Motivation
Approaches to leadership
Motivation is what drives us to do things or, put more simply, what makes us tick. So let's ask ourselves "why do people work in the first place?" At the most basic level, whether a trash picker scratching a living on the municipal rubbish tips of Mumbai or a high-flying bond dealer in Canary Wharf or you, me and the individuals in our work group, it's because we're hungry, thirsty and need somewhere to sleep. Even today, most of our earnings are spent on these basic needs. But a satisfied need ceases to motivate. Once we've enough food and drink and a roof over our head, we don't tend to turn around and say "thanks, I'm now fully satisfied". Instead we find further needs, e.g. relationships at work, respect from others and possibly self-actualisation', i.e. achieving our fullest potential.
When looking at research into this subject, I have been drawn to the ideas of two giants - Maslow and Herzberg.
Abraham Maslow suggested that we consider our needs as a 'hierarchy'.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Maslow's hierarchy operates on an ascending scale - as one need is met, an individual 'discovers' a need at the next rung up the ladder. That said (and this is a very important corollary), if there are real concerns that the foundations are collapsing, we are more than likely to drop back down the hierarchy to shore up a lower level.
I am writing these notes when Covid-19 dominates the lives of every single human on Earth. Food, shelter and warmth are our most immediate and pressing needs (plus, as a friend suggested, the need for wireless connectivity).
In an effort to ensure that all their citizens can meet the most basic of needs, governments across the world have stepped forward to support businesses and individuals with eye-watering amounts of state aid.
Armies of volunteers are distributing food parcels, prescriptions and finding ways to support those stranded at the edge of society. By so doing, the volunteers are not only helping others to meet their basic needs, they might also be satisfying some of their own higher level needs (e.g. self-actualisation).
Even the most privileged in society are finding that, like the rest of us, the only way to interact with family, friends and colleagues is by Skype, FaceTime, WhatsApp, Zoom, etc. No longer is a firm handshake, warm embrace or kiss an option when greeting others. Two metres social distancing is the norm. Countless individuals, families and societies are 'in pain'. I think particularly of my Italian relatives for whom the early evening 'passeggiata' is an integral part of everyday life.
​
Until we're confident that we can satisfy these basic needs on more than just a day-to-day basis, we're are likely to remain in the foothills of Maslow's hierarchy and will probably only consider moving up the ladder as/when we're sure that we still have a job (even if furloughed), can meet our basic needs and can protect those we love.
Let me now introduce Fred Herzberg and what he terms as 'hygiene factors' and 'motivational factors'.
During his research, Fred Herzberg asked people in different jobs and at different levels - "what factors lead you to experience extreme satisfaction with your job and what factors lead you to experience extreme dissatisfaction?"
Perhaps surprisingly, factors that satisfied them were not the opposite of those that dissatisfied them.
Those that dissatisfied people were extrinsic like working conditions, company policy, administration and money. Fred termed these as 'hygiene factors'. He argued that even if you change any/all of these, you do not motivate people - all you do is reduce or eliminate their dissatisfaction.
​
If you want to influence their satisfaction, Fred argued, address 'hygiene' issues but also ensure opportunities for achievement, recognition, responsibility and job interest - what he called 'motivational factors'.
Ask yourself how many businesses have spent time, money and energy on car parks, perks, wages and the general working environment in the belief that if these are right, they will have a fully motivated workforce. Sadly any consequent improvements to performance are usually short-term and marginal. Yes, the company has removed the canker that acted as a de-motivator (the 'hygiene' factor) but it has failed to also build in appropriate 'motivators'. This might suggest that management has not really understood or appreciated what makes its workforce tick.
So now might be a good time to meet Douglas McGregor and his 'Theory X' and 'Theory Y'.
​
Douglas McGregor found clear evidence of 'the whip, hire and fire brigade', i.e. those who argued that staff need to be coerced or bribed to work, avoid responsibility and prefer to be directed. But perhaps that's 'old thinking'. Today, we each demand a more sophisticated approach - one that gets results from you, me and others without coercion and threat. To illustrate this, let me return to the blog written by Chris Kerr, a volunteer for the Cranfield Trust.....
"Let's say I want to build a house for the homeless. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to build it, you would but you'd stop the second I put the gun down. This isn't leadership. It's exercising power. True leadership would only exist if I told you my vision for the home and you chose to build it with me even though you have the freedom not to. The key emotional response I need to create is not fear but inspiration."
Douglas McGregor termed these very opposite styles as authoritarian ('Theory X') and participative ('Theory Y').
​
If leaders believe that their group members dislike work and have little motivation, they're likely to use an authoritarian style, be very 'hands-on' and micro-manage people's work. Douglas called this 'Theory X'.
However, if leaders believe that their people take pride in their work and see it as a challenge, they're more likely to adopt a participative leadership style. Such leaders trust their people to take ownership of their work and do it effectively by themselves. Douglas called this 'Theory Y'.
However both have their challenges. The restrictive nature of 'Theory X' can cause people to become de-motivated and non-cooperative. Conversely, the 'Theory Y' leader might give people too much freedom and they might, in turn, stray from key objectives, lose focus and/or take advantage of this more relaxed environment by shirking.
​
The answer is to really get to know what individuals in your group are like. Identify their strengths, weaknesses, skills and ambitions. You'll then be better placed to answer the question of "how do I, the leader, enrich the jobs of all in my group?"
We'll look at this in the section - job enrichment.
​
Finally, let me remind you that at the end of the section about functions of leadership, you were asked to download, print and complete the 'Leader & Team Member' questionnaire. With your completed version in front of you, may I now invite you to go to the miscellany section and read Appendix 3. I hope you'll find plenty of food for thought. Meanwhile..
​
something2ponder ...today, where are you on Maslow's hierarchy? Would all in your group give the same answer?
​