While
reading through a CIPD article, I came across a striking heading “the
surprising truth about what motivates us and the puzzle with motivation” by An
American writer Daniel Pink. He has written a whole lot on motivation as I came
to find out later. I had never really been an advocate of the “if-then” or
contingency rewards/punishments thing.
Hence, my interest grew to read on and here’s what I found; “human beings are not as endlessly manipulable and
predictable as you would think”!
reading through a CIPD article, I came across a striking heading “the
surprising truth about what motivates us and the puzzle with motivation” by An
American writer Daniel Pink. He has written a whole lot on motivation as I came
to find out later. I had never really been an advocate of the “if-then” or
contingency rewards/punishments thing.
Hence, my interest grew to read on and here’s what I found; “human beings are not as endlessly manipulable and
predictable as you would think”!
Did you
just say ‘I have heard that before’? Here’s another shocker, the traditional
belief that motivation drive lies in rewards and punishment has been called to
question. Again, the carrot and stick model has failed or made lighter; has
flaws and does not work all the time. This simply means you don’t always get
more of the behaviours you reward or less of those you punish. Why? It’s either we are employing management by
compliance (MBC) or management by engagement (MBE) which is a “truth science knows but managers don’t”
(Daniel Pink).
just say ‘I have heard that before’? Here’s another shocker, the traditional
belief that motivation drive lies in rewards and punishment has been called to
question. Again, the carrot and stick model has failed or made lighter; has
flaws and does not work all the time. This simply means you don’t always get
more of the behaviours you reward or less of those you punish. Why? It’s either we are employing management by
compliance (MBC) or management by engagement (MBE) which is a “truth science knows but managers don’t”
(Daniel Pink).
What
managers know is likened to Frederick Taylor’s 20th century theory of motivation. The theory held on the grounds
that employees engage in simple uninteresting, routine and unchallenging tasks
and in highly controlled environments and the only way to get them to improve
performance was to incentivize them properly through money and monitor them
closely (MBC). Daniel Pink found that these tasks characterized above require
ONLY mechanical skills and
perfectly achieves the ‘if-then’ model where the carrot and stick approach
works flawlessly. Consequently, managers get more of the behaviours they reward
and less of those they punish; simple, logical and justified. Put differently,
higher pay=better performance and lower pay=poor performance.
managers know is likened to Frederick Taylor’s 20th century theory of motivation. The theory held on the grounds
that employees engage in simple uninteresting, routine and unchallenging tasks
and in highly controlled environments and the only way to get them to improve
performance was to incentivize them properly through money and monitor them
closely (MBC). Daniel Pink found that these tasks characterized above require
ONLY mechanical skills and
perfectly achieves the ‘if-then’ model where the carrot and stick approach
works flawlessly. Consequently, managers get more of the behaviours they reward
and less of those they punish; simple, logical and justified. Put differently,
higher pay=better performance and lower pay=poor performance.
Now, here’s
what managers don’t know. When the task requires the least or minimum cognitive skill as Daniel Pink found
out, strange things happen! The if-then model fails and reveals the flaws in
the carrot and stick approach. He arrived at this conclusion following the
findings in the Federal Reserve Bank sponsored research where participants both
in America and India performed poorly as the reward amount progressed. He
claimed that the sophisticated and challenging nature of 21st century jobs alongside the emergence of
dynamic businesses and technologies accounted for this ‘anomaly in behavioural
physics’. Strange? The closest explanation is money, right? Yes and No!
Money is a motivator but Daniel believes that the best use of money as a
motivator is to pay people well enough to keep the issue of money off the table
so that employee focus would move from money to work. On the other hand, a
surprising truth about what motivates us according
to Pink is found in three interesting factors that can lead to better
performance and even personal satisfaction; Autonomy, mastery and purpose
(AMP).
what managers don’t know. When the task requires the least or minimum cognitive skill as Daniel Pink found
out, strange things happen! The if-then model fails and reveals the flaws in
the carrot and stick approach. He arrived at this conclusion following the
findings in the Federal Reserve Bank sponsored research where participants both
in America and India performed poorly as the reward amount progressed. He
claimed that the sophisticated and challenging nature of 21st century jobs alongside the emergence of
dynamic businesses and technologies accounted for this ‘anomaly in behavioural
physics’. Strange? The closest explanation is money, right? Yes and No!
Money is a motivator but Daniel believes that the best use of money as a
motivator is to pay people well enough to keep the issue of money off the table
so that employee focus would move from money to work. On the other hand, a
surprising truth about what motivates us according
to Pink is found in three interesting factors that can lead to better
performance and even personal satisfaction; Autonomy, mastery and purpose
(AMP).
Autonomy:
Human
beings naturally want to resist authority and embrace self-direction. Likewise,
employees want to do jobs at their own time, with self-designed techniques, choose
their desired team members and work at their own kind of tasks. That’s what Daniel Pink calls Autonomy. However, most
organizations are highly controlled and support the traditional notion of
managing people which aligns with management by compliance but higher
performance is better achieved through management by engagement.
beings naturally want to resist authority and embrace self-direction. Likewise,
employees want to do jobs at their own time, with self-designed techniques, choose
their desired team members and work at their own kind of tasks. That’s what Daniel Pink calls Autonomy. However, most
organizations are highly controlled and support the traditional notion of
managing people which aligns with management by compliance but higher
performance is better achieved through management by engagement.
Mastery:
The more
you engage in a task, the better you get at it, that’s mastery. This scenario
is possible when tasks are neither above nor below employees’ capabilities. The former leads to anxiety while the latter leads to
boredom. Secondly, mastery is
practicable when autonomy, clear goals with immediate feedback and achievable
tasks exist. Therefore, employees will work their best during and even
off work hours on tasks they enjoy having developed mastery in them.
you engage in a task, the better you get at it, that’s mastery. This scenario
is possible when tasks are neither above nor below employees’ capabilities. The former leads to anxiety while the latter leads to
boredom. Secondly, mastery is
practicable when autonomy, clear goals with immediate feedback and achievable
tasks exist. Therefore, employees will work their best during and even
off work hours on tasks they enjoy having developed mastery in them.
Purpose:
The
question is; do organizations communicate equal emphasis on profit as well as
purpose maximization? Daniel Pink says that when profit is unhitched from
purpose, bad things happen. Things like bad and lame service, crappy products
and uninspiring place to work. It is important the employee focus is in line
organization’s objectives to achieve better work place motivation towards
better performance.
question is; do organizations communicate equal emphasis on profit as well as
purpose maximization? Daniel Pink says that when profit is unhitched from
purpose, bad things happen. Things like bad and lame service, crappy products
and uninspiring place to work. It is important the employee focus is in line
organization’s objectives to achieve better work place motivation towards
better performance.
Summarily,
as most organizations are likely to be either highly controlled or flexible and
sophisticated or even both and employees are not as predictable and manipulable
as expected, the carrot and stick approach may not work all the time. Therefore
management by engagement (MBE) would be a better tool in the hands of managers
to incentivize employees to higher performance and personal satisfaction rather
than management by compliance (MBC).
as most organizations are likely to be either highly controlled or flexible and
sophisticated or even both and employees are not as predictable and manipulable
as expected, the carrot and stick approach may not work all the time. Therefore
management by engagement (MBE) would be a better tool in the hands of managers
to incentivize employees to higher performance and personal satisfaction rather
than management by compliance (MBC).
By Chinyere Agwuocha
Sources and direct quotes:
