How Can I Motivate My Employees?

Summary

If just hearing the term "theories of motivation" has you groaning please try to give this explanation a chance. It explains a couple of the key ones in a terms that you can not only relate to, but immediately apply through the use of PAF Feedback. 

Two Theories of Interest

It is unlikely that any theory can fully explain the enigma of motivation. Like most things in life it is an extremely complex phenomenon. 

However, the two theories reviewed here, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Frederick Herzberg’s 2-Factor Theory, while old (both were developed over 50 years ago), are still relevant as a basis for understanding human motivation. Considered together, the “scientific” answer they provide:

• Makes intuitive sense.

• Validates the experience of anyone who has ever worked in an organization.

• Relates directly to the notion that honest and effective performance-related feedback is critical to motivation and engagement.

I'll provide a quick overview of each since understanding this explanation is necessary before I talk about how to apply that knowledge in a a practical way.

Maslow

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs explains in a general way why we see so many individuals disengaged from their work. While their need for money is satisfied to a reasonable level with their salary, and their need for belonging is satisfied by having a family, friends, and a decent social life, their need for self-esteem is not satisfied through their paid employment. Although it could be satisfied through other avenues like coaching, volunteering, etc.

Maslow maintained that people are motived to meet their needs, and that these needs are arranged in levels as illustrated in the now famous Hierarchy of Needs model.

There are two key things to know about this hierarchy:

1. People are driven (i.e., motivated) to satisfy these needs in an ascending order - from the bottom to the top.

2. Once a given level of need is satisfied (i.e. it is not longer a “need”),  then people are no longer motivated to achieve it and are driven instead to satisfy the need at the next highest level, and so on.

Physiological: The first level of needs consists of requirements for such things as air, food, water, etc. In other words, if you are starving, drowning, or freezing to death, then you are very motivated to find food, air, or a place to warm up. Not much else has a higher priority. However, once you have these things you are no longer motivated to get them (they become “givens”) and you are then free to concern yourself with satisfying your needs at the next level.

Safety: Over and above the obvious need for physical safety, these needs relate to the need for continued security. For most people, security means to be free of the worry about whether they will be able to afford the things that they need to live their lives. Therefore, we are generally able to satisfy this need by having a job simply because continued employment brings money – which we can use to secure these needs.

Once people have a job and a reasonable belief that an adequate income will continue they are no longer motivated by it. It becomes a given.

Money is important because it puts a roof over your head and buys you the things you need to live life and not just survive it. However, it is not enough to motivate you to do your best day after day. If it was, we would not have a situation where many people who have relatively safe jobs and secure salaries that are enough for their needs (not necessarily their “wants”) are either unmotivated to perform or are simply disengaged from their jobs.

Note that words like, “satisfied” and “enough” are relative. This is because we are generally realistic in acknowledging our limits in terms of earning power. We know that we can’t all earn large salaries and adjust our expectations accordingly.

Belonging. The third level is having a sense of belonging. People with jobs who have adequate family and friends and social activities are usually able to meet these needs.

Self-esteem. Most employed people who have their other basic needs met are striving to meet their needs at this level. Self- esteem is complicated and its manifestations may be different between individuals but the work we do is generally an integral part of how we view ourselves. What we do for a living, and how good we feel about what we do, is therefore central in determining our satisfaction with life.

The secret principle of human nature is the craving to be appreciated. William James

[Motivation is] a reason for taking an action that feeds our own sense of self-worth. Maurice Hogarth

Generations come and go, but this truth endures and always will: People crave self-esteem. They want to matter. They want to be recognized as being important and valuable. James Gray

Self-actualization. In order to reach this level it means that one has to have one’s needs for self-esteem completely satisfied. When an individuals satisfy these needs completely then they are considered to be “self-actualized” or to have reached their full potential. In a practical sense, very few people seem to reach this point. An example of two people widely regarded as having reached the pinnacle of self-actualization are Mahatma Ghandi and Mother Teresa. In these cases, like many others, self-actualization is often characterized by an extreme drive to forgo our our own needs and do good or give back in some way.

The majority of most regular, ordinary people (i.e., the majority of us who labour away in an organization probably) don’t make it to the self-actualization level. It's important to note here that this doesn't mean that we don't want to give back or do similar good deeds. It only means that we don’t ever completely satisfy our needs for self-esteem, and are therefore constantly motivated to try to satisfy them by doing things that make us feel good in some way That is contributing in a way we find of value, which for a lot of people this is tied into their work as well as outside of it.

Consequently, we remain "stuck" at the self-esteem level.

At any given time, an individual could move back down the hierarchy should circumstances change. For example, if someone loses employment and no longer has money to support themselves or their family, then they will likely be motivated again at Level 2. A new job would satisfy they need for safety and security and, assuming the situation vis-à-vis Level 3 is the same, they will again be motivated to satisfy the self-esteem needs at Level 4. If this same person was then to fall into a river and was in danger of drowning, he or he would immediately revert to Level 1. Once rescued and over the shock, they would likely go back to where they was before (but perhaps with a renewed sense of the value of life).

Since work plays such a big part in our life it is important for all managers to have a good understanding about what they can do to help satisfy the self-esteem needs of their employees if they want to know how to “motivate” them to work hard.

Herzberg

Herzberg’s 2-Factor Theory of Motivation relates specifically to the workplace. It states that for every job, there are “satisfiers” and hygiene factors .

The key thing to understand here is that “satisfiers” will only motivate provided the items listed under dissatisfiers are either positive or neutral. This means that:

If one or more of the items listed in the list of dissatisfiers is considered negative or problematic enough to become a really big issue, then it can negate the positive influence of any positive satisfiers. For example, you could easily become demotivated if you fear a potential layoff. At the very least it is unlikely that you could focus on giving your best until the situation was resolved even if you like your job, are good at it, and feel recognized for your efforts.

If there are no satisfiers then all the positive hygiene factors in the world will not make up for that situation. For example, having a decent salary, good benefits, nice working conditions, good relationships with your boss and co-workers, will not make up for the fact that you are bored to tears, question your ability to do the job well, feel your efforts are unrecognized, you are unappreciated, or sense that you are “going nowhere”. In such circumstances, you are likely to be falling down that  slippery slope from being fully engaged to having checked out.

The worse the dissatisfactions (combined with a lack of satisfiers), then the worse the situation. For example, if you hate your job, can’t stand your manager or your co-workers, and dread going to work everyday, then you might end up as a chronic poor performer even though you are capable of being a good worker in the right circumstances.

The satisfiers are what keep most people motivated to work hard, because they are the items that build self-esteem and enable people to feel good about themselves. This is the tie-in with Maslow’s theory, which shows that most people are striving the meet their needs in this area.

What these theories of motivation mean for managers

The theories indirectly show the importance of the role that the manager plays in the employee motivation/performance equation. While managers cannot actually motivate their employees – people have to motivate themselves - they do have a huge influence over the conditions that will determine whether or not employees will be able to do so.

This cannot be overstated. To see how true this is, compare the list of Satisfiers with the list of Hygiene Factors (Dissatisfiers) to determine which ones managers have some control over. While they do not have any control over the job itself (mechanics are mechanics, police officers are police officers, etc.) or any other items on the dissatisfer list. In comparison, they have some control or influence over ALL the items on the list of satisfiers. For examples:

Satisfiers

Achievement: Managers can help employees do well and achieve successful results by coaching, providing appropriate assignments, training, giving good feedback, being available to help, etc. The extent to which they do this is almost 100% within their control.

Recognition of achievement: Recognition for doing a good job is 100% within the manger’s control. Managers also have input for financial rewards to the extent that the company’s appraisal system allows for such incentives.

Responsibility: Depending on the type of job, there may be a great deal of scope for the manager to give an individual more responsibility and control over the work.

Advancement and/or possibility for growth: Managers can help develop employees and show them how to advance and/or grow in the organization as well as influence whether or not that happens.

Hygiene Factors (DISsatisfiers)

In large organizations in particular, hygiene factors are determined at the corporate level. Individual managers neither set nor have much (if any) input into any of the items on the list:

• Salary/benefits

• Job security.Effect of work on personal life (e.g. shift work, travel, hours, stress). Interpersonal relations with peers, subordinates, bosses

• Physical working conditions 

• Corporate policy and administration

The previous explanation means that:

• If the employee perceives a Hygiene Factor as negative - and it results in him or her becoming dissatisfied enough to begin to be demotivated, then there is little that an individual manager can can do about it.

• If the employee’s source of dissatisfaction and any subsequent demotivation comes from a LACK of satisfiers, then an individual manager has  LOTS of options and opportunities to correct the situation.

This is actually good news because the reason most employees give as the biggest cause of their dissatisfaction is NOT on the Hygiene list.

The reason they give usually relates to “my manager” (or “management”). In other words, they don’t like the way they are managed.

Why is it good news? Because it means that managers are not helpless victims that have no control over the degree to which their employees are motivated and consequently engaged!

But what does “my manager” actually mean? When one looks into this situation more carefully it becomes obvious that much of the problem boils down to the perception that there is a lack of satisfiers. Since managers have a fair amount of control over whether employees have positive or negative experiences with satisfiers, it makes sense that the two are inextricably linked. So, even though many employees don’t necessarily make the connection in a conscious way, it makes perfect sense that when they do not have positive satisfiers they become dissatisfied and end up blaming their manager. It is for this reason that managers have a much bigger influence over employee self-esteem (and ultimately how motivated they will be) than they may previously have realized.

Motivation … is the product of the interaction between [a manager] and an individual staff member. Peter Drucker.

Does Money Motivate?

You have probably heard the expression “money doesn’t motivate”.

This statement has been widely misunderstood to mean that  people  cannot  be  motivated  by  money  under  any circumstances. This is not what it means. What it actually means is that simply having a salary does not motivate.

For example, a person can be motivated to:

·  Get a job to secure a salary.

·  Work hard enough to keep a job so not to lose a salary.

·  Work harder in the hopes of getting a big bonus.

However, once attained, the salary or bonus becomes a given. It is, in Maslow’s words, a “satisfied need”. For example, do you work any harder the day before or after you get an annual pay raise? What about before and after a bonus? Probably not. The money is important but it does not drive you to go the extra mile every day when you get to work.

This  does  not  mean  that  employees  don’t  appreciate financial rewards. Of course they do. The caveat though is that while the person receiving them welcomes financial rewards,  money  will  only  serve  as  a  motivator  when combined  with  satisfiers  (achievement,  recognition  and appreciation, responsibility, autonomy, personal growth, etc.).  Money  alone  cannot  make  up  for  the  lack  of satisfiers nor serve as a replacement for them.

This quote, from someone who had the secure job and the good salary but, obviously, not those important things that would have enabled him to be fully engaged, illustrates this convincingly.

“For 25 years you have had my hands, when you could have had my head as well, for nothing.” Retired Auto Worker.

For example, just because your boss earns more than you do, does not mean that he or she is more satisfied than you are, or that your boss’s boss (who earns more still) is even happier than that? They might be or they might not be.

• Are you happier than your employees are because you earn more money than they do?

• Are you happier now that you earn more money than you did five or 10 years ago?

• Are you happier, more productive, and more engaged today because you got a bonus or a raise last year?

• Are motivated and giving your all simply because you hope  you  might  get  another  one  next  year  if  the company meets its targets?

While most people would agree that an increased salary is certainly  desired  (and  is   “enough”),  it  is  not  the differential in money alone that makes the difference in how happy and satisfied you are in your job.

Conclusion: Give monetary rewards when you can and if deserved (you don’t have much control over this anyway), but don’t rely on or even expect a decent salary, routine raise, or a standard bonus to be enough to motivate your employees to perform at superior levels.

Practical Application: The Link to Performance Related Feedback

Most management gurus and the iconic management books agree on the kinds of things that employees need in order to become engaged. For example, the authors of the bestselling book First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently list the following factors:

Note that a full eight of these 12 items (those in blue and italics) require that managers “talk” to employees about performance and potential. This is because the authors believe that one of the things that the few great managers do differently is help their employees reach their full potential by assisting them to find their right “fit” in the organization.

So, the answer to the question, “How do I motivate my employees?” is fairly simple ..

Talk to your employees about their performance with the goal of helping them to do their best and therefore succeed in the job. Then recognize that performance. Combine this with helping them to find their right fit in the organization so that they can reach their potential.

While the answer is simple, its execution is not. Unfortunately, it is this basic inability of vast majority of managers to give sit down and talk to employees honestly and effectively about their performance, behaviour, and potential that prevents them from following such advice.

Without this basic ability to provide powerful feedback (what to keep doing, start doing, stop doing, or do differently) in a way that employees will accept, take to heart, and thank them for, they are quite simply handicapped and the whole process is stopped before it even starts. This is where PAF feedback can make such a difference.