The Social Enterprises (SE) workforce is considered by the literature as not only motivated by rewards but also by some social concerns. Initially, two complementary explanations were given. First, SEs have a mission usually... [ view full abstract ]
The Social Enterprises (SE) workforce is considered by the literature as not only motivated by rewards but also by some social concerns. Initially, two complementary explanations were given. First, SEs have a mission usually oriented to public interest and solidarity and are active mainly in industries like health, education or others social issues. Hence, they offer a workplace where people have a stronger possibility to contribute to the public interest (Lanfranchi & Narcy, 2008). Second, the non-distribution constraint implies that, comparatively to for-profit organizations (FPO), SE are more likely to attract such workers (Hansmann, 1980; Roomkin & Weisbrod, 1999; Rose-Ackerman, 1996). Indeed, this constraint works as a signal of trust and ensures that the workers’ effort will increase the quality or the quantity of the services and not be turned into owner’s profit (Francois, 2003, 2007). SEs’ owner(s) have then fewer incentives than their counterpart in FPO to take a financial advantage from their workers’ motivations (Speckbacher, 2013).
In order to investigate the motivation of SEs’ workers, economists have been inspired by the literature in social psychology which distinguishes extrinsic motivation from intrinsic motivation. An activity that is performed to obtain a positive outcome (e.g . wage) or for the avoidance of negative consequences (e.g. to avoid a job loss) is said to be extrinsically motivated while at the opposite, an activity that is performed for its own sake, because it is inherently interesting, is said to be intrinsically motivated (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Frey 2000). Since SEs’ workers are supposed to have less motivation to work for monetary rewards (Bacchiega & Borzaga,2001) - which is defined as “extrinsic” - than their counterpart in FPO, previous researches have concluded that the motivation to work in SEs would be a state of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Crewson, 1997; Theuvsen, 2004). However, the interpretation of what exactly is “intrinsic motivation” that is shared by SEs’ workers has been confusing towards the years. For example, Preston (1989) describes SE workers as motivated by the production of positive externalities for the whole of society while Frank (1996) considers that they are motivated by the social responsibility of their employment and Rose-Ackerman (1996) put forward that they are motivated to work in organization which gives them the opportunity to promote their values and ideas.
Recently, new researches developed at the crossroads of social psychology and economics helped to provide new insights about the motivation to work in SE. Devaro and Brookshire (2007) have made a distinction between intrinsic motivation derived from the task/the job itself (“I do this job because I like to do so”) and intrinsic motivation derived from the organizational mission (“I do this job because I believe that it is socially useful”). They suggest that SEs’ workers have only more intrinsic motivation of the second type provided that the organization mission fits the worker’s value system. Moreover, Grant (2007) and De Comman et al. (2011) propose to not consider anymore the motivation to work for an organization with a social mission as pure intrinsic motivation but rather as pro-social motivation based on autonomous types of extrinsic regulation.
At this stage, a complete and precise literature review about what are the motivations to work in SE is clearly required. We use both economic and psychological literature to make the point and understand what exactly this motivation to work for a SE is. We suggest that SEs’ employed pro-socially motivated workers based on autonomous extrinsic type of regulation and with altruistic values that fit with their organization mission. Earlier studies that dichotomously conceptualized intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation did not make this differentiation, and thus interesting differences could not be discerned and worst, the transposition of some theories in the SE case might have led to some misinterpretation (De Cooman et al., 2011).Hence, the second contribution of this article will be to identify what practices SE should adopt to select and manage their workforce properly and then favor such types of motivations. We also discuss the question of isomorphism in management practices between FPO and SE and its potential implication on workforce motivation and efficiency in achieving their respective organization mission or objectives(s).
Social enterprise, human resource management, employment creation and job quality
