Smart Change Blog

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?

Cowering from Conflict

What's so awful about conflict? We humans don't seem to lack a propensity for war or self-destruction. Why do we shy away from conflict? In today's organizations, there is no more fearful event in the mind of an employee than the engagement in conflict, yet that employee may be "in" conflict on a continual basis. The most powerful conflict is the one that implodes from within us. We are sometimes in conflict with ourselves. Yes, the conflict between who we are and who we want others to think we are sacrifices our integrity. Or, perhaps we experience the conflict between what we are thinking or saying and how we are behaving or doing, and then sacrifice our self-respect. Another conflict may be between what we feel inside and what we actually express to others, and thus sacrifice integrity in our relationships.

This inner struggle can interfere with the integration of our personality with our workplace reality. Let's explore these conflicts a bit more. Any real change begins with an awareness of where we are, but we may consider being a bit easy with our assessment. The choices we make in our life are the result of the meaning we make out of challenges that come our way. Each of us has a life blueprint that keeps evolving as we live longer. The blueprint is a design of who we have become, so far. The twists and turns are filled with what we may regard as losses and gains, but each builds toward our current life experience. We cannot undo who we have become, but we can honor it and make peace with where we are. When we do, resistance falls away from us, and we are then positioned to become more.

I recently kicked off a culture change initiative at an organization. The kickoff event was held as a meeting of appropximately 100 employees. During the Q&A portion of the program, a courageous young man asked me if I was concerned that people in the rear of the room were sometimes talking during my presentation. The room fell uncharacteristically silent, as the audience waited for my reply. I acknowledged his concern, and then described how I don't take anything personally, because I realize that there are multiple ways in which people make sense of what they hear. There are PLE's - perfectly logical explanations - for everything. The problem is that another person's meaning making may not be the same as mine.

Some folks disagree or are skeptical of any change. Others silently argue with whatever is proposed. Some are processing the information carefully, making associations to past experiences. Some people are stimulated by the possibilities or their negative thoughts and want to discuss their views immediately. Others are habitually distrustful of any attempt to change their experience. Whatever the explanation is, the individual is the master of that meaning. I can only begin to understand if I choose to ask specific questions of others, or listen carefully to what they are saying, and then check my understanding of what I have heard.

The energy I expend trying to get inside someone else's thoughts, as a precondition for making a choice, will inevitably exacerbate any conflict I already have.  And in the example of people talking during my formal presentation, well, I have a choice to be angry and frustrated, as if I know what specifcally to be angry about, or I can be curious or hopeful or optimistic, and feel good. When I respond with anger, I am usually wrong, because I don't have all the meaning that others are attributing to a situation. I simply cannot trust that my assumptions about what people intend are accurate. So, what if I have a negative judgment and it's right? If I invest energy in being right, I will reach a dead end in the relationship, because if I am right, the other person must be wrong. Our natural tendency is to seek allies, even in our negativity. So, to be in a workplace with someone who is "wrong," can lead to a false sense of power and legitimacy. Each of us has perspectives that are right for us.

Rules and laws provide some boundaries, but we have tremendous freedom to form our own thoughts. We can then choose to think of our experience as challenging and conflictual or we can seek relief from the heaviness and choose to take nothing personally. We can limit the assumptions we make about another person's behaviors. We can face our own inner conflicts, and then be prepared to enter into a negotiation of different perspectives. The journey toward resolution of conflict starts within and advances when we see others as whole and capable of having a perspective that reflects their reality, their life experiences, and their desires for a better, more fulfilling existence.

The Search for Significance

Power and significance are not all they've been cracked up to be- particularly if you're looking for these items outside of yourself. Thich Nhat Hanh in his latest book, The Art of Power (2007), reminds us that power is within the present moment... of our lives. We have access to power always in how we choose to experience our lives and our relationships to others. In today's workplace, power is seen as a commodity that only a few have access to based on their position. I agree with Thich Nhat Hanh in theory, because I believe that power is an inner experience. The trouble with the theory is that we are influenced by the power of others. I don't have any more power than anyone else, so when I connect with another there is a likelihood that I will be influenced by that person. There is only one way that I'm aware of to manage that influence - saying "no" to anything that does not feel good, but almost in an instant recognizing and imagining what I would prefer, in other words, finding something to which I can say "yes."  William Ury, Harvard professor and principal in the famed Harvard Negotiation Project, has written a book called The Power of a Positive NO (2007). The word "no" has great power if it leads to "yes." Being clear about what you value, what you want and how you feel are keys to uncovering the essential power of "no."

The power is in the choices we make, so when we use our emotions, our compassion, our inner power, to make choices that are meaningful for us, we are fully engaged with our work and life experiences.

Unfortunately, compassion in particular is often left out of the workplace, especially in workplace relationships. We look at people and judge them; instead we could look with them in the direction of our future work, and feel the power of connection. When we feel connected to others, we have the power to create a powerfully dynamic and rewarding workplace.

The subject of this post is the search for significance. Power is one way in which we realize our significance. We want to be included in some way that assures us that we have value. Patrick Lencioni's newest book is entitled, Three Signs of a Miserable Job (2007).  Lencioni says jobs that don't add value, don't lend themselves to measures of success and ones that no one knows about are rather miserable jobs.  These concepts rely heavily on the external  assessment of significance in employment. But there are lessons to be learned here.

Adding value is an inside job. As long as we can see the big picture of where the organization is headed and what not who the organization values, we can assess our own value in the contribution we make to others - peers, direct reports, leaders, customers, and clients. So often a person's value in an organization is measured by the degree to which progress slows if a person must be replaced, not so much what the person adds. The opportunity that appears for us is to create value by continually showing up as authentic human spirits. What we do is only important in the context of who we are. We are sometimes, no always it seems, concerned about who gets credit for the work we do. A colleague cautioned me once that he liked a process I used so much that he might steal it. I encouraged him to enjoy using it, assuring him that I generate more that 20 new ideas each day. I was eager to share the idea, after all, I was giving him a modest estimate! For me the joy is in the creation; each new idea provides a rush of adrenalin as I contemplate the possibilities!

So there you have it - power and significance. Power drives the universe, so we have all that power to use, but we must begin our search inside. Significance, a sister, or brother as the case may be, to power is fueled by an awareness that our very existence is the key indicator of significance, and that it is our acceptance of this truth that "signifies" our presence and worthiness.