I2I - Incentive Intelligence

Rankings and Motivation – Why You Need to Read This Blog

I had a whole ‘nother post planned (or at least considered – it was all done, I just needed to write it) but I saw a tweet from @BobCorlett ths morning linking to an article on the Wharton site with this headline:

Ranking Employees: Why Comparing Workers to Their Peers Can Often Backfire

And this rather blunt conclusion:

“’Many managers think that giving workers feedback about their performance relative to their peers inspires them to become more competitive -- to work harder to catch up, or excel even more. But in fact, the opposite happens,’ says Barankay,…”

Those kinds of statements get my attention.  I know for a #fact that social norms, consensus and relative status DOES affect performance and behavior.  It has been proven (as much as any psychological/sociological theory can be proven) in many studies (see Cialdini Influencers here.) 

Let me recap the results:

• When given the choice of getting feedback on their relative ranking or not, workers chose NO feedback 3:1 over getting feedback.  
   
• In a second experiment to test whether workers who were shown rankings wanted to more work versus those that weren’t shown relative rankings, 66% of those that were NOT ranked came back for work versus 42% who were ranked.  The author then concludes that ranking decreases desire for more work.  Additionally, he noted that workers who were ranked were 22% less productive in future work than those that weren’t ranked.

Pretty interesting results and if taken at face value many companies and managers may start to question whether reporting relative rankings is an effective lever for influencing behavior.

But… I don’t think it’s valid…

Here’s why you need to read this blog – ‘cuz I read this stuff maybe a bit closer than the average bear.  If you read the study and look at the process they used to pick their study population you’ll see they used something called “Mechanical Turk.”  A description of this service from the article:

“His study involved 330 employees recruited via Mechanical Turk, Amazon.com's "crowd-sourcing" platform for work conducted and submitted online. Employers post jobs on the website's listings section -- most of which involve piecemeal, routine work, such as organizing photos, writing or editing text, and basic data entry. Prospective employees scroll through the list and select a task they want to complete.

When workers, also called "turkers," click on a job, they are led to a web page that presents a set of tasks. After completing the tasks, a worker can decide whether to continue on to the next job. The jobs typically pay $.03 to $.50 per task, and tasks usually take between a few minutes to an hour to complete. Among the companies that use Mechanical Turk are Google, Yahoo and Zappos.com, the online shoe and clothing purveyor.”

So… the big problem?

Relative rankings (social proof, consensus in other words) is a “social” behavior influencer.  In other words you need to be part of a social group (sales department in a company, sales in general as an occupation, etc.) In order for social influencers to work you kinda need the social thing – you need to identify with or connect with those that you’re being compared to.

This experiment, for all intents and purposes REMOVED the one thing that makes relative rankings work – the SOCIAL aspect of comparing performance.

Let me put it this way – 

I CARE if you compare my blog writing skills to other blog writers (especially if narrow it down to those that I follow and respect) 

I DON’T CARE if you compare my blog writing skills to a high-school English teacher who writes short stories on the weekend.  Why would I care?  He/she is too far removed from my identity for me to give a rip how well I compare.

That’s what the Mechanical Turk population is – a rag-tag group of people with no social connection that search for work online.  Who knows what their real skill sets are?  Why would Bobby in Alabama, who fixes cars for a living, care if he did a better job categorizing photos than Mary in Poughkeepsie, who is a social media maven?  There’s no connection – other than that specific, free-lance job – and that ain’t enough.  That’s transactional, not social.

The Key Learning?

• First of all – read these studies carefully and think about them for few minutes.  Invest some time in the analysis.
   
• Second… read my blog more often and recommend it to your friends (this reduces your need to do the first thing on this list)
   
• Third… if you have very disconnected people with very different backgrounds, identities and social groups – relative rankings won’t be a big influence lever.
   
• However, if you have a group of people who identify with each other and see themselves as similar in nature – relative rankings are still a very, very effective behavior influencer.

What do you think – is this a valid way to review this research?  

I care what you think and how I think relative to you.

Wellness Incentives - Give or Take?

Four or five years ago I went to the SHRM conference in San Diego to launch a product for my old company (if you were there we were the guys with the Donald Trump look-a-like in our booth.)  While there I bounced around the floor checking out the booths.  There were a couple of companies touting their "wellness" incentives.  Not too many.  So back then it was a good idea but not quite mainstream.

Fast-forward to today and you can't swing a cat without hitting someone selling a wellness incentive idea.  Getting employees to care and act on their health is big business.  

Big but elusive.  The interwebs are awash in analysis and information on what will work and what won't.  Much of it contradictory.

(BTW - for a great resource and commentary on wellness communications check out my buddy Fran on freerangecomm.com - follow her site and her personally on twitter - she's good people.)

The Hard Truth

My own opinion is that wellness programs won't work long-term for a variety of reasons...

1. The personal health rewards (or penalties such as death) are typically far into the future so we discount them to almost nothing.  It is hard to be motivated to achieve a big award granted in the future when I can get a small, quick award today (ie:  that Big Mac or that cigarette.)  I posted on this phenomena here.
    
2. Companies in their heart of hearts really, really don't care about their employees' health - they care what affect their employees' health has on their bottom line.  Cash not compassion is their motivation - and employees pick up on it and dismiss the wellness program du jour.  The few companies that have senior leadership involved and invested in wellness are the ones succeeding.  Not just because they see a monetary benefit - but because they also care about their employees.  I posted on this here.
    
3. People will change if and when the majority makes changes.  Consensus and social proof are powerful influencers.  If the majority of the company isn't playing along - failure is assured.  Social network analysis has shown that weight gain actually follows your network.  If you have heavy friends in your network you are more likely to gain weight.  Weight becomes a norm for your group.  Health can work the same way. How consensus works in social networks was the focus of this post a while back.
    
4. Employees don't really have skin in the game.  I can run all the programs in the world - but if I don't really feel the pain of my behavior I won't make the change.  Most employees believe health insurance and the rates they pay are entitlements of the job (see post yesterday.)  Until employees have something to lose - they have no investment in the change.  It is sound psychology that people are more influenced by the potential loss of something than the potential gain of an equal amount.  In other words - increase their premium based on their lack of participation and you'll get more participation than if you give them a reward after the fact via incentives, rebates, merchandise, travel or good health.  It's just human nature.
    

What Would Incentive Intelligence Do?

Make sure that there is some compassion in the program.  If you're doing it purely for financial reasons there are other ways to cut costs - renegotiate the contract or get some other deal.  Increase co-pay, deductibles, whatever.  Spending money on a wellness program without caring is a waste of money.  If you don't care about your employees stop reading... the rest of the post won’t matter to you.

If you do care, start by honestly communicating the true costs of health insurance in your company.  People need to know the big picture and where they fit in that picture.  Your efforts with being transparent now will pay big dividends later - start the communication with honest, transparent discussions on what you're doing.  While costs aren’t the only thing you care about – employees need to know that their behaviors impact others and that their individual behavior important and will impact their co-workers.

Communicate that everyone starts at the same place and their future behavior dictates the outcomes.  The individual employee behavior will determine the individual’s premiums in the future.  And by extension, everyone’s behavior in total will influence the individual premiums as well.  I specifically mention behaviors - this isn't penalizing someone because of a fluke of DNA.  Diabetes can be a DNA issue or a value-meal issue - Doctors can separate the wheat from the chaff on that one.

Communicate that going forward you're changing the rules.  The employees need to know this won’t be a program of the month – this is a fundamental change in how the company will handle the health care issue.  Make sure the compassion is there - this isn't just a business decision alone - it is a human decision.  

Now, here’s where some of the psychology of loss aversion comes in...

Create a grace period before the real stuff starts where everyone’s premiums for the next six months will be at the lowest possible level for the plan in place.  This might mean the company takes a bit of a risk since you're only charging premiums as if everyone was perfectly healthy. But hey... you said this was a human decision not a bottom line one right?  You need to put your corporate money where your corporate mouth is too.  

After 6 months premiums will be adjusted and the company will adopt something like this:

Tiers of premium rates based on behaviors (example only):

• If don't or won't take a health risk assessment you pay the highest premium rate.
• If you take the assessment, regardless of the outcome, you get the second highest rate.
• If you get a bad assessment - you get the third highest rate.
• If your assessment is good - you get the fourth highest rate.
• If you participate in behavior modification efforts (diet, smoking cessation, etc.) You get your rate reduced.  Number and type of interventions would have more effect on how many tiers you move up/down.  This isn't about goals right now - just participation.  You need to break behavioral inertia.

Note On Strikethroughs:  See input in the comments section @akabruno caught some flaws in my logic. I was in a hurry and combined a couple of thoughts - the idea is that if you take the assessment you get a lower rate - the rate at this point isn't based on the outcome - just the fact you did it.  If you have a great assessment you won't have any issues later - if you have a bad one your level of participation will determine at what rate your premiums will be calculated.

This is only an example - the concept is to let the employees see the effect being healthy and doing healthy things has on their paycheck.  That’s the part where they get to see their skin in the game.  By reducing everyone to the lowest level – they now have something to lose - namely their own cash – if they don’t change behavior.  

Remember, you’re not really raising their rates – you’re lowering them for a period of time so they get accustomed to the extra money – then you’re taking it away based on their behavior.  

I know this is contrary to the normal program structure of giving awards for behavior but it should have a much greater long-term effect.  After all – how many pedometers can you really use?

And the big one…

Communicate, communicate, communicate the effect the program is having on people’s lives - not the cost savings, not the awards, not anything but the effect it is having on the well-being of your employees.  Remember, this is mostly about making your employees' lives better.  That is the thing you communicate.  

Leverage social proof - communicate the number of people playing the game to show how widely it has been adopted.  If you're getting low numbers then communicate the growth not the absolute numbers.  Whatever the situation, spin it so that the employee base sees this as part of your corporate identity.

That's it.  Simple and I believe, effective.  It addresses what I feel are the big stumbling blocks of wellness programs...

1. It’s based on things the employees can control
2. It comes from a compassionate and human place not just the CFOs office
3. It brings the impact and the motivation for being healthy from something in the future into the now - to things that influence me today - paying higher premiums next month if I don't do something (or lower if I do)
4. It applies the principle of social proof and consensus so I'm influenced to be part of the crowd.

What say you – is this structure better?  

Should we, as Nick Lowe said “be cruel to be kind” and focus on taking away money in the form of higher premiums for NOT doing something instead of giving out tchotchkes for losing a few pounds? (BTW – email subscribers may need to click through here to see video)

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Is the Anti-Maslow Movement Gaining Strength?

Loyal readers know I have an unnatural attraction to Abraham Maslow and his theory of motivation.

Not the positive attraction that is pretty common on the web in posts about motivation written by those selling a product and not really worried about motivation.  It’s a pretty negative attraction.  For those interested in history check the following links…all others jump to the next headline…

My anti-Maslow sentiment isn’t new.  I checked my blog history and I first posted October 2006 asking if Maslow was a non-issue in today’s business environment:

"My question is this... if we are outsourcing life maintenance, and some of the higher level things in our lives - does Maslow still apply?  Is the entire $29 billion incentive industry supported by a false premise?"

I then asked in February of 2009 whether readers thought Maslow was still a valid motivation theory – BTW 72% did.  A few days later with this:  “If Your Incentive Company Brings Up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – Fire Them!”

Maslow Is Out of Date and Out of Touch 

Yesterday, while checking twitter – Chip Conley –Founder and CEO of Joie de Vivre Hospitality and Author, PEAK: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo from Maslow, tweeted out a link to this article:  Maslow’s Pyramid Gets a Makeover.  

Some of the interesting points from the article include:

• The new pyramid is based on the premise that our strongest and most fundamental impulse, which shapes our day-to-day desires on an unconscious level, is to survive long enough to pass our genes to the next generation. According to this school of thought, backed by considerable — though not irrefutable — evidence, all our achievements are linked in one way or another to the urge to reproduce.
   
• Despite the pyramid’s (Maslow’s) continuing popularity, Kenrick and his colleagues — Vladas Griskevicius, Steven Neuberg and Mark Schaller — note some modern researchers consider it “quaint” and largely irrelevant.  
   
• But they also found several problems with the pyramid. We now know that needs, once they are met, don’t simply disappear; rather, they reappear when prompted by certain environmental cues. Watching a news report about a crime spree will trigger fears for our own safety, which can influence our opinions and behaviors even if that need is being effectively met. (More fancifully, Kenrick notes that many well-fed people love to watch cooking shows. Having a full belly doesn’t negate our fascination with food.)
   
• So Kenrick and his colleagues revised the hierarchy to reflect this selfish-gene hypothesis. While their bottom four levels are highly compatible with Maslow’s — immediate psychological needs, self-protection, affiliation, status/esteem — their top three differ enormously. They are mate acquisition, mate retention and parenting.

Connecting This to Your Employees

Now – while I’m a fan just because someone with more initials after their names also thinks Maslow needs updating – it also drew me in because I’ve longed believed that great managers think in terms the “family” dynamic and should engage, guide and discipline employees as they would a child in their own family (not treat them like children but use similar themes/tools to guide behavior.)

So I’m thinking this…

Once you have the basics out of the way – income, insurance, future retirement, environment, etc. you need to look at how you can help your employees begin to mentor and guide the behavior of others.  In other words – if in fact parenting (via reproduction) is a goal/driver of behavior - is the business analog to that being a manager?  Is it this drive to parent and perpetuate ones value in an organization that drives us?  

I’m thinking it has some validity.  How many employees would say – “I don’t want to impact another person in company.  Just let me sit here and punch through spreadsheets or shoot screws all day and leave me alone.”

I’m sure there are a few.  But the vast majority of employees want to be managers, supervisors, mentors, leaders – whatever.  And I’m guessing it’s not so much driven by the new business cards, or the money (they do have impact) but more so by their internal drive to propagate their knowledge throughout the company and to create a positive legacy.  

Isn’t that what all parents want?

Where I think There Are Flaws

Nowhere in the article do the contributors make any reference to differences in the theory relative to sexes (male vs. female.)  I think, from an evolutionary perspective, there would be some.  Men typically focus on trying to make as many offspring as possible (assuming they don’t have to care for them later), women are more concerned with taking care of the ones they have (limiting the number they would want/should have IMHO.)  So there needs to be some discussion here on that.

Second of all – not everyone wants to be a parent (maybe this is where the spreadsheet jockeys come in) and therefore it isn’t a motivational “Unified Theory” – but I’m convinced after 25 years doing this a unified theory doesn’t exist.

Net-Net

An interesting article that points out Maslow may have less relevance than we think and that if you are planning on designing any incentive and reward program you may not want to use “the pyramid” as your starting point.

What say you – any thoughts on “parenting” and “reproduction” as key drivers of behavior within an organization?  I’m thinking it could make for a very interesting work place.

Drive Performance with More Supervision and Less Management

We've got a post up on the Fistful Of Talent site today.  

The gist of the post is that business may be making a big mistake by elevating the function of management above the function of supervisor.  As most of you can attest - folks will want to have a "Manager" title versus a "Supervisor" title.  For some reason, over time, we've decided that "managing" is a better thing than "supervising."  Our post today on Fistful takes the opposite tack.

From a purely performance standpoint, research is showing that people do better work, have a more positive mindset, are more engaged and are happier when they believe they have control over the outcomes from their day-to-day activity.  It is something called "locus of control."  

Those that believe the locus of control is with themselves - work better and are happier.  Those that see the locus of control outside themselves - feel the opposite.

Managing = External Locus of Control

When "managing" projects to you "tell" people what to do, when to do it by and how to do it?  Most would say sure because  - "I'm the manager and my butt is on the line if we don't deliver."

Supervising = Internal Locus of Control

Supervising however means watching - overseeing and correcting when something goes awry.  In this case the real locus of control is with the individual with the supervisor allowing them to do their work, their way (obviously with some constraints such as time/cost.)

In the second case your employees will see that their own style, process and input contribute to the outcome.  

In the first case it is the manager's style, process and input that control the output.  The employee is simply an extension of the manager versus a contributor.

Jump over and see if you agree and provide some commentary.  Discussion is the name of the game here.

Responding to the Assault on Incentives

As we move more decidedly away the “industrial” economy where value and worth was determined by the statistics from the factory floor into the “knowledge” or “creative” economy where true value is added by people and their unique abilities to solve problems, tackle opportunities and create new markets; understanding why people behave and leveraging that knowledge to guide their efforts, has never been more important.  

The success of books such as “Drive” and “Predictably Irrational” are evidence that today’s business leaders are looking for better ways to engage and drive behavior within the organization.  The idea of “ordering” people to do something is no longer de rigueur and executives are beginning to understand that internally and externally there are better ways to influence behavior.

For the past 80 years or so, the two main tools used to focus and drive employee, channel and consumer behavior were incentives/rewards and fear.  Fear has always been the last resort and incentives – from cash bonuses, stock options, travel awards and merchandise awards the more “enlightened” approach.  

The technology for guiding behavior has pretty much stayed the same for 8 decades.

Time to Adapt

Any long-time reader of this blog will know, we look at a variety of ways to influence behavior.  We believe that humans – our units of production at most companies – are the most complex machinery in the world.  The maintenance and service requirements for these machines are huge.  No two machines are the same and their service and maintenance needs can change daily.  One day they may need validation – the next, new software (training.)  

In other words, getting the most value out of our human resources is not as easy as tuning up an engine or tightening a belt.  

We need to learn how to best engage with our employees, channel partners and consumers so that THEIR needs are met – as well as our organizations’ needs.

Old Tools Still Matter

While the new information we’re seeing is important and valuable for determining the best way to influence behavior there is a knee-jerk reaction going on that eschews all previous tools and techniques in favor of the “bright, shiny, object.”  We don’t agree.  We believe that there is a combination of new and old that is optimal for guiding the behaviors you want – and satisfying the needs of the individual.  

And we want to tell you about it.

Motivation Show – Oct 13, 2010

On October 13, 2010 at the Motivation Show in Chicago, I2I will be presenting and leading a session called:  Responding to the Assault on Incentives.  Our goal in this session is to bring a balanced discussion to the floor.  We’ll talk about the various ways to influence behavior – both old and new – and solicit what we hope is a lively discussion on combing the “new” and the “old” to bring about engaged audiences.  

Mark your calendars and please, join us for our session on October 13, 2010 at the Motivation Show in Chicago.  From some of the folks I've talked to this session will fill up fast - so sign up soon.  

Oh... and check out our teaser video - email subscribers may have to click through here to see video.... (btw - the new time is 3:30pm - 4:45 pm - the slides in the video are wrong...sorry)

The Upside of Irrationality - If there is one...

Dan Ariely recently published a follow-up to his great book Predictably Irrational (our review of that book here.)  His new book is called:  The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home and it is again – well written, well documented and extremely valuable to those of us who try to find ways to align and guide behavior in the business world.

For us here at I2I – we think it is more ammunition for our point of view – balance and alignment.  (Also see this recent post by @AnnBares at Compensation Café on balance.)

Need to Include Non-Cash

One thing I’ve yet to see – and it is an important thing – none of the research I can find other than that provided by the incentive industry – makes allowances for non-cash awards and bonuses.  Intellectually, I believe that disconnecting the monetary value from the awards and making them more of an experience (whether that be merchandise or travel) would reduce the negative effects these studies show.  (Hint, hint, nudge, nudge to the Incentive Research Foundation – here’s a place you could really make some hay – duplicate the experiments in this book but use merchandise and travel as the rewards and see what the results are…)

But until that time we’ll have to extrapolate from research such as this.

Netting it Out…

The whole book is fascinating but the first chapter has the most applicability to the discussions usually found on this site.  It is entitled:  Paying More for Less:  Why Big Bonuses Don’t Always Work.

It’s a familiar theme nowadays, from Dan Pink to Alfie Kohn, the assault on incentive bonuses is all the rage.  And in many cases I would agree.  But keep in mind – the operative issue here isn’t the “incentive” itself – it’s the size and value of the reward.  We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  While “Drive” was more adamant about removing ALL incentives (or darn near it) Dr. Ariely is a bit more realistic.  From the book:

“For tasks that require cognitive ability, low to moderate performance-based incentives can help. But when the incentive level is very high, it can command too much attention and thereby distract the person’s mind with thoughts about the reward.”
 

The Research

The research conducted by Dr. Ariely took place in India – offering 1-day's pay, 2-weeks' pay and 5-months' pay as incentives for completing 6 tasks – some cognitive, some more mechanical.  The results showed little difference in the 1 day and 2-weeks' pay scenario – but a much lower performance score for those in the 5-months' pay scenario.

Loss Aversion

One element added to the mix that I found enlightening since we’ve talked about it here before – is they added “loss aversion” to the mix.  The rational for including this (from the book):

"We thought that paying up front was analogous to the way many professionals think about their expected bonuses every year. They come to think of the bonuses as largely given and as a standard part of their compensation. They often even make plans for spending it. Perhaps they eye a new house with a mortgage that would otherwise be out of reach or plan a trip around the world. Once they start making such plans, I suspect that they might be in the same loss aversion mind-set as the prepaid participants.”
 

In the experiment they told the participants that they already earned the 5 month bonus – and gave them the money, but told them they would have to return a portion based on their performance.  If they maintained a certain level of performance they could keep the 5 months pay – but if they fell below they would start to “lose” their money.

In this instance the negative effect on performance were even more pronounced – the first participant was so nervous he couldn’t complete the tasks and the second, when he started to fail immediately – ran out of the experiment with the money.  In other words (my opinion) his loss aversion to such a high reward caused him to act in irrationally – to the point of stealing.  Sound familiar?  

When awards are too big – and too expected – rational thinking is short-circuited.

I Couldn’t Have Said it Better (but I’ve said it before here many times)

To end this post – here’s Dr. Ariely again on bonuses and incentives:

“Could all this mean that sometimes we might actually behave less rationally when we try harder? If that’s so, what is the correct way to pay people without overstressing them?  One simple solution is to keep bonuses low—something those bankers I met with might not appreciate.  Another approach might be to pay employees on a straight salary basis.  Though it would eliminate the consequences of over motivation, it would also eradicate some of the benefits of performance-based payment.  A better approach might be to keep the motivating element of performance-based payment but eliminate some of the nonproductive stress it creates.  To achieve this, we could, for example, offer employees smaller and more frequent bonuses.  Another approach might be to offer employees a performance-based payment that is averaged over time—say, the previous five years, rather than only the last year. This way, employees in their fifth year would know 80 percent of their bonus in advance (based on the previous four years), and the immediate effect of the present year’s performance would matter less.”

  

Sometimes more is just... more - it isn't better.  

There is no substitute for taking some time, analyzing exactly what you want to accomplish, identifying behaviors and linking those behaviors to awards that are desirable but not detrimental.  If you aren't sure - ask for help (that'd be a hint to call us.)

Corporate Culture and High Status Chimps (Yeah, I’m Smirking)

How we celebrate and recognize specific behaviors has a big impact on whether those behaviors are mimicked and passed down and through our society and our organizations.  And it is something we share with our relatives the chimps.  

Chimpanzees Model High Status Behavior

A recent experiment with chimpanzees showed that when given examples of different behaviors modeled by chimps with “low status” and those with “high status” the observing chimps:

“overwhelmingly preferred the technique used by the more experienced, higher-status individuals”

This is very, very interesting to me from a few perspectives.

One

I know from my own studies of psychology that consensus and social proof are very strong influencers of behavior – we do look to see what others are doing to see what is correct.  But we also look to those we assume have higher authority and status for directional cues for our behavior.  Combining those two things is like gasoline on a fire – super-charging the effect.

B.

Status is something we “confer” on others either through titles, expertise, or simply age.  In other words, within our organizations there are those that have “status” based on a specific skill, the alphabet soup after their names – or the letters before their names (ie:  CEO, COO, VP.)

3.

Without a specific strategy for determining the behaviors we want to model at our company we by default, look to those that have status for our cues – and model those behaviors.

IV

In addition to the titles we assign in organizations, recognition and reward programs are proxies for establishing status and behavioral norms in our organizations. 

The net of this is a well-designed recognition and reward program confers status on individuals – and their behavior is then more likely to be modeled by others.  The downside is in the absence of a strategic recognition and reward program your employees will look to those with the titles – the high status chimps in your organization - for behavior cues.  

If those chimps are behaving well you’re in good shape.  But, like chimps at the zoo, if they’re throwing crap around then you’ll get a lot of employees throwing crap around.

It’s just human nature.  Or should I say – chimp nature.

Just an FYI - You may be interested to note that our DNA is between 95% and 99% identical to the chimpanzee (closer than a rat is to a mouse) – banana anyone?

On another tangent – a favorite line of mine from “The Horizon Has Been Defeated” by Jack Johnson is:

“because people are lonely and only animals with fancy shoes"

Here’s a video of Jack singing that song – the line is at 1:40 I think… (those getting the email may have to click through to the post to see the video)

   

>

 

What Motivation Looks Like – Real World Example in HRevolution

I spent a rather chilly weekend in Chicago (don’t worry – I made it back in time for Mother’s Day!)  I was attending my second HRevolution meeting at the Catalyst Ranch (wonderful venue btw.)

The first HRevolution was last year in November.

For those who have no background on the event here’s a link to the initial post on how it started and why.

The attendee list was probably more social media savvy than your traditional HR conference (the stats for tweets using that hashtag as of 7:00 am 5-10-2010 are: 3,110 tweets, 388 contributors, 444.3 tweets per day.) For that reason I'm sure we will see a lot of blogs about the good the bad and the ugly of the conference.  

The conference was focused on practicing HR in the future and not being a practitioner I’ll leave the analysis of the conference content to those that have the chops and responsibility for the future of HR.  I’m simply one of the many moons orbiting the HR planet – having some influence on a semi-regular basis.

What I am going to talk (blog) about is motivation and influence as it relates to this event – which is fitting since I helped “referee” a session with Jason Seiden (@seiden) on influencing behavior.  While the session didn’t go the direction I wanted it to (a true hallmark of an “unconference” – and also the true value of it) the main thing that stuck in my mind is that many folks still have a real issue understanding how “motivation” works.

We still ask “How do I motivate someone?”

And –as I said at the beginning of my session – 

“You can’t motivate anyone.  You can only create an environment where the person decides to change.”

Motivation is Inside

Incentives, influence, rewards – all are outside the person and are part of the environment you create.  That environment will either be something the person wants to participate in or not.  You can’t make them.

HRevolution – This Is Motivation

HRevolution wasn’t started by a company looking for an audience to market to.

HRevolution wasn’t started by an individual looking to make money.

HRevolution wasn’t started to advance any one person’s gravitas or to gain recognition.

In other words, HRevolution didn’t occur because someone was influenced by an “incentive” to do it. 

HRevolution was started because a few people wanted to influence the future of their profession.

They were motivated.  We (meaning the attendees) are lucky the tools and the time were available at the time that these folks DECIDED to do something.

10 years ago this probably couldn’t have happened – the tools to communicate it, promote it, and operate it either weren’t there or were too expensive.  The desire to do it could have been but the environment wasn’t.  

The fact that HRevolution happened was all about motivation and an environment that enabled it.  It had nothing to do with “incentives.”  No one motivated it. It happened because of motivated people.

Keep that in the back of your mind when you’re thinking about your company goals and objectives.  

If a few people in different geographies can come together with nothing more than an idea and a desire to change something can convince over 130 people to spend their own money and their own time to get together to advance the practice of HR – imagine what you could accomplish by simply ensuring the tools and the environment are available for your employees, channel partners or consumers.  

Imagine what they could do for you and WITH you that could change your company or your industry.

Don’t try to “motivate” people – work on enabling motivation.  You’ll be surprised by the outcome.

Shout Outs

I would like to take the time to introduce you to some very, very important people – the folks that really made this happen.  They are the real igniters of this effort.

Trish McFarlane and Ben Eubanks – without them – this wouldn't have happened at all.  It started with them and by all rights they deserve the honors for breaking the inertia around this issue.  These are folks I aspire to be - manifesters of ideas.  (I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy.)

Joan Ginsberg, Crystal Peterson, Steve Boese, Mark Stelzner and Jason Seiden – who – by their own motivation – rounded out the planning and operations team that made this happen.

And props go to the attendees – who in most cases spent their own money and time to be part of this vision and I thank you for making me think, challenging my assumptions, asking me questions and allowing me to steal a little of your brilliance to light my own path.  Thanks to all of you.

The Secret Motivation Tool No One Will Tell You

Yeah, I’m hoping the title is click bait.  I’m hoping that I get a astronomical number of hits today just because of the title.

Everyone thinks there some secret to motivation and engagement.  There isn’t.  If you clicked on the link hoping to learn some super-double-secret motivation technique that will make your life easier and get you promoted to Sr. VP of Not-Really-Valuable-Department – fuggetaboutit…

I see so many charlatans out there selling their “secret sauce” for motivation.  At best their secrets are repackaged clichés and at worst they are unproven and damaging opinions.

Manifest Motivation

Motivation (for the 100th time now) isn’t something you give someone. It’s something that is allowed to manifest given the appropriate environment.

Want to know the secret?

Okay – but don’t share this with a single person.  Share it with EVERYBODY!

1.  Assume people are adults

2.  Identify company/department needs/tasks

3.  Talk to team on best way to accomplish tasks

4.  Assign tasks based on their skills and desires 

5.  Remove obstacles (that would be other managers)

6.  Go home

There ya go… 

(Due to the complexity of this approach I've provided a flow chart to help visualize the process.)

The keys are:

• Know your people
• Give them as much control as possible
• Run interference

That’s it.  No secret.  No big program.  

You want motivation?  Quit trying to motivate and start enabling.  

Motivation will grow from the fact you’ve given your team control over their work and connected it to what they can do best and are free to do it.

A Mango-bloated Monkey and Our Review of "Switch" by Chip and Dan Heath

  

"Hundreds of sessions later, you've got a mango-bloated monkey ready to skate a half-pipe."

How can you hate a book with that sentence in it?  

Based on my very positive experience with the last Heath brothers book "Made To Stick" I was pretty pumped to get my hands on "Switch - How to Change Things When Change is Hard."  

I wasn't disappointed.  

This book, if every one of my clients will read it - will make my job very, very easy.  

This book, if every one of you who manages people will read it - will make your job very, very easy.

I'll admit.  There isn't a lot of new information for me in this book.  Spending as much time as I do looking for ways to influence behavior requires I do a lot of reading and therefore, many of the stories, examples and studies referenced in the book are familiar to me.  And if you're a long-time reader of this site - might be a bit familiar to you as well.

The Heath brothers hit on the biggies of why we do things and how we can affect change.  Things like:

• Social Norms
• Positive Deviants
• Fundamental Attribution Error
• Learning Mind-Set
• Commitment and Consistency
• Cognitive Dissonance
• Positive-Negative Asymmetry

They also hit on the need for incentives and how using incentives and rewards can modify behavior in monkeys - hence the title of this post.  But just as I was getting ready to get angry (see this post the other day) they add this... and I'm thankful:

"Let’s be clear, we’re not advising that you treat your colleagues or fellow citizens like monkeys or children—Roger, you cut back your expenses last month! What a big boy you are! Reinforcement doesn’t have to be condescending, and it doesn’t have to come with a power dynamic. Think of the way a friend urges you on at the gym (“Good work—now do one more rep!”). But reinforcement does require you to have a clear view of the destination, and it requires you to be savvy enough to reinforce the bright-spot behaviors when they happen."

I can get behind that thinking.

While the book isn't the acme of books on change - it is written in a way that will help you easily remember the way in which people make changes and hopefully use them in your business (and personal) lives.

Following the Story Line

The Heath Brothers - taking a cue from their first book - craft a very easy to remember story.  Extending an analogy from Jonathan Haidt's work "The Happiness Hypothesis," they weave a tale about a rider, an elephant and the path.  

From the book:

"Haidt says that our emotional side is an Elephant and our rational side is its Rider.  Perched atop the Elephant, the Rider holds the reins and seems to be the leader.  But the Rider's control is precarious because the Rider is so small relative to the Elephant.  Anytime the six-ton Elephant and the Rider disagree about which direction to go, the Rider is going to lose."

In a nutshell that is the book.  

The brothers Heath take us through how and when to engage the Rider and/or the Elephant to elicit change.  They also spend a good bit of time on "the path" or the environment in which change occurs.  Personally, this is an area I think we overlook all too often.  

While the book falls victim to the same issue many business books do today - presenting evidence supporting their point of view as if there were no other contradicting evidence - I do think at a very high level it does a good job of framing the "change" discussion.  The authors include what they call "clinics," which are situations for change we would find familiar in our daily lives and address how they would engage the Rider, motivate the Elephant or change the path.  These clinics help bring the book from idea to execution and are helpful to see how ideas about change look in the real world.  (I'm a big fan of application.)

Net-Net - Get it, read it, call me to help implement it.

I've put together the "money quotes" from the book - ones I think will make you think and make you want to read the book.  I do recommend it. (Email subscribers may have to click through to see slides.)

Switch Money Quotes

View more presentations from i2i.