A Model for Motivating Ambitious People

 

Psychologists spend vast amounts of time developing complex models for how to motivate people. These systems sometimes involve 9 or 12 different parameters. When working with ambitious people over the years, I find that using a three-space model works best for me. It is the most accurate and has the least amount of overlap. In my experience, one or more of the following motivates most ambitious people:

Influence, fortune, and recognition describe what people seek, but you can also think of these in other terms.

• Influence = Prestige or Power
• Fortune = Compensation or Money
• Recognition = Appreciation or Fame

Using these three areas, you can build a model for the person for whom you are trying to motivate, whether it be as a manager or in a negotiation.

Currency of Exchange

A key aspect of any negotiation is determining the currency of exchange. Likewise, a key component of developing and leading ambitious people is developing an effective currency of exchange. Step 1 is identifying what motivates people, even if they themselves don’t know. Step 2 is finding a way that delivers value in the dimension that is important to them in return for the performance, motivation, energy, and followership they might deliver. What it boils down to, in order to be successful when motivating others, you must search for what is important to the other individual.

Influence

People driven by power and influence want others to follow them. Managers and leaders fall into this group. Some want to rise in the ranks as quickly as possible.

If you read NASA Program Management: Case Study in Making the Pie Bigger, you saw an example of one person who was motivated by influence. Jeff, a new NASA manager, didn’t need others to recognize that he was a good negotiator, and he wasn’t in it for the money because NASA doesn’t pay super well. He was willing to sacrifice money and fame to rise in the organization to have others work for him, increasing his power and prestige. The others in the situation received 60% of the programs, initially gaining the power they wanted, but Jeff ultimately garnered enough success that he was promoted and the others then reported to him. It was a strategic chess match that he won.

Fortune

Money drives many people. On the surface, this seems simple enough, but it’s more complicated. One person may be motivated by a bonus at the launch of a new product and another by receiving stock options, which is a tradeoff between risk and reward – the opportunity for a greater long-term gain versus immediate pay. Finding a compensation package that balances near-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for ambitious people can be challenging.

Fortune is the easiest of the three to measure. It should be noted that some people may not really care that much about wealth, but they want an easy way to see how much the company values them, something akin to receiving the highest report card grade.

I remember one situation when an employee was really motivated by money. I went to extensive efforts to explain how we were willing to break our curves for this person since he was exceptional. Later when we had formal HR and they were dealing with an issue, he basically said something to the effect: “Do you know who I am? Have seen how much the company is paying me? You need to pay me a little more respect and dig into this issue for me.” Although the person was comfortable financially, the score relative to others was incredibly important to his view of self-worth.

Recognition

During my time at NASA, recognition from peers, both inside and outside the organization, motivated most of the scientists and engineers I worked with. These people weren’t interested in upward mobility in the organization but wanted to continue developing their technical skills.

For example, when I was a young NASA manager, I knew my scientists were great, but they weren’t getting the recognition they deserved because they were unable to properly communicate their work. In an effort to correct the perception, I signed my senior scientists up for presentation classes. As you can imagine, they were not happy spending four days learning how to create PowerPoint slides and practicing how to present them. But almost immediately, they saw rewards. Within one year, they were leaders in their fields, winning prestigious awards, being invited to workshops and conferences, and reviewing others’ technical work. These events were also helpful to me when I sought more money for our department. My employees were motivated, so our performance increased, which made it easier to receive the funding we sought.

Words of Caution

A common error is when someone confuses what motivates themselves and tries to understand the motivation of others through their own lens. Avoid pushing your values onto others. If money drives you, don’t assume that everyone else has the same desire. Determine what motivates them, and create a model that makes it happen.

When mismatches occur, the opposite can happen. For example, if I tried to motivate a NASA scientist with the promise of taking on additional responsibilities that person would become unmotivated and may leave my team. They really aren’t motivated by taking on additional responsibility and find coordinating others frustrating.

Another example is trying to motivate those who desire influence with money. Personally, I have never been very motivated by money, yet I had several managers early in my career offer compensation rewards rather than putting me in a position of influence. It barely scratched my itch and left me wanting for more.

Most people don’t neatly fall into only one category, but they almost always have a predominant tendency. Once you find out what an employee needs and/or wants to stay motivated and achieve their goals, then you have the opportunity to receive a higher commitment from that employee.

https://tinyurl.com/2s3ztc52

Motivation and Improving Workplace Performance. Part 1

 

https://www.hifives.in/10-effective-ways-to-improve-the-motivation-level-of-employees/

What is Motivation?

Motivation represents the driving factor behind every worker, leader and executive. It is what links personal performance with organisational aims. Therefore it is paramount to create an environment which promotes and sustains a motivated workforce. 

The alignment of aims, purpose and values between staff, teams and organization is motivation's most fundamental aspect. The better the alignment and personal association with organizational aims, the better the platform for motivation. Where people find it difficult to align and associate with the organizational aims, then most motivational ideas and activities will have a reduced level of success.

Motivation is a complex area. It's different for each person. Nudge Theory is an example of a powerful change-management concept that emerged in the early 2000s. It is helpful in understanding, teaching, and, to a degree, managing the ways people's thinking and decisions are influenced by indirect factors, rather than by direct pressure.

Motivational receptiveness and potential in everyone changes from day to day, from situation to situation. Get the alignment and values right, and motivational methods work better. Motivational methods will not work if people and organisations are not aligned. People are motivated towards something they can relate to and believe in. Times have changed and people want more. You should view the following motivational methods and ideas as structures, and activities as building blocks, to be used when you have a solid foundation in place. The foundation is a cohesive alignment of people's needs and values with the aims and purpose of the organisation.

This set of articles will educate leaders on motivational theory, and how to engage their workforce to gain the maximum possible benefits and productivity from the team. Discussed will be motivational theories described by some of the most renowned thinkers in the fields of leadership and business, such as McGregor, Handy, McClelland, Herzberg, Adams and Humphreys, and many more. Transactional approaches, such as using bonuses, are discussed, as are more transformational methods and inclusive employee engagement.

The Puzzle of Motivation: Dan Pink

Author, presenter and career analyst Dan Pink examines the unusual puzzle of motivation, starting with a fact that social scientists know but most managers do not: traditional rewards are not as effective as most people think. He instead presents alternative solutions to motivate and improve performance.

Core Motivational Theories

McClelland's Achievement-Based Motivational Theory and Models

McClelland's Achievement-Based Motivational Theory and Models

David McClelland pioneered workplace motivational thinking, developing achievement-based motivational theory and models, and promoted improvements in employee assessment methods, advocating competency-based assessments and tests, arguing them to be better than traditional IQ and personality-based tests. 

His ideas have since been widely adopted in many organisations, and relate closely to the theory of Frederick Herzberg.

Three Types of Motivation

David McClelland is most noted for describing three types of motivational need, which he identified in his 1961 book, The Achieving Society:

1. Achievement motivation (n-ach)
2. Authority/power motivation (n-pow)
3. Affiliation motivation (n-affil)

These needs are found to varying degrees in all workers and managers, and this mix of motivational needs characterises a person's or manager's style and behaviour, both in terms of being motivated and in the management and motivation of others.

---

1. The Need for Achievement (n-ach)

• The n-ach person is 'achievement motivated' and therefore seeks achievement, attainment of realistic but challenging goals, and advancement in the job. 
• There is a strong need for feedback as to achievement and progress and a need for a sense of accomplishment.

---

2. The Need for Authority and Power (n-pow)

• The n-pow person is 'authority motivated'. This driver produces a need to be influential, effective and to make an impact. 
• There is a strong need to lead and for their ideas to prevail. 
• There is also motivation and a need towards increasing personal status and prestige.

---

3. The Need for Affiliation (n-affil)

• The n-affil person is 'affiliation motivated', has a need for friendly relationships and is motivated towards interaction with other people. 
• The affiliation driver produces motivation and needs to be liked and held in popular regard. 
• These people are team players.

---

McClelland's Three Types of Motivation Practical Application

McClelland said that most people possess and exhibit a combination of these characteristics. Some people exhibit a strong bias to a particular motivational need, and this motivational or needs 'mix' consequently affects their behaviour and working/managing style. 

1. Mcclelland suggested that a strong n-affil 'affiliation-motivation' undermines a manager's objectivity, because of their need to be liked, and that this affects a manager's decision-making capability. 
2. A strong n-pow 'authority-motivation' will produce a determined work ethic and commitment to the organisation, and while n-pow people are attracted to the leadership role, they may not possess the required flexibility and people-centred skills. 
3. McClelland argues that n-ach people with strong 'achievement motivation' make the best leaders, although there can be a tendency to demand too much of their staff in the belief that they are all similarly and highly focused and results-driven, which of course most people are not.

---

McClelland's Theory Experimental Evidence

McClelland's particular fascination was with achievement motivation, and this laboratory experiment illustrates one aspect of his theory about the effect of achievement on people's motivation.

McClelland asserted via this experiment that while most people do not possess strong achievement-based motivation, those who do, display a consistent behaviour in setting goals:

• Volunteers were asked to throw rings over pegs rather like the fairground game; no distance was stipulated, and most people seemed to throw from arbitrary, random distances, sometimes close, sometimes farther away. 
• However, a small group of volunteers, whom McClelland suggested were strongly achievement-motivated, took some care to measure and test distances to produce an ideal challenge - not too easy, and not impossible. 
• Interestingly a parallel exists in biology, known as the 'overload principle', which is commonly applied to fitness and exercising, ie., in order to develop fitness and/or strength the exercise must be sufficiently demanding to increase existing levels, but not so demanding as to cause damage or strain. McClelland identified the same need for a 'balanced challenge' in the approach of achievement-motivated people.

McClelland contrasted achievement-motivated people with gamblers and dispelled a common pre-conception that n-ach 'achievement-motivated' people are big risk-takers. On the contrary, typically, these individuals set goals which they can influence with their effort and ability, and as such, the goal is considered to be achievable. 

This determined results-driven approach is almost invariably present in the character make-up of all successful business people and entrepreneurs.

---

Characteristics and Attitudes of Achievement-Motivated People

McClelland suggested other characteristics and attitudes of achievement-motivated people:

1. Achievement is more important than material or financial reward.
2. Achieving the aim or task gives greater personal satisfaction than receiving praise or recognition.
3. Financial reward is regarded as a measurement of success, not an end in itself.
4. Security is not a prime motivator, nor is status.
5. Feedback is essential, because it enables measurement of success, not for reasons of praise or recognition (the implication here is that feedback must be reliable, quantifiable and factual).
6. They constantly seek improvements and ways of doing things better.
7. They will logically favour jobs and responsibilities that naturally satisfy their needs, i.e. offer flexibility and opportunity to set and achieve goals, e.g., sales and business management, and entrepreneurial roles.

McClelland firmly believed that achievement-motivated people are generally the ones who make things happen and get results and that this extends to getting results through the organisation of other people and resources, although as stated earlier, they often demand too much of their staff because they prioritise achieving the goal above the many varied interests and needs of people.

More - https://tinyurl.com/4anhcd7z

Herzberg's Motivation Theory

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/herzbergs-two-factor-theory-of-motivation

Frederick Herzberg Background Information

Life

Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000), a clinical psychologist and pioneer of 'job enrichment', is regarded as one of the great original thinkers in management and motivational theory. Frederick Herzberg was born in Massachusetts on April 18, 1923. His undergraduate work was at the City College of New York, followed by graduate degrees at the University of Pittsburgh. Herzberg was later a Professor of Management at Case Western Reserve University, where he established the Department of Industrial Mental Health. He moved to the University of Utah's College of Business in 1972, where he was also a Professor of Management. He died in Salt Lake City, on January 18, 2000.

---

Work and Research

Frederick Herzberg's book ' The Motivation to Work ', written with research colleagues Bernard Mausner and Barbara Bloch Snyderman in 1959, first established his theories about motivation in the workplace. Herzberg's survey work, originally on 200 Pittsburgh engineers and accountants remains a fundamentally important reference in the field of studying Motivation. While the study involved only 200 people, Herzberg's considerable preparatory investigations, and the design of the research itself, enabled Herzberg and his colleagues to gather and analyse an extremely sophisticated level of data.

Survey and Interviewing Methods

Herzberg's research used a pioneering approach, based on open questioning and very few assumptions, to gather and analyse details of 'critical incidents' as recalled by the survey respondents. He first used this methodology during his doctoral studies at the University of Pittsburgh with John Flanagan (later Director at the American Institute for Research), who developed the Critical Incident method in the selection of Army Air Corps personnel during the Second World War. 

Herzberg's clever open interviewing method gleaned far more meaningful results than the conventional practice of asking closed (basically yes/no) or multiple-choice or extent-based questions, which assume or prompt a particular type of response, and which incidentally remain the most popular and convenient style of surveying even today - especially among those having a particular agenda or publicity aim.

Herzberg also prepared intensively prior to his 1959 study - not least by scrutinising and comparing the results and methodologies of all 155 previous research studies into job attitudes carried out between 1920 and 1954.

---

The Development of Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory

The level of preparation, plus the 'critical incident' aspect and the depth of care and analysis during the 1959 project, helped make Herzberg's study such a powerful and sophisticated piece of work. Herzberg expanded his motivation-hygiene theory in his subsequent books: Work and the Nature of Man (1966); The Managerial Choice (1982); and Herzberg on Motivation (1983).

Significantly, Herzberg commented in 1984, twenty-five years after his theory was first published:

"The original study has produced more replications than any other research in the history of industrial and organizational psychology." (source: Institute for Scientific Information)

The absence of any serious challenge to Herzberg's theory continues effectively to validate it.

• Herzberg's central theory is very relevant to the modern understanding of employer/employee relationships, mutual understanding and alignment within the Psychological Contract.
• It also provided some foundations and basic principles of Nudge theory - a powerful change-management and motivational concept which emerged in the 2000s.

Herzberg's Motivation Theory

Frederick Herzberg (1923-2000), a clinical psychologist and pioneer of 'job enrichment', is regarded as one of the great original thinkers in management and motivational theory. 

---

Two Factor Theory and Significance

Herzberg was the first to show that satisfaction and dissatisfaction at work nearly always arose from different factors, and were not simply opposing reactions to the same factors, as had always previously been believed.

In 1959 Herzberg wrote the following useful phrase, which helps explain this fundamental part of his theory:

"We can expand ... by stating that the job satisfiers deal with the factors involved in doing the job, whereas the job dissatisfiers deal with the factors which define the job context. "

---

Graphs of Herzberg's Theory and Findings

For a graphical presentation of this principle, see:

Herzberg hygiene factors and motivators graph diagram 

Herzberg diagram rocket and launch pad analogy diagram

The 2008 diagram is based on the total percentages of 'First-Level' factors arising in Herzberg's 1959 research of high and low attitude events among 200 engineers and accountants, encompassing short and long-duration feelings. 

While Herzberg's overall conclusions were clear and consistent, the statistics from Herzberg's study can be interpreted in many different ways in their finer details, because of the depth and layering of Herzberg's survey methodology and analysis. 

• For full details of the Herzberg study figures, and to fully appreciate the complexity and subtlety of his findings, see Herzberg's book The Motivation to Work. 

Herzberg considered the following perspectives to be important:

1. High and low attitude (basically satisfaction and dissatisfaction, also defined as motivators and hygienes or hygiene factors)
2. Short and long-term duration of feelings (of high/low attitude effect)
3. First and second-level factors (i.e., main causal factors, and secondary factors deriving from the main stimulus, identified by further probing during interviews)
4. The interrelationship of factors

These different perspectives obviously provided (and still provide) endless ways to analyse and present the results, although as stated already the main conclusions remain consistent.

The purpose of the diagram (either version) is to illustrate how Herzberg's research showed that certain factors truly motivate ('motivators'), whereas others tended to lead to dissatisfaction ('hygiene factors'). According to Herzberg, people have two sets of needs; one as an animal to avoid pain, and two as a human beings to grow psychologically.

• He illustrated this also through Biblical example: Adam after his expulsion from Eden having the need for food, warmth, shelter, safety, etc., - the 'hygiene' needs; and Abraham, capable and achieving great things through self-development - the 'motivational' needs. 
• Certain parallels can clearly be seen with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

---

Implications of Herzberg's Research

Herzberg's research proved that people will strive to achieve 'hygiene' needs because they are unhappy without them, but once satisfied the effect soon wears off - satisfaction is temporary. 

• Then as now, poorly managed organisations fail to understand that people are not 'motivated' by addressing 'hygiene' needs. 
• People are only truly motivated by enabling them to reach for and satisfy the factors that Herzberg identified as real motivators, such as achievement, advancement, development, etc., which represent a far deeper level of meaning and fulfilment.

Examples of Herzberg's 'hygiene' needs (or maintenance factors) in the workplace are:

• Policy
• Relationship with supervisor
• Work conditions
• Salary
• Company car
• Status
• Security
• Relationship with subordinates
• Personal life

Herzberg's research identified that true motivators were other completely different factors, notably:

• Achievement
• Recognition
• Work itself
• Responsibility
• Advancement

Note. Herzberg identified a specific category within the study responses which he called 'possibility of growth'. This arose in relatively few cases within the study and was not considered a major factor by Herzberg. When referring to 'growth' or 'personal growth in terms of Herzberg's primary motivators, 'growth' should be seen as an aspect of advancement, and not confused with the different matter of 'possibility of growth'.

More - https://tinyurl.com/46ats5v7

https://tinyurl.com/yx83bka4

15 Inexpensive but Effective Ways to Motivate Salespeople

 

Aja Frost

From SPIFFs and President’s Club to new tech gear and all-expenses-paid vacations, sales leaders have many options for motivating their teams. But most of these options are fairly pricey.

Individual reps are also often motivated by different things -- maybe half your sales team would be excited to win a new tablet, while the other half would rather score a coveted parking spot near your office’s entrance.

The answer: Introduce some creative, low-cost rewards into your incentive strategy. For example, you could hand-deliver breakfast to the contest winner every morning for a week. Another prize might be a coupon for a 30-minute nap in the conference room.

Your reps will love the novelty of these awards -- and you won’t have to break the bank. For 13 more ideas, check out this infographic from LevelEleven.

https://blog.hubspot.com/

How leaders can motivate their teams

 

Your people may have all the expertise in the world but, if they're not motivated, it's unlikely that they'll achieve their true potential.

Motivated people have a positive outlook, they're excited about what they're doing and they know that they're investing their time in something that's truly worthwhile. In short, motivated people enjoy their jobs and perform well.

It is, therefore, no surprise that there are countless blogs, articles, scientific papers and podcasts that all attempt to address this topic with much, but varied, success.

Everything from “setting small, easily-measurable goals” to “having fun” and “staying fuelled” are suggested as worthy advances in improving individuals’ motivation. These may well bring success on an individual level, but it is important to note that a critical element of motivation and performance centres around the team itself.

As was proposed by psychologist Albert Bandura in his later papers on social cognitive theory and found and replicated in many academic studies since, group confidence (or group potency) is considered to be one of the key components of team motivation. This in turn improves team effort and is a major predictor of team performance.

So, if we improve the group’s confidence in themselves, then we can improve the overall motivation and performance of the team.

Brilliant, it makes perfect sense, but how can we easily do that?

Well, an interesting recent study by Canadian psychologists Caroline Aubé, Vincent Rousseau and Sébastien Tremblay, looking into teams and motivation may have provided a clue.

They collected data from 101 teams in a Canadian public safety organisation and sought to analyse the effect on individuals and teams of knowing that fellow employees share an understanding of the work that needs to be accomplished.

Put plainly, they looked to find out if you knowing that everyone is on the ‘same page’ makes a difference to your work motivation and performance.

Perhaps not suprisingly, what they found is that a team is more effective when employees have a shared and agreed understanding of the work that needs to be accomplished.

Being aware that they share the same vision for the work that needs doing appears to have a motivating and stimulating effect on team members. They are then more likely to believe in the potential of their team and exert more effort in achieving the team goals. This gives them the confidence needed to succeed and encourages them to provide the necessary effort.

In contrast, lacking a perception of a shared awareness of group goals and techniques can be frustrating, demobilising and inefficient. Leading to team members to doubt their ability to align their efforts and to achieve success.

With that being said, it is not purely about the amount of effort put in by the team. The research suggests there are other factors to consider. The study suggests that a willingness to help others and engage in extra-role behaviours also play a key role in instigating positive work mentality and behaviours.

Importantly, the study suggests that overall team effort is more important for tasks where the goals and the activities being completed are more routine. For less routine tasks, other factors such as flexibility and creativity are better indicators for success.

However, regardless of the routineness of the tasks, perceived group understanding of the work that needs doing was a strong indicator of team performance.

The EBW View

This recent research from Canada strongly indicates that when employees perceive their colleagues all to be on the ‘same page’, they then believe more fully in the capability of their team. This leads to greater effort, helpful co-worker behaviours, and, in turn, to a better team performance.

Here are 3 ways you will improve your team motivation and performance:

1. Ensure employees have an appropriate understanding of their colleagues’ roles in each task.

   As indicated by the research, understanding each other’s roles, and knowing that the team all know each other’s roles, will lead to a greater belief in the team’s capabilities. This positivity in itself will breed success.

2. Enable communication, don’t force it.

   Providing an environment where colleagues can discuss challenges freely can only help your team's sense of ‘togetherness’ and possibilities for success. So ensure some online meetings are just about catching up and getting to know what is going on. With that being said, not all employees thrive on constant interactions with others. Allowing people time to quietly ponder their work challenges without gathering to highlight every possible idea may often be a more efficient route to a solution.

3. Understand the personality of your team.

   Managing work behaviours to maximise productivity requires leadership that changes depending on the individuals in the team. Leaders who run successful teams are able to understand the individuals in the team and use that knowledge to intrinsically and extrinsically motivate individuals. Take time to understand your team and change your leadership style to suit the team not vice versa.

Aubé, C., Rousseau, V. and Tremblay, S., 2015. Perceived shared understanding in teams: The motivational effect of being ‘on the same page’. British Journal of Psychology, 106(3), pp.468-486.

https://www.ebwglobal.com/