As a consultant, one of the questions I am frequently asked is, “How do I motivate my employees?” (Alternatively, if I am in an academic setting the question is phrased, “How do I motivate my students?” Or, if I am speaking to parents the question is, “How do I get my kids motivated?”)
To begin with, I will focus primarily on employee motivation the answer to the question of how do I get my employees motivated may be surprising to you. My answer is, “You don’t.”
While you’re still recovering from that answer, I’ll add some more, “They are already motivated.” As I see it, people do not get motivated from the outside, they are already motivated from the inside. Your job, as an employer or manager, is to create the kind of external conditions that facilitate, encourage, support, or allow “motivated behavior” to occur. You cannot get inside the employee’s head and “flip switches” any more than you can drive somebody else’s car, while simultaneously driving your own.
Your influence is limited by the boundaries involved, two separate units (or vehicles)—your self and the other person. Thus, you can only conduct (or manage) yourself in such a way that the behavior you want to occur (what you define as motivated behavior) will be more likely to occur. The types of behavior that are most commonly employed by managers are reason, threat, commands, suggestions, appeals to the common good, bribery or hint of a raise, promises of advancement in the future, and flattery to name a few.
In this day and age, the negative managerial behaviors (power oriented) are generally only alluded to in most organizations, except perhaps in the military. From a historical viewpoint, this was not the case in the 1930’s and 1940’s when unions were being formed. During that phase of our history, management apparently had a great deal of “power,” in that they could fire any worker for any reason at any time. In a sense, management had the ultimate power to “force” motivated behavior from their employees. I used the word apparently because what resulted was a different kind of highly motivated response, the banding together of the workers-—the union movement. At the present time, openly autocratic methods are not only frowned upon, they are penalized. Between the unions, the government (EEOC), and the multitude of lawyers, many managers today feel their hands are tied.
Occasionally, I hear managers referring back to “the good old days” when they had the freedom to act like a despot. They forget that it was because of just such attitudes and behaviors on the part of management that management created the need for unions to curb the abuses and excesses of management. Of course, the unions have sometimes taken a page from management and indulged in abuses and excesses of their own.
It is not my purpose to give a history of the labor movement, rather, I digressed to see if we could learn something from history. Even with considerable “power,” management was frequently ineffective in getting employees to demonstrate what was called “motivated behavior.” The reason I put that last phrase in quotes is that motivated behavior in that context means the kind of behavior management wants—compliance and productivity.
Initially, when the workers had recently arrived from the farm, or the assembly line was new and the money was ”big,” that is what occurred, so-called motivated behavior was observed. That is, the kind of behavior management wanted. However, over a period of time, the motivated behavior that management wanted to see was replaced by a different kind of motivated behavior that management did not want—organizing, strikes, slow-downs, sit-downs, resentment, limited productivity, even occasional sabotage. Management sometimes attempted to stop the organizing with violence of their own, however, they were unable to stem the tide. In fact, the violence on the part of management only seemed to make the workers more “motivated.”
What eventually resulted was an adversarial relationship between unions and management that tends to “color” the interaction between the two today. If it were not for the global economy where foreign competition is beating us, rather badly in some sectors, we probably would not see the degree of cooperation that is still only beginning to take place.
Management will not be able to continue in their autocratic ways, increase the number of managers, give raises, and continue to pass on the cost to the consumer as was the practice for so many years immediately after WW II when our industry had little or no competition from abroad and there was pent-up consumer demand. With the consumer having a choice of a quality product at a competitive price, the unions also seem to be undermining their own position by striking and demanding higher wages without joining management in focusing on improving quality and increasing productivity.
The common motivation for both camps is becoming ever more clear—cooperate, produce quality products at a competitive price or go out of business. Appeals for government “protection” are only delaying the inevitable. We have to compete head on sooner or later. Since life is a process, ever changing, we can only hope that our current trend towards the “empowerment of the worker” not only continues, but picks up speed so that we can recover our previous preeminent position.
What I have been attempting to point out is that there is always motivated behavior. I might add, some kind of motivated behavior because it may not be the type that you (as a manager, teacher, or parent) want to see. Please don’t make the mistake of labeling the behavior that you do not want as unmotivated. Even though you may not like it, it is motivated behavior, at least in the way I look at the situation. The fact of the matter is that the individual’s motivated behavior is simply going in a different direction than what you might want.
What we label motivated or unmotivated behavior is a judgment call based on our own viewpoint. It seems that one of the primary motivations of most people in our culture is to make judgments good or bad, right or wrong. Managers are likely to say that workers are poorly motivated (and teachers would say the same about many of their students). Yet when the view is reversed, many workers would say managers are motivated by greed and lust for power (and many students would say that their teachers are putting in their time simply for the paycheck, that they do not really care about the students). The emphasis is on judgment, morality, and taking sides to the point where we are likely to be blind regarding the underlying processes involved.
Can we put aside the judgment for a moment and look at the behaviors involved as if we were not involved, as if we did not have to judge? I know we cannot be totally value free, but let’s assume for a moment the context of a no-fault psychology. The basic assumption is that everybody is doing the best that they know how in an attempt to make themselves as well off as possible. This is a key assumption in all of Economics and business people will eventually “learn” this.
I also begin with the assumption that each individual has one primary job, and only one, that of operating one unit, one self. Consequently, everybody is in management, the management of self. You will notice that each person is a self contained unit, each person is in charge of self. Nobody else can do your breathing, thinking, feeling, or gross motor activity for you. You are in charge of you and the other person is in charge of him/her self.
The way we are “doing” (operating or managing) our selves now is different than when we were born. In infancy, we were basically a wriggling (or sleeping) bundle with a few reflexes—grasping, sucking, swallowing, urinating, etc. At that time we were cared for (if we survived) by the adults around us—usually our parents.
At that point in time, we had no responsibility for self nor did we have an idea of who we were and who other people were. In fact, we had no ideas, zero. We had a brain, the potential for mind, but no mind. Without a mind, how could we mind? An interesting and peculiar question.
Because of the genetic potential for making certain kinds of synaptic connections, we began to learn in a foggy, haphazard way that there were some regularities or consistencies in what happened to and around us. Since we can not clearly remember what it was like at two months of age, what I am presenting is pure speculation or post hoc hallucinations (which is the case for all that has ever been written about the experience of infancy). Of course, everything I have written so far is also speculation or fabrication since I have made up the words and sentences that l have put on these initially blank pages.
Furthermore, as you read what I have made up, you will process the words through your interpretive framework and create your interpretation and experience of what I have written. Since it is your creation, it is also your responsibility. I hope you have created value thus far—if not, either change your interpretation or stop reading.
Back to infancy, there have been a lot of changes since you were two months old. At that time, you could see the chicken tracks on the page, but the words were meaningless to you. You could hear the conversations going on around you, although they, too, were meaningless to you—even if the topic was giving you up for adoption.
What has happened since then? Why, you have grown or developed a mind—the “organ” of comprehension for language, both in terms of receiving (decoding) and sending (encoding). The potential existed as an infant, but you needed a relatively lengthy period of time to develop or create that “organ” or “tool.” And you needed that time immersed in a language community.
Incidentally, it could have been any language community. In fact, had you been born in some parts of the world, you might have learned several languages at the same time and in an un-selfconscious manner. Had you been brought up in a particular religious community, you would likely have viewed moral issues through that particular set of lenses, again probably without any awareness of the filters that you were developing. Similarly, we were learning about class distinctions, sex roles, and attitudes toward age to name a few.
Recall a baby picture of your self as an infant. Then imagine that you are a new, fully functional computer that needs to be “booted up” in order to process language in your own unique manner. Even though you may have had brothers and sisters, who had the same parents, you are going to be different in some respects as well as having some overlap. It would seem as if you selected (outside of awareness) from the kaleidoscopic confusion of the external world what was relevant to you on the basis of your genetics and the luck of timing. Thus, in many respects, you are like your siblings and yet very different in other ways.
In my view, the booting up period was relatively lengthy with most of the input taking place in the first few years.
Although the adults were largely responsible for what was presented, there was so much going on and we were each sufficiently different that we maintained a degree of uniqueness from the beginning. Also, I would like to add that in the computer loading, the operator enters all the data while with the development of a child, there is an interaction between the adult in the environment and the child within. As time goes on, the booting up process depends more and more on the child’s decision making and prior experience than on the surrounding conditions. My way of describing this is say that although the environment is important, it is in second place.
If we accept this, then we, as parents, can relax and do the same things that we would have anyway, only with more respect for the child’s view. In other words, we can still provide for our children, take them to the zoo, the pediatrician, and on vacation, however, we can relax and enjoy ourselves, knowing that it is our offspring’s job to learn whatever meaning of life that they choose. I know that we, as parents, would like to influence their decisions since we have something we call wisdom to share with them. The problem is that it is our wisdom for us, not wisdom for them. Unfortunately, they will have to learn their own version of wisdom. Knowledge can be transferred, not experience. What we can do is set the table of inputs, it is up to them to build their own sandwich and eat as much as they want, in the manner in which they prefer to eat.
The reason for going into the background of childhood is to remind those of us adults who are parents, what it was like to be raised by our children. When we realize that even though we were rather completely responsible for these relatively helpless and dependent beings in terms of their physical well-being, we still could not always get them to do what we wanted them to at the time we wanted them to do it. Further, we almost certainly could not dictate their attitude. For example, although we might get them to take a bath through threats and bribery, it was clear from their body language that they were operating under duress. Even though we might have stood over them and closely supervised them, they still would not do everything in the way that we asked them to. For those who are not parents, recall how you picked out of all the things that your parents presented for you to do, just exactly what you were going to do. If you were the rebellious type, you would many times choose to do the opposite. I recognize that you thought it was to show them that they were not controlling you. Whatever the motivation, it was your choice. If you happened to be of the conformist persuasion, you followed your parent’s direction, again your choice, not your parents.
When we consider that it was our choice when we were small and our parents had considerable ”control,” then it would be logical to assume that we have even less impact on adults, who are fully grown children. What I am getting at is that we do not get to “vote” on our children (even when they think that we do), so it is important that we recognize our impotence to affect another person psychologically. We can affect others and be affected by others in the physical and financial domains, but not in the psychological. Thus, we cannot motivate or influence other people psychologically; they will decide the extent of our influence with them.
Individuals are already motivated. They arrive at any situation in the environment already oriented to what they are interested in and what they are not interested in. They seem to have “pictures” in their head of what they are interested in and they look for a match in the environment. People who love dogs will often approach and pet a dog. People who do not like dogs may seem unmotivated in that direction (but motivated to avoid). People who enjoy opera are motivated to attend opera while the person who sees no point to that style of singing and drama will not be motivated to attend. However, if a salesperson’s client enjoys opera and the salesperson doesn’t, but feels that joining the client may help clinch the sale, guess what? He may go to the opera, but with a different motivation than hearing the music.
I think that all behavior is motivated, but motivated from within, not from the outside. There are countless stimuli in the outside world. The person inside looks at the environment for ways to satisfy his interests. Thus, when the question “How do I motivate my employees?” is asked, the answer is not just, “You don’t.” It is important to rephrase the question, how can I conduct myself so that my employee will want to be productive? Or, how can I arrange the environment (including my self) so that he/she has an excuse to demonstrate motivated behavior? This certainly shifts the focus. You can accept your inability to “cause” the employee’s behavior and examine how you can create the kind of climate that is attractive to the employee and is likely to result in a high probability of productivity.
Much of what I have written so far has been my response to a question about motivation that was asked in a class of fifteen MBA students. As I think about motivated behavior and where it stems from, I can speculate about the following hypothetical situation. Next, let’s imagine that one of the class members suggests going there for some sushi. Who is going to go? In order to answer this, let me first ask the question who likes sushi and just over half the class raises their hands. Now I ask on a scale of l to 10 how strong is their liking. Five are seven and above, one five and two fours.
Next, I ask how many of the students dislike sushi and four people raise their hands. (On a scale of l to 10 on dislike, there are three who are eight and above and one six.) That leaves three people who did not take a position on either scale. If I know the information above, I can make an educated guess that at least five are quite interested and ready to go. Also, there are three people who are very unlikely to go.
However, this is only a beginning approximation because each individual is unique. There are other vectors that go into determining the resultant behavior. For example, if the invitation to go to the restaurant is of interest, but the student is due to baby sit for their daughter, he or she will not go even if the motivation to go is high. Another factor that may enter in is the issue of finances, perhaps the student has no money and hates to borrow. Still another factor is the dimension of affiliation, for example, one of the students does not like sushi but wants to be with the group because of the sociability, he may go along for reasons other than enjoying the meal. Still another factor is need for achievement. For example, if there is a test the next day or a paper is due, one of the students may have wanted to go, but may feel that he cannot afford the time away from his studies and hence declines.
If some of the students had just eaten before they came to class, they may not be interested even though they may be one of the students who said they liked sushi. If one of the students did not feel well, that also might affect their decision negatively. If two students happened to have had a disagreement prior to class, if one decides to go, the other one may decline. If the professor says he will buy, that may increase the size of the group that goes.
Some will be open to persuasion even though they may have initially declined. I can imagine that if I said that I “knew” who would go and who would not go on the basis of the initial rating of like and dislike, there might be one or two students who would change their minds just to demonstrate that they cannot be predicted. There are probably other factors or vectors involved, but you can understand the idea that the environment is important, but not the determinant. Each individual is a unique collection of interests and positions and the final resultant is up to each person—from the inside.
When we look at a work situation, the same kind of complexity is present. There will be many vectors or factors that individuals will assign various weights to and make decisions from the inside. Some employees will be focused on what they can earn and if they are verbally skilled, will probably do well in sales where their pay is directly tied to their productivity. Others hate trying to sell and worry about “rejection” so they will not do well in sales and probably avoid the field.
Some people like to organize and enjoy pleasing people so they may do well in a relatively well structured job that may involve some customer service. Still others like to invent new ways and enjoy their creativity which would suggest still another area of activity. Some respond in the expected manner to implied threat while others will react very negatively. Some enjoy working in groups while others would prefer more individual work arrangements.
Perhaps looking at this complexity will help a person understand why the search for a few “motivators” has been relatively disappointing. Since there is considerable variability, there must also be considerable customizing. People want to be treated as individuals.
Unfortunately, they also want to be treated the “same as the others.” For example, if an employee perceives another individual being treated in what they think is a more favorable manner, they are likely to point that out in a complaining manner. This certainly complicates the manager’s job. How can he treat people as individuals while at the same time, treating them all equally? What a dilemma.
Fortunately, there are some guidelines for treating employees equally while also being open to individual and unique issues. For example, the one way that all employees can be treated equally is in the area of respect. It is important for a manager to view all his employees with respect. Each individual has a unique perspective that needs to be respected. Thus, a manager would not make a fairly typical remark, such as, “You certainly came up with a stupid idea.” Naturally, ideas need to be sorted for their practicality or utility but not according to their source.
One of the reasons that this type of judgmental approach seems to be so common in organizations is that people were raised in families. Let me explain. In general, people usually are found in two types of groups, “family families” and “work families.” People who live together and are joined by matrimonial or kinship ties form what we usually think of as families. In addition, my view is that people who get together at a business endeavor (be it a company, an institution, a team, or a bureaucracy) form a work family, a setting where work is performed, as contrasted with child rearing.
Because the large majority of people who show up for their membership in a work family have already had a great deal of experience with their natal family, they appear with considerable programming based on their childhood experience. They bring with them many of the attitudes and viewpoints that they developed during their formative years.
If one thinks about how a house is constructed. It is clear that the roof and walls are not built first. The foundation is the first part of the house and once that is in place, everything else rests on it. Where and how the foundation is formed is a basic determinant of where the walls and roof go and how stable and useful the resulting structure will be.
If one thinks of the mental functioning of an adult as the walls or roof, one can easily “see” that it rests on the foundation laid down in childhood. Further, what one learned as a child was very dependent on the situation involved in infancy. In other words, the early learning of a child, as a child, was learning that took place within a relatively helpless and dependent being. Further, it was beginning learning, there was no earlier learning that had taken place. After this initial period, everything that we learn will be placed in the context of what we have previously learned.
When we were toddlers, our perspective was that of seeing the kneecaps of the “giants” (parents and other adults) when we looked directly ahead. We had to tilt our head upward to see the face on top of the stilts. Further, these giants picked us up and put us on their lap, in a high chair, in a car seat, etc. They did not do this on our schedule as much as on their schedule. There were times we wanted to be picked up and weren’t as well as times we did not want to be picked up and were. Further, we were never able to pick up a “picker upper.”
Thus, as we were forming the foundation of our mind, we had to learn (arrive at the conclusion from our experience- not from thinking since we did not know what a conclusion was) that we were not in charge of our selves. We also had to learn that we were not enough—not strong enough, not tall enough, not old enough, and not coordinated enough.
As we learned the basics of language, we also were learning about judgment, good and bad, right and wrong. We were probably told that we were a “bad” boy/girl or a “good” boy/girl. Generally speaking, we were raised in a conditional love system, if you do this, mommy will love you. If you don’t do that, daddy will be disappointed. Thus, we learned to constantly evaluate our selves and others. Because we were likely to get more corrections and we were more likely to remember the punishments, we were likely to draw the conclusion that not only were we not enough, we were also not okay. In other words, there was something wrong with us, otherwise out parents would not be so disappointed or angry. We tried very hard to “do the right thing,” but we frequently missed. Conclusion: there must be something wrong with me or my parents wouldn’t be so upset.
There were inconsistencies and it was hard to break the code. For example, when we first put a crayon to a piece of paper and made some marks, mom and dad might praise us as a budding Picasso and post it on the refrigerator door. Eager to please, we might later grab the crayons and make a mural on the wall, since we assumed more is better. Much to our amazement, not only did they not appreciate our effort, but they created a red face, shouted at us, and sometimes even sent us to our rooms with a swat on the behind.
I remember that when I was about five years old, my dad was doing some carpentering and in my eagerness to help and be like daddy, when he went to get more lumber, I hammered some nails into the newly purchased piano. Although my father was generally a very loving father, this time he blew his stack and tanned my bottom. I was stunned. Why had the signals changed, I was only trying to help him. I wanted to be like him and do what he was doing.
When we proceed into the educational process in school, our every output was graded or judged compared to the one “right” answer. Since there would be only a few A’s, the majority of the children in the classroom learned that they were second or turd best. The teachers used the grades as reward and punishment while the majority of our parents not only supported this constant evaluation, but also used a variety of techniques in an attempt to get us to be more motivated, i.e., get better grades. While we had classes in history, geography, arithmetic, spelling, reading, and writing, we were in continual competition for those grades. Thus, although we did not take a single class on competition, the lessons of competition were implicit in every class.
Back to the family of origin, we were learning lessons of competition at home as well. When we arrived on the scene, we were another mouth to feed, another body to be clothed. If we had siblings, we could not have exclusive parental attention. We had to wait while the baby was being fed and bathed. We watched our older brother riding the two-wheeler bike and our parents cheering him on, as we sat on our tricycles. Our sister got a new dress for a birthday party when we wanted a new toy and were told that our parents could not afford it at this time.
We became very sensitive to who got the biggest piece of pie and learned that complaining loudly about the unfairness of it all sometimes resulted in a reallocation of the pie. Our parents would talk about being fair to our siblings and once we learned the words, we would use the same logic on them because they were very sensitive to charges of unfairness. They wanted above all to be seen as being fair and not playing any favorites.
As you read this, you can probably extrapolate to the adult situation in the work family. Charges of not being fair are typically met with denial. Managers seem to spend a lot of time, either alone or with other managers attempting to come up with policies and practices that are immune to the charge of being unfair. When we read the picket signs at the strike, one of the most common accusations is that management is guilty of unfair labor practices. I wonder if management struck, would they have a sign accusing labor of unfair management practices? Interesting question.
There is another pattern that was learned in infancy that is very important in the early survival, a pattern that shows up quite frequently in adult life. I call it the “Wah” pattern and the following is my description of how it develops.
When the baby is very young and is sleeping or still, the giants tread lightly and admonish others to be quiet. When the baby wakes up and experiences a hunger pang or a wet bottom, he or she is likely to respond with a genetically based reflex, crying or a great big loud “WAH.” What occurs next is magic. Suddenly a giant appears! Not only does the giant appear, but something good happens. The baby gets some kind of nurturing, be it a bottle, a breast, a dry diaper, or just being picked up and held. The adult typically makes soothing noises and may even sing a lullaby.
As this pairing occurs over and over again, the baby is likely to “learn” that a loud “Wah” brings good results. The reason I put quotes around learn is that this is very primitive learning or conditioning, like the footing of the foundation. The production of the wah brings the giants who nurture. This results in positive reinforcement and works very well for the infant who is helpless and dependent.
When we observe the wah at the adult stage of life, it does not work nearly as well, in fact, it will often produce a negative result. The adult wah looks like a temper tantrum or some form of upset. Adults frequently spew out a rather complicated form of wah that I call “verbal vomit.” The adult may be experiencing a negative emotional state, for example, he thinks somebody else hurt his feelings or received more favorable attention. He attributes the negative feeling to the other person or the circumstances in the office and starts making loud noises. Remember that one of the basic patterns that he learned as a child was that he was not in charge, therefore, it has to be the other person’s fault.
In the “Peanuts” cartoon, Peppermint Patty is on the phone with Charlie Brown and says, “If I flunk my test tomorrow, Chuck, it will be all your fault because you talked to me on the phone.” The second frame shows Charlie responding with, “But you’re the one that called me.” The last frame switches back to Patty, who says, “You shouldn’t have answered the phone.” This is about on a par with the lady who complains to the phone company about a series of obscene phone calls. When the phone company monitors the line, it turns out that all the phone calls were collect calls.
In spite of how ridiculous those examples are, we are still likely to function in much the same manner because of the early foundation in the basement of our mind. We are likely to do verbal vomit, especially with other members of the family at home. We usually need some more tangible evidence of some sort of discrimination or favoritism at work in order to feel sufficiently self-righteous for a loud wah.
There is also the silent wah. It is primarily body language where the eyes are averted and downcast with an unhappy expression on the face. When asked what is wrong, the answer is, “Nothing. “When the questioner persists, the respondent is likely to act peeved and say, “I told you there was nothing wrong, now leave me alone. “The unofficial name for this is pouting and withdrawing.
In the work family, because employees spend a lot of time evaluating manager’s moves and are very sensitive to anything that looks like inequality, there is likely to be considerable silent wah activity. Also, if an employee feels that one of his co-workers is “playing up to the boss,” he is likely to lead an informal meeting on the unsavory character of “brown-nosers.” This can be seen as an attempt to get the co-worker “back into line.”
I could go into more variations of “office politics, “but I’ll leave that to another time or to other writers. Some people lament the existence of office politics and make statements like, “If only we could get rid of office politics, things would be a lot better.” Suffice it to say that was a political statement with the implication that the speaker does not do any politicking.
I’d like to present the notion that any place where people get together in a work family, there is going to be politics. The trick is to make the political action positive rather than negative. When people become more aware of their basic patterns and realize that they can change, some very positive and constructive activities can occur—cooperation, teamwork, enjoyment, even fun. I will elaborate on this later.
The point is that these basic patterns that we all learned in childhood are rather detrimental to cooperation and productivity. When we operate our selves (outside of awareness) without being aware of our choice, we are limiting our potential to a large extent.
Let’s take a moment to review the package. First, we think that we are not in charge of our selves in many of our behaviors, especially our emotions. For example, even though it may have been 30 years since you were picked up and put in a high chair, you are still likely to attribute your emotions to somebody else. Our most likely language for a positive feeling is a sentence like, “You make me feel so good.” For a negative emotion, you probably would say, “You upset me.” Thus, the other person is the subject or the person who does the action while with the use of the word, me, we become the object of the verb, the passive recipient of the other person’s actions. There does not appear to be any choice for us or any involvement on our part. “You shouldn’t have answered the phone, Chuck.”
Another pattern is that of not being enough. We may not be aware of how important this is to us, but we seem to be constantly trying to prove that we are enough. Many people seem to think that if they have enough money or material things, they will finally be viewed by others (and themselves) as being enough. The position of not being enough leads to striving and struggling, complete with a great deal of sensitivity to “slights,” methods of self-management that are not conducive to feeling good. Why not learn new skills with an attitude of interest and curiosity rather than with the attitude of trying desperately to improve our selves.
A third pattern that I mentioned earlier is that we have come to the conclusion that we are not okay, that there is something fundamentally wrong with us. This is related to the previous pattern to some extent; however, it is also different in that it brings in the notion of morality. One of the consequences is that if we are “bad,” then we become very interested in moving towards feeling good. However, because we are bad, we really do not deserve to feel good. Therefore, we frequently attempt to move toward feeling good—while using something that is not good for us.
Thus, we will use chemicals of various sorts, both legal and illegal. to move towards feeling good or relaxing while impairing our ability to function or while assaulting our body in some way. We can also use food, which we need in order to sustain life, in a way that is harmful, for example, eating too much and becoming obese. We can also use various activities to excess so that we end up harming our selves or our careers, for example, working to excess, gambling, even exercise done to extremes.
A fourth pattern that is clearly evident in our adult functioning is our focus on judgment. As we listen ·to others, we are more likely to listen for what they may say “wrong” rather than what we can learn of value for us. We spread the grid of right/wrong and good/bad across most of the dimensions of our life. We judge others and if they work harder than us, they are “bucking for a promotion.” We also are rather merciless in our evaluation of our selves. We often treat our selves much more harshly than we would a friend.
The fifth pattern that I have pointed out is the wah pattern. I went into this more extensively earlier so I won’t do it again. Suffice it to say that what works for the baby is not very useful to the adult even though we occasionally get our way because somebody else intimidates themselves or gives in just to stop the whining. Although we may sometimes get some support for our bitching from fellow bitchers, the net result is likely to be that we feel even more justified in our unhappy feelings.
What I would like to point out is that unlike the foundations of a house, which are usually made out of concrete, the patterns in our mind can be modified without tearing up the whole house. Making some mental shifts regarding these patterns can have some very beneficial results, first, for the individual. Secondly, there will be some positive “side effects” for those who either live with or work with the person who has changed his mind about these five patterns.
Since we are not being picked up and put in high chairs anymore, we might just as well decide that we are in charge of our selves, even including our feelings. The value that derives from this decision is that if we do not like the way we are feeling, we can change our mind, since whatever feeling we have, must have been our choice even if the choice were made outside of our awareness. Choosing to spend more time in the illusion of being in charge (rather than the illusion of not being in charge) and using this type of thinking to feel better will not only make our interpersonal relations more effective, we will also impact our physical health positively and function more productively.
We can decide that we are enough, that we can stop struggling and striving to prove to our selves and others that we really are enough. That does not mean that we will cease all activities, rather, we can function well, learn new skills, and enjoy others from a position of interest and enthusiasm instead of the serious struggle that typifies so many people.
Another pattern that we can re-decide is that we are okay, that there is no fundamental character flaw. Thus, we can stop beating on our selves in an effort to whip our selves into something better and end our ceaseless efforts to improve. Again, this does not mean that we will stop learning new skills, it means that we will learn more enthusiastically. Further, if we change our mind and view our selves as okay, we can treat our selves with love and respect, as we would a friend. The result could be a more relaxed attitude with an ability to see the humor in life.
Also, we can change our mind about the importance of judging and evaluating everything and everybody, including our selves. When we examine ideas, we can test for the usefulness rather than being focused on the right-wrong dimension. Others would experience us as more accepting which would lead to better interpersonal relationships.
Lastly, in regard to the wah pattern, we can change our mind there also. When we begin to feel upset (or almost any kind of psychological pain), we can change our mind, a form of internal magic. We can realize that we are different than we were as infants, that there is no magical person “out there” who is going to “pick us up and soothe us.” However, we have the magic within (adult resources), we can take care of our selves by changing our minds. Further, as we take better care of our selves and do less whining (wah), we are again more likely to facilitate positive interpersonal relations.
As you can imagine, all five of the patterns that I have pointed out are related to some extent. In the last paragraph, our ability to change our mind has to be the result of our being in charge of our selves. Also, our re-deciding that we are enough and okay is based on our sovereignty.
It is exactly because of this sovereignty that I took the position that we cannot be motivated by others. When and how we express motivated behavior is our choice, even though we may not be aware of our choosing. You may even be “motivated” to protest that you are not in charge and that you do not have choice; however, that is your decision and it is based on your earlier programming even though you have not been picked up and put in a high chair for 10, 20, maybe even 50 years.
Earlier I raised an issue that I did not fully deal with, the issue of the individuality of workers who also want to be “treated like everybody else.” I mentioned that one way of treating everybody the same is dealing with people in a respectful way, whether it be in groups or with individuals. The reason I went into the “background programming” of people who show up for work (join the work family) was an attempt to assist your understanding of some of the basic patterns that are learned in the family situation that also come into play in the work family. If you, the reader, are “normal” or typical, you will have many of the same patterns. If you want to “play the role of manager” well, you may want to take a look at some of your patterns and perhaps change a few. What I am suggesting is that since actions speak louder than words, how you manage yourself will be more important than what you say. And since you are the only instrument that you have for doing anything, how you conduct yourself is vital, not only for how you feel, but also what kind of message you “broadcast” to other people.
Perhaps it might be useful to recall some of Douglas McGregor’s ideas about managerial assumptions. Although he wrote 30 to 40 years ago, I think his basic ideas are very relevant. As I recall, he focused on two contrasting sets of managerial assumptions about people. He labeled one theory X and the other theory Y in an effort to keep the judgmental aspect minimal.
In theory X, which apparently is the norm, managers view their employees as basically lazy and uncreative. As a result, they need a great deal of close supervision since they are likely to goof off when the manager is not around. Workers will avoid whatever work they can and they will not initiate constructive changes.
For theory Y, which is the minority or atypical view, managers see their employees as industrious, talented, and creative. They enjoy meaningful work and can be counted on to participate in constructive changes. They can be very resourceful and are the company’s biggest asset.
What is very interesting is that both views can be verified. As Tom Peters points out, the assumptions that a manager has are basically very similar to self-fulfilling prophecies. He states that in a large company, there can be one department where the people function as predicted by the theory X assumptions. The workers obviously avoid really getting involved and they can’t wait for the weekend to arrive.
However, in the department next door, the workers seem to be confirming the theory Y assumptions. They work hard, volunteer suggestions, and even seem to enjoy their work.
They can be counted on to continue working even when the manager is not there. How does one account for this difference? What Tom Peters suggests is that the two sets of workers are simply responding to their manager’s behaviors, expectations, and attitudes, even though they (the workers) might not be able to articulate exactly what they are reacting to or be aware of their choice.
One of the contributors to the Harvard Business Review writes about this phenomenon, which he labels the Pygmalion Effect. Essentially, his notion is that workers will tend to conform to a manager’s expectations. This idea is based on some research by Rosenthal where students who were treated more positively by their teachers had a significant gain in their test scores at the end of the year when compared to students who had the same test scores initially but were not viewed through the same set of expectations.
How do workers and students “know” how to act, given different expectations? As I mentioned, they may not be aware of just what they are reacting to, but they certainly seem to “pick up” the supervisor’s or teacher’s attitude. It may be a combination of what is said, voice tone, and body language, but whatever the cues are, they are certainly “read.” Again, actions speak louder than words.
If you are a manager (or a teacher) and you are not getting the kind of cooperation that you would like, perhaps you might see this as feedback. You might have assumptions about your position in relation to your workers that you are not particularly aware of and you might reexamine what you are thinking. As one of the speakers at a recent seminar commented, “Our people are not employees or workers, they are associates.” What a difference that implies. It reminds me of Tom Peters comments about visitors to any of the Disney theme parks are called guests.
Many managers, particularly those that were raised in the theory X climate, are apprehensive about this new terminology. They think that there will be a loss of authority and workers will feel too “chummy” with managers and eventually take advantage of this familiarity. This, of course, is straight theory X thinking. Further, as I have pointed out throughout this booklet, managers do not have any authority over their people, the workers will only do what they want to do, as evidenced by the union movement described earlier.
While attending a recent talk, I heard the speaker say that the three most important aspects of motivation were recognition, respect, and meaningful work. I would agree with this view. The speaker went on to say that when non-cash incentives were offered for suggestions from work teams, they came up with many useful items. My reaction was how disrespectful management must have been up to that point when they had not been asking for worker input until the outside consultant came up with the idea. My view of non-cash incentives is that this is an instance of arranging the environment in a way that might be of interest to the participants, however, they will decide.
The following speaker related how he made his listening “tangible.” When he took over a department that was to be closed down, he had a very positive view of his people and saw them as the major resource in any kind of turnaround. On the first day, one of the first gripes that he heard was that the refrigerator was old and leaking water on their lunches. That evening he commandeered a pick-up and went to the appliance store and got a new one. Not a major item in one sense, but what the workers felt was that they were being listened to, a major aspect of respect. He set high expectations, was very visible and accessible with the net result that over the next few months, the department became very profitable with no threat of being discontinued.
Another speaker talked about a plant that was in desperate shape and needed a quick turnaround or there would be a shut down. When the new plant manager was selected, he came from sales; he did not know beans about manufacturing. The speaker went on to say that he was selected for his people skills rather than his knowledge of manufacturing. In my mind, it is clear that this new manager must have had theory Y assumptions about his people.
The importance of recognition, respect, and meaningful work cannot be over emphasized. I might add safety as well. When a manager interacts with his people from a theory Y basis, his actions will speak loudly about the value he places on their dignity. When this is the overriding context, the workers will generally be more involved in their work and less involved in developing grievances. If they are treated respectfully, they will be less likely to insist on the “letter of the law.” If they have a legitimate complaint, they have every confidence that it will be dealt with fairly and promptly.
What management could do is look at worker complaints, comments, and criticisms as feedback. In other works, what management is attempting to communicate is not being communicated and management would be well served to get interested in how their messages are being perceived. Operating from the assumption that the message received is the message sent, management will not spend their time attempting to “correct” the workers’ “mis-perception.” Instead, they will be interested in what the workers perceived and move from there.
Naturally, this interest on the part of management stems from a theory Y assumption, a rather unorthodox view. Further, management will see the process of interaction and clarification as an opportunity to remove obstacles from the path of the worker so that they can become more productive. In the beginning, the interactions are likely to be about relatively mundane situations (like a refrigerator). It may be that the workers are trying out management’s commitment to facilitating the quality of work life. As management listens and reacts with obvious respect for the worker’s view, more significant issues are likely to emerge.
What I have written (made up) may seem rather idealistic and perhaps even unrealistic to some. The relatively recent focus on worker involvement and worker empowerment is a testimony that the boss-subordinate relationship is undergoing a major shift. (I’m glad I didn’t miss the letter f in the last word of the previous sentence.) I would like to add that consistent with the notion that the employee is already motivated, the employee is already empowered.
Many writers seem to be taking the position that workers need to be empowered. I would say that they already are and what management needs to do is get themselves in alignment with that view. Nobody else can empower another person. The comments about the formation of unions are clear evidence of empowerment in a direction contrary to what management would have desired. Management was powerless to stop that organizing movement.
What management needs to be aware of is that the workers are already in control of themselves. They cannot be empowered by management and any attempt to preach and act as if management were giving the workers power is likely to be viewed as insulting. (Sharing information is a different story.) Management has long been guilty of claiming that the workers are their most important asset and then treating them from the position that they (management) wield the power because they hold the purse strings. Is it any wonder that the workers have been relatively disinterested in what management sets as goals without worker input?
A recent speaker mentioned a study where workers were asked if a high performance level were essential to a company’s success. Agreement with this statement was in the high 90’s. When asked if they themselves were performing at a high level of effectiveness, the resulting numbers were very modest, about 25%. Quite a gap.
Another question that was asked of workers was if they thought they would share any of the benefits if the company were more successful. The results showed that only 9% of the workers felt that a gain in the company’s performance and profitability would trickle down to their level. If that is their perception, isn’t it more understandable why they are frequently uninvolved in goals set by management (who vote themselves big bonuses)?
I might add that the workers are operating within their own set of assumptions about who they are and what they are capable of. Recall the patterns that I covered earlier. For example, they bring to their work family what they learned in their family of origin; that other people are in charge of them, that they are not enough and not okay, and that being judgmental and making a lot of noise (wah) about their sad lot will lead to a positive outcome.
If management assumes the role of the parent, the workers will not be very likely to learn and grow. That is why it is important that management make the first step in initiating change. Management needs to understand why the initial behavior of many workers is so far below their potential and not make the kind of judgments that are “confirming” of theory X. It is important to create a climate where the worker can grow into an acceptance of the fact that he arrived empowered. It is also important for both parties to recognize the importance of patience during this process.
The effective manager already “knows” and functions in a way consistent with the theory Y assumptions. He communicates his respect for the individual in any number of hard to specify ways. He will have high expectations of his people and will be very complimentary when the workers deserve praise. He will not shirk from giving negative feedback, but will conduct himself in a positive non-blaming manner. Rather than depending on annual reviews, his people will get frequent feedback so they know where they stand. He has to be on the front line when there are problems and he needs to represent his people to upper management and shield them from some of the unnecessary bureaucratic demands. There is no one ideal personality type, however, enthusiasm and having the ability to laugh at oneself are both probably close to being essential.
Some people who read this may conclude that since they cannot make other people do what they want to that they should give up or give in. Of course, I am not recommending that approach. What I am saying is that since we are impotent to run others, that leaves us powerful inside since nobody else can run us either. The benefit from this thinking is that we can stop putting pressure on our selves to do the impossible, i.e., make somebody else do what we want. As a result, we can relax, do our selves lightly, take our work seriously, and interact with others positively. Thus, we are less likely to give our selves ulcers or high blood pressure, a very positive benefit from changing our mind.
These are some of my thoughts on the topic of motivation, an inside story. What the individual is telling himself is more important than what somebody else is saying. I hope these thoughts are useful in some way to you. I hope it adds to “your story.” I have enjoyed putting these thoughts on paper.
Enjoy Your Self!
About the Author
Marlowe Erickson received his Doctorate from the University of Michigan in 1964. After working for the State of Michigan for several years and teaching extension courses for the University of Michigan, he moved to St. Louis, Missouri, to join group private practice. After two years, he was hired as a Staff Psychologist by one of his corporate clients. Five years later, he left to begin a private practice with his wife, Mary, a social worker who had worked as a sex therapist with Masters and Johnson for a number of years. In addition, he was a part-time consultant to a residential drug treatment program dealing primarily with heroin addicts.
As he phased out of the drug consultancy, his private practice grew and he was invited to join the adjunct faculty at the Washington University School of Business in 1981. His course (Interpersonal Competence in Organizations) became very popular among the part-time MBA students who found it to be both enjoyable and valuable. Later he was asked to offer a similar course in the University College Human Resources Management Program and at the Medical School in the Health Administration Program.
In recent years, he has been asked to offer a mini-version of his course at various businesses and organizations in addition to a variety of speaking engagements. He has also been writing some of his thoughts about various topics in a series of booklets. They are all being published here on this site for the world to access for free.
Thoughts Marlowe Thought 