Motivation Tips for the New Manager

In a previous essay I stated that considering how much scholarly attention has been paid to the subject of leadership, its theoretical basis is messy. By that I mean that any good theory should have predictive value, in the sense that application of the theory should predict the future with some accuracy. Leadership theories don't do that very well. If you exercise any of the popular theories of leadership, there is no guarantee that anyone will follow you out a burning building even if you were standing in the front doorway. Maybe that's why the bookstores are so full of books on leadership written by anyone with a strong opinion, each a case study of a population of one. Your case is equally valid and to some extent, different.

In ironic contrast, there are more good theories of motivation than you can count on one hand (but not all ten fingers, and no toes.) We understand how motivation works pretty darn well, and I urge you to read-up on the subject. Here, I offer just a few words for the relatively novice manager, the target audience of this series of essays.

The title of this essay is intentionally provocative, as I tend to be in the classroom. The title alludes to one of the oldest, most commonly known, and most misunderstood theories of management, leadership, and motivation. It's called "Theory X." You may have heard of it. Theory X states that in general, people are not good workers, they loaf and procrastinate, they prefer to eschew responsibility, they really can't be trusted with sharp objects, and so forth. Theory Y states that in general, workers are just the opposite.

That common understanding makes me want to pull my own teeth out, because it is not what Theory X says at all. The "X" here, the unit of analysis, is the manager, not the worker. X managers believe negative things about workers, while Y managers believe positive things about workers. As managers believe, so go their attitudes which they can not hide from their workers, and workers fulfill managers' beliefs and attitudes in kind. If you treat people like children they will act like children, and if you treat people like adults they will act like adults. Obviously there are exceptions.

What interests me about exceptions, is how often people use exceptions to a rule as examples of that rule - in my mind, this is a basic illogic that gives rise to all sorts of bigotry, but here I'm focusing on a common management bigotry about the average worker. So if you think you can't motivate your people - you are probably right but it's partly your fault, boss.

That said, a raging debate in theories of motivation has always focused on the locus of motivation. Is motivation an intrinsic phenomenon, already within people and dieing to come out, or is it created externally in our environments? In management terms, is it possible to motivate someone else, or is it only possible to understand what already motivates people and then use those motives wisely and to good ends? I'll illustrate.

There are a few theories that are referred to as "needs theories." They say, in different ways, that people have internal needs and that the drive to fulfill needs is what motivates people. There are basic needs like the need for food, shelter, and safety (the things that paychecks can buy,) and more advanced needs like the need for human interaction, personal fulfillment, and spiritual growth (the things paychecks can't buy.) The implication is that managers should understand behaviors in terms of the drive to fulfill needs, and align organizational goals with personal goals so that they are the same.

Other theories, most notably "reinforcement theory," state that people simply respond to the things in their environment that are either rewarding or punitive (related terms are positive and negative reinforcement, but the terms are not synonymous.) People respond to external factors like lab animals, and the famous illustration is Pavlov's dogs. Pavlov was a Russian researcher from 'way back that discovered that when chow time in the kennel was coincident with the ringing of a bell, before long dogs would salivate at only the sound of the bell. Hey, at least comparing people to salivating dogs is nicer than comparing them to lab rats running mazes in search of cheese. Anyway every stupid pet trick makes use of reinforcement theory and it is a powerful tool in the management of all animals, including your workers - but what a "Theory X" thing to say!

So if forced to choose, I would side with the "needs" theorists. Even salivating dogs and lab rats are responding to the need to satisfy hunger or some basic internal instinct. The moral, again, is that if you think you can't motivate your people, you are right. Your people are intelligent and they aware of their needs as far as it's your business. Oh sure, some people who are always crying for more money don't understand that money can't buy the fulfillment that comes with the accomplishment of a socially constructive job well done. In fact that realization comes to many of us after we are well into our careers. But maybe that worker who seems so motivated by money has a family member with astronomically expensive health problems. Maybe that person has student loans to pay before getting married and having children. Maybe that person has a gambling problem. Do you even care, as far as it is your business as the person's manager?

I will conclude this brief essay on motivation with one personal conviction that is a natural extension of that last sentence. The concern for how well your people are motivated has nothing to do, in principal, with whether or not they are happy. Your workers are adults and professionals who are fully responsible for their own happiness. You can't even "make" your own children happy, right? Contrary to popular myth, thousands of studies have failed to demonstrate an enduring, strong, positive correlation between job satisfaction and productivity. The "contented cows give more milk" theory of motivation misses the point.

Your job, as manager, is to understand what already drives your workers, and to harmonize the consequent workplace behaviors with organizational goals. Harmony, but not "touchy-feely" harmony and certainly not happiness, is the point.