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?

A Myth: It’s OK to Create Personal Goals in a Void

We have to admit that we’re always amazed when a supervisor of ours comes to us once a year and asks us to write up our personal goals for the next year and have them on his desk the next Tuesday. (We’re not talking for the moment about personal development goals, but those that target discrete activities to improve the business, its processes or its products.) How is it that anyone in management thinks an employee can set meaningful goals for improving the business without reference to some framework, some overarching strategic context, to guide him or her?

Our first and immediate reaction is always to ask the same questions, if not out loud, at least in our heads: (1) What are the corporation’s goals for the next year? (2) What are the primary strategies the company is employing to realize those goals? (3) What are the departments’ goals for the year and how do your own personal goals tie with and support them? (4) What specific activities do you think we’d be best suited for that would support all of the above, and (5) How do you see us being best able to align our goals with those at each layer of organization to make sure that what we’re doing is fully supportive of and synchronized with them?

Why does it not seem to dawn on management that one of the most powerful forces they can harness inside an organization is to make sure that everyone is aligned around the strategic objectives the company has set for itself for the ensuing year? Everyone under the sun has heard about “rowing the boat together in the same direction” to maximize efficiency and effectiveness. If these goals truly meant something to the corporation, wouldn’t they want everyone's to contribute maximally to accomplishing the company’s annual goals? Wouldn’t they want to make sure this happened by paying particular attention to synchronizing them at every level (from the company's marketing and product development strategies down to departmental work instructions), and across all the functional silos, as people developed and planned them. And wouldn’t they want to make sure that both up and down and across the organization everyone knew who was doing what, so they could harmonize their efforts throughout the year to produce the greatest effect?