I'm often asked how leaders can better motivate their employees.
This simple question covers lots of situations and is often a request
for strategies to change another adult's workplace behavior while
assuming he/she is resistant or indifferent to making the change.
There can be a lot going on behind employee under performance or disinterest that a manger may interpret as unmotivated performance. Let's go past tips and tricks for motivating employees and look at the role of conflict, standards and accountability, and goals and talent all play a role in enhancing or inhibiting employee motivation.
Control and Conflict: Imagine a group of professionals who regularly put out sloppy, incorrect, misspelled and poorly punctuated documents. A snap judgment could easily conclude that they are unmotivated. Let's take a closer look into this case study and uncover the dynamics behind this symptom of unmotivated performance.
In a CPA firm I worked with, the owner was very meticulous - good for accounting accuracy - bad for motivated, self-directed employees. For example, each month his firm would send out payroll tax letters to client companies that his employees would draft. He insisted on reviewing these for accuracy. Once he was happy with accounting accuracy, he would then review each letter for grammatical and stylistic elements. He'd correct/modify these in red and send them back for revisions. When corrected by his accountants, he'd review them again, make modifications and send them back again, etc. Ironically, the more he sent back letters for improvement the worse the quality got. They regularly sent him incomplete letters with glaring errors causing him to bring out bigger and bigger red pens. This dumbfounded and aggravated him tremendously.
We had to address the conflict between his need for preferential perfection and his employees' need for feelings of autonomy and ownership in their work. We designed a company meeting to bring out both sides of this conflict on the table. We identified the benefit both employees and management got from keeping the conflict going: the employees could absolve themselves of responsibility and enjoy the game of complaining about the boss as the bad guy, while the owner got to feel that he knew more than his employees did justifying his position and authority. Once acknowledged, neither side wanted to keep this game going. We built a new procedure for handling these letters and all written correspondence in the future.
Control was an issue we continued to work on with the owner through coaching sessions in order to expand and sustain this change toward more employee autonomy and internal motivation. Issues quickly faded because the root cause was not one where motivation was lacking - management control resulting in conflict and employee passive aggressive behavior was.
Standards and Accountability: Often when leaders ask about motivation, what they are really saying is, "How do I get someone who doesn't want to do something to do it?" So, let's take a look at the bottom line of accountability. Motivation or not, there are job elements that are not optional. Routine nonperformance deserves exploration before declaration - the conclusion that the employee is unmotivated. This behavior should actually be described as underperformance, which is measurable, rather than as unmotivated, which is an opinion describing the personal dynamic behind the under-performance.
The employee must be alerted to his inadequate performance and be given a chance to correct it with the support of agreed upon action plans built with his manager. Follow up meetings will support either positive recognition if employee changes are being made according to the action plan or progressive consequences if they are not. Consequences will motivate behavior change where disapproving, blaming or generally hostile lectures will not. Use minor consequences early and consistently so both of you can avoid the more severe ones. If despite this, the employee continues to under-perform, he will behave his way out of his job. And while it is never easy to terminate, with the evidence of his broken commitments to manager supported change, a leader will not lose sleep wondering if it's the right decision.
I was working with Marilyn, the Chief Operating Officer of a manufacturing firm of about 75 employees. Her two, second shift supervisors Frankie and John, regularly came to work late, obviously setting a poor example for the rest of their crew. Casual feedback about the need for timeliness had a minor temporary effect but after two or three days they both would return to their routine tardiness. Next came the lectures about the impact of their behavior on the rest of the crew via the example they were setting, same result. Next came Marilyn's emotional outbursts the two endured remorsefully but again, without permanent change.
If you've raised teenagers this progression will sound familiar. Indifference on the part of the offending party escalates the emotional reactivity and loss of control in the authority figure undermining their credibility. Because no effective change occurs and no real consequences are implemented, the guilty party learns their leader is ineffective and all they need do is endure the lecture and nothing much will happen after that. No need to change.
The solution? Apply the 80/20 rule with a calm demeanor and align consequences. Instead of lecturing (her 80), we worked with Marilyn to get the supervisors to describe the problem that gets in the way of their timeliness (their 80). Once identified, she led them to design a solution and then followed up on their implementation of it. Additionally, she let them know that the success of their plan was important because the first step of their progressive discipline system would be implemented if they failed to use it successfully. This increased Frankie and Johnny's ownership of the problem and its solution.
Regular follow-up sessions to positively reinforce Frankie and John's typical early success were used with the dates for subsequent follow-up meetings established at each one. This reinforced that this time the change wasn't optional or would fall off Marilyn's radar screen. Add the follow-up meetings and the minor but real consequences that would be applied if they came in late again and a successful performance change occurred immediately.
Aligning Talent and Goals: Now let's look at motivation from another perspective. Consider that you don't have to motivate a child to eat ice cream. In other words, if the activity is enjoyable, beneficial, or meaningful, there is internal motivation to act. And this internal motivation, once activated, generally becomes self-sustaining. So let's look more carefully at the circumstances on the employees' side that might look like a lack of motivation to the manager. Do we know what the employee enjoys doing (a good indication of talent and therefore, internal motivation and employee success)? Talents are by definition the source of intrinsic motivation. We enjoy working in our talent areas because in them we are naturally good at what we do, find the work to be easy and regularly successful. Is the employee in the right position for his talents to be used and create internal motivation? Does the employee know how his work benefits others in the company, customers, and how it helps the company accomplish its mission and goals?
Gallup research tells us that the ability to link one's individual work to a greater purpose/benefit of the organization produces a happier and smarter employee who will make a better contribution to his organization. Do we know what is meaningful to the employee? In other words do we know why he works beyond putting food on the table? If we can link his/her work to the fulfillment of his dreams, we motivate. Stimulus-Response psychology implies that this is not necessary: all we need do is provide the effective positive and negative reinforcers and we can get anyone to behave as we wish. The difference here is between manipulation/coercion and true motivation, which creates self-sustaining behavior with minimal supervision.
Bill worked in a printing shop of about 100 employees. He was a very successful stripper, no, not that kind. His job in the old days was to physically cut and paste the copy to be printed onto plates that would then be burned and used in the printing process. As technology progressed the company went "computer to plate" eliminating the job of the stripper. Bill's boss Peter was loyal to his employees and so refused to let him go. Bill was given a job at the same pay for sweeping up the shop. Neither was very happy. Peter began to experiment with other positions for Bill and when he said he liked computers, Peter moved him into the graphic design area where he was trained to create the artwork customers needed. Another bomb. Peter asked us to assess Bill's talents and we discovered his like for computers had to do with building them, not using them. So we challenged Peter's loyalty as to its boundaries. Would he be willing to help Bill get his next job outside of the company? Peter was immediately intrigued. He paid for some training for Bill in building computers and then used his contacts to help him get his first job. Bill came back two months later just to thank Peter for helping him find a job he loved. The other employees were of course impressed with the company's commitment to its workers and the work culture of the organization was hugely strengthened.
Summary: A good manager builds relationships that are positive and trustworthy. With these in place, employees are free to give direct feedback if the manager is creating conflicts. Managers are free to clearly state expectations while ensuring employees have a set up for success. Supporting employee success also supports managers holding them accountable to their goals. Finally, positive relationships allow managers to discover their employees' talents and dreams and do what they can to align their work with them. Motivation then, is not a technique that special leaders use to magically transform employee performance. It is the natural result of thoughtful, caring, and committed leadership, which strives to create a win for both the organization and the employee.
Copyright 2008 Rick Piraino
There can be a lot going on behind employee under performance or disinterest that a manger may interpret as unmotivated performance. Let's go past tips and tricks for motivating employees and look at the role of conflict, standards and accountability, and goals and talent all play a role in enhancing or inhibiting employee motivation.
Control and Conflict: Imagine a group of professionals who regularly put out sloppy, incorrect, misspelled and poorly punctuated documents. A snap judgment could easily conclude that they are unmotivated. Let's take a closer look into this case study and uncover the dynamics behind this symptom of unmotivated performance.
In a CPA firm I worked with, the owner was very meticulous - good for accounting accuracy - bad for motivated, self-directed employees. For example, each month his firm would send out payroll tax letters to client companies that his employees would draft. He insisted on reviewing these for accuracy. Once he was happy with accounting accuracy, he would then review each letter for grammatical and stylistic elements. He'd correct/modify these in red and send them back for revisions. When corrected by his accountants, he'd review them again, make modifications and send them back again, etc. Ironically, the more he sent back letters for improvement the worse the quality got. They regularly sent him incomplete letters with glaring errors causing him to bring out bigger and bigger red pens. This dumbfounded and aggravated him tremendously.
We had to address the conflict between his need for preferential perfection and his employees' need for feelings of autonomy and ownership in their work. We designed a company meeting to bring out both sides of this conflict on the table. We identified the benefit both employees and management got from keeping the conflict going: the employees could absolve themselves of responsibility and enjoy the game of complaining about the boss as the bad guy, while the owner got to feel that he knew more than his employees did justifying his position and authority. Once acknowledged, neither side wanted to keep this game going. We built a new procedure for handling these letters and all written correspondence in the future.
Control was an issue we continued to work on with the owner through coaching sessions in order to expand and sustain this change toward more employee autonomy and internal motivation. Issues quickly faded because the root cause was not one where motivation was lacking - management control resulting in conflict and employee passive aggressive behavior was.
Standards and Accountability: Often when leaders ask about motivation, what they are really saying is, "How do I get someone who doesn't want to do something to do it?" So, let's take a look at the bottom line of accountability. Motivation or not, there are job elements that are not optional. Routine nonperformance deserves exploration before declaration - the conclusion that the employee is unmotivated. This behavior should actually be described as underperformance, which is measurable, rather than as unmotivated, which is an opinion describing the personal dynamic behind the under-performance.
The employee must be alerted to his inadequate performance and be given a chance to correct it with the support of agreed upon action plans built with his manager. Follow up meetings will support either positive recognition if employee changes are being made according to the action plan or progressive consequences if they are not. Consequences will motivate behavior change where disapproving, blaming or generally hostile lectures will not. Use minor consequences early and consistently so both of you can avoid the more severe ones. If despite this, the employee continues to under-perform, he will behave his way out of his job. And while it is never easy to terminate, with the evidence of his broken commitments to manager supported change, a leader will not lose sleep wondering if it's the right decision.
I was working with Marilyn, the Chief Operating Officer of a manufacturing firm of about 75 employees. Her two, second shift supervisors Frankie and John, regularly came to work late, obviously setting a poor example for the rest of their crew. Casual feedback about the need for timeliness had a minor temporary effect but after two or three days they both would return to their routine tardiness. Next came the lectures about the impact of their behavior on the rest of the crew via the example they were setting, same result. Next came Marilyn's emotional outbursts the two endured remorsefully but again, without permanent change.
If you've raised teenagers this progression will sound familiar. Indifference on the part of the offending party escalates the emotional reactivity and loss of control in the authority figure undermining their credibility. Because no effective change occurs and no real consequences are implemented, the guilty party learns their leader is ineffective and all they need do is endure the lecture and nothing much will happen after that. No need to change.
The solution? Apply the 80/20 rule with a calm demeanor and align consequences. Instead of lecturing (her 80), we worked with Marilyn to get the supervisors to describe the problem that gets in the way of their timeliness (their 80). Once identified, she led them to design a solution and then followed up on their implementation of it. Additionally, she let them know that the success of their plan was important because the first step of their progressive discipline system would be implemented if they failed to use it successfully. This increased Frankie and Johnny's ownership of the problem and its solution.
Regular follow-up sessions to positively reinforce Frankie and John's typical early success were used with the dates for subsequent follow-up meetings established at each one. This reinforced that this time the change wasn't optional or would fall off Marilyn's radar screen. Add the follow-up meetings and the minor but real consequences that would be applied if they came in late again and a successful performance change occurred immediately.
Aligning Talent and Goals: Now let's look at motivation from another perspective. Consider that you don't have to motivate a child to eat ice cream. In other words, if the activity is enjoyable, beneficial, or meaningful, there is internal motivation to act. And this internal motivation, once activated, generally becomes self-sustaining. So let's look more carefully at the circumstances on the employees' side that might look like a lack of motivation to the manager. Do we know what the employee enjoys doing (a good indication of talent and therefore, internal motivation and employee success)? Talents are by definition the source of intrinsic motivation. We enjoy working in our talent areas because in them we are naturally good at what we do, find the work to be easy and regularly successful. Is the employee in the right position for his talents to be used and create internal motivation? Does the employee know how his work benefits others in the company, customers, and how it helps the company accomplish its mission and goals?
Gallup research tells us that the ability to link one's individual work to a greater purpose/benefit of the organization produces a happier and smarter employee who will make a better contribution to his organization. Do we know what is meaningful to the employee? In other words do we know why he works beyond putting food on the table? If we can link his/her work to the fulfillment of his dreams, we motivate. Stimulus-Response psychology implies that this is not necessary: all we need do is provide the effective positive and negative reinforcers and we can get anyone to behave as we wish. The difference here is between manipulation/coercion and true motivation, which creates self-sustaining behavior with minimal supervision.
Bill worked in a printing shop of about 100 employees. He was a very successful stripper, no, not that kind. His job in the old days was to physically cut and paste the copy to be printed onto plates that would then be burned and used in the printing process. As technology progressed the company went "computer to plate" eliminating the job of the stripper. Bill's boss Peter was loyal to his employees and so refused to let him go. Bill was given a job at the same pay for sweeping up the shop. Neither was very happy. Peter began to experiment with other positions for Bill and when he said he liked computers, Peter moved him into the graphic design area where he was trained to create the artwork customers needed. Another bomb. Peter asked us to assess Bill's talents and we discovered his like for computers had to do with building them, not using them. So we challenged Peter's loyalty as to its boundaries. Would he be willing to help Bill get his next job outside of the company? Peter was immediately intrigued. He paid for some training for Bill in building computers and then used his contacts to help him get his first job. Bill came back two months later just to thank Peter for helping him find a job he loved. The other employees were of course impressed with the company's commitment to its workers and the work culture of the organization was hugely strengthened.
Summary: A good manager builds relationships that are positive and trustworthy. With these in place, employees are free to give direct feedback if the manager is creating conflicts. Managers are free to clearly state expectations while ensuring employees have a set up for success. Supporting employee success also supports managers holding them accountable to their goals. Finally, positive relationships allow managers to discover their employees' talents and dreams and do what they can to align their work with them. Motivation then, is not a technique that special leaders use to magically transform employee performance. It is the natural result of thoughtful, caring, and committed leadership, which strives to create a win for both the organization and the employee.
Copyright 2008 Rick Piraino
Rick Piraino: Principal, True North Consulting. For thirty years
Rick has served as an educator, psychotherapist, and organizational
consultant. As an entrepreneur, Rick has built three successful
businesses since 1985 including one of Wisconsin's largest complimentary
medicine clinics in the '90s. Rick holds both a Bachelors and a Masters
Degree in Education and is a certified Covey trainer.
Since 1996 he has been working with organizations from coast to coast to support them in building cultures of excellence through leadership development, supervisor/manager training, work climate assessment, internal customer/supplier cultures, and team building.
He has been published nationally and is the author of Responsibility-based Performance Management (RPM), a performance management training and organizational system. Over the last seven years, RPM has been implemented in education, sales, manufacturing, printing, publishing, financial, and various other service industries.
In all his work, Rick integrates immediately practical skills with the opportunity for leaders to grow as people. He creates those pivotal moments where leaders can integrate skills with self-awareness and integrity.
He brings this principle to all his work: Who we are is how we lead.
Visit his website at http://culturesofexcellence.com
Since 1996 he has been working with organizations from coast to coast to support them in building cultures of excellence through leadership development, supervisor/manager training, work climate assessment, internal customer/supplier cultures, and team building.
He has been published nationally and is the author of Responsibility-based Performance Management (RPM), a performance management training and organizational system. Over the last seven years, RPM has been implemented in education, sales, manufacturing, printing, publishing, financial, and various other service industries.
In all his work, Rick integrates immediately practical skills with the opportunity for leaders to grow as people. He creates those pivotal moments where leaders can integrate skills with self-awareness and integrity.
He brings this principle to all his work: Who we are is how we lead.
Visit his website at http://culturesofexcellence.com
