Beyond money - how to motivate and engage your teams

 If you believe the pundits, we will soon experience a great transformation, shifting in the next 3-5 years to a workforce composed of fewer people and more robots and agents.  I, for one, welcome our benevolent computer overlords.  The implicit promise is that the robots and agents will remove the drudgery of my work and leave me with only the higher order functions and responsibilities.  I certainly hope that is true.

If true, this should be highly motivating for the people who remain employed, but I don't think it addresses all of the factors of motivation.  In fact, I'm not sure most companies truly understand what it is that motivates people in their work.  I'd like to spend a few minutes today writing about what I think is true about motivation and engagement in the workforce and why companies get it so wrong.  More importantly, if we do end up with a smaller workforce that is providing more value, getting motivation right will become more important.

The current state

If we look at the current state of motivation and engagement in the modern workforce, I think we'd have to say it's pretty bleak.  There are thousands of articles about "quiet quitting" - people who aren't performing in their jobs and aren't leaving.  Clearly, these individuals are not motivated to do great work.  According to one analyst, up to 85% of people in the workforce aren't engaged.

If we take it further and communicate that machines and agents will take jobs from humans, more people will likely become angry or frustrated.  After all, this is a recurring phenomenon.  The weavers and fullers in England rioted at the advance of the automated mills, created the Luddite rebellion.  While our current workers may be a bit more complacent, they aren't happy now, and they are concerned about their future.  More than ever, we need to understand how to engage and motivate the people on our teams.

The real challenge is that while we have multiple levers to throw to improve motivation, companies most often turn to the easiest and most obvious - compensation - and assume we are all coin operated.

Coin operated

I work in sales currently, where the joke is that everyone is "coin operated", that is, that salespeople only care about how much money they can make and that is their sole motivation.  While this is generally accurate, it is not broadly applicable to all reps in all settings and certainly isn't true of all employees.  If this motivational lever is overused and misused, what other levers should we consider, and why aren't they used more often?

Some motivational and engagement concepts to consider

Extrinsic vs Intrinsic rewards

Companies miss the idea that there are several kinds of motivation where rewards are concerned, and all of us have some Extrinsic motivation (cash, recognition) and Intrinsic motivation (satisfaction in the work).  Companies and reward structures tend to focus on Extrinsic rewards and neglect Intrinsic opportunities because Extrinsic rewards are simpler to manage.

However, a relatively significant majority of people are more likely to desire Intrinsic rewards, so providing an extrinsic reward to an intrinsically motivated person is like tossing an apple to a carnivore.  While it may slake hunger, an apple is not what was sought or desired.  Our recognition and reward structures are too heavily weighted on behalf of extrinsic rewards and too often ignore intrinsic rewards.

Autonomy

Most of us hate the idea of being micro-managed, that is, having the boss constantly reviewing, correcting, redirecting and checking in on our work.  Knowledge workers are supposed to be somewhat independent, working on tasks that are by their nature fluid and that do not work to normal operating timelines.  The concept of Autonomy is vital to helping people find their sweet spot in motivation.  While I may prefer to be given a task and allowed to define the parameters and the deliverable, others may long for more feedback and more interaction.  When we manage as if all people want to be closely managed and directed, we take away engagement and incentives for people who desire autonomy, and certainly the reverse is true as well.

This seems relatively obvious yet I've never in my 40 years of professional experience had anyone educate me on how to manage, reward or incent people based on the concept of autonomy.  There are jokes of course about micro-managers, which might lead one to think that no one wants to be micro-managed.  The level and degree of management and its desired effect lies with the person being managed.  Learning how much autonomy is desired by your team will lead to better management and better engagement, thus to better motivation.

Mastery

Another factor that we often ignore is the concept of  "Mastery", that is, some people are motivated to become masters at a specific function, process, industry or other factor or body of knowledge.  They want to be the experts, and their motivation is driven by being the one that others turn to in a moment when they need expertise.  This means that people who thrive on mastery will want to go deeper, gain more training and experience and be thought of as a thought leader or expert in a specific topic.  It is this mastery and the goal of obtaining the mastery that motivates them and keeps them engaged.

Again, in over 40 years of work experience, no one has ever talked to me about how to manage, engage and motivate people based on the idea of mastery.  I just happened across the idea years ago and try to understand how people who work for me think about mastery.

Flow

Finally, consider the Flow State.  A famous psychologist coined the idea of Flow, and you can read (and I recommend it) his book on Flow.  The idea is that people are most engaged when in a state of flow, where their knowledge and experience can be brought to bear on an interesting challenge that is within their field of experience.  The image for a flow state is very helpful here.

From:  Flow (psychology) - Wikipedia

When skills and challenge levels are both at the "high" level, you'll reach flow, and where we see that most often is with programmers who can code for hours at a time without seeming to work at all.  Everyone has flow potential and helping them find this flow state, where their skills are maximized in a challenging task is what helps them achieve flow.

Conversely, when skills are high but the challenge is low, people are left in a state of apathy or anxiety.  When challenges are low and skills are high, people are bored or apathetic.

Motivating and engaging

If you are interested in truly engaging the people you have, getting the most out of them and keeping them deeply engaged and motivated, try to understand more than extrinsic rewards.  Look at concepts like intrinsic motivation, mastery and autonomy.  While more difficult and nebulous than simply paying people more, these concepts will create far more engagement and motivation.  

Over time, if the experts are correct, we'll have fewer people (and perhaps sensitive AI agents) who may need a broader set of motivational methods.  It's more work to try to apply concepts like intrinsic motivation, autonomy and mastery, and not always easy to understand what creates "flow" for each individual, but we probably ought to start learning and applying these concepts.