“I just don’t like to think of myself as a Manipulator,” Helen decried. “I want to believe that, as a Manager, I am perceived as a Motivator.”

“Great cover-up, isn’t it?” I smiled. “Listen, Helen, I am not suggesting that you do things, as a Manager, through deceit and trickery. What I am saying is, don’t fool yourself (11th commandment). Most of what we do is Performance-Reward or Underperformance-Reprimand, external inducements to get desired behavior.

“So, tell me, Helen, is manipulation necessarily a bad thing?”

Helen paused. “I just don’t like it. It doesn’t sound good.”

“Have you ever been working on a project, where you needed everyone to stay an extra half hour, to staple and bind all the reports, or to get a truck loaded with an emergency shipment to a customer; a situation where you needed just that extra bit of effort? So you tell everyone that you are ordering in a pizza, if they would just stay on for the half hour?”

“Well, sure, it happens, but what’s wrong with that?” Helen replied, then chuckled. “It’s a good thing my team likes pizza.”

“Exactly, just understand it is Performance-Reward. It is NOT Motivation.” -TF
__
Our next Leadership program in Fort Lauderdale kicks off next Wednesday, November 7. For more information, visit www.workingleadership.com.

Helen’s face dropped. Her smile extinguished.

My words, “Sounds like manipulation to me,” rang in her ears.

“But, but, what do you mean?” she gasped, not in desperation, but surprise.

“I mean, most of the things we do as Managers, fall in line with manipulation. We create expectations of performance, we get the performance, the team member gets a reward.

“Or more clearly, we create expectations, if we don’t get the performance, the team member gets reprimanded. Either way you look at it, most of what we do as Managers, is manipulation.” -TF

“Well, I certainly don’t manipulate my team members,” Helen insisted. “I like to think that I motivate them to get the work done.”

“Tell me, how do you do that?” I asked.

“Well, I think it begins on their first day at work. Our orientation does a really good job of explaining to them our philosophy as a company, our mission in the marketplace, where we standout against our competitors. Then, everyone, no matter what their role, goes through a pretty intensive training program, to make sure they have the skills they need to be successful. In my opinion, it’s pretty motivational.”

“How so?” I probe.

“Once they come out of training, they have to pass some competency tests, to make sure they actually have the skills they need. If they do that, they immediately get a pay rate increase, from training pay to Pay Band I. Our training pay is just above minimum wage. Pay Band I is calculated based on their actual role, their job description. It’s beginner’s pay, but it’s a step up, so immediately, they are rewarded for their efforts.”

“So, if they successfully complete their training program, they receive a reward in the form of a pay increase?”

“Yes,” Helen replied, smiling and nodding.

“Sounds like manipulation to me,” I observed. -TF

“So, what’s the difference between motivation and manipulation?” I asked.

“My kid is in the back seat of the car, and I ask him to put on his seat belt. I tell him that if he puts it on, we will go get ice cream as a reward.

“What is it? Motivation or manipulation?” The class sits on the question. Several want to leap out of their chairs with the answer, but they know it will make them a target for the discussion.

“My kid is in the back seat of the car, and I ask him to put on his seat belt. I tell him that if he doesn’t put it on, he won’t be able to play on the computer tonight.

“What is it? Motivation or manipulation?”-TF
__
Our next Leadership class in Fort Lauderdale kicks off November 7, 2007. For more information, visit www.workingleadership.com.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:

How can you motivate a team member whose appraisal has not been good?

Response:

In the past, I have talked about the four elements for success. They are:

• Capability
• Skill
• Commitment
• Absence of a negative Temperament

So, which is it? And how did you get here?

If the person received a poor effectiveness review, is it a matter of capability? As the manager, you should have made an accurate (within a reasonable range) assessment of capability during the interview and testing process. If the person received a poor review based on capability, you have only two choices, reassign the person or redefine the role.

If the poor review is from a lack of skill, then training is indicated. Skill is two things, technical knowledge and practiced performance.

If the poor review is from a lack of commitment, you, as the manager have two routes. One is to create artificial commitment. Artificial commitment comes in the form of pizza, promises or other incentives. Artificial commitment is okay, but is usually shortlived and requires the presence of the manager. Real commitment requires the discovery of the interests (passion) of the person and the alignment of that interest with the work. If that connection has not been made, poor performance is a likely result.

If the poor review is from the presence of a negative temperament, you, as the manager can talk until you are blue in the face, or perhaps bash your head into the wall for a while, but in the long run, negative temperament is rooted inside the individual. It takes a very special manager (and a blue face and some head bashing) to change a negative temperament. This is usually outside the skill base of most managers. In this case, I would seek to reassign or terminate the team member.

So, you decide. Which is it? -TF

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question:

I was curious about a study in IT that showed that while managers can see underperformance, they can’t see who is over-performing.

Response:

Actually, the results of the study may be correct, however, the conclusion may be flawed.

The results show that managers easily recognize or identify underperformance, but they do not as easily recognize or identify over-performance. The conclusion is that managers do not have the ability to recognize over-performance. I believe that to be false.

Managers do not recognize or identify over-performance because they do not focus on it. Managers allow the distractions of underperformance to dominate their vision and efforts.

It is simply a matter of focus. It is a conscious choice to focus on over-performance, and once that decision is made, the focus becomes quite natural. But it’s that choice that is difficult. It is too easy (unconscious) to see things wrong and too difficult to make the conscious choice to see things going right. -TF

This question was in response to the study that showed larger improvements from high performing team members than lower performing team members as a result of positive reinforcement.

Question:

Is this because the high performers were actually severely underemployed or because they were more talented or some other reason?

Response:

I am certain there were many individual reasons for the dramatic uplift in performance. The point of the story is that, often, we, as managers, spend time with our problem team members instead of our high performing team members.

And when we spend time with our poor performers, it drags us away from positive reinforcement toward negative or punitive reinforcement. Between the two types of reinforcement, positive and negative, which is more likely to bring out the best in people? -TF