Prof. Dr. Müller, I have now purposefully approached a table and sat opposite you for this interview instead of using this beautiful new room with its many sofas and high tables. Have I already failed with you?
Müller (laughs): No, not that. But we have already noticed at an event that students like to use our open space, while some other colleagues prefer to sit at a table. In addition to individual preferences, it is also important that the spatial conditions suit the situation.
What difference does it make how we sit opposite each other?
Conversational atmospheres are greatly influenced by room design and seating arrangements. A round table or open spaces are often more conducive to a more equal, constructive exchange than classic frontal settings.
There is currently a lot of discussion about part-time work and work ethic, the keyword being "lifestyle part-time". How do you classify this debate psychologically?
This discussion is less about work psychology and more about politics. As an occupational psychologist, I can say what motivational framework conditions for work are and how work must be designed so that it is good for people and the performance of organizations. Working time models may be one point here.
What really motivates people at work?
There is no secret recipe, but many approaches. People should be committed to their work and make their contribution, but they should also remain mentally and physically healthy - which is also in the interests of the employer. And then many factors come into play: working time arrangements that suit my personal needs, appropriate remuneration, training opportunities, the working atmosphere and workplace design. In addition, work should also be beneficial to people's personal development. Who am I actually working for? Does this organization have a future, do I have a perspective here? Am I morally committed to it? The holistic nature of tasks is also an important aspect.
What exactly do you mean by holistic approach?
Holistic tasks allow employees to plan, implement and monitor an activity. Everything remains in one or more hands, as many tasks today tend to be team tasks. This increases the sense of responsibility and motivation compared to highly fragmented work. We are familiar with this from the turn of the century and Taylorist work structures, when people were suddenly just an appendage of the machine and only took on the tasks that the machine left behind. These were often repetitive and monotonous tasks. Incidentally, this is a model that is currently making a comeback in some areas. There may certainly be differences in the desire for personal development here too, but in principle it is not a motivating task structure if you do more or less the same thing for eight hours.
Has the attitude towards work changed over the generations? Cue "work-shy Gen Z"?
The National Academy of Sciences recommends taking these generational labels with a grain of salt. I would agree with that. Every generation has its challenges. In the 1980s, for example, we had increased unemployment as a challenge. But such major events and challenges usually affect everyone: we all have to deal with the opportunities and risks of AI, for example. In addition, the attributions to generations are often contradictory. One generation is said to be overprotected and less responsible, but it is also said to be particularly risk-taking and ambitious. It is very heterogeneous what is projected into a generation.
What significance does money have for job satisfaction? In times of inflation and a stagnating economy, have other factors gained in importance?
To put it in classic Kurt Lewin terms: work has two faces, namely toil and life fulfillment. Fair pay is important, but acts more as a hygiene factor. Poor pay makes people dissatisfied, but good pay alone does not automatically make people satisfied. We should also experience self-efficacy at work; at best, we enjoy our work and experience social integration. We can see from studies on unemployment that work is an important factor in social integration. However, a so-called gratification crisis according to Johannes Siegrist can occur under certain circumstances. This means that there is an imbalance between professional effort and the associated recognition. This recognition can be in the form of pay, but also opportunities for promotion or opportunities to exert influence. So: poor pay is a problem, but better pay does not always lead to greater satisfaction.
It is often said that employees don't leave companies, they leave bosses. Is that true?
According to studies, leadership is an important factor in employee turnover, but it is not the only one. Stress, conflicting values and a lack of prospects also play a major role. Also important: job insecurity. As soon as redundancies are announced, it is felt that half of the workforce leaves because they no longer feel secure and use this as an opportunity to look for another job on the job market.
Since the coronavirus pandemic, many people have become accustomed to working from home. What impact does working from home have on work culture?
There is a whole series of studies on this. The effects are very different. There is something of a remote syndrome: some people feel lost and lonely working from home and lack social integration. On the other hand, many people see great advantages in working from home. So it depends on individual attitudes and the settings in which I work. Many employees prefer a mixed model. If I'm only working from home, it's difficult to maintain a team culture. During the pandemic, it often worked well because people often came from an environment with stable social structures that had previously developed at work. But the people who were new to the team didn't have these structures. Communication was much more difficult for them. In any case, hybrid working has to be well organized so that relationships are established, remain in place and work processes function when work is distributed. It requires a lot of agreements and a kind of code of conduct. If only one part is at home and one part is in the office - that is difficult to achieve in the long term.
About the person: Prof. Dr. Karsten Müller was born in Kaiserslautern in 1972. He studied psychology in Mannheim and San Diego. After a junior professorship in business psychology at the University of Mannheim, he came to Osnabrück University in 2011, where he holds a professorship in work and organizational psychology with a focus on intercultural business psychology.
About the series: In the interview series "UOS asks questions", experts from Osnabrück University talk to the press office about their research and take a stand on current and everyday topics. From politics to education, from art to AI - UOS asks questions.
Further information for the media:
Prof. Dr. Karsten Müller, Osnabrück University
Institute of Psychology
