Beyond Motivation
Leaders can't motivate anyone. For many years, leaders thought they could motivate others, and then they realized that there was such a thing as passive resistance. Lynne Kweder of the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland, made a statement in a training session that has served me well as a guide. She said, "People don't mind change, they just don't like being changed!" The idea of motivating others means that we think we can change them in some way so that they become more productive or hard working.
After suffering under the illusion that we could motivate others, we softened the language and determined that we could create environments where people would be motivated to be productive. This last iteration of the whole motivation attempt is a necessary improvement, but it doesn't quite win the prize. A 1950's researcher may hold some ideas that could be useful. His name is Herzberg. He researched what he called the hygiene factors in motivation. It seems that people want certain things "cleaned up" in their environment, but the factors that really impress them are a sense of autonomy, recogniton, career advancement. Those factors that must be cleaned up are supervision, working conditions and reward systems. People may say that they want more money, and they do, but they can be really unsettled by micromanagement that disturbs their sense of autonomy, or being placed in a job that has diminished value or significance, thereby sacrificing possibilities of career advancement or recognition.
For me, the real question about motivation is "when is there an alliance between self-interest and commitment?" What is the tipping point or turning point that drives a person toward passionate commitment? I work with a number of nonprofit organizations to manage their change initiatives - strategic planning, culture change, team building, board development, staff development, etc. Leaders of nonprofits often differentiate themselves from for-profit organizations by emphasizing their passion for their mission. What seems to energize them are the needs of their targeted populations. They seem to feel a sense of urgency and compassion, often framed as a sense of being called to the work. But the larger the nonprofit, the more that idealized sentiment fades, and people seem not so different from people working in and leading for-profits. In fact, the premise that there is more compassionate commitment in nonprofits may be flawed. Perhaps the apparent dedication in all organizations could be reframed as self-interest.
I prefer to view the energy that I see in nonprofits as "inspired action." But it need not be evident only within nonprofit organizations. People are creative beings that are often inspired in their work. Often, the inspiration itself is quickly transformed into an opportunity for recognition, thus aligning with self-interest. But some simply enjoy the experience of inspiration and intuitve thoughts, although there are so often few channels within organizations to invest in inspired action.
Sam Palmisano, CEO of IBM, created a large scale approach to inspired action through his "value jam" sessions with 100,000 employees! He wanted to change the face of IBM, revisiting and refashioning the operational values that no longer served the organization. The value jam sessions allowed people to vent their frustrations, i.e, exert their sense of autonomy and efficacy, and then with the air cleared, to move onward to creating a set of company values that, through their own investment, ensured their full commitment. If employees have had a "leading role" in creating their environment, based on values with which they can align, then their commitment is assured.
It is possible to move beyond strategies to "motivate" employees to do what they are uninspired to do. A large number of employees can become inspired if an organization allows them to create in their self-interest a reason and an opportunity to embrace change. Leaders can invite employees to the planning table, not so much to tell them what is planned, but to listen to their expressions of desires, values, and personal goals. From their personal frames of reference, the future of an organization can be spawned. I'd rather work for a company that allows me to be inspired to action, than one that wants to keep me motivated. Somehow "motivated" sounds like keeping me in constant "motion!" What are your thoughts?
Recent Comments