Employee Motivation: Maslow and Money...The path of least resistance

What's the most common thing companies use to motivate their employees? Money! Don't get me wrong. We all appreciate money and none of us would turn it down if it were offered to us, but is monetary reward really the best way to motivate people?

I mentioned in my previous post about Maslow's Hierarchy that leveraging higher level needs will yield better results than focusing on lower level needs. Yet money is usually the motivator of choice, particularly in a sales environment.

Remember the five levels in Maslow's Hierarchy? 1.) Physical, 2.) Safety-Security, 3.) Social-Belonging, 4.) Esteem, 5.) Self-Actualization. These build on one another. For example, I would not be highly motivated by social or esteem factors if I don't have enough to eat. The needs in the lower levels need to be met before the higher level motivators kick in. Money is actually a Safety-Security factor, that's only the second level of the hierarchy. "But money is the most important reason people work," you might say. Money is important, but actually it is not the main reason people stay with or decide to leave a job.

Research the Kelly Company conducted found that folks looking for a job cite organizational factors (money, benefits, company reputation) as the primary determinant in whether or not they'll join a company - followed by job factors (duties, schedule, training) and then by leader factors (trustworthiness, coaching, flexibility). However, something very interesting happens once an employee has joined an organization. The list flips. The leader factors become the most important thing to the employee. Would you believe that pay comes in at number five (behind things like coworkers, career opportunities, and schedule) for reasons people leave an organization? The number one reason people leave is their leader. Maybe you've heard this cliche: "People don't leave companies, they leave managers." According to this research, it's true.

So why do we so often default to money as the prime motivator? I think we do it because it's easy. It takes much less effort to throw some extra cash at folks than to actually make a person feel like they're part of a team or build their esteem. Perhaps giving cash away is the path of least resistance? It's true the top three levels of the hierarchy require "heavy lifting". It's hard work to motivate and build people up in the face of everyday job pressures but the payoff is worth it. And a funny thing about focusing on the higher levels - it doesn't really have to "cost" the company anything. I'm not saying we should all do away with money-based incentives. But if we think that's all we need to do to keep our employees motivated, we're missing out.

From the bookshelf....

I thought I'd start posting a little blurb on books I'm currently reading - Not necessarily a review but just an update on what I'm reading. Right now I am working my way through two great books. One is The Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni. It's written as a story which makes it a very easy read. So far, I love it and highly recommend it. I'm sure I'll have more to comment on once I've finished so stay tuned.

I'm also reading The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John Maxwell. Again, a great book. It's John Maxwell so you know it's going to be good. I'll be using this as a reference for an upcoming training class we're putting together.

Employee Motivation: See you at the top....of Maslow's Hierarchy

Any of us who've sat through a psychology 101 class are at least aware of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In 1954 Abraham Maslow mapped out his theory on motivation and it has become one of the standards in explaining what makes us tick. Without dissecting his entire pyramid I want to jump straight to the top - the self actualization level of the hierarchy. What does self-actualization mean? In my view, when a person has reached true self-actualization they feel they are doing what they were put on this earth to do; They are living their potential; They have met the "measure of their creation". Now be honest: How many of us have met or will ever meet this level of satisfaction? If you could choose to do anything in the world you wanted to do would you choose your current job? It's ok if you said "no".

Think about what makes you...you: What are your key talents, interests, strengths, capabilities etc... If you are fortunate enough to have a "job" where you are able to leverage each of these, chances are you will be pretty doggone happy at work. In "First, Break all the Rules", Marcus Buckingham points out that the great managers are those that focus on their employees' strengths and "manage around" their weaknesses. He doesn't mention it by name but isn't he really talking about self actualization? Being able to do what we do best (or being able to use our key talents, interests, strengths and capabilities) on a daily basis is a huge motivator. This approaches that state of Self-Actualization.

There's alot about Maslow's that we could discuss - and we will in the future. But for now, think of opportunities to match projects or tasks that may come up with the individual strengths and interests of your team members. And here's another thought to leave you with in regards to Maslow's: The higher you move up the hierarchy, the more "bang for your buck" you'll get. Focusing on the higher level needs of an individual will yield bigger performance results than the lower level needs. Stay tuned....

Personal Brand: Do you have a personal elevator statement?

I've had the opportunity to sit in on interviews the past few days. I've been surprised at how many applicants struggle with the simple question "Why are you the best person for this job?" Many of them have conducted themselves very well in the interview. They've been professional and personable; They've been able to talk about their relevant experience; They've been able to list their key skills and strengths. Yet, when the interviewer asks THE question - "Why should we hire you?" many of them choked.

In my career development classes I encourage participants to come up with their own personal elevator statement. An elevator statement is simply a statement that gives a compelling description (i.e sales pitch) about a service or product in the amount of time it would take to ride an elevator (20 - 30 seconds). So, if I'm looking for a job, the product or service in question is ME.

Think of an elevator question as a commercial about you. Think about your key strengths. Write down the two or three most compelling reasons why you should be hired. Write down exactly how an organization would benefit from having you on their payroll. Then use what you've written down to craft a brief (20-30 second) statement that answers THE question.

Here's an example:

"Well Mr. Lunnen, as you know, we've had several applicants for this position. Why do you feel you are the best person for the job?"

"I have consistently been in the top ten percent in sales performance for the last four years. I have been effective at building positive long-term relationships with both internal and external customers and have a personal committment to providing quality client experiences. I am a professional - in performance, demeanor and appearance and will represent your organization in the best possible light. I know that you'll find me a valuable asset to your team."

Your statment might sound much different than the one I've come up with off the cuff and that's fine - it needs to sound like you. But A statement like the one above sounds much more confident than stammering and stuttering about being a nice person and wanting to help people (not that there's anything wrong with that). The point is to have something prepared in advance so that when THE question does come up you are prepared with a well thought out response. If I have a good personal elevator statement committed to memory I will never again have the "deer in the headlights" expression on my face when the hiring manager asks me why I'm the right person for the job.

Bad Leadership: How Not to Manage a Team (Part 1)

I actually heard this on the floor the other day. I walked past a supervisor's desk while she was doing a one-on-one with a new agent. She had two sheets of paper in front of her and was saying "These are my team's numbers with you and these are my team's numbers without you. You're dragging my whole team down." Wow! How do you think this new agent felt? Do you think this agent left that discussion wanting to do a better job? More than likely he left wanting to find a better job. I can't say that I blame him...

Effective Leadership: Do I have to know it all?

Think back to elementary school. Remember your teachers? Their job was to impart their knowledge to you. We were little kids - we didn't know alot back then. So our teachers would do their best to fill our little "skulls full of mush" with the useful information we would need to be successful, productive adults. This model may have worked alright for kids but this is not the most effective approach for adults.

Some leaders think they are supposed to function in this same teacher/pupil mode. ("You just sit there quietly and I'll tell you everything you need to know...") But this approach overlooks a fundamental element in managing adults. And that fundamental element is "adults know stuff." I know - it's pretty profound isn't it? But it's surprising how often we think our job as a coach is to impart all of our wisdom to our agents - the typical "sage on the stage" scenario. That is not what a coach's role is about. Obviously there are skills and tips we can share with our agents but effectively managing performance is more about drawing things out of our agents than putting things in. Plus, we can miss opportunities to leverage skills and experience our agents already have.

In the mid nineties Michael Jordan got this hair-brained idea to retire from basketball and play baseball for awhile (a very short while!). Fortunately, he came to his senses and decided to go back to basketball. Many folks asked him why he was coming back to the NBA. He believed that even after all the things he had accomplished in his basketball career he could still improve in some areas. One of those areas was his free throw shooting. His free throw percentage wasn't bad - but it wasn't all that good. So he made it a point to work with a coach and practice everyday on his free throw shooting. To me, this paints a very interesting little picture. Imagine Michael Jordan, quite possibly the greatest basketball player in history, working with a coach to help him improve his skills in a particular area. Now, if Michael and his "coach" were to play a little one-on-one, you know Michael would smoke him! But that's the whole point - to be an effective coach, we don't have to necessarily be able to "outplay" our agents.

Obviously it helps to be grounded in the fundamentals but effective coaching is more about motivating people than transferring "our" knowledge to them. I'm not recommending you try this, but a truly great coach can improve performance even if he knows absolutely nothing about his employee's actual "job". That's because great coaches focus on people more than process. Now, being an expert on the process might help, but that is not what will have the biggest impact on developing people. The coach/agent relationship is far more important than the coach's depth of process or product knowledge.

If you feel pressure to know more or be smarter than all of your agents - relax! That is not what your agents are expecting from you. Instead, look for ways to build on what your agents already have. Look for ways to fine-tune and tweak what's already there instead of ignoring it. Look for ways to remove obstacles (both internal and external) that might be holding them back. And most importantly, focus on a positive, professional, supportive relationship between you and your team.

Effective Leadership: The Value of Failure

This past weekend I was at a family reunion in western Montana. It was your typical family reunion - too much food, too much noise and too many people I didn't recognize. It was a good time though, and it provided me with a little reminder at the expense of my two-year old's physical and mental well being!

The reunion was held at a hunting lodge owned by a cousin who runs an outfitting business. (See the picture of his lodge) There is a stocked fishing pond literally steps away from the back door. Needless to say, my wife and I had to keep a very close eye on my son, Noah, as we worried he would get too close to the pond and take an unintentional swim. Over and over we told him to stay away from the pond. Yet he would continually walk towards the pond to see how close he could get until one of us bolted from the deck to grab him. Well, eventually it happened: as he was holding the hand of an older cousin and walking around the pond he decided to make his break for the water. He wiggled away from his cousin, darted to the edge of the pond and reached down toward the water. You've probably noticed toddlers are a bit top heavy - they have big heads - so Noah fell headlong into the pond. His cousin Spencer was right there and had him out of the water in about two seconds but that's all it took for Noah to learn his lesson. His Mom and I had told him over and over what might happen if he got too close to the edge, but it wasn't until he experienced it himself that he "got it." For the rest of the day, Noah wanted nothing to do with the "yucky" pond.

One of the key requirements of adult learning theory is providing an environment in which it is safe to fail. Without even realizing it, we had placed Noah into this type of environment. Obviously an unsupervised two-year old playing beside a pond could be a recipe for disaster, but because there were several safe guards in place (ie. multiple adults and older cousins keeping an eye on all the rugrats) it was actually a good learning environment. Noah was able to experience first-hand the dangers of getting too close to the water's edge. That icy, two second plunge taught him more about ponds than anything his mother or I could have told him.

On a fairly consistent basis I'll have supervisors come into the training office voicing their concern that a brand new agent is "messing up." Uhhh....Yep, new agents will do that from time to time, but here's "where the rubber hits the road," so to speak. Here's where you can tell the difference between a good leader and an average (or poor) leader. The good leader will use those "mistakes" as a coaching opportunity, a chance to build up the agent and leave them better prepared the next time a similar situation arises. The average or poor leader may treat a mistake like an act of disobedience or an affront to the leader's authority. (Think of Cartman from Southpark yelling "Never question my authority!!")

Perhaps some leaders confuse training with performance. They may think because a newhire has been through "training" they will hit the floor doing everything exactly right. That would be great, but that's not a realistic expectation. Even if the agent has "heard" everything they need to know to perform their job, it will take actually "doing" the job and, yes, "failing" a few times before it starts to stick. The trainer's job is too teach the new agent what he or she needs to know - the knowledge. The leader's job is to help them put it into practice - the execution.

Every interaction a leader has with an agent provides two possible outcomes. The leader will either build up the agent or tear them down - it's really as simple as that. Mistakes are mistakes - they need to be corrected, but not at the expense of the leader/agent relationship. As leaders we have the power to determine how we go about correcting those mistakes. Good leaders see them for what they are - they are errors that once corrected will make the agent even better. An average or poor leader may see mistakes as another "mark against" an agent they don't want to spend time devoloping - it's easier to just get them off their team. It sounds counterintuitive but failing is one of the building blocks of success. The test comes in how we as leaders deal with failure and how we help our agents deal with failure.