Motivate Your Team Members (a "How To")

When you think of your team members, do you think of them as eager to work more hours and initiate more responsibilities? Across the board, it seems to be a fair shake out: Some individuals are intrinsically motivated, and others pose a distinct challenge to their manager, resisting to get the bare minimum accomplished. The good news? There are solutions to help motivate your team members.

For many business owners and team leads alike, motivation is believed to stem from “what you get.” The extrinsic incentives — a term linked to Frederick Herzberg’s research on motivation. But here’s the thing about the research, it tells us that motivation does not come from those external incentives such as office perks. It’s not the company game room, the nap pods, the work-funded drinking extravaganzas, or even the promotions (which are all starting to return in the normal course). Instead, these are short-term fixes and there’s an expiration date associated with each. The dangling carrot of promotion is enough to keep someone motivated to reach that achievement, and yet it’s shown that as soon as the promotion is achieved, the motivation doesn’t last. Herzberg very pointedly directs organizations that they have limited power in motivating employees. (Um, yikes?)

Not to worry, the point in exposing the minimal purpose of extrinsic motivation is to demonstrate the necessity of the intrinsic rewards that unlock the vault of motivation (what makes our motor tick). It’s about allowing each person to turn their own keys in the ignition, not constantly trying to start it for them.

Let’s break it down so you can take the most useful tidbits along for the workday (otherwise, read Herzberg’s One More Time for full research).

Create a more enriching environment (leading to motivated employees) by employing the following:

• Accountability

  • Remove your need to control and make individuals accountable for their work. Not sure if you are controlling (e.g., a micromanager)? Ask for feedback.

• Responsibility

  • Rather than giving individuals responsibilities for one part of a task, give them ownership of the entire work stream or unit. Don’t fix it for them, and surely do not take credit for a team member’s work.

• Information flow

  • We like to filter information: Remove this extra step and include your team members in discussions. When trust increases, unhelpful water cooler discourse decreases.

• Challenge

  • Allow (and encourage) your team to take on new projects and responsibilities they haven’t addressed before.

• SME

  • Subject matter experts are essential in teams. Not only does this stem from added responsibility and accountability, but it also stems from the trust that this person owns the knowledge for a certain topic. Assigning individuals specializations is useful for their careers and for the teams of which they’re a part.

In short, this is a management worldview for motivation that says, “Empower, don’t control – Educate, don’t tell.”

Not only is this comprehensive, but it’s also reasonable. Of the listed suggestions, what can you immediately change for your team?

Recruitment & Leadership Pairing: An Approach for Employee Retention

I recently conversed with the owners of Exploration People, Melinda Williams and Jennifer Gould. Their expertise in placing talent within the eCommerce vertical enabled our paths to cross quite naturally. Upon reflection of our conversation and the undeniable necessity of strong talent acquisition, it got me thinking: How do recruitment professionals and leadership consultants work together to help companies create an ideal workforce?

Management consulting and recruitment specialists are mutually exclusive; yet, we are in the business of people. These functions are more closely linked than what first meets the eye.

Both work streams are responsible for technical capability; where I am responsible in assessing leadership theory appropriately and using my rolodex of knowledge to prescribe the issue and, with it, implement programming to improve situations, recruiters are responsible for thoroughly understanding the scope of the position as well as the mechanical skill-sets the candidate must possess. Just as the technical components are essential, so too are the relationships that are built along the way. The ability to understand people – truly comprehend motivations, limitations, potential, and possible blind spots – is really where our work comes in.  As I said, we are in the business of people.

We sat down to discuss. I wanted to learn why candidates – from the lens of recruiters who have dedicated time to proper vetting – stay with companies. The results are unsurprising, and business owners will be served well to take note.

Value

Value is identified as one of the three components that must be taken into account for a retention strategy. Jennifer and Melinda are frequently asked by candidates how the companies for which they are interviewing value their people.

Value comes in different forms – from salary to other rewards, and of course, recognition. While wage needs to be commensurate with industry standards, I have found it’s often not about the salary alone. It’s about the culture within the company.

Take this example: person one (1) works for company ABC and earns 20% more than another person, person two (2), who works for DEF. Person 1 is never thanked, seldom recognized, and morale is low. Person 2, while earning less, is regularly recognized by their boss for a job well-done, is trusted to accomplish the work, and is appreciated for who they are and how they contribute to the company. Unsurprisingly, they are more motivated to come into work, and the 20% difference in pay is a moot point.

Companies need to be able to answer these questions in the interview process:

1. How is change handled and communicated?

2. What is the corporate culture? Not the marketing words associated with mission and vision, but what are the actual values of the people within?

3. What type of recognition and rewards can be expected?

Growth

In my climate assessments, a key piece of feedback received is about upward mobility. What is the path to further achievement and what potential is there for growth? Without these discussions being held regularly, professional paths are ambiguous. This leaves employees feeling bored or “stuck” and limits longevity.

Companies may have grand plans for an employee, but if they aren’t discussed, documented, and action-oriented, the employee may leave never knowing there was the positive intent.

Regular reviews must be a part of the business framework; not only to discuss performance but to discuss potential and professional development. Further, feedback doesn’t always need to be scheduled. Encourage managers to speak with team members about aspirations and performance regularly. This allows corrections to be more fluid and enables plans for the future to be actualized, not just discussed.

Autonomy and Flexibility
In saving the best for last, Melinda and Jennifer find independence and flexibility to be the most common theme that is discussed with candidates. A common mistake that managers make is to keep their grip too tight. Instead of empowering employees, they think their control will produce better results. (This micromanagement can, and should, be undone!)

A common fear that candidates possess is whether or not they will be trusted to do their jobs. This goes back to the cultural framework as well as the coaching and self-awareness that is needed for managers.  If the person is a top performer but is never allowed to work from home, and this is something that adds value to their life, employees will feel mistrusted, and this leads to an absence in motivation. Giving a good employee space and flexibility to do what they were hired to do speaks volumes.

A Strategic Combination
The recruiter’s new reality? A desire to place candidates in workplaces where cultures are encouraging, dynamic, and free of toxicity. To me, these means the necessity to invest in organizational development, and personal development has never been higher. The interconnectivity between recruiters and leadership consultants, too, is an apparent fit. How I support people within organizations to become the best versions of themselves contributes to the overarching retention strategy. If we can correct fundamental issues, such as the aforementioned top three, candidates will be eager to evolve with their company. The people companies seek, and Melinda and Jennifer look diligently to uncover, will be a very worthwhile investment.

As such, the power-packed approach of engaging the right talent – Melinda and Jennifer’s part – and enabling candidates’ success through organizational change and development – my part – is undoubtedly well-aligned.

Age of the Standing Desk & the Virtual Team

As I stand here, writing this blog, I’ve realized how normalized the standing-desk phenomenon has become. I remember interning in undergrad. The back closet/office/ice box did not afford such a stylish leisure! But, now we know why standing is helpful for our health and why sitting all day is “out.”

Similarly, virtual teams did not exist prior to the geographical expansion of companies – this big booming occurrence of globalization, paired with technological advances. The digital culture isn’t going away – in fact it will only continue to rewrite office dynamics as we know them.

So. How do we get virtual teams right?

Teams comprised of individuals in varying locations continue to rise. I repeat: they aren’t going away. If you want to scale your company but think you have all the talent you need in your backyard, good luck to you. Our virtual world of laptops, wi-fi, chat tools, video, etc., allow people to work from anywhere (and be effective).

Benefit to employees?

• Flexibility.

• Global interaction with colleagues.

• Efficiency (nothing says “kill the productivity,” to me, like a shared space of noisy banter).

Benefit to companies?

• Spend more money on the talent, not the real-estate.

• Empower employees by trusting them. (Hip-hip hooray for the empowerment culture!)

Hold the phone: When we re-write the rules of workplace interaction, there will also be downsides, unquestionably. Client expectations can fail, tasks get lost in the ether, and workers feel overwhelmed by the number of communication forms. [Uh, Sally, I sent that to you… I think it was via Skype – no actually email… Hm, no, actually slack?]

Without rules of virtual engagement, expectations can slip through the cracks. We all make the joke: the hardest part of our “Gotomeeting” is getting it to work before our call begins. When people don’t show, there’s background noise, reception is poor, or you’re half-engaged, problems will arise.

However – and virtual grumps pay attention(!) – well-managed dispersed teams can actually outperform those that share office space. They can also increase productivity, according to an Aon Consulting report, by 43 percent.  

If you’re still a mis-believer in how successful a virtual team can be, I’ll help you through (but not until next week). Stay tuned.

Failure: Don't Be the Cause

People fail. Employees fail. It’s a fact of life. However…

The problem is often assumed to be that of the employees. But what if we were wrong? What if it was our fault? (Assume “our” classifies the boss or manager in this scenario.)

Spoiler: an employee’s poor performance can be blamed mainly on his or her boss.  

This syndrome has been titled “set-up-to-fail.” Jean François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux researched the topic at length. I’ll review the basics to help managers be aware of the syndrome itself and, if all seems too familiar i.e., you’re living the examples shared, I’ll provide recommendations to help you address.

The negative cycle of set-up-to-fail is just that, cyclical. Destructive behaviors from a boss fuel less favorable behaviors from the subordinate, and with each stroke the synergy between two individuals, splinter.

What happens is this:
When workers are perceived to be mediocre, they often continue to achieve those expectations. Namely, a team member (subordinate) may make an error. It could be the first, but the manager feels it’s a slippery slope if the error is not addressed. Regrettably, the way of “addressing” is to tighten the rope. The boss’ hope is to boost performance by managing closely. Instead, the scrutiny causes the employee to be insecure and he or she feels there’s a lack of trust and confidence in them.

In time, the employee doubts their performance and they lose motivation. If the manager is going to correct, critique, or minimize, it’s no wonder ownership diminishes. Sadly, this feeds into the syndrome. With absence of enthusiasm or performance, the manager sees this as proving them right. The team member is ill-equipped.

The real kicker here is this: Employees whom you’ve identified as weak performers are living down to your expectations! Let’s look at a standard flow of this self-fulfilling process.

The relationship is workable/functional. ---> Something happens that’s unfavorable (a deadline is missed or a performance was lackluster) thus you begin to micromanage. ---> The employee starts to doubt him or herself due to your (the manager’s) confidence in delivery. They begin to avoid making decisions (aren’t you going to make them, anyway?). ---> Manager views this behavior as proof of mediocracy and tighten the rope further.

The behaviors go ‘round and ‘round and worsen with each spin.

What's the cost of set-up-to-fail?

• Employees are defeated (no longer ask for help, or offer suggestions, and grow defensive).

• The organization no longer gets the most from their employee(s) who suffer from this.

• Team cohesion decreases as more effective members are asked to take on more responsibilities, and the weak are given menial tasks. Unfair separation of work causes tension. There's also discomfort watching one team member be belittled.

• The boss/manager loses energy. He or she is spending it (energy & time) in destructive ways --following the "lesser employee" around. They may even earn a harmful reputation (e.g., micromanagement, being unfair, etc.).

How do you reverse this situation?

You don’t want your team to fail. It hurts you and it hurts the company for which you work. Here are some tips to help you reverse and/or avoid the SUTF syndrome:

• Set expectations early. Recorded expectations may be my favorite proactive step in the workplace. It demonstrates transparency, ownership (for all parties), and it minimizes ambiguity. If someone doesn’t follow-through, there’s a clear record.

• Convey openness. This is a big one. If you say you’re "open to openness" – even difficult conversations – and then never set the stage for these discussions, that’s on you! Consistency, and following through, is important and helpful for building a functional working relationship.

• What are the facts? The moment you feel someone is under-performing, or they missed a deadline, review the facts. Were there expectations? If there were, did you set them to accomplish a task they weren’t qualified for? Should this change your opinion of them as a person? [This is not a feeling-based assessment. This is about challenging your perceptions with facts.]

The truth is, the difficulty of undoing full-blown SUTF syndrome can be challenging. People are more perceptive than we give them credit for. They know when they’re part of an out-group and they know when there’s no trust.

If you think you have team members who are wearing the SUTF cap, there are clear steps to take to help the two (or more) of you get back to a healthy working paradigm. If you want to make sure you’re not falling into the trap, drop me a line. We can come up with a clear and actionable plan that’s tailored to your team.