Revisiting Employee Motivation … and the Power of a Single Word

Part of the challenge of managing people is learning how to motivate them.

In a previous post, we asked, “Is Employee Motivation Increasingly Beyond Our Control?,” citing research that claims employees are less motivated by traditional extrinsic rewards (raises, bonuses, promotions, etc.) and increasingly motivated by intrinsic rewards (an internal sense of achievement and satisfaction) that can’t be handed out by employers.

The good news is that motivating employees to greater levels of achievement is definitely not beyond our control, and both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards can be powerful motivational tools. But it’s important to remember that motivation isn’t driven by “rewards” alone.

A recent post on the Harvard Business Review blog site tells us that “Managers Can Motivate Employees with One Word.” That word is … together.

The post’s author, Heidi Grant Halvorson, quotes new findings from researchers at Stanford University who brought people together in small groups, then separated them to work alone on challenging puzzles. But the researchers also did something quite fascinating: they told a portion of these individuals that they would be working on their puzzles together, despite being in different rooms. These people were also told they would receive a tip at some point from a team member to help them solve their puzzle. The researchers categorized these individuals as “psychologically together.”

For the other portion of individuals in this study—the ones who made up the “psychologically alone” category—researchers made no mention of the word “together,” and these people were told that a researcher would provide them with a helpful tip at some point. As Halvorson notes, “All the participants were in fact working alone on the puzzles. The only real difference was the feeling that being told they were working ‘together’ might create.”

And what a difference it was. Halvorson reports that “participants in the psychologically together category worked 48% longer, solved more problems correctly, and had better recall for what they had seen. They also said that they felt less tired and depleted by the task. They also reported finding the puzzle more interesting when working together.” The word “together” signals to employees that they’re connected to others they can trust and who are working with them toward the same goal.

Halvorson goes on to urge managers “to make use of this word with far greater frequency … Let ‘together’ be a constant reminder to your employees that they are not alone, helping them to motivate them to perform their very best.”

Let’s be clear: Halvorson isn’t advocating that managers use the word “together” as a ruse or a way of tricking employees into feeling a sense of connectedness that doesn’t exist. This cannot be a hollow gesture. Managers must actually be team builders, nurturing work environments that promote collaboration and teamwork. They must also model the right behaviors. Only within such an environment can the word “together” have real impact.

For managers looking to enhance their teams and work environments, a recent Fortune article offers some real-world inspiration. In “Five Secrets To Building Killer Teams,” seasoned leaders offer personal insights into how they’ve tackled the challenge. They recommend actions such as “Throw out the hierarchy,” “Be forthright,” and “Seek out non-traditional diversity.”

The word “together” can make a big difference when it comes to motivating our people. But we have to earn the right to use it. Once we do, we should follow Halvorson’s advice and use it often.

The Importance of Discretionary Effort—and How To Inspire It

We sparked some interesting conversation when we mentioned Aubrey Daniels in a recent post about the need for more frequent performance reviews.

You might recall that Daniels was among the first individuals to champion the notion of applying behavioral science to the workplace. As a result, he’s widely known as “the father of performance management.” In discussing our post, some people told us that they’re fans of Daniels’ work. Others said that, while important, his ideas focus too heavily on performance optimization and the bottom line—i.e., wringing the maximum amount of hours and effort out of every single employee.

To be fair, that’s not really true.

It is a fact that Daniels’ company focuses on enabling organizations to capture “discretionary effort” from employees. (Discretionary effort is that which goes above and beyond the minimum level required to a job.) But Daniels’ company doesn’t advise clients to extract greater effort at all costs. In fact, its approach to performance management advocates that employers manage their people with sensitivity and manage performance based on behavioral measurement and analysis, ongoing performance feedback to employees, and positive rewards.

Obviously, Daniels’ behavior analysis-focused approach to performance management will not work for or appeal to every organization. No approach does. In fact, Reviewsnap doesn’t agree with every precept or opinion Daniels and his company espouse. But we do agree with the basic concept that the true heart of great performance management is frequent and ongoing measurement, feedback and positive reinforcement. And we firmly believe that performance reviews can be the vehicle that supports and helps to deliver all of these elements—as long as reviews are conducted properly. We also believe that proper performance reviews are instrumental in capturing discretionary effort.

For those who want a fresh look at Daniels’ approach to performance management, check out an interesting post that appeared in Aubrey’s Blog in July, “Overworked? Could Reducing Workloads be the Key to Improved Results?”

At one point, the post states: “… oftentimes we find that people confuse discretionary effort with increasing the volume of work. Discretionary effort is about outcomes, not hours worked. It is about achieving business results through fluency in critical behaviors. It is about identifying and reducing the behaviors that don’t have business impact and focusing on the behaviors that do.”

Performance management isn’t about squeezing more and more from your employees. It’s about placing them in the right roles, aligning them closely to the company’s goals and mission, and giving them the direction and support they need to reach their full potential. That’s how we get sustained discretionary effort from our people.

One more note on this topic …

In his post, “What Exactly Is Discretionary Effort?”, consultant and speaker, Jason Lauritsen, points out that most of us assume discretionary effort and employee engagement are closely intertwined. After all, an unengaged employee isn’t going to be dishing out a lot of discretionary effort, right? However, Lauritsen suggests, “discretionary effort is less a matter of engagement than it is of performance.” He also calls into question management’s expectations where engagement and discretionary effort are concerned. Bottom line, Lauritsen believes the time has come to redefine our terms.

It’s intriguing stuff. Then again, isn’t everything in the world of performance management?

Phoning In Your Performance Reviews? Here’s How To Add Real Meaning

You’ve heard of actors “phoning in” a performance—just going through the motions without making much of an effort. The result is usually pretty dismal: a performance that lacks meaning or merit.

Well, performance reviews are no different. In the business world, when managers and employees simply go through the motions of a review, it usually produces pretty dismal results.

If your organization’s reviews have become a fairly meaningless exercise, you might want to take a gander at an article that Forbes published last year titled, “How To Make Performance Reviews Relevant.” Written by certified career coach, business consultant and former Fortune 500 executive, Lisa Quast, the article shares seven tips to make performance reviews more meaningful to you and your employees.

One of Quast’s tips practically leaps off the screen as an essential piece of sound advice: Don’t close the review until you’re both on the same page.

Quast notes that she treats performance reviews as though they’re sales calls, working to gain agreement during each step of the discussion. She writes: “My goal during a performance review is to make sure I have a complete understanding about the employees’ performance, their achievements and failures/pitfalls, their next year’s goals and objectives, and their development plan. By focusing on gaining agreement during each aspect of the review, it helps me ensure that they hear my point of view, that I hear their point of view, and that we reach a mutual understanding on our shared view of their working world and future.”

Two concepts are crucial to Quast’s approach: 1) Her reviews are two-way discussions in which both parties speak and listen carefully. 2) Her reviews require both parties to come to the table prepared—i.e., ready to speak intelligently about performance successes, failures, stumbling blocks, goals and objectives for the future, etc.

By using the approach Quast advocates, your managers and employees are far less likely to “phone in” their reviews. In fact, her approach practically requires your employees to conduct meaningful self reviews, which can add immense value to your review process.

Another great piece of advice for ramping up the meaning and value of your reviews comes from Sharlyn Lauby, president of ITM Group and author of HR Bartender, in the article, “Bad Vibes? Bring Out the Best in Your Negative Co-Workers.”

Asked to share tips on how managers can work with staffers who have a tendency to be negative, Lauby’s response also applies perfectly to negative performance appraisals. Her advice: don’t make it personal. Focus instead on their specific negative behaviors—not their negative personalities. “One of the quickest ways to get someone angry with you is to tell them they have a negative attitude,” Lauby says. “Identify the behaviors that are causing challenges and then coach the employee.”

Clearly, these are just a few strategies to ensure that your managers and employees don’t phone in their performance reviews. And if the goal of your reviews is to drive targeted, results-oriented performance (which it should be), then don’t hang up on them before you give them a try.

~

Suggested Reading:  For more on implementing meaningful performance reviews, please enjoy this TalentCulture article: At The Crossroads: Where Instinct & Analytics Meet

Recognizing the Difficult Dual Role Managers Play—Coach and Mentor

“All leaders do some coaching. If nothing else, they offer input through performance reviews. But providing feedback once a year just doesn’t cut it. Quarterly formal evaluations work better, but you’ll have greater success with even more frequent feedback, assessment, and mentoring." -- Laura Stack, “The 7 Keys to Great Coaching – and Boosting Employee Productivity;” 6/6/14; TLNT.com.

We agree wholeheartedly, Ms. Stack! Frequent reviews, feedback, assessments and mentoring are all essential to good performance management and boosting employee productivity.

Interestingly, Stack offers ideas on both coaching and mentoring in her astute article but never directly addresses the difference between the two. So … what is the difference? Just Google the phrase “the difference between coaching and mentoring” and you’ll be treated to a dizzying spectrum of opinions, some varying widely and some only by degrees. Generally speaking, though, coaching is concerned with an individual’s performance while mentoring is focused more on a person’s development.

In today’s organizations, a variety of individuals may serve as coaches and mentors to an employee but these individuals typically play just one role—either coach or mentor. Only an employee’s direct manager is expected to play both roles, helping the employee to perform well (coaching) while also helping to nurture her/his development (mentoring). This is one of the demands that make being a good manager so challenging.

The difficulty of playing this dual role can become a little overwhelming at times. In an effort to provide adequate guidance and support, managers sometimes go too far and slip into micromanagement mode. It’s a “classic workplace dilemma that can be difficult to navigate,” as Marcus Erb writes in his recent Entrepreneur article, “How to Stop Micromanaging Your Team.” For managers facing this dilemma, Erb serves up five strategies to overcome it that are well worth considering.

When you think about it, micromanagement is the antithesis of good coaching and mentoring. What’s more, it doesn’t help anyone—not employees and certainly not the managers perpetrating it. Micromanagement actually erodes employees’ self-confidence, motivation and productivity. It also stifles innovation and creativity, two qualities that are proven to drive the success of high-performance organizations. In addition, micromanagement robs leaders of precious time and energy they could be spending on more strategic matters.

Yes, employees want to be managed, coached and mentored. Yes, they want clear direction at the outset of the projects and roles they take on. And yes, they also want a bit of guidance at ongoing intervals to help them stay on course and engaged in their work.

But providing this delicate mix of direction and supervision is no easy feat, not even for seasoned leaders. That’s why coaching and mentoring shouldn’t be reserved for employees alone. Given the difficult dual role managers play, they must be coached and mentored as much as anyone.