Does It Matter Why I Do (Put Effort Into) This Job? Examining the Impact of Community College Employees’ Work Motivations on Their Voice Behaviors

Employee Voice Behavior

In recent decades, since at least the seminal of work of Hirschman (1970), employee voice has been increasingly recognized as a crucial factor that may impact organizational performance or effectiveness through better decision-making and increased employee commitment (Mowbray et al., 2015; Oyetunde et al., 2022). This recognition of the strategic importance of employee voice has led to a proliferation of research on employee voice in various disciplines or fields such as industrial and labor relations, human resource management, organizational behavior (OB), communication, economics, and law (for some reviews, see Mori et al., 2022; Mowbray et al., 2015; Wilkinson et al., 2020). This abundant diversity of disciplinary perspectives on employee voice and related terms such as employee participation, empowerment, involvement, and democracy (Budd et al., 2010) has led to various debates over its conceptualization as well as striking differences in assumptions about the meaning and purpose of voice (Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2020).

In this study, since we are interested in examining individual differences in voice behaviors, we have adopted an approach to employee voice which is most consistent with the OB literature (Morrison, 2011, 2014). In OB research, employee voice is generally viewed as “an informal discretionary in-role, and extra-role behavior by workers aimed at expressing ideas, suggestions, and concerns, and targeted at challenging the status quo to bring about change” (Oyetunde et al., 2022, p. 144). In other words, employee voice is a type of organizational citizenship behavior which involves “upward communication behavior” (Morrison, 2014, p. 174) with the goal of improving organizational functioning (Wilkinson et al., 2018). In terms of function, Liang et al. (2012) argue that voice essentially functions as a means to talk about either what can be done better or what is harmful. Indeed, voice behavior can be challenging to organizations as it is perceived as having both favorable and unfavorable consequences.

Several researchers have examined how the role of employee voice behavior in organizations can reflect both promotive and prohibitive aspects/dimensions (Bai et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2012; Mao & DeAndrea, 2019; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Wilkinson et al., 2018). Liang et al. (2012) define promotive voice as voice behavior that is meant to better the organization, such as employees making suggestions for new ways to improve organizational processes. Prohibitive voice, on the other hand, is defined as a means to express concern or point out harmful situations, misconduct, or other problems that are already found within the organization (Liang et al., 2012). In other words, both promotive and prohibitive voice are positive behaviors with good organizational intentions such as seeking opportunities to speak up and contribute to address work related issues (Wilkinson et al., 2018). However, promotive voice is behavior expressed to suggest new or creative ideas versus prohibitive voice that is behavior expressed to point out concern about existing practices or activities (Liang et al., 2012). In general, the risk employees face in engaging in those two types of voice behavior is different. Promotive voice is generally more easily accepted or welcomed by organizations and leaders while prohibitive voice is typically viewed as a challenge to organizational leaders’ authority and is, therefore, generally less welcomed or accepted (Morrison, 2014).

Research on employee voice overwhelmingly views it positively and has generally focused on the antecedents and benefits of employee voice for both employees and organizations mainly in corporate contexts. For instance, employee voice has been found to positively influence the economic and quality indicators of a company (Detert & Burris, 2007). At the same time, Jha et al. (2019) highlight the importance of employee voice as a strategy to increase employee engagement and organizational success. Ruck et al. (2017) further contribute that effective employee voice facilitates innovation, competitiveness, and work engagement. Other positive outcomes of voice behavior include creativity and implementation of new ideas (Ng & Feldman, 2012) as well as employee well-being (Mao & DeAndrea, 2019), especially when it is used to speak out about workplace wrongdoings as in the case of the #MeToo movement.

Because of the many benefits associated with employee voice, a significant amount of research has been devoted to identifying antecedents to employee voice behaviors. Previous research has identified several predictors of employee voice behaviors, including anonymity, safety, efficacy (Mao & DeAndrea, 2019), leader-member exchange and power distance (Botero & Van Dyne, 2009), ethical leadership and ethical climate (Bai et al., 2019), transformational leadership and managerial openness (Detert & Burris, 2007), proactive personality (Wijaya, 2019), and inclusive leadership (Jolly & Lee, 2021). Because of the importance of employee voice to organizational success, and due to the diversity of environments in which employees work, Liang et al. (2012) strongly recommend additional research on factors affecting employee voice expression. Bai et al. (2019) echo that call by recommending additional research on “possible different antecedents, mechanism, consequences” of employee voice (p. 1895). In this study we answer these calls by examining the role of employee work motivations—a logical but surprisingly understudied potential antecedent to voice behavior—on their voice behaviors.

Work Motivation

Motivation is the driving force for acting or engaging in something (Singh, 2016). In organizational environments, motivation is the reason why employees work hard (Singh, 2016). According to Pinder (1998), work motivation is “a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration” (p. 11). Thus, understanding work motivation is key for meeting successful organizational productivity outcomes (MacDonald et al., 2019).

Employee work motivation has been widely examined in previous research (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Previous research has identified several predictors of work motivation including motivating language (Sun et al., 2016); income groups, punishment, performance, goals/values, and regulations (Posch, 2019); money, autonomy, recognition, culture of respect, trust, and rapport (Singh, 2016); justice (Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005); solidarity and job satisfaction (MacDonald et al., 2019); and need satisfaction, autonomy-support, leadership style, and job design (Gagné et al., 2015). In terms of outcomes, work motivation has been found to predict job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Sun et al., 2016); workaholic behavior and work engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2017); and vitality, emotional exhaustion, commitment, proficiency, adaptivity, proactivity, job effort and turnover intention (Gagné et al., 2015).

According to self-determination theory (SDT), work motivation varies in types and across individuals and can range from amotivation—which is a person’s lack of motivation—to controlled motivation—which is motivation due to the pressure an employee feels to do something—to autonomous motivation—which is motivation due to a person’s own willingness to do something (Ferraro et al., 2018; Gagné et al., 2015; Moller et al., 2019). According to Gagné et al (2015), work motivation is a multi-dimensional construct that encompasses six different “types” of motivation. The first type or dimension of work motivation is amotivation, which is the absence of motivation or an employee’s lack of effort. The second type is extrinsic regulation—social, that is felt motivation for social reasons such as employees motivated because they are seeking approval or respect. The third type is extrinsic regulation—material, that is felt motivation for material reasons such as an employees motivated because they are seeking financial gain or job security. The fourth type is introjected regulation, which is felt motivation from internal pressures such as employees who are motivated because they are trying to avoid feeling shame or guilt. The next type is identified regulation, which is felt motivation from employees because they identify with and feel shared values or meaning with the organization. The final type is intrinsic motivation, which is doing the job for its own sake such as employees motivated because the job and/or job tasks are interesting or enjoyable. Hence, SDT proposes that there are different sources of motivation that drive people to put effort at work. In other words, some people may be driven by money while others may be driven to avoid looking like they are not a team-player, yet others might be driven by the joy they get from the work. Table 1 illustrates the six different types of work motivation according to SDT.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Motivation Self-Determination Dimensions.

Category	Amotivation	Controlled motivation			Autonomous motivation
Feel You Must → → → → → → → → Feel You Want To
Type	Amotivation	Extrinsic Regulation—Social	Extrinsic Regulation—Material	Introjected Regulation	Identified Regulation	Intrinsic Motivation
Reason	Lacking motivation or effort	Seeking approval or respect	Seeking financial gain or job security	Avoiding feeling shame or guilt	Feeling shared values or meaning	Enjoying or for the fun of it
Item Sample	I don't know why I'm doing this job, its pointless work	To avoid being criticized by others	Because I risk losing my job if I don't put effort into it	Because otherwise I feel ashamed of myself	Because putting effort in this job has personal significance to me	Because the work I do is interesting

Item Stem: Why do you or would you put efforts into your current job?

Source. Adapted from Gagné et al. (2015), Ferraro et al. (2018), Moller et al. (2019).

The Present Study: Work Motivation and Voice Behavior in Community Colleges

Community colleges and their leaders are currently facing complex and turbulent environments (Holcombe et al., 2022; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Indeed, across the nation, community colleges are facing increasing disinvestment from state government, limited (and decreasing) federal and grant support, and sometimes (where applicable) decreasing local government support (Hammond et al., 2020; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Nix et al. 2024). Yet community colleges are people-oriented and mission-driven HEIs that serve the most vulnerable and marginalized groups of postsecondary students (Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; Mayfield et al., 2022; McCambly et al., 2023). According to Gonzales and Ayers (2018), these colleges “overwhelmingly enroll historically underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minoritized students, first-generation college students, working class students, veterans, English-language learners, and undocumented students” (p. 456). Additionally, these colleges provide postsecondary education to their disproportionately socio-economically disadvantaged students at a much lower cost than other HEIs (Mayfield et al., 2022; McCambly et al., 2023). Essentially, for many decades now, community colleges have been increasingly asked to do more with increasingly less. These environmental pressures alone compel community colleges, much more so than other HEIs, to be more innovative, adaptable, and responsive (Kezar & Holcombe, 2017). Under normal conditions, all organizations need to be able to depend on their employee voice to function effectively (Morrison, 2014; Wilkinson et al., 2018). However, that need may actually increase as organizational environments become more complex and turbulent (Prouska et al., 2023), as in the case of community colleges nationwide.

To further complicate matters, enrollment in community colleges has been significantly decreasing for many decades now, thus significantly threatening their survival (Koch, 2020). For instance, since peak enrollment in 2010, enrollment in community colleges has consistently decreased, with community colleges losing more than 1 million students (i.e., 14.4% drop in enrollment) between 2010 and 2017 (Koch, 2020). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated both the community college enrollment and funding crises, and their negative impacts (Kurlaender et al., 2024).

All of these challenges and many others (Holcombe et al., 2022; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017) that community colleges face necessitate, among other things, new approaches to leadership, management, and governance that, perhaps more than ever before, effectively harvest, include, and capitalize on employee voice (Cloud, 2010; Holcombe et al., 2022; Kater, 2017; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Wallin, 2010). Indeed, if community college employees are silent or do not speak up about their ideas, or problems that they see within their colleges, then community colleges are more likely to face negative consequences such as inertia, suboptimal performance, and failure to achieve organizational goals (Bailey et al. 2015; Holcombe et al., 2022; Levin et al., 2010; Tovar, 2015). As has been highlighted in research (e.g., Henning et al., 2017; Sethares, 2020) and other recent calls/commentaries (e.g., Bradburn & Townsend, 2014; Moskell, 2024) employee voice is extremely important to the success of HEIs.

Additionally, other key values or principles such as shared governance, justice, equity, inclusion, integrity, safety, and many other standards that are supposed to characterize the culture and governance of community colleges—and in fact all HEIs—cannot be effectively upheld without centering employee voice in the governance process (Fuller, 2006; Grasmick et al., 2012; Henning et al., 2017; Holcombe et al., 2022; Kater, 2017; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Sethares, 2020). As such, increasing community college employees’ voice behaviors is of paramount importance and essential to the survival, the resilience, and the adaptability of these colleges to the challenges that they face (Bailey et al. 2015; Holcombe et al. 2022; Sethares, 2020). The goal of this study is to contribute to that effort by examining the relationship between community college employees’ work motivations and their voice behaviors.

Although work motivation is an essential factor in the understanding and explanation of employee behavior (Gagné et al., 2015; MacDonald et al., 2019; Moller et al., 2019; Ryan & Deci, 2017), it has (surprisingly) rarely been examined in the context of higher education, let alone in community college scholarship. In fact, to our knowledge, no study thus far has explicitly examined the impact of the various types of work motivations identified by Gagné et al. (2015) on community college employees’ behaviors. Yet community colleges, and, in fact, all HEIs constitute important and relevant settings to conduct such investigations. Indeed, people join, stay, and put effort (or not) into their work at these institutions for a variety of reasons and motivations. What are those motivations and, especially, how do they impact their behaviors in these colleges? In this study, given the importance of employee voice to community colleges’ survival, adaptability, and goal achievement, we are interested in examining how community college employees’ work motivations impact their voice behaviors. In other words, our goals here are to explore and, hopefully, identify which (if any) types of work motivation may be significant drivers of employee voice behaviors. Thus, we are interested in examining the following research questions:

Measurement

Employee Voice Behavior

Employee voice behavior was measured using a 10-item scale developed by Liang et al. (2012). The scale was designed to measure the degree to which an employee voices suggestions or recommendations for organizational success and includes two dimensions: promotive voice (5 items) and prohibitive voice (5 items). The items on the scale were measured using a seven-step Likert scale ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (7) “strongly agree.” The promotive voice subscale measures employees’ propensity to engage in voice behavior meant to express new ideas for improving the function of the organization. The reliability for this subscale was excellent at 0.94 (M = 4.92, SD = 1.40). The prohibitive voice subscale measures employees’ propensity to express concern about practices or activities that are harmful to the organization. The reliability for the prohibitive voice subscale was good at 0.88 (M = 4.86, SD = 1.24).

Table 2 presents the items that were used to measure the key constructs examined in the study, along with the reliabilities of each scale. The reliabilities—assessed here through Cronbach’s Alpha—were used to determine how internally consistent each scale was. In other words, these reliability coefficients are an indication of how closely related a set of items measuring a construct are as a group. As a general rule, alpha scores of 0.70 or higher are considered satisfactory/acceptable (Salkind, 2015).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Scales’ Items Measuring Study’s Key Constructs.

Constructs	Scale items
Amotivation (alpha = .91)	-I don't put effort into my job, because I really feel that I'm wasting my time at work. -I put little effort into my job because I don’t think this work is worth putting effort into. -I don’t know why I’m doing this job; it is pointless work
Extrinsic regulation–social (alpha = .85)	-To get approval from others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients . . .) -Because others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, . . .) will respect me more -To avoid being criticized by others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, . . .).
Extrinsic regulation–material (alpha = .77)	-Because others (e.g., employer, supervisor . . .) will reward me financially only if I put enough effort in my job -Because others (e.g., employer, supervisor . . .) offer me greater job security if I put enough effort in my job -Because I risk losing my job if I don’t put enough effort in it
Introjected regulation (alpha = .95)	-Because otherwise I feel ashamed of myself -Because otherwise I will feel bad about myself
Identified regulation (alpha = .91)	-Because I personally consider it important to put effort in this job -Because putting effort in this job aligns with my personal values -Because putting effort in this job has personal significance to me
Intrinsic motivation (alpha = .94)	-Because I have fun doing my job -Because what I do in my work is exciting -Because the work I do is interesting
Promotive voice behavior (alpha = .94)	-I proactively develop and make suggestions for issues that may influence 00915521251389878 -I proactively suggest new projects which are beneficial to 00915521251389878 -I raise suggestions to improve 00915521251389878’s working procedures -I proactively voice constructive suggestions that help 00915521251389878 reach its goals -I make constructive suggestions to improve 00915521251389878’s operations
Prohibitive voice behavior (alpha = .88)	-I advise other colleagues against undesirable behaviors that would hamper job performance -I speak up honestly about problems that might cause serious loss to 00915521251389878, even when/though dissenting opinions exist -I voice out opinions on things that might affect efficiency at 00915521251389878, even if that would embarrass others -I point out problems when they appear at 00915521251389878, even if that would hamper/damage relationships with other colleagues -I proactively report coordination problems at 00915521251389878 to the appropriate personnel

Analysis

To answer the research questions of this study, multiple linear regression analysis was used. Given the impact of the use of self-report questionnaires and the homogeneity of the data sources, there was a potential for common method bias (CMB). Indeed, CMB can occur when the estimates of the relationships between two or more variables are measured with the same method—i.e., within one survey, using the same response technique (Kock et al., 2021). CMB has been widely identified across several disciplines as a threat to the integrity of research results (Kock et al., 2021). To assess the potential for CMB, Harman’s single-factor test was used. In general, if the total variance extracted by the single factor exceeds 50%, CMB is assumed to be present. In this study, the single factors extracted for both regression models accounted for less than 30% (well below the 50% threshold) of the variance, indicating that CMB was not likely present.

To assess autocorrelation and multicollinearity in the regression models, Durbin–Watson statistics and variance inflation factors (VIF) values were examined for all the models. In general, VIF values of less than 5 and Durbin–Watson Statistics near the value of 2—which indicates non-autocorrelation—are considered desirable in multiple regression analysis (Durbin & Watson, 1971). In the two regression models performed, the VIF values for all the predictors ranged from 1.02 to 2.07 (thus < 5), and the Durbin–Watson statistics ranged from 1.98 to 2.05.

Work Motivation and Promotive Voice Behaviors

The results suggest that two types/forms of motivation, namely identified regulation and intrinsic motivation, are positively related to promotive voice behaviors among community college employees. In other words, community college employees who are motivated by the fact that their job has personal significance to them, and those who work because they enjoy their job and/or derive a sense of satisfaction from seeing the job well done are more likely to voluntarily speak up about ways to improve their college or unit. According to SDT, what identified regulation and intrinsic motivation have in common is that they are the most autonomous forms of motivation (Gagné et al., 2015). In both forms of motivation, the behavior of the individual is self-driven, and they engage in the activities volitionally (Gagné et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017). An employee high in identified regulation motivation does a job or engages in an activity because they identify with its value or meaning and accepts it as their own—i.e., a reflection of who they are (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Identified regulation motivation differs from intrinsic motivation in that the activity is not done out of inherent enjoyment or interest but for the significance it has or the instrumental value it represents (Gagné et al., 2015).

These two forms of motivation likely were positive drivers of promotive voice behaviors among community college employees because when employees primarily care about the job itself—whether because it gives them satisfaction, or aligns with their values—they are more likely to voluntarily offer suggestions to improve the job environment. Since their work motivation is not controlled or primarily determined by pressure to earn (a reward) or avoid (punishment, shame) something, they are more likely to voluntarily go beyond the proverbial “call of duty” and engage in extra role behaviors such promotive voice behaviors. The positive impact of community college employees’ autonomous forms of motivation on their promotive voice behaviors is consistent with previous research that suggest that employees who are autonomously motivated to do their jobs have more beneficial outcomes such as higher performance and commitment, compared to employees holding controlled types of motivation or amotivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Gagné et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Work Motivation and Prohibitive Voice Behaviors

Employees’ prohibitive voice behaviors are characterized as riskier than promotive voice behaviors because they often imply or are perceived to imply a failure of organizational leaders (Liang et al., 2012). As the content of prohibitive voice highlights dysfunctional, problematic, or negative aspects of work practices, organizational leaders may view employees engaging in prohibitive voice behaviors as complainers, critics, or troublemakers instead of people caring about organizational development (Liang et al., 2012; Morrison, 2014). As such, this type of voice behavior is much more likely to be received/perceived as challenges or threats and may induce opposition or defensiveness among supervisors and colleagues (Morrison, 2014).

With respect to the relationship between work motivation and prohibitive work behaviors, only community college employees who are intrinsically motivated are significantly likely to speak up about problematic issues, harmful practices, or misconduct at work. This may be because employees who are intrinsically motivated tend to seek out challenges and are more driven to push or navigate boundaries, difficulties, and barriers to extend and exercise their capacity to explore, learn, and do their job better (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous form of motivation, and it is fueled by curiosity, passion, and personal fulfillment (Gagné et al., 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005). It is often the drive that keeps workers perfecting their craft despite limited or no support, or that keeps community college faculty teaching effectively despite the obstacles (e.g., low pay, high workload, etc.), or that keeps runners running when their legs want to quit. Intrinsically motivated employees are more likely to challenge the status quo, even though risky, when they perceive that their job environment is deficient and failing them in some way (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In fact, because intrinsically motivated behavior involves self-directed motivation and is not contingent upon any external reward or punishment, it is both a stronger and longer lasting form of motivation, especially in the face of obstacles (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015).

Controlled Work Motivation and Voice Behaviors

The results also reveal that other types or sources of work motivation—i.e., controlled forms of work motivation—do not play a significant role in shaping employees’ propensity to voluntarily speak up about organizational issues. To better understand those results, it is important to keep in mind at least two things. First, employee voice behaviors are a form of extra-role behavior, which means that they are not specifically mandated as part of employees’ job descriptions (Morrison, 2011, 2014). In other words, voice behaviors constitute an extra effort—beyond what’s required from them—on the part of community college workers who are generally already burdened and insufficiently supported (Dee, 2004; Gibson-Harman et al., 2002; Gonzales & Ayers, 2018). Second, unlike corporations or other organizations that tend to have a lot of resources, relatively sophisticated and/or attractive compensations, benefits, and rewards/incentives packages for their employees, public higher education institutions and, especially community colleges, are comparatively severely underresourced (Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; McCambly et al., 2023) and have much less attractive compensations, benefits, and reward/incentives packages for their employees.

It seems that in chronically underresourced organizational environments such as community colleges (Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; McCambly et al., 2023), relying primarily on compensation, rewards, incentives, and other extrinsic or externally determined sources of motivation is unlikely to motivate employees to engage in extra role behaviors such as voice behaviors. Although very important in many ways, the main problem with using extrinsic motivators as the exclusive or primary source of employee motivation is that they don’t necessarily engage employees beyond the minimum they are required to do as part of their jobs. For engagement above and beyond the minimum requirements of the job, such as when employees engage in voice behaviors, intrinsic motivation is the key. This is especially true, as the results suggest, when the engagement in voice behaviors may be risky(ier), as in the case of prohibitive voice behaviors. Intrinsic motivation is so powerful a motivational tool because it involves employees doing something for its own sake — for the joy and satisfaction of doing it and seeing it done well (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017). That’s why it is necessary for community college leaders to monitor and foster intrinsic motivation in their employees as well as recruit employees who are not only competent but also already intrinsically motivated to do the job/tasks for which they are being hired. Indeed, positive organizational outcomes/behaviors such as high performance, innovativeness, work enjoyment, concentration, initiative (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015) and, based on this study’s results, promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors are positively linked to intrinsic motivation.

Implications for Increasing Employee Voice Behaviors

The findings from this study suggest that community college leaders should do whatever they can to foster community college employees’ autonomous motivations (i.e., identified regulation and intrinsic motivation) to increase their voice behaviors. According to SDT, this means satisfying community college employees’ needs for autonomy, competence/mastery, and relatedness/connection (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

The concept of autonomy is essential to the development of autonomous motivation. Autonomy entails that community college employees should feel that they have a degree of choice or flexibility in what they do or how they do things (Ryan & Deci, 2017). When employees lack autonomy, they tend to be more controlled by what others think or do, and they may thus become overly deferential and have a hard time trusting themselves, thinking independently, or making any kind of suggestion (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015). As such, to increase their employees’ feelings of autonomy, community college leaders should for instance involve them appropriately in decision making, ask them for suggestions and feedback on the college’s issues and carefully listen (and take action when appropriate), and interact or communicate with them as partners in the college’s fate (Atouba et al., 2019; Grasmick et al., 2012; Kezar & Holcombe, 2017; Moskell, 2024). When employees feel that their voice matters and their input is valued, they are more likely to offer suggestions to help the college succeed (Atouba, 2021; Atouba et al., 2019). Thankfully, within many community colleges, there has recently been some movement away from “hero” leadership in which a positional leader holds/hoards power, to more participatory forms of leadership that involves, includes, and values the voices of other employees (Eddy et al., 2022; Grasmick et al., 2012; Holcombe et al., 2022; Pierce, 2022). Hopefully that movement will continue and further evolve to more effectively include employee voices.

Competence here refers to the extent to which employees believe that they have performed or are able to perform well at their job (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015). Community college leaders should work to enhance their employees’ feelings of competence. To enhance their employees’ feelings of competence, community college leaders should be curious about and attentive to what their employees do, provide positive feedback for work that is well done, and offer encouragement, suggestions for improvement, as well as opportunities for training or professional development when the work is not where it needs to be (Pierce, 2022). Throughout that process, it is important that these leaders communicate confidence in their employees’ ability/potential to reach goals, and frame tasks/goals as worthy challenges to take on (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015; Pierce, 2022). Community college leaders should act as coaches whose job is to empower their employees to be the best they can be in their roles (Pierce, 2022).

Relatedness or connection here refers to the extent to which employees feel a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging or connectedness to others through their work (Kinley & Ben-Hur, 2015). To develop a sense of connection, community college leaders should do at least two things. First, they should work to cultivate positive, caring, and supportive relationships with and among their employees. This is unfortunately not always the case at many community colleges (Zoromski & Sasso, 2024). However, fostering camaraderie and creating a safe and positive work climate is important to the nurturing of intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Secondly, community college leaders should help connect their employees’ work to a higher and worthwhile purpose/cause (e.g., moral/ethical, political, spiritual, organizational, etc.). In other words, they should help their employees find meaning in their work. Most people have a need to feel that their work makes a (worthwhile) difference and that their efforts are not in vain; otherwise, they become demotivated (Chalofsky, 2010). As such, it is important for community college leaders to frequently convey to their employees how much their work matters or makes a positive difference to the college, the students, the greater community, the nation, or other important/relevant constituencies.

Finally, as mentioned in the discussion, community college leaders should make sure that the right employees are in the right positions (Pierce, 2022). This should ideally be done during the hiring process. However, even beyond the hiring process, it is very important that these leaders get to know their employees, what they enjoy doing, where they excel, and use that information to recommend or promote them to roles where they may best serve the college.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations which could inspire future studies on the topic. First, our study uses a cross-sectional design; as such, any causal inference made from it should be interpreted with caution. Future research could use a longitudinal or time-lag design to further strengthen the results and conclusions. Second, the data for this study was collected from only one community college, an HSI, during the COVID pandemic which was a time of very high uncertainty, disruption, and turbulence for colleges, their employees, and in fact everyone (Kurlaender et al., 2024). Thus, it is possible that the results could reflect the unique context of that college at that time. Future research should replicate this study under more “normal” conditions in other community colleges and HEIs across the country. Third, the data from the study are essentially self-reports from the same source which may raise concerns about common method bias. Although the Harman single factor test found no major concern about CMB, future research may use multiple data sources and triangulation techniques for better results.