What works to motivate your staff?

[Dave A]

Sounds simple, but it’s not. It’s a lot more complexed filled with emotional issues.

That is exactly what makes this such an interesting and important subject.

The fundamentals are pretty obvious. Maslow theory sets out a hierarchy of needs:

1. Basic physiological needs - air, water, food, shelter.
2. Safety needs - security in issues such as physical safety, health, income.
3. Love needs - People have a constant desire to feel needed, friendship, love, family, social circle.
4. Status - recognition by others and self-esteem.
5. Actualisation - this is where things start to get hairy with Maslow and co.

In far simpler terms, once we get past survival of the individual/species issues, drivers can be broken down into two broad categories:

• The stick - the avoidance of pain
• The carrot - the pursuit of pleasure

How difficult is that? Rule by fear or reward and mission accomplished???

OK. How about you set up a total reward system. People get recognised and rewarded for everything they do. How long before staff take this for granted? And fail to respond anymore because they are just sooo comfortable? And get offended because they weren't singled out for special recognition for something that is basically a fundamental part of their duties.

Or the total pain system. People get punished for every transgression. The only way to avoid pain is to do exactly as expected. How long before people get tired, get numb to the pain and perform below par anyway?

I've had staff come from a "bad" workplace environment and really respond to the fact that they aren't whipped on a regular basis. And yet others come and reckon this is a ticket to slide.

So the answer seems to be a balancing act.

Here are the challenges:
Using the stick is easy and produces fairly consistent, predictable, but average results.
The carrot is more challenging to wield, can produce exceptional results - or can fail totally.
No matter how experienced we are, we need to conciously think about this stuff from time to time - it's too easy to slip into a reactive mode.

Note: I wrote this yesterday morning, but resolved to give everyone a chance to have their say first. I just knew I wasn't the only one with something to say. I think you'll agree the diversity has added depth to our combined understanding that a single answer would not have achieved.

Thank you everyone who posted. A big

[duncan drennan]

Here are some thoughts that have been mulling around in my (very inexperienced) mind. Take them from whence they came


Create structure, avoid control

I believe that we all need structure - it helps us to function better. Some people are great at creating that in their own minds, while others need more concrete things in place.

(On a side note: one of the key ways of combatting depression is to create routine and structure for the depression sufferer)

I think that we tend to confuse structure and control quite a bit. The classical models of all leadership are hierarchical, and at the end of the day imply a control structure.

When I read Margaret Wheatley's "Leadership and the New Science" it certainly challenged the way I thought about organisations and control. My natural tendancy is to want to put tight controls in place and have everything done the way I want it.

(For those who haven't read it the main premise is that classical organisational theory is based on control, just like classical science. The "New Science" she speaks about is chaos theory etc. where systems are self-organising. The idea being to let things self-organise. Read it, it is worth it).

Now my experience of the workplace is one where control was the key to leadership, and it seems that the more control there is the unhappier people are.

I think that is for a couple of reasons, one of the big ones being that the rules of the game keep changing, another one being that people feel they are not free (I believe that freedom of choice is what fundementally makes us human - but that is another story for a different time....)

So I would postulate that setting strong boundaries is good. It establishes a structure to work within, and also makes sure that as a whole you don't get distracted from the company's core goals.

I think that it would probably be a good idea to set those boundaries a bit outside of your own comfort zone too - all too often we are limited in what we achieve because we're not willing to be pushed outside of our own boundaries.

[Dave A]

Now here is another conundrum that ties into this issue.

MoneyWeb is running a Wall Street Journal article on bad coworkers being the last to be layed off - here's an extract.

I've finally managed to make the time to read the article. It's really good.

I think there are two reasons for the problem - the first I quote from the article:

Paul Garvey had one employee whose assembly-line production was 50% below that of his peers. "Previous management ignored the problem," he says, "resolution was going to be far more painful than ignoring it."

They were right: Two verbal warnings and two written warnings later, he dismissed his employee. But when the employee sued for unemployment benefits, he and an HR person had to appear before a magistrate after preparing "a stack of defensible material that would have made O.J.'s attorneys tremble in their $400 Oxfords," he says.

The second reason also from the article:

Rigid ranking systems by some of the most storied corporations reward those making the numbers, even if they don't possess other necessary attributes, such as, say, basic human decency. "It's easier to learn how to make the numbers than to learn corporate values," says Richard Kilburg, senior director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Human Services.

IMHO all the other reasons reported are actually symptoms of these two root causes.

This bit had me really giggling:

"For the life of me I can't figure out how he lasted so long," says Mark Brown of one former colleague who consistently posted the lowest sales numbers on his team. In truth, he was a terrific guy whose friendly qualities included making everyone waffles. "They were good waffles, too," says Mr. Brown. "Fruit toppings, syrup, powdered sugar and whipped cream."

All the instincts of a salesman, I reckon. Just questionable marketing direction.

[Graeme]

This is a big subject; long shelves of books have been written about it over the last hundred years and on both sides of the iron curtain, and at both the "stick" end and even at the "carrot" end there is a long history of intense trade union interest.

Points to bear in mind:

At the lower end of the workforce the reward should follow hard on the heels of the effort - long range incentives are not effective there. For reasons which are not clearly understood, time-off is a powerful incentive at the lower end of the workforce. It is also a powerful incentive for women, especially mothers, who use it for shopping, family matters, etc. But time-off incentives can be difficult to manage, and unless an incentive is scrupulously fair it will end up causing resentment and becoming more trouble than it is worth. These schemes are easy to start but can be difficult and very demotivating to end. Always announce them as a "pilot scheme" with the implied possibility of withdrawal if it is seen not to work.

At the lower level, group incentives often work well; the group imposes its own discipline on its members and it can become a self-regulating system.

At the non-unionised middle and upper end of the workforce longer-range incentives will be effective, but again, the incentives must be scrupulously fair. Individual financial incentives work well here, but there must be no free lunch.

Never start something that you may not be able to continue with, and never, ever, just give benefits away. Debases the currency.

Incentives may take the form of recognition, time-off, money, and the very powerful one of personal transport, be it company car or bakkie which may be used for private as well as business use. Be careful about the tax implications for the employee when it comes to private use of a company car, and make it plain that the private use of the vehicle may be withdrawn if it is abused. Use of a company-owned vehicle is more effective than subsidising the employee's use of his own vehicle. The subsidy becomes regarded as part of salary and squabbles over vehicle usage begin.

Recognition is a far more effective incentive than most managers think - making a conscious effort to raise employees' degree of self-esteem is tremendously effective, and once this is working so is the converse - how does the old hymn go "............midnight is thy smile withdrawn.........." and it works right across the employee spectrum. Very often financial incentives have more to do with the employees self-esteem at earning them than the pleasure of spending them.

And then there is the negative incentive of discipline. Look upon discipline as a hot stove: if you touch it you get burned - you had warning; all who touch it get equally burned - the stove knows no favourites, etc. The stove is impersonal - you take steps against the unacceptable act, not the person.

[Dave A]

Welcome Graeme. A great first post, but knowing you I'm not surprised.

As I'm probably the only person here that knows Graeme at this point, I'll mention that this sort of stuff used to be his bread and butter. He's a retired management consultant with qualifications in production engineering - and more.

[entoserv]

Being a grouch works for me. The staff might not be enthusiatic, but the job gets done. The only hassle is that I have to keep on their case.

[Alan]

Nice thread folk, some very interesting and varied points of view.
What works for me with staff is not that easy to put into words, i suppose i just believe respect is a two way street. I do not try place myself on a pedestal and i steer clear of been ego driven. One thing i have learned after many years of being self employed is when selling, customers will always buy from someone they like, now i am not saying rely on that totally and your product can be cr*p. But if two sales people go see a prospective client with the same product the one that is liked on a personal level will make the sale. In much the same way it works with staff, you can sell them their job if they like and trust you.The one point that nobody has raised yet [unless i missed it], IMO you must be seen by the staff to be a fair person.
I agree with Dave in the friendly, happy approach toward staff, just makes for a better more productive work environment all round.

Now what works on a personal level, hmmmmm.........i suppose my biggest motivation is starting something from scratch, getting it up and rolling. Love the challenges of this.......... maybe that is why i enjoy such challenging hobbies.

[duncan drennan]

I wasn't sure if I should post this here, or under a new thread, but I felt that it could fall under a "root cause" of happy or unhappy staff - who you recruit.

Guy Kawasaki has some nice pointers on The Art of Recruiting...with this being his final point,

Don't assume you're done. Garage once recruited an investment banker (mea culpa #1) from a large (mea culpa #2) firm. After weeks of wooing and several offers and counter offers, he accepted a position with us. He even worked for us for a few days, and then he called in sick. Late the next night, he sent me an email saying that he had accepted an offer from a former client of his old investment bank. I learned a valuable lesson: never assume that your recruiting is done. Frankly, you should recruit every employee every day because when they go home at night, you might never see them again if you don't keep the lovin' going.

The Art of Recruiting from Guy Kawasaki's blog

[Dave A]

Another snippet on current trends relating to staff motivation:

13th cheque falls by wayside
The traditional annual bonus or 13th cheque for salaried staff is a fast-fading phenomenon being replaced by performance bonuses, human resource experts have reported.

PE Corporate Services remuneration consultant Lance Meiring said 50 percent of its clients now used the performance bonus rather than a guaranteed 13th cheque as an incentive to encourage performance.

"The trend is increasing for top management, middle management and for salaried staff."

While traditional bonuses amounted to about nine percent of the employee's annual salary and were not motivational, he said performance bonuses of 20 percent or more linked to individual performance were an attractive incentive.

According to Deloitte's National Remuneration Guide survey of 300 South African companies, performance bonuses were being used to retain top talent.
full story from IOL here

[forumlover]

Wow! This is a great thread, I really enjoyed reading all your thoughts. Thanks