The Myth of Motivational Distinctions by “Class”

An often-observed myth held by senior and executive management is that subordinates, especially those well down the hierarchical chain, are motivated solely by a subset of the things that motivate managers higher up the chain. What do we mean by this?

Specifically, when you sit in the boardroom listening to senior executives talk about what motivates the ordinary worker, the character of their conversation takes on a distinctly paternalistic and condescending flavor. The whole conversation seems to descend from an attitude that the senior executives are the caretakers of those in their charge, and that the meek and the poor workers will be ever so glad just to have a minimal set of needs satisfied in order to attain happiness. So the conversation tends to center on the company’s pay scale compared with the industry’s, fringe benefits as a percent of salary, and small rewards and discretionary bonuses for employee suggestions. The dialogue continues with a focus on how much merit increases should be and how happy workers should feel to get them. It next centers on how benevolent the leadership is for paying such a large percentage of health care costs, and how lucky everyone should feel that the company helps pay for long-term disability. Finally, the corporate “fathers” talk about how beneficent they are by having better than average vacation or time-off policies. And what about the company’s 401K contributions?

But when these same senior managers talk about what motivates them—in addition to their big fat paychecks, incentive compensation, stock options, and restricted share awards—other factors arise in the conversation. They talk about the specific challenges of their job and the enjoyment and satisfaction they derive from meeting those challenges. They talk about the range of experience they have gathered and their desires for increased visibility and accountability. They talk about their accomplishments and the pride they take in them. They talk about their ability to contribute to the company’s bottom line. The talk about the challenges to their organization, the steps they’ve taken to overcome them, and their specific achievements. They also talk about their future goals and what it will take to accomplish them.

What we have almost never heard during our time in the executive boardrooms during conversations such as these is a focus on incentives that might otherwise interest a host of employees at least as much, if not more, than the pale subset mulled over by management. Not commonly discussed were things like added responsibility, changing job status to gain experience and knowledge, increased organizational visibility, flexibility in career assignments, greater autonomy, participation in more entrepreneurial activities, more time for personal development and innovation, and participation in more technically challenging work. Why is this?

What if managers saw their employees as having the same potential they see in themselves and devoted time and energy to creating similar kinds of positive incentives and opportunities to fulfill those potentials? What would a company be like then?

Who Cut the Cheese? - the Myth of Management Wisdom

If you have sat through a business meeting, you have had one of those moments when you have sat mute, incredulous that the person talking is wasting your time to prattle on about such inane and obvious things. (Hint: if you have not had such a moment, you are the person prattling on.)

Apparently some people like to use meetings to connect, to come to agreement. One sure way to do this is to talk about the obvious. Who can disagree with a conclusion that this customer making up 40% of the business is an important customer? Who can disagree that it was a bad idea to offend their lead procurement guy? Who would disagree that we need to work things out? And who would disagree that we need to make this an important task? And yet the admonitions spill out, and different levels of managers trip over one another to reinforce what even an 8th grader with an iPod can by now repeat.

At halftime, it may be obvious to the team trailing by 12 points that they have to get out there and "turn things around." This is both obvious and unhelpful. What would help - and what can too rarely be provided - is actual coaching about how to turn things around. Suggestions for specific steps, certain strategies, changes in match ups. Players want to win. They do not want to be humiliated. Players are hungry for good coaching, tips that make them better, whether it comes in the form of words of encouragement or correction.

Employees don't need to be berated or subject to inane pep talks. When things have gone wrong, they need coaching that makes a difference, coaching that can actually improve their performance.

Using the Carrot as a Stick - the Myth of Motivation

Audrey introduced Candice and Paul and was quite happy that the two were as delighted with one another as she thought that they’d be. About a year later, Candice and Paul were married. They had a little ceremony and served cake but no meal. Audrey was hurt that she was not invited.

Audrey wasn’t hurt because she introduced Candice and Paul with the expectation of free cake. She was hurt because she wanted to share in the natural consequences of something she’d done, expected some recognition. And this gets to the heart of what is perhaps the most thoughtlessly relied-upon myth: the myth of extrinsic motivation.

There is such a huge gap between research and common practice on this point of employee motivation that the average person is usually stunned to learn that virtually all formal research indicates that extrinsic motivation does not work. Offering free cake as an inducement to get friends to introduce potential couples simply doesn’t work.

Extrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from outside of the person and typically shows up in the form of the classic carrot (bonus if you achieve this goal) or stick (humiliation or demotion if you don't achieve the goal). This belief in the efficacy of extrinsic motivation is so ingrained that, as Alfie Kohn says, research reporting on conclusions seems to invariably begin, "Contrary to hypothesis."

There are a variety of reasons for this confusion about a myth being fact. I will focus on only one here. The real problem with extrinsic motivation is that it places the locus of control over the task in the hands of someone not doing it. This practically guarantees that the task won’t be done creatively nor well. Rather, it will be done rather perfunctorily; people will do what’s needed for the reward but not necessarily what is needed for the task.

If you manage people, share the consequences of their work with them. Invite them to the wedding or have a profit sharing plan or some means to create a linkage between what they have done and what results from it. But don’t confuse that with the hope of controlling their behavior as if you were dangling fish in front of dolphins at SeaWorld. Let them eat cake - just don't use it to get them to jump through hoops.