Your people don’t need motivation
I get it, working in a buzzing, motivated environment is amazing. And even the agile manifesto says so: “Build projects around motivated individuals.”
Is that why so many organisations appeal to their people: “Bring some motivation?” and do workshops that aim at increasing “intrinsic” motivation? What a contradiction in itself. Why do such appeals and noble wishes fade into nothingness?
Everything starts with your understanding of human beings and the general conditions found in the environment of your organization.
I like to live and lead by the assumption that people do not need motivation. They are motivated and it is one of the main jobs of organizations to make sure it stays that way. Because that puts an organization in a place it needs to be: To create value, a lot of it.
Often companies use proclaimed visions to display what this value is created for. How the world is supposed to look in the case of success. A noble cause.
Tribal Leadership describes as a noble cause something that is so big, that a single person cannot do it alone, no matter how many people are offering technical support. It requires people’s best efforts and passions.
It should generate such enthusiasm within a group that even if unsuccessful, the noble objective would still be considered worthwhile. A noble cause is not just an absolute necessity to reach stage 4, it is very important that it is not used as a slogan or resorted to gimmickry.
One very important aspect here is, that contradicting a noble cause can result in severe damage. It would take those motivated, team-working individuals and drop them down to passive passengers, or as Tribal Leadership puts it:
It would not just shatter the beliefs of a stage 4 tribe, but also introduce the possibility of the people, dropping down to stage 2. In general, contradicting the important parts of a stage has people drop stages.
A quick reminder: Stage 4 is the stage where a group of people is out to change the world in tight collaboration, while stage 2 is where people do the absolute minimum, just to get by. Headline, disconnected and disengaged. That is not where we want to be. As we always envision those inspiring, and exciting atmospheres where we chase goals, together, right?
Does Psychological safety play a role?
Psychological safety refers to a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, or concerns. So pretty much aligned on how we imagine agile environments to feel.
This concept was first introduced by Harvard Business School Professor Amy Edmondson in her 1999 paper “Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams”, where she defines it as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.” Edmondson argues that psychological safety is a crucial ingredient for a team’s learning and performance, as it allows team members to express their thoughts and ideas without fear of negative consequences, which leads to improved decision-making, increased creativity and innovation.
Psychological safety has also been linked to better team outcomes such as higher productivity, creativity, and job satisfaction. It also leads to more open communication, better problem-solving, and less turnover. A lack of psychological safety, on the other hand, can lead to a lack of creativity and innovation, a lack of progress towards achieving the group’s goals, and high levels of turnover.
A culture of psychological safety is necessary for individuals within a group to feel comfortable expressing their ideas and concerns, which is a condition to achieve high performance. Being on the front- or backstage of a company's structure.
In the absence of psychological safety, individuals may be less likely to speak up, share their ideas, or take risks. This can lead to a lack of creativity and innovation within the group, as well as a lack of progress towards achieving the group’s goals.
That means, that the absence of psychological safety can lead to a lack of trust and collaboration among team members. It can also lead to a fear of failure, which can negatively impact motivation and morale.
Moreover, if there is no culture of psychological safety fostered, then the team members may not feel comfortable bringing up issues or concerns, which can lead to the problems festering and potentially escalating. This can further erode trust and collaboration among team members, and ultimately impede the team’s ability to perform at a high level.
All just a smoke screen?
So what is that call for “people need to be more motivated” really about? From whom is it coming? And why?
I suspect several situations, but rarely, that are coming from within the “demotivated” crowd. It happens when output seems low and someone wants to intervene. It also happens when managers don’t feel the spark or get the responses they wish for.
It even seems like something that needs to happen. Like a ritual. A pattern of behaviour: “As a manager, I have to have a motivated crowd so I can be the one who organized maximum output.” Something along that way?
When people find themselves in a situation where they either cannot get behind the goals or visions of a company and have to do work they feel is not helping anyone. So work-life feels dreadful and annoying.
Or when people who are capable of managing all sorts of situations to a successful outcome find themselves in a position where they are told what to do with little to none autonomy.
So is it really about motivation?
I doubt it is really about motivation. But what I can tell for sure, it is not about providing people with motivation, it is about finding a place in a system where they can stay motivated because they can have an impact towards that noble cause or shared goal.
That, on the other hand serves the business, yes. Because that is what it is all about. Organizations exist to be successful, not to provide purpose to people looking for motivation.
Assumptions
What if we’d use that image of a human being, that those are motivated by default. And that an organization in order to be successful has the job to do “just” a couple of things.
Start to have a look at human beings not just as a means to success, but that those are the reason that business can exist in the first place. Look at human beings not as them being flawed and you need to improve them, but as mature people that can act responsibly.
I do not see how a company could be successful if horizontal collaboration is not possible as well as self-responsible work. Because I believe that is where human beings can draw some purpose from. Not only by the goal an organization is trying to achieve, but also have people that want to find their way on how to get there. That must resonate a bit with you if you have read Daniel Pink’s — Drive.
Doing something that has a purpose, in the way it is done, for whom it is done and why it is done. That’s what keeps people motivated, not the next motivational workshop. Build a structure in your company that can achieve that, and a culture of motivated individuals will eliminate the need for motivational workshops.
