WorkPuzzle

Disgruntled Over Fees: How To Reframe The Conversation

As a member of the American Psychological Association, I get an annual request for some hefty dues.  The amount is always a bit of a shock.  These are fees I really don’t have to pay.  I could easily drop out of the Association.  But instead, each year, I write the check and send it in.  I have no manager or supervisor to complain to...nobody to negotiate with...just me and the internal conflict:  to pay, or not to pay.  And, like I said, I pay.

I recently had the opportunity to speak to a large group of managers about a related topic:  The real estate industry's annual problem of dealing with conflicts and negotiations around agent fees.

Managers constantly dread the invariable conversations around defending the value agents are deriving from the fees they pay to their respective companies.  Several months ago, one manager described like this:

“It's like I’m always on my heels.” 

Being on your heels is never a promising stance if you don’t want to get pushed over.  So, if all managers are on their heels, how does one get back on their toes?

There are several principles that can help you reframe your role and regain your footing when it comes to having these discussions.  Now, much of what I am about to say will require you to dig deep and reflect on your true value to your agents in order to pull this off.  As you’ll see, each ensuing layer of this approach will demand that you reflect more and more about your true core reasons for doing what you do.

(1)  The number one foundational principle is that you must learn to see your role as a semi-neutral party who is sincerely trying to help your agents arrive at the very best decision for themselves, their families and their future.  You’ll be surprised what can happen when you take this role.  What does this look like?

First, neutrality demands that you understand that questioning is normal.  We all have internal doubts about being cheated.  None of us want to pay fees that are unreasonable.

(2)  When you normalize questioning it's easier to carry out the second principle: Refuse to take sides.  When you refuse to take sides you leave the conflict where it belongs; Inside the head of the person with the conflict (see Anatomy of a Decision).  Only by pushing the conflict (both sides) back into the agent's head can you begin to help them reveal and weigh both sides, without bringing yourself into a position of defending the opposing view.

We’ve all experienced what I’m referring to.  The same agent who is forcing you to defend the fees, was the very night before defending the fees to his/her spouse, who was complaining about the fees.  We all defend and attack sides depending on who we are speaking to.  So...refuse to play that game.  Once you defend one side, you force your agent to defend the other side.

Remember...for me and my APA dues, there is nobody to complain to.  So, I have to play out the two parts of the argument inside my head.  Both sides present themselves and argue, until it becomes a rational internal discussion of weighing the pros and cons, the benefits and liabilities, and yes – what the Association has done to indirectly (through media PR, research, conference development, technology investment, etc.) ensure that the public has a good perception of Psychologists in general.

I make my best decisions by weighing both sides, by myself.  Some people are capable of doing this, others need someone to facilitate this inner dialogue.   In this case, that someone is you!  In the next edition I'll share what you can do to further your role as facilitator.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

The Importance Of Grit

We all know people who aren’t necessarily exceedingly intelligent or particularly talented, who have a way of succeeding no matter what they do.

A researcher noticed this about ten years ago and set out to learn what this is and how it works.   Since then, Angela Lee Duckworth, PhD, has conducted a series of studies on a concept called "grit."  Grit is another word for backbone, chutzpah, fortitude, guts, stick-to-it-iveness, etc.  It all started when Dr. Duckworth (while a student in Graduate School) observed that it wasn't necessarily the smartest people who succeeded and made a lasting impact on science. 

She had a hunch that it was a person's personal "grit" recipe that made the difference in their level of success.  Across six studies, Duckworth found that grit significantly contributed to successful outcomes:  Undergrads with the most grit earned higher grade point averages than their peers.  West Point Cadets with the highest levels of grit were more likely to return after the first summer.  Even "grittier" spelling bee competitors (a situation where IQ would seem the best predictor) out-spelled their less tenacious competitors.  Among older individuals, people with substantial grit had higher levels of education and made fewer career changes than less gritty peers of the same age.

In reviewing the literature, there appears to be little explanation as to how a person can acquire grit.  So, is this something innate in some and not in others?  Is it based on our genetic make-up?  Or, are there outside influences that haven't been explored as of yet (socio-economic status, traumatic circumstances early in life, family dynamics, etc...)?

Duckworth is still trying to find the answer.  But I want to remind you of the research on the growth mind set, which states that if you simply teach people about how the brain has the ability to change and grow, they can change and adopt new behaviors and learn beyond what they imagined was possible.  This is not pop psychology.  This is an empirically proven fact.  

So, ask your most gritty managers, executives and agents, “What has made you gritty?” or, “What is it about how you think that makes you capable of overcoming so many obstacles?”

I guarantee that you will have a powerful discussion develop that you never could have anticipated.

Many successful people don't attribute their success to their IQ or level of talent, but rather to their tenacity.  Genius Thomas Edison was one of those people.  Edison once said:  "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up." 

"When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not hang on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn."  (Harriet Beecher Stowe)

Here is another prime example of grit:  Poet David Baker is Director of Creative Writing at Denison University, and author of seven books of poetry, including "Midwest Eclogue."  Mr. Baker laments: 

"Unfortunately, no one comes in my window and whispers poems to me... Poets [have to] work hard.  I may work on a single poem for weeks or months and write 60 or 70 drafts—only to decide that draft 22 was the good one."

Along these same lines, people often refer to Mozart's diaries, where he divulges that an entire symphony appeared, supposedly intact, in his head.  However, Jonathan Plucker an educational psychologist at Indiana University points out:

"But no one ever quotes the next paragraph, where he talks about how he refined the work for months."

So what can we learn from this?  The data shows that if we praise talent and accomplishments, we get stagnation, and even failure.  However, in studies where "effort" was rewarded, the result was growth and greater success.  Stick to rewarding effort in you and in others and you'll develop a successful team.  

Success comes to those who work harder...

In the meantime, if you want to contribute to science, visit http://www.ppresearch.sas.upenn.edu/ to take a ten minute grit assessment.

Source:  Psychology Today

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

Authenticity: Does Anyone Believe What You’re Saying?

As we work with companies, we’re often asked for advice concerning how to “get the message out” regarding recruiting.  Everyone seems to have a keen interest in the tapping and optimizing marketing vehicles that deliver their recruiting message to the widest possible number of candidates.

Case in point-- I was with a group of real estate managers a couple of weeks ago who were bemoaning the effective techniques their competitors were using to bombard their agents with recruiting messages.  There was a legitimate concern and even a little fear in the eyes of those managers who thought that their competitors were going to be successful and ravage their company.

Do you think they had anything to worry about?  Not if these managers are authentic and credible with their own agents and candidates.  The problem with the “carpet bombing” approach their competitors were practicing, is a lack of authenticity.  Their recruiting messages were self-centered, filled with exaggerations, and very repetitive in nature.  They weren’t very believable and bordered on annoying.

These are the types of messages that talented people tend to screen out quickly.  Of course, the campaigns are having some impact (or they would stop using them), but it is a numbers game that requires a huge dissemination of the message because the return is so low.  In addition, the new hires that are captured through this approach will tend to be low quality or be candidates who are so “abused” in their existing organization that even something gimmicky looks appealing.

So, how does one defeat a competitor who is recruiting like this?  The best way is to attack them where they are weakest—their own lack of credibility.  Do this by making sure that your messaging is authentic. 

Dr. John Sullivan recently wrote an article that provides some great insight regarding how to make sure that your recruiting messages contain this quality. 

Seven Factors That Increase Authenticity:

There are a variety of factors that increase a message’s probability of being perceived as authentic, including:

Support data — the availability of data or specifics about a program that support the subject of the message.

Credibility of the source — the credibility of the source based on the accuracy of previous messages.

Shared values — the perception of shared values and experiences between the author and the reader.

Candidness — the degree to which messages acknowledge imperfection.

The degree of professionalism — the extent of professional appearance in the design, editing, and writing, as well as any pictures that are included (too much isn’t a good thing).

The degree of filtering — the extent to which messages are scripted, screened, or filtered by corporate executives.

Two-way messaging — the extent to which you provide opportunities for questions, feedback, and comments by others.

To get started, use these principles as a checklist to evaluate your existing recruiting messages.  If your messages do not contain these components, then they are not being perceived by your candidates as authentic and need to be changed.  As you make changes, build messages that contain the components that Dr. Sullivan lists.

Next, make sure that you’re being credible and authentic with those who are already on your team.  If a candidate interacts with your organization and finds that your messaging matches the reality in your organization, a bridge is built.  If it turns out that you have a low-quality team, no amount of messaging to the contrary is going to help.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

The Top Management and Leadership Blogs

Much of what we present in Workpuzzle is gathered and synthesized from multiple sources, including other business blogs.  Earlier this month, in his own blog, Jurgen (yes, one name), compiled an organized list of the top 150 management/leadership blogs in the world. 

To adequately critique the blogs, he "retrieved their Google Page Rank, Bing hit count, Alexa Ranking, Technorati Authority, Twitter Grader, PostRank and FeedBurner count."

So here are the first 50 on Jurgen's list:

1. The Blog of Tim Ferriss - Tim Ferris
2. Leading With Purpose - Michael Hyatt
3. Anthony Robbins Training Blog - Anthony Robbins
4. How to Change the World - Guy Kawasaki
5. Daniel Pink - Daniel H. Pink
6. Management IQ - Business Week
7. GTD Times
8. Life Beyond Code Blog - Rajesh Setty
9. Dispatches from the New World of Work - Tom Peters
10. Three Star Leadership Blog - Wally Bock
11. The Business Blog at Intuitive.com - Dave Taylor
12. 800 CEO Read Daily Blog - (various)
13. Leading Blog - Michael McKinney
14. Great Leadership - Dan McCarthy
15. Grant McCracken - Grant McCracken
16. NOOP.NL - Jurgen Appelo
17. Ramblings from a Glass Half Full - Terry Starbucker
18. Ask a Manager - Alison Green
19. John Maxwell on Leadership - John Maxwell
20. Donald Trump Blog - (various) 
21. Leadership Team - Orrin Woodward
22. Robin Sharma Blog - Robin Sharma
23. N2Growth - Mike Myatt
24. Sanders Says - Tim Sanders
25. Chief Happiness Officer - Alexander Krejulf
26. Execupundit - Michael Wade
27. Work Matters - Bob Sutton
28. Life Optimizer - Donald Latumahina
29. Rosabeth Moss Kanter - Rosabeth Moss Kanter
30. Trust Matters - Charles Green
31. The Bing Blog - Stanley Bing
32. All Things Workplace - Steve Roesler
33. Positive Organizational Behavior - Bret L. Simmons
34. WeeklyLeader - (various)
35. Management Craft - Lisa Haneberg
36. The Practice of Leadership - George Ambler
37. The Wayne Dyer Blog - Wayne W. Dyer
38. Brian Tracy's Blog - Brian Tracy
39. Bob Burg's Blog - Bob Burg
40. RapidBI - Mike Morrison
41. Management Excellence - Art Petty
42. KR Connect - Kevin Roberts
43. Dale Carnegie Blog - (various)
44. Leading Questions - Ed Brenegar
45. CEO Blog - Time Leadership - Jim Estill
46. Stephen R. Covey - Stephen R. Covey
47. Curious Cat Management Improvement - John Hunter
48. Ed Batista - Ed Batista
49. Learn This - Mike King
50. Cranky Middle Manager - Wayne Turmel

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

Effective Meetings: Are You Doing It Right?

Research shows that we are spending more time in meetings than ever before.  What differentiates good meetings from poor meetings?  The answer can separate success from failure.  The experts have empirically looked long and hard at methods for optimizing meetings.  The below research-based suggestions are some of the better strategies that I have encountered.

Studies conducted by Robert Perkins Ph.D. of Mercer University, found that leaders who were weak in process skills and focused solely on the content of their agenda, had less success in their overall goals.  In fact, when leaders were unaware that there was more to their meetings than the dimension of content, their meetings were much less satisfying, had higher levels of conflict, and a lack of buy-in.

On the other hand, leaders who attended to both process and content when facilitating a meeting, generated more successful meetings and outcomes.
 
So what are process skills?  Process behaviors can be proposing ideas, increasing participation, reducing tension, asking clarifying questions, summarizing, and testing for consensus.  Content behaviors can be giving information, seeking information, telling, and disagreeing/attacking.  One group of researchers found that CEOs who increased participation of their team with regard to strategic decision making, achieved better quality decisions.  The team perceived their leader as much more trustworthy and felt more satisfied and committed to implementation.

In contrast, leaders who gave their own opinions too frequently or aggressively, or who disagreed directly or attacked the opinions of others, held less successful meetings and had less participant commitment.

Here are some effective process behaviors and strategies that can help lead the way toward successful meetings:

1. Reduce Tension:  Conflict is bound to arise.  When it does, the best leaders use humor, especially self-deprecating jokes, to quickly reduce the tension and demonstrate that they aren't taking themselves too seriously.  Poking fun at ourselves can evolve into a team trend that can be used when things get too heated to instantly lighten the tone.  This takes practice.
2. Ask questions:  Since the time of Plato and Socrates, the use of questions have intended to engage all members in dialogue.  Decreasing leader dominance is an effective way for teams to encourage the sharing and collaboration of ideas.  Clarifying questions intended to facilitate further discussion bring deeper understanding of problems and creativity in finding solutions.  The opposite shuts everyone down and restricts innovation.
3. Test for consensus:  A sure way to lessen commitment is to push through self-authorized agendas.  Instead, successful leaders make sure that they block any monopolization and domination of the discussion and bring non-responsive team members into the conversation.

All of the successful leaders who were studied followed the basics of how to run a meeting, such as routinely preparing agendas, adhering to time constraints (that is my pet peeve), and keeping discussions orderly and on topic.

Lastly, don’t think that being process-focused will leave you making decisions you can’t live with.  No matter how important it is to show your willingness to share the power and listen respectfully, no successful leader in these studies expressed a willingness to accept a group decision if they disagreed with the direction and predicted an unfavorable outcome.  The leader still holds the accountability of all decisions and everyone is usually understanding of this fact.

Hope this helps you prepare for your next meeting.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Dr. David Mashburn.  Dave is a Clinical and Consulting Psychologist, Partner at Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.  

How Candidate Abuse Impacts Your Organization

As you may know, our company has the opportunity to interface with the management teams of many different organizations across the country.  While this is a great privilege for us and we learn a great deal from these interactions, we also have the opportunity to identify patterns of behavior across these companies.  Some of those patterns are positive and some are negative.

  Today, I'd like to draw your attention to one of the negative patterns that exists in many businesses, and touches nearly every industry - It is the tendency that many companies have to treat candidates disrespectfully.

Dr. John Sullivan, a professor at San Francisco State University, recently wrote one of the best articles I've read on this topic.  The article is compelling because it correctly quantifies the financial impact a company experiences when it treats candidates poorly.  This article is quite long, but I believe you'll miss some of the impact if I attempt to summarize it.  So, I'll republish part of the article below and then I'll provide a link to the entire article for you to continue reading if this is a topic that interests you.

---

"How Candidate Abuse Is Costing Your Firm Millions of Dollars in Revenue"     -Dr. John Sullivan

A reporter from the Wall Street Journal once asked me what I thought was the greatest secret in recruiting. Such a broad question would usually cause one to ponder, but my immediate response was that abusive hiring processes cost organizations millions of dollars by turning possible customers into lifelong "haters.”

For decades it has been accepted that god-awful treatment of candidates is normal, and that since it is widespread, it’s OK. How anyone in recruiting cannot connect that a poor candidate experience is similar to a poor customer experience and assume that there is a significant negative impact is disturbing. Anyone with a basic knowledge of customer relationship management knows that there is a well-documented correlation between customer satisfaction (with their treatment and the products purchased) and customer retention, i.e. their willingness to buy from the organization again.

Organizations like the Ritz-Carlton and Wal-Mart have elevated monitoring guest satisfaction to a science and know the exact dollar cost of obtaining a customer, upsetting a customer, and losing a lifelong customer. While such evaluation is common in sales and customer support functions, it is nearly unheard of in HR functions, which often interact with a significant volume of potential customers in any given year. The impact of a poor “candidate experience” is uncalculated, unreported, and not discussed, making it quite possibly one of the largest “hidden costs” facing modern organizations.

Given that median job tenure is approximately 3.9 years, it’s highly probable that the vast majority of you reading this article suffered through an interview process in recent years or have a close friend of family member that did. As professionals in recruiting, we know the process sucks; the volume of evidence indicating so is overwhelming.

Staffing.org has for many years reported that more than 70% of applicants find the process distasteful. In most organizations little or no thought has been given to how the candidate experiences the process. Instead, the design is solely based on administrative need. Many organizations treat candidates more like prisoners or detainees than customers.

Applicants voluntarily come to your company wanting to help. They spend dozens of unpaid hours preparing for your process. Many of them may in fact be paying customers. Unfortunately they are all too frequently met with web pages that offer up generic content and are black holes when it comes to advancing their objectives. If they advance, candidates will also likely undergo a painful drawn-out application process, intervi ews scheduled at the most inconvenient times, and ultimately be dropped from consideration with little or no honest feedback about why.

I estimate that the average professional candidate voluntarily spends more than $1,000 worth of their own time and money in preparing for and participating in an organization’s hiring process. Given that level of investment, they deserve to be treated like good customers.

Remember that being treated poorly during the hiring process which often ends up in being rejected will not result in a mild disappointment, but rather unhappiness bordering on anger. Individuals who once championed your organization will likely become activists against your organization for at least two years and maybe a lifetime.

....Read the remainder of Dr. Sullivan's article. 

---

If you're in a business that interfaces directly with the public, then your candidates are your potential customers.  It is important that your hiring process is designed so that every candidate has a better opinion of your organization after they interact with those involved in recruiting.  Making sure you've got this right is time and money well spent.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

 

Drive: New Thoughts And Theories On Motivation - Part 2

From our previous discussions (1, 2, 3) regarding Daniel Pink’s book, Drive, we’ve learned that motivation among human beings has long been quantified in terms of a first level of motivation--the biological or survival drive (hunger, thirst, safety, etc.).  Beyond that, the second level of motivation is commonly described as the tendency of individuals to respond to rewards and punishments in their environment.  Most businesses and work environments focus on motivation from one or both of these perspectives.

For several decades, a few scientists have been working to quantify and harness a third human drive—what many people call “intrinsic motivation.”  This is a powerful concept and there is much interest now in closing the gap between what science knows and what business does.
 
Have you put some thought into how you can begin implementing ideas surrounding intrinsic motivation with those on your coaching team now, and those who you hope to attract to your team in the future?  If not, I’ll attempt to point you in the right direction today.  There is no way to cover this topic thoroughly in a few short articles, but hopefully I’ll have peaked your interest enough to read more about it.

The research on “Self Determination Theory” (SDT) as summarized in Pink’s book concludes that in order for a person to be intrinsically motivated on the job, their day-to-day work must contain autonomy, engagement, and purpose.  I’ll summarize each of these principles separately:

Autonomy:

Our “default setting” as human beings is to be autonomous and self-directed.  Unfortunately, circumstances, including outdated notions of “management” (including carrot and stick motivation techniques)—often conspire to change that default setting and turn us from being intrinsically motivated to just responding to external pokes, prods and incentives.  To get past external motivation framework and engage a person’s third drive (and the high performance it enables), the first requirement is autonomy.
 
People need autonomy over tasks (what they do), time (when they do it), team (who they do it with), and technique (how they do it).  Companies that offer autonomy, sometimes in radical doses, are out-performing their competitors.  Examples include: 

• Best Buy: Pioneered the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE)
• Google and 3M: 20% “Work on What Interests You” Time
• Zappos.com and Jet Blue: Perform customer service based on “what makes sense” to the customer service representative
• Gore and Associates (makers of GORE-TEX): Follow the philosophy that "to lead a team, you have to assemble your own team and the members have to agree to work for you."

Engagement/Mastery:
 
While extrinsic motivation requires compliance, intrinsic motivation demands engagement.  If you’re a regular reader of WorkPuzzle, you know we’ve spent a lot of time on this subject.
 
Only engagement can produce mastery - becoming better at something that matters.  And the pursuit of mastery, an important but often dormant part of our third drive, has become essential to making one’s way in the economy. 

Mastery begins with “flow”—optimal experiences when the challenges we face are exquisitely matched to our abilities.  Smart workforces therefore supplement day-to-day activities with “Goldilocks tasks” –not too hard and not too easy.

Mastery abides by three particular rules:

1. Mastery is a mindset: It requires the capacity to see your abilities not as finite, but as infinitely improvable (Do you remember the growth mindset?).
2. Mastery is pain: It demands effort, grit, and deliberate practice (Do you remember the Talent Code?).
3. Mastery is an asymptote: It’s impossible to fully realize, which makes it simultaneously frustrating and alluring.

Purpose:

Humans, by their nature, seek purpose—a cause greater and more enduring than themselves.  But traditional businesses have long considered purpose ornamental—a perfectly nice accessory, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of the important things.  But, that’s changing—thanks in part to the rising tide of aging baby boomers reckoning with their own mortality.

From an extrinsic motivation framework, purpose maximization is taking its place alongside profit maximization as an aspiration and guiding principle.  Within organizations, this new “purpose motive” is expressing itself in three ways:  (1) in goals that use profit to reach purpose; (2) in words that emphasize more than self-interest; and (3) in policies that allow people to pursue purpose on their own terms.  This move to accompany profit maximization with purpose maximization has the potential to rejuvenate our businesses with people who have an internal passion to do their best work.

There is a lot on this topic to digest.  If you’re feeling overwhelmed or confused about how all of this could possibly be applied to your organization, let me encourage you to start making the application to your personal circumstances first.  Is your job structured in a way that allows you to personally experience intrinsic motivation?  If not, start making changes in how your own job is structured and what you’re subsequently experiencing in your daily work regimen.  Build upon the intrinsic motivation you feel to make adjustments in how you interact with your team and impact your organization at large.

If you want to learn more, pick up one of Daniel Pink’s books or any of the great books that we’ve referenced over the last year in WorkPuzzle.  We all have a lot to learn... 

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below. 

Drive: New Thoughts and Theories on Motivation

So, we’ve learned (1,2) that the “carrot and stick” motivation techniques often fall short at producing desired results.  Worse yet, deploying such techniques sometimes worsens the status quo to the point where offering no incentives at all produces a better end result.

Of course, this begs the question—if the “carrot and stick” does not work, what does?  Daniel Pink, best-selling author of Drive, spends the majority of his book answering this question.  As you might imagine, the answer is not very simple and concise, but I’ll try to summarize a few of the high points in the next couple of articles.

Motivation techniques take on new and vibrant life when you can get an individual to switch from being extrinsically motivated to being intrinsically motivated.  To address this desired migration, a few prominent researchers are starting to focus on “self-determination theory” (SDT) as the best vehicle to get us there.  Pink describes it this way:

“Many theories of behavior pivot around a particular human tendency:  We’re keen responders to positive and negative reinforcements, or zippy calculators of our self-interest, or lumpy duffel bags of psychological conflicts.  SDT, by contrast, begins with a notion of universal human needs.  It argues that we have three innate psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness.  When those needs are satisfied, we’re motivated, productive, and happy.  When those needs are thwarted, our motivation, productivity, and happiness plummet.”

This may sound overly simplified, but this motivation theory boils down to engaging what many people are now calling a third drive—the capacity each human has for interest (the first drive is biological--eating, sleeping, sex, etc.; the second drive is responding to rewards and punishments in one's environment).  

For many people, this third drive is suppressed—especially when it comes to work and vocation.  But for a small minority, this aspect of humanity emerges and blossoms on the job.  These are the people you would probably already recognize as intrinsically motivated, and it’s the characteristic we desire to develop in those who are missing it.

While the research on this topic is still somewhat limited, it is starting to gain momentum:

“Over the last thirty years…a network of several dozen SDT scholars has been conducting research in the United States, Canada, Israel, Singapore, and throughout Western Europe.  These scientists have explored self-determination and intrinsic motivation in laboratory experiments and field studies that encompass just about every realm—business, education, medicine, sports, exercise, personal productivity, environmentalism, relationships, and physical  and mental health.  They have produced hundreds of research papers, most of which point to the same conclusion.  Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to each other.  And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives.”

Take a minute to inventory your work environment.  If you’re coaching and managing a team, do the individuals on your team have the opportunity to operate under these important principles?  If you’re trying to recruit the best talent, are you able to offer an environment where talented individuals will feel engaged and experience their own intrinsic motivation?

These are important questions to consider if you want to successfully compete in the future.  Next week, we’ll cover how to start to integrate these ideas into your team. 

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Motivation: The Downside of the Carrot and Stick—Part 2

Last week, I introduced the concept that commonly held beliefs about “carrot and stick” motivation techniques may not be very effective.  I shared the results of an experiment conducted at Princeton University that illustrated how a person’s creativity is restricted when “if-then” incentives are introduced into a problem-solving scenario.

While interesting, one experiment is not sufficient to shape our concept of motivation—especially if this means giving up some closely held beliefs that we feel are effective.  In his book Drive, Daniel Pink lays out a more complete case based on research from many different sources to make his point:  There is a significant downside to using carrot and stick motivation techniques.  I’ll summarize the research below. 

The Seven Deadly Flaws of Carrot and Stick Motivation Beliefs

1.  It can extinguish intrinsic motivation.

After examining three decades of studies conducted on this topic, behavioral scientist, Edward Deci, stated, “Careful consideration of reward effects reported in 128 experiments lead to the conclusion that tangible rewards have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation.”   In essence, when you focus on short-term results, you do so at the expense of long-term motivation.

2.  It can backfire and diminish performance.

In recent years, four economists—two from MIT, one from Carnegie Mellon, and one from the University of Chicago-- were asked by the Federal Reserve to affirm the simple business principle that higher rewards lead to higher performance.  Their conclusion… "We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”

3.  It can crush creativity.

I shared the candle experiment in my last WorkPuzzle which suggested  that time pressures hinder creativity.  Many other experiments support this finding.  Pink concludes, “For artists, scientists, inventors, schoolchildren, and the rest of us, intrinsic motivation—the drive to do something because it is interesting, challenging, and absorbing—is essential for high levels of creativity.  But the 'if-then' motivators that are the staple of most businesses often stifle, rather than stir, creative thinking.”

4. It can crowd out good behavior.

In a famous Swedish study, researchers tracked the percentage of people who would donate blood voluntarily.  With no incentive (other than good will), 53% of the test group chose to give blood.  When an incentive was introduced, the percentage dropped to 30%.  Why?  “It tainted an altruistic act and crowded out intrinsic desire to do something good.”

5.  It can encourage unethical behavior.

“Most of the scandals and misbehavior that have seemed endemic to modern life involve shortcuts.  Executives game their quarterly earnings so they can snag a performance bonus.  Secondary school counselors doctor student transcripts so their seniors can get into college.  Athletes inject themselves with steroids to post better numbers and trigger lucrative performance bonuses.”  Intrinsic motivation doesn’t fit with this model.  When the reward is the activity itself—deepening learning, delighting customers, doing one’s best—there are no shortcuts.

6.  It can become addictive.

Any parent who has ever thought of paying their kids to take out the garbage knows that the chances of getting them to take out the garbage for free in the future are very slim!  Rewards offered for positive behavior often have to be subsequently increased to get the same level of performance.  The reward becomes addictive.  Casinos have done research on the ability of people to make good decisions when there are rewards at stake.  Their findings?  You guessed it.  When rewards are offered (even small ones), the likelihood of people switching from risk-adverse behavior to risk-seeking behavior, increases significantly.

7.  It fosters short-term thinking.

It only makes sense that offering incentives will often produce short-term results.  Several studies show that paying people to exercise, stop smoking, or take their medicines produces terrific results at first—but the healthy behavior disappears once the incentives are removed.  Pink puts it this way, “Greatness and nearsightedness are incompatible.  Meaningful achievement depends on lifting one’s sights and pushing towards the horizon.”

Conclusion:  Be very careful if you are going to use carrot and stick motivation techniques to get results from yourself or those you manage and coach.  Of course, this begs the question…what does work?  We’ll cover that in our next discussion.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.

Motivation: The Downside of the Carrot and Stick

Earlier this week, Dave began a discussion regarding motivation, which we hope has jump started your quest to be a better motivational force to those in your circle of influence.  One of the purposes of WorkPuzzle is to help you apply science and thoughtful study to management topics.  We believe this is the best way to separate what’s truly valid from those preconceived notions (that are often false) that keep us from producing the best results.

A few weeks ago, I picked up a book called Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.  This is the second bestselling book written by author Daniel Pink in the last couple of years, so he’s obviously tapping a nerve with the topics he covers in his books.  

I’ve found this book particularly intriguing.  Pink does a great job of scientifically dispelling many of the misunderstandings I personally have concerning motivation.  These misconceptions involve what I believe will motivate me personally and also what I’ve come to believe will motivate those around me.  Over the next week or so, we’ll discuss a few of the highlights regarding Pink’s work.  You’ll be surprised by what you learn.

Let’s start with the most commonly held motivation topic of all time—the proverbial carrot and stick. Through experience and study, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are many advantages to using incentives over punishments to motivate people.  Of course, there are others who believe that punishments, applied correctly and under the right set of circumstances, serve as a better source of motivation.
 
There are good arguments on both sides of this topic, but Daniel Pink points out that scientific research has largely made this debate a moot point.  Why?  Because neither the carrot nor the stick motivation techniques are effective in most circumstances!  In fact, deploying any sort of “if-then” reward system (if you do a task, then you get a reward) typically demotivates those performing a requested task.

To show you how this works, let's review an experiment originally conducted by psychologist, Karl Drucker, in the 1930’s.  The experiment involved a participant being given the articles in the picture below (the items inside the box are common thumb tacks), and then being asked to attach the candle to the wall in a way that when lit, it will not drop any wax on the table below.

Think for a minute how you would solve this problem.  Most people first attempt to use the tacks to fasten the candle to the wall, but quickly discover that it doesn’t work.  Some people then try to use a match to melt the side of the candle and stick it to the wall.  That doesn’t work either.  Eventually, after five to ten minutes, most people figure out that the tacks can be easily used to fasten the box perpendicular to the wall.  This creates a shelf that the candle can be placed upon.  A quick drop of melted wax securely attaches the candle to the shelf, and the shelf ensures that wax will not drip on the table.  Problem solved.

This experiment has been used in many behavioral science studies over the years, but it wasn’t until recently that psychologists at Princeton University started to wonder if motivated individuals could solve the problem more quickly.  Of course, to prove out this hypothesis, the researchers offered incentives (a carrot) to those people who could solve the problem quickly.  The participants in the study were told they would receive a monetary reward if they were among the top (fastest) 25% who solved the problem in the group.  Furthermore, the person who solved the problem first would also receive an additional, quite substantial, bonus.

Guess what happened?  Remember, the problem usually took five to ten minutes to solve when no incentives were offered.  When the participants were given incentives, it took an average of 3.5 minutes longer to solve the candle problem!  The carrot produced the opposite result than what the researchers had hoped for and expected.

This is what makes motivation such a tricky topic.  Well-intended interventions can not only fail to produce the desired results, but can often make things worse.  It’s like going to a casino...you can not only fail to win, you can lose the money you bet in the first place.

In the case of the candle experiment, here’s what happened:  The solution to the problem requires a certain level of creativity - In order to solve the problem, the subject has to eventually stop seeing the box as a container for tacks, and see it as a shelf for a candle.  When the time incentive is offered, the brain starts to shut down some of its creative function and focuses more energy on winning the race.  The very thing needed to win the race is being hampered by the carrot.

This is just one example of many studies where incentives have been documented to produce diminished results.  In fact, the research now suggests that there are only a very few specific circumstances where “if-then” incentives produce better results (we’ll cover those in a future discussion).  For the large majority of conditions, the carrot / stick motivation techniques serve to undermine performance.

We’ll delve into this in more detail in upcoming discussions.  In the meantime, start to inventory your own personal behavior and pinpoint where carrot / stick motivation techniques have become part of the fabric of how you work with people. 

Researchers can help us find better ways to motivate and inspire those around us, but the first step is to identify how and where our current efforts have backfired on us...  

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.