Employee motivation

The employees in every large company are spread across a spectrum of performance levels, ranging from “remind me why we employed him?” to “pay him anything, just make sure he never leaves”.

Interestingly, though, some people’s performance is not constant, and companies have been trying for decades, if not centuries, to understand why this is, and to try to influence the performance levels of their staff. One guy in our team has in the past been closely monitored by HR because of poor performance. Recently, we have seen no sign of this at all – he’s great, an asset to the team. Why?

An article in Management Issues entitled ‘Breaking the Motivational code’ discusses this very topic. Unfortunately, it’s the first of a 2-parter but it sets the scene with “The absence of a consensus on human motivation has not stopped organisations from moving forward with ‘solutions’ like these [TQM, MBWA, Matrix Management, Process re-engineering, etc], each reflecting a unique set of assumptions about what motivates employees to improve”.

It is in the interests of the inventors/authors of these new-fangled ideas to promote them, but how much value they present to the organisations that employ them is questionable.

In my mind, they are simply different ways to go about doing the same thing. Management – the core skill set, anyway – has changed very little over the past decades, and motivation even less so.

IMHO (and without wanting to debate the details of his theory) Maslow came closest to the core of the matter. We are not going to be motivated by any higher-level needs until our lower-level ones have been satisfied.

If you are not paying someone a fair wage, or you are treating him/her like crap, total quality management is about as effective as a chocolate teapot. What he/she wants is money and respect!

The “pay him anything, just make sure he never leaves” guy has probably been given a few salary raises in the last couple of years anyway, and is doing nicely thank you very much. What he wants is recognition from his peers and bosses. He wants interesting and challenging work. Give him a challenge, and he will perform. Give him boring, mundane work, and he will be miserable no matter what you pay him.

The guy I mentioned earlier who used to need monitoring from HR? He was just bored and frustrated. He now has a job he enjoys, and is not only happier; he’s more motivated and more productive as a result.

Obviously it’s not always as simple as this, and there are many more ways to de-motivate people than to motivate them. Essentially, though, people want the same things, in more or less this order –
· Physical security
· Financial security
· Job security
· The opportunity to succeed
· Credit for success

Organisations are starting to recognise that being the object of an acquisition, and the resultant massive imposed change are enough to de-motivate a large part of their workforce. Increased bureaucracy will have the same effect, as will dictatorial management that doesn’t consider their employees’ needs and desires. This can, to a degree, be offset by involving the entire workforce in the change process, rather than imposing it on them.

It is up to us – the managers who deal directly with the staff on a day-to-day basis – to identify those needs and desires, and attempt to do everything in our power to meet those needs.

Have regular one-to-ones with your staff. Find out what makes them tick, what problems they have, what motivates them, and what they need in order to do their best work.

Sometimes, it can be as simple as allowing some flexibility in working hours, or accommodating a need for specific seating arrangements. The big issues, those beyond our power, can still be escalated though. We can still fight – and be seen to fight - their corner.

After all, management is not about controlling people, it’ s about enabling them to do their jobs.