


31

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well‐being and occupational health in the 21st

century workplace. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(4), 489-

509.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors

and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale,

Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of

occupational health psychology, 3(4), 356.

ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Staying engaged during the week: The effect of

off-job activities on next day work engagement. Journal of occupational health

psychology, 17(4), 445.

Totterdell, P., Spelten, E., Smith, L., Barton, J., & Folkard, S. (1995). Recovery from work

shifts: how long does it take?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 43.

Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology

research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du

comportement, 41(4), 213.

Van den Hombergh, P., Künzi, B., Elwyn, G., van Doremalen, J., Akkermans, R., Grol, R., &

Wensing, M. (2009). Workload and job High stress are associated with lower

performance practice in general practice: an observational study in 239 general practices

in the Netherlands. BMC Health Services Research, 9 (1), 118.

Van Der Ploeg, E., & Kleber, RJ (2003). And chronic job Acute stressors among ambulance

personnel: predictors of health symptoms. Occupational and environmental medicine, 60

(suppl 1), i40-i46.

Wagner, S. L., Forer, B., Cepeda, I. L., Goelman, H., Maggi, S., D’Angiulli, A., ... & Grunau, R.

E. (2013, February). Perceived Stress and Canadian Early Childcare Educators. In Child

& Youth Care Forum (Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 53-70). Springer US.


32

Zijlstra, F. R., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). After work is done: Psychological perspectives on

recovery from work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2),

129-138.

the relationship of workload with three types of motivation, physical symptoms and recovery

Documents