Motivation at work

Motivation


People work for a number of reasons. Most people work because they need to earn money to survive, while others work voluntarily for other reasons. Motivation is the reason why people work, and it drives them to work better. Therefore, managers try to find out what motivate workers and use them to encourage workers to work more efficiency. This results in higher productivity, increased output, and ultimately higher profits.

• Nowadays, machinery is more common in businesses which results in increased productivity as well. However, the amount that a well motivated workforce can produce must still be recognised, since employees are a firms greatest assets!

Motivation theories


People work very hard when they are working for themselves. When they work for other people, less so. Managers have been looking into what makes employees contribute their fullest to the company and these studies have resulted four main theories of motivation.

F.W.Taylor


Theory:

• Money is the main motivator.
• If employees are paid more, they work more.
• Work is broken down into simple processes, and more money is paid which will increase the level of productivity an employee will achieve.
• The extra pay is less than the increased productivity.

Cons:

• Workers are seen rather like machines, and this theory does not take into account non-financial motivators.
• Even if you pay more, there is no guarantee of a productivity rise.
• It is difficult to measure an employees output.

Maslow

Maslow created what is know as the hierarchy of needs. 

In this diagram, there are 5 different types of motivation:

• Physiological needs: basic requirements for survival.
• Security needs: the need to by physically safe.
• Social needs: the need to belong and have good relationships with co-workers.
• Esteem needs: the need for self-respect and to be respected by others.
• Self-actualisation needs: the need to reach your full potential and be promoted.

Businesses realise that the more levels of motivation are available to workers, the harder they will work. Maslow also suggest that each level of motivation mustbe achieved before going to the next level. Once one level of motivation is met, more of that will no longer motivate the employee. 

Cons:

• Some levels are not present in some jobs.
• Some rewards belong to more than one level on others.
• Managers need to identify the levels of motivation in any job before using it to motivate employees.

Herzberg

To Herzberg, humans have hygiene factors, or basic animal needs of humans. We also have motivational factors/motivators, that are required for the human to grow psychologically. 

Hygiene factors:

• Status.
• Security.
• Working conditions.
• Company policies and administration.
• Relationship with supervisor.
• Relationship with subordinates.
• Salary.

Motivational factors:

• Achievement.
• Recognition.
• Personal growth/development.
• Advancement/promotion.
• Job satisfaction.

To Herzberg, if the hygiene factors are not satisfied, they will act as demotivators. They are not motivators, since the motivating effect quickly wears off after they have been satisfied. True motivators are are Herzberg's motivational factors.

McGregor

McGregor splits his theory into what managers believe. One type believes in theory X, while the other type believes in theory Y. Here is the table:

Here are some differences in how a X manager will work and how an Y managerwill work:

• X managers believe that people are naturally lazy, and has to be pushed with external factors to work harder. (e.g. higher pay).
• Y managers believe that people want to do a good days work but need a good environment to do the work. A better environment is an internal factor.
• X managers will try to provide incentives and supervision for employees to work hard.
• Y managers will try to provide a favourable environment so that employees can enjoy their work.

Theory's like Taylor's theory are X theories, while others like McGregor's theory are Y theories. People may say that money is the main motivator, but studies have shown that many people leave jobs because other motivational factors are not available to them.

Why do people work?


Here is a summary of why people work:

• Money: to satisfy needs and wants.
• Security: knowing that you are physically safe and have job security.
• Social needs: to belong to a group, making friends at work.
• Esteem needs (self importance): feeling important, feeling the job you do is important.
• Job satisfaction: enjoyment from the feeling of having done a good job. 

Motivating factors - financial motivators

There are three ways to motivate a workforce:

• financial motivators
• non-financial motivators 
• ways to increase job satisfaction

Financial rewards

Pay may be the basic reason why people work, but different kinds of pay can motivate people differently. Here are the most common methods of payment:

Wages

Wages are paid every week, in cash or straight into the bank account, so that the employee does not have to wait long for his/her money. People tend to pay wages to manual workers. Since wages are paid weekly, they must be calculated every week which takes time and money. Wages clerks are paid to do this task. Workers get extra pay for the overtime that they do. There are some ways that wages could be calculated:

Time rate: Time rate is payment according to how many hours an employee has worked. It is used in businesses where it is difficult to measure the output of a worker.

• + Easy to calculate the wage of the employee. A time-sheet must be filled out by the Accounts department to calculate the wage.
•  - Both good and bad workers get paid the same wages. Therefore, more supervisors are needed to maintain good productivity. a clocking-in system is needed to know how many hours an employee has done.

Here is an example of a wage slip and time-sheet:

They show:

• Basic pay + Overtime = Gross Pay 
• Gross pay - Deductions = Net Pay

Deductions include:

• Taxes
• Pension
• Union fees
• National insurance: entitles the payee to short-term unemployment benefits, sickness benefits and state pension.

Piece rate: Piece rates are paid depending on how many units they have produced. There is usually a base pay (minimum wage) and the piece rate is calculated as a bonus on how many units were created. Piece rates are found in businesses where it is possible to measure a workers productivity.

• + Encourages workers to work faster and produce more goods.
•  - Workers will often neglect quality, and businesses will need a quality control system which is expensive.
•  - Workers who focus on quality will earn less. Tension is caused when some workers earn more than others.
•  -  If machinery breaks down, employees earn less. That is why there is a guaranteed minimum pay.

Salaries

Salaries are paid monthly, and normally straight into the bank account.  They are usually for white collar workers. A salary is counted as an amount per year that is divided into 12 monthly accounts. You do not usually receive overtime. Managers only need to pay their workers once a month, and since the amount is transferred by the bank, the manager loses much less time and money calculate salary.

Salaries are usually a standard rate, but other rewards could be given to employees:

• Commission: A percentage is paid, usually to sales staff, depending on the value of goods they have sold. Workers are encouraged to sell more. However, they could persuade customers to buy products they don'r really want, making the company look bad. Just like the piece rate, in a bad month where there are little sales, worker's pay will fall.
• Profit sharing: Employees receive a percentage of the profitsmade. However, they will get nothing if the business doesn't make a profit. This is often used in the service sector, where it is hard to find an employees contribution to the company.
• Bonus: A lump sum paid to employees who have done well. It is usually paid at the end of the year or before holidays. However, this could cause jealousy between workers. Giving bonuses to a team works better.
• Performance related pay: Employee pay is linked to the effectiveness of their work. It is often used in organisations where it is hard to measure productivity. It uses the system of appraisal: employees are observed and their colleagues are interviewed to determine their effectiveness. Afterwards, the immediate superior of the employee has a meeting with them to discuss their effectiveness. 
• Share ownership: Employees receive some shares from the company. They will either benefit from dividends or sell the shares when their price has risen. They will be more motivated because they feel like a part of the company.

Motivating factors - non-financial motivators

There are other factors that motivate people in a business, and they are often called perks or fringe benefits. They may be having free accommodation, free car, etc... However, when you look at it, it is just money in different forms. Here is a list of these motivators:

• Children's education.
• Discounts on company products.
• Free Healthcare.
• Company vehicle.
• Free accommodation.
• Share options.
• Expense accounts.
• Pension.
• Free holidays.

Job satisfaction: 

Employees will become more motivated by enjoying the job they do. Job satisfaction can come in different ways. However, there are some factors that demotivate employees if they are not satisfied, and must be satisfied before the motivators can take effect. Here are some things that make workers' jobs satisfying:

• Pay.
• Promotion.
• working conditions.
• Fringe benefits.
• Management
• Working hours.
• The nature of the work itself.
• Colleagues, etc...

Herzberg and Maslow stresses that things such as responsibility recognition is also crucial to provide job satisfaction. Letting workers contribute to the job would also help, making jobs less boring and more creative. Here are some policies to increase job satisfaction:

Job rotation:

Workers in a production line can now change jobs with each other and making their jobs not so boring. It helps train the employee in different aspects of their jobs so that they can cover for other employees if they do not show up.

Job enlargement: 

Adding tasks of a similar level to a worker's job. Job enlargement simply gives more variety to employees' work which makes it more enjoyable.

Job enrichment:

Adding tasks of a higher level to a worker's job. Workers may need training, but they will be taking a step closer to their potential. Workers become more committed to their job which gives them more satisfaction.

Autonomous work groups or teamworking:

This is when group of workers are given total responsibility to organise themselves and perform a task. This makes the employees feel more important, as well as giving them a sense of belonging when they are part of a team. If they organise themselves differently every time, the team could get job enlargementand job enrichment too!

Leadership

Studies have shown that leadership has a great impact on worker's motivation. Good managers have leadership skills that inspire their workers to work better, as well as directing them with a common goal. Managers use many styles of leadership, and they can be summarised into 3 main styles:

Autocratic leadership:

• The manager controls all aspects of their subordinates' work.
• They keep themselves separate from employees.
• Employees are expected to obey every command and cannot contribute to decisions.
• Communication is only top-down.

Laissez-faire leadership:

• Objectives are shown to employees, but the task is completely delegated to them.
• Communication can be difficult since clear instructions are not given.
• The manager has a limited role in this type of leadership.

Democratic leadership:

• The manager discusses tasks with his employees before making decisions.
• Communication will be two-way, both top-down and bottom-up.

Here is a diagram to summarise the leadership styles:

The style of leadership used can vary depending on situations where they are the most effective.

Formal and informal groups

A formal group is an official group that is formed to do a specific task in an organisation. An informal group is a group of people which are formed independently by themselves. They are not official, but the people in the group have a common interest or cause. Both of these groups are needed in business, and let's see why in this example. e.g. a school might create a football team (formal group) but the players need to bond together to play effectively (informal group).

Formal groups in business

Departments withing a business are good examples of formal groups. From time to time different groups might be set up to cope with different problems or do different tasks. Sometimes people from different departments could come together in a group to do a team project.

Informal groups in business

There are can be many informal groups in a business that can increase the motivation of workers because they have a true sense of belonging. e.g. There is a group of factory workers who are interested in basketball, and they form an informal group, as a result, when they get back into their formal group they are likely to co-ordinate better with each other.

There are other scenarios where two departments merge to become one, making them one formal group. However, the people from these former departments still see themselves as separate from each other. These two groups of people will refuse to co-operate until they are also merged into an informal group. Therefore, informal groups should be handled carefully in business to yield the best results.

Regular meetings, free holidays, sporting events and such things could be organised to create informal groups and use them in a more positive way to avoid them getting into the way of business activity.

Three Email Habits That Kill Your Whole Team's Productivity

The way managers communicate sets expectations for how everyone on staff communicates.

DAVID FINKEL

Eric, a client of mine, owned and ran a successful service firm with sales of $3.5 million per year and a healthy profit margin. But, he told me, "We’re bursting at the seams. I’m working six or seven days a week, putting in 70-plus hours a week, and my team are all regularly working 60-plus hours a week. Is it that I just need to hire more staff?"

He didn't think so, but wasn't sure what else to do. "We’ve got a solid team here, and I don’t want to make it any more complicated," he added. After hashing things out together, it became clear that the overload Eric and his company were experiencing wasn't just a staffing issue. It was more likely a productivity one, starting with how Eric communicated with his staff. Three of his bad email habits were trickling down to everybody else, undermining the entire team's working methods.

Make no mistake: They're widespread in other companies, too. And especially when leadersmisuse email, the negative consequences for others can quickly become magnified. Here's what to watch out for.

1. HYPER-RESPONSIVENESS

If you're constantly checking your inbox—or even worse, getting push notifications that prod you to—chances are you aren't using email very effectively. Over time, that makes email itself a source of anxiety. My client confessed to feeling uncomfortable as a result of simply not knowing what was in his inbox, and he worried that if he didn’t stay on top of it, he would drown in it.

These are fallacies that can quickly become self-fulfilling prophecies. First, it means your attention is constantly getting pulled from higher-value activities so you can handle an incoming message—often a trivial one. As UC Irvine researcher Gloria Mark discovered, it takes the average office worker 20 minutes to return from that interruption to whatever they were doing before.

Hyper-responsiveness to email doesn't just chop your day into a series of small slivers of work punctuated by distraction, it also increases the volume of email you're likely to get. And if you're a leader, that can magnify your entire team's email load proportionately. Think of it this way: The faster you reply, the more responses you'll get in. If you write a total three notes to a team member about the same project in the space of an afternoon, that means they've likely written three, too—one of theirs alternating with one of yours—for a six-email thread. But if you'd just waited to check in until the end of the day or the following morning, you're only writing one note apiece.

One of the best ways to reduce your total email load is to let it "age"—in other words, simply waiting for an hour or two before you reply, or holding your reply for the next day. This allows you to "batch" your time spent responding to email during defined periods, then ignore it the rest of the time so you can focus on other things.

When leaders do this, they give their teams tacit permission to do the same. But it helps to be explicit about it: Discuss hyper-responsiveness with your team and make it clear you consider it a risk to avoid, not a bad habit to indulge.

2. NIGHTTIME AND WEEKEND "CHECK-INS"

"Eric, how often do you handle an email that is so important that it couldn’t wait until the next workday to respond to?" I asked my client.

"Rarely," he said. "But I like staying on top of my email. I want to know what’s in there. And it’s easier to send the response right then and there versus having to reread it a second time the next workday." That meant Eric was checking in on his messages after-hours and on weekends, which put pressure on his team members to do the same. Over time, this became part of the company’s culture, leaving no one with truly uninterrupted downtime to recharge away from work.

Cutting back on this habit wasn't going to be a cold-turkey kind of thing, I realized. Understanding that Eric felt compelled to check his email andrespond immediately, I suggested he start writing his replies right away but use the "delay delivery" feature so the email gets sent the next workday.

If you’ve had a history of late-night emails to your team, you need to acknowledge it first to yourself and then to your team members. Since it affects them, too, it isn't just a personal quirk you can deal with solo. Bring it up at your next team meeting. Come clean with them about the bad habit and discuss it candidly: When do you and they feel it's important—for the company—for everyone to be available by email? Just make sure you can clearly define the business goals you're serving by whatever timeframe or regularity you agree to; if you can't, think again.

3. OVER-CC'ING

"Eric," I said, "I noticed on the agenda I emailed you for this call that you cc’ed two of your team members. May I ask why?"

"Oh, you had asked for some information in advance of our meeting, and I was delegating it out."

"Okay," I said, "That makes sense, but why two people?"

"I always send administrative tasks to two people," he replied. "That way I know at least one of them will handle it."

In your company, do people often feel they have to cc multiple parties, even on mundane emails? Do you notice that people who are only tangentially affected get copied in on the responses to a cc’d email?

You may think you're just keeping folks in the loop. But remember that every email has to be opened, read, mentally processed, and then "handled," even if that just means moving the email to an archive folder or deleting it. Be intentional about when you do and don’t cc someone, and work with your team to determine what situations warrant cc'ing and which ones don't. Here's a good rule of thumb: If you want someone to do something with the information you're sharing, include them. Otherwise, think twice.

Your team members may share these email habits or even exhibit some of them that you don't. But as a leader, the way your whole team communicates starts with how you communicate with them.

People performance and potential model

a simple group-profiling matrix tool for teams and organizations

This elegant and simple model has been around in various forms for many years. Its precise originsare not clear. The model appears in different formats, with different terminology - and no doubt different titles of the model itself - although by implication the basic structure is constant, relying on a four-part 2 x 2 matrix, which is a common method of classification in management and beyond.

See also the pdf diagram, based on an interpretation kindly provided by John Addy, 2004.

The purpose of the model is to enable a simple assessment and representation of the mixture of types (according to potential and performance) within any work group or team, but it is a relatively blunt instrument and is neither designed nor recommended for detailed individual staff assessment.

The model provides a quick view or perspective of a group profile that often is elusive in complex human resources audits, and can assist in making investment decisions, although this apparently early purpose of the model should be approached with care given the more sophisticated expectations and considerations of modern organizational management.

It is therefore ideal for presentations and for reflecting a complex situation using a simple graphic. The model is not for individual counselling and development, other than for reference and interest alongside more accurate and objective individual assessment tools and processes.

The 'people potential performance model' (or whatever else it might be called) is especially useful in illustrating clearly and broadly the mix or profile of quite large groups of people within a human resources or organizational planning context. It's also helpful in understanding, determining, and explaining the different treatment that is appropriate for different categories of people with a group, according to local definitions and implications.

The model can also be used to show an ideal mix, and an actual mix, and thereby highlight the gapor difference, from an overall strategic viewpoint.

It can be a useful supplementary tool or reference point alongside more detailed and complexappraisals and training needs analysis processes.

The model also has a good training and educational value, which is why it's featured here. It can help managers and leaders to understand that people are different, have different needs, and can be helped in different ways and directions, appropriate to their situation.

people potential performance model

Bear in mind that the descriptive terminology can be adapted to suit the situation and it is likely that the terms below have been adapted from those used when the model was first defined. The notes in each quadrant are just a few examples of the sort of different responses and actions appropriate for each type.

	low potential	high potential
high performance	backbone >  high performance low potential Acknowledge effort and contribution. Utilize as coaches and mentors. Look for each person's hidden high potential, undiscovered passions, etc., and offer new challenges and responsibilities as appropriate, so these people too can be stars, to any extent they are comfortable.	stars  high performance high potential Agree challenging stretching work, projects, career development, responsibilities, or these people are likely to leave. Give appropriately stretching coaching, mentoring, training. Explore and encourage leadership and role-model opportunities, to set and raise standards of other staff.
low performance	icebergs ^ or >  low performance low potential Counsel, build trust, understand issues. Identify hidden potential. Facilitate more fitting roles, direction, purpose, opportunities, etc., linked with and perhaps dependent on performance improvement. Failing this, assist or enable move out of organization if best for all concerned.	problem children ^  low performance high potential Confirm and acknowledge potential. Counsel, build trust, understand issues. Explore and agree ways to utilize and develop identified potential via fitting tasks and responsibilities, linked with and perhaps dependent on performance improvement. Explore attachment to backbone or star mentors and coaches.

See the origins notes below about referencing the 'people performance potential model' (or whatever else it might be called). Precise origins are not certain. If you have information or evidence for the origins of this model please let me know.

using the 'people performance potential' model

The model can be used both to visualize or represent the ideal or required staffing profile of a group or organization, and separately, the actual staffing profile, according to the categories in the model, and thereby to see graphically and quickly the difference or gap between the two, i.e., in terms of staff mix, 'what mix do we need' versus 'what mix do we have'?

As such it is a powerful tool for reflecting, seeing a complex picture simply and quickly, and therefore for presentation too.

Since the model enables very quick easy illustration or demonstration of a complex set of people-related factors that are highly significant for organizational performance and development, the tool is very useful for executives and executive discussions, presentations, reports and planning documents, etc.

While the model provides a quick simple easily-understood snapshot, remember it is not in itself a sophisticated or precise instrument for individual assessment.

Scoring questionnaries can be developed and used (see the example questionnaire/templete for the performance/potential matrix below), or data may be used from performance appraisals and other assessment tools, however the model will always be a broad indicator and is not recommended ever to be used in isolation to make important decisions about people'd development and future careers.

As such, care must be taken when matching people to the categories. Ensure this is done consistently, and also ensure that appropriate supporting assessment methods are utilized for detailed action planning and to support discussions with individuals.

As with any assessment indicator, people have a right to see how they have been graded, and to be involved in the process at all stages. Accordingly great sensitivity is required when explaining the system, and efforts shopuld be made to temper potential disappointments with encouragements and opportunities to improve, with support as appropriate.

When using the model it is important to state any the assumptions, and the necessary criteria and measurement methods used in populating the categories.

You can adapt the model to suit your own situation, notably the terminology for the two axes and each quadrant, and also the criteria and definitions applicable to each quadrant.

If using a scoring system, the total scores for Performance and Potential equate to one of the four quadrant positions in the People-Performance-Potential Matrix. Scoring may also enable more detailed 'mapping' of positions of people within quadrants according to actual scores. Beware however of trying to make the model and assessment of people be overly sophisticated and detailed. It is a simple tool. Try to keep its usage simple and understandable too.

questionnaire for positioning people in the performance/potential matrix model

Here is a simple quick example of a questionnaire which can be used to match people to categories in the 'People-Performance-Potential Matrix', described above. It's an example. You can adapt it, simplify or expand it, according to your own situation.

It is very important that:

• assessments and scoring of people's performance and potential is conducted in a consistent and fair way, and
• explanations and transparency of the process are managed sensitively and positively - everyone can be developed.

'people performance potential matrix model' questionnaire - template/example Agree a score for each of these factors with each employee (using evidence and/or discussion as appropriate). Where factors are irrelevant remove them and adjust high/low total interpretation accordingly:
Scoring scale: 1 - 4. Scoring key: 1= needs improving, 2 = satisfactory, 3 = good, 4 = excellent. (Interpretation for model positioning: 1-2 = low, 3-4 = high.)	Score  (1-4)
1. Performance (factors relating to current job role - assess in detail as required, or import from appraisal/other assessment system)
1.1 Job skills
1.2 Job/product/technical knowledge
1.3 Attitude and behaviour (US-English: behavior)
1.4 Commitment and flexibility
1.5 Effectiveness and results (mindful of obstacles, mitigation, situation)
1.6 Working relationships
Performance total (up to and including 12 = low; 13 and over = high)
2. Potential (is there clear evidence of existing or developing [factors stated below] required beyond current role? N.B. scoring refers to evidenced potential, not to current level.)
2.1 Capabilities
2.2 Knowledge
2.3 Attitude/behaviour
2.4 Commitment and flexibility
2.5 Strategic awareness and effectiveness
2.6 Working relationships
Potential total (up to and including 12 = low; 13 and over = high)
The total scores for Performance and Potential equate to one of the four quadrant positions in the People-Performance-Potential Matrix. Conversion of scores to a matrix quadrant may simply be to a quandrant according to high or low classification, or may instead enable more detailed 'mapping' of positions within quadrants according to actual scores.
© Alan Chapman, Businessballs.com, 2013 - see model and explanation at www.businessballs.com/people_performance_potential_model.htm

N.B. The scoring rationale used in the questionnaire template above assumes that a grading of 'satisfactory' does not represent 'high' performance or potential. If your own organizational situation considers 'satisfactory' as a 'high' level of performance or potential then amend the scoring terminology accordingly.

origins of the people performance potential model

In terms of referencing the best I can suggest is that it is: Variously attributed to/claimed/adapted by Boston Consulting Group, George Odiome, Jack Welch, Doug Stewart, and Nicholas Barnes, c.1970-1996. The pdf diagram is based on an interpretation by John Addy, 2004.

If you have information or evidence of origins, or observations about the application of this model, please send them.

Since publishing the model as a pdf diagram on the website in 2004 (based on an interpretation initially provided to me by John Addy, who was also unsure of its origins) I have received the following suggestions:

Lori M Beevers suggested (Sept 2005) that the model appeared in a book by George Odiome in the 1970's and was credited to the Boston Consulting Group. The terminology was as above, except for these differences, which she suggested might have been updated to be less insulting, which seems a very reasonable observation: 'icebergs' = 'deadwood'; 'backbone' = 'workhorses'; and 'problem children' = 'question marks'. In other respects the model and its basic meanings were as above.

Chris Page informed me (Jan 2007) that he had seen a simplified version of the model attributed to Jack Welch (General Electric Company, business writer/guru). The names of the four quadrants were not featured, and in what would arguably be typical Welch no-nonsense fashion, the recommended action associated with the 'low potential - low performance' category was to question why these people remain on the payroll. Apparently in this version of the model, 'potential' was extended to 'potential to do a bigger job', which is (in my view) a far narrower meaning and by implication ignores utterly one of the main points of the model: that many people thought to have no potential actually have tremendous potential that has neither been uncovered or utilized, which is why they are not performing well.

Tony Thacker informed me (Feb 2007): "Re. people performance model... Doug Stewart, in The Power of People Skills, p185, John Wiley, ISBN 0-471-01187-8, uses a somewhat similar quadrant model, but using skill and motivation as the two axes rather than performance and potential..."

Dr Nicholas Barnes informed me (also Feb 2007): "Re. people performance model... I can make a claim to have invented it with my boss at the time (Brian Lewis) when we were working in HR for a Danish (by registration) company called Borealis sometime around 1996. We used it once a year when we did succession and experience planning and was used based on peoples performance reviews. As it was used all over Europe (at least 9 countries) by our HROD staff it would certainly have leaked out into the wider world via local consultants as we found it very useful and presumably so would they..."

Tony Perryman provided the following helpful information, which supports the view that the original terminology was Deadwood, Workhorses, Problem Children and Rising Stars, (July 2007): "You will find a full explanation of this model in the Havard Business Review - around the mid to late eighties. The authors developed a more sophisticated view than in your explanation. They suggest that as a businessman the choice of where to invest is determined on where the best return is to be found, which should be so with people. So Rising Stars are where to invest. Workhorses: maintenance investment or for motivation purposes; Problem Children: improve technical capability or knowledge; and Deadwood: no investment unless to be moved into a more appropriate role. I have been using this model since the early nineties, however because line managers become jittery about terms like deadwood, I just use A, B, C and D as a classification and sometimes D is the rising star!

B - Workhorses Individuals who produce effectively, however they have reached their level of competency.	A - Rising Stars  Individuals who have real potential for the future and are high performers.	hi  p  e  r  f  o  r  m  a  n  c  e  lo
D - Deadwood Individuals who have no potential and perform poorly. They are in the wrong role.	C - Problem Children Individuals who have potential but are not performing in their role. This may be because they are newly promoted.
low          potential          high

This simple method helps dictate where scare development resources should be spent:

• A - Rising Stars - Most investment. This is where the business is going to get the best return on there investment. Invest sufficient to keep engaged and grow for the future.
• B - Workhorses - Minimal investment. Invest only to keep motivated or to upgrade skills.
• C - Problem Children - Targeted investment. Action plan which includes giving them technical skills to perform at the required level. Any investment will only occur after full analyses of an individual’s motivation to move from where they are currently. If they do not respond move to another role or exit business.
• D - Deadwood - No investment. Action plan to either find a more appropriate role or exit business. "

(With thanks to Tony Perryman, July 2007)

Michael Burgess wrote (July 2007): "My understanding of the Productivity Potential model origins has always been that it was from The Boston Consulting Group (Boston Matrix) used to evaluate products in terms of their market share and their potential for market growth. It's self-explanatory how this applies to products and might go some way to explaining the rather harsh terminology when it was adapted by George Odiorne to describe employee performance."

Cash Cow  'milk' - maintain	Star  'shine' - develop	hi  m  a  r  k  e  t  s  h  a  r  e  lo
Dog  'shoot' - exit/divest	Problem Child  fix or divest
low         market growth or potential         high

(Thanks Michael Burgess, July 2007. See the detailed explanation of the 'Boston Matrix' in the business planning section.)

Jeffrey Cole wrote (February 2008): "... In 1987 I saw this [people-performance matrix model] in a USMC leadership training manual from, I believe 1967, which is probably still in the library either at Camp Kinser, Okinawa Japan, or at the Combat Service Support Detachment at Takegahara Garrison (Gotemba prefecture), Japan. Given that this was in a Government training manual I believe that would indicate that the diagram is probably older than the 1970s. The labels on that diagram did not have cutesy names, it was simply 'capability to learn' and 'willingness to perform' and the quadrants reflected low/high for each attribute. The mentoring recommendations based on the diagram were essentially (for the axes - willingness to perform / capability to learn):

high/high : coach 
high/low: teach 
low/high: father (discipline) 
low/low: remove as quickly as possible.

teach  this person	coach  this person	high     willingness  to  perform  low
remove  this person	'father' (discipline)  this person
low          capability to learn          high

(Diagram interpretation based on the above description provided by J Cole.)

If you have details, evidence or observations about the origins and application of the People-Performance model please send them.

authorship/referencing

This model has uncertain origins, being variously claimed by and/or attributed to the Boston Consulting Group, George Odiome, Jack Welch, Doug Stewart, and Nicholas Barnes, among others. The pdf diagram is based on an interpretation by John Addy, 2004. Clarification and evidence relating to authorship, ownership and origins are welcome.

© Alan Chapman 2007-2013