Loading ...So, many weeks ago my company had a CIO lead meeting for all developers and IT staff. It was basically a “let’s all work harder” meeting that covered a few key points like our lack of QA and such. Overall, not a bad meeting though it did have a curious lack of substance as far as any concrete goals, solutions, or new ideas. But honestly, what else can you expect from managers not trained in management and who work at a relative cognitive distance from the “proles in the trenches.”
Any who, for the past few months, we have been having some issues with the way we as a team (and individuals) are managed from both a professional and developmental perspective. This has lead to a serious lack of motivation and low morale in our team. So in response to the meeting, we came up with a document that included a few of our gripes regarding the topics covered in the meeting and conditions in general.
To avoid a long and rather boring analysis of the private issues with my employer, I thought I might simply address one of them since it was the cause of much contention when we brought the list up with our immediate manager. In the meeting, the CIO kept reinforcing the notion that we needed to think about the best interests of the company when making decisions; what can we do for the company? Sounds awfully like Office Space but this talking point really got to me for a number of reasons. So in our response of “concerns,” I asked the question, “what has the company done for us?”
Needless to say, on the surface, this question can be interpreted as highly contemptuous. Understandable. But let’s analyze this statement a little more to see if we can get to the bottom of what I feel most people mean when they say this.
The general response from management regarding this question goes something like, “we pay you a salary and (sometimes) benefits to do the job that you do, if you don’t like it, then you can happily go someplace else.” Granted, this is true. Salaries are probably the single most important factor for motivating individuals (though no according to Herzberg…but more on that later) to continue gainful employment; even if we may not be entirely happy in the job that we have. Let’s face it, most of us have bills, a rent/mortgage, dependents, etc. We can’t just work at places we like and have the pay not be enough to cover our basic expenses.
However, a quick look at modern motivation literature will tell you that a salary is generally a lousy motivator. Now, that’s not to say that I wouldn’t clean toilets all day for a seven figure salary…if that were the case, then I would find something to love about porcelain! But realistically, most individuals are not paid so well that their working conditions can easily be ignored.
According Herzberg, salary is a hygiene factor, not a motivator. A hygiene factor is something that simply decreases dissatisfaction but does not necessarily increase motivation. Other hygiene factors include office relationships, benefits, and other work conditions (comfortable chairs, decent computer equipment, etc). Given that, while a salary (especially in these economic times) is a great dissatisfaction reducer, it can really only act as an extrinsic motivating factor; and a reward based one at that. Research by Cameron and Pierce has shown that purely reward based incentives are lousy at increasing intrinsic motivation.
It is important to note here that intrinsic motivation is the kind of motivation that is responsible for much creativity, openness, and personal satisfaction in a person’s behaviors (resulting in, of course, better work performance and achievements). This can easily be seen in children at school. Some children are genuinely excited about being there and having the opportunity to learn and interact with others; these children see school as meeting intrinsic needs and thus their motivation to succeed in school is coming from within. These kids tend to do well in school. Conversely, we have all seen the kids who really don’t want to be at school but are forced to be there. Parents (or the state) forcing a child to be in school represent extrinsic motivators based in rules and punishments. These obviously serve as poor motivators and as such, these children generally do poorly in school (of course the kids need to be there but there are other ways of manipulating the child’s motivation such that they may actually enjoy and want to be there).
Now, to circle back to the question I posed to my supervisors, the concepts of firing, salary, and benefits are extrinsic motivators based on fear (losing a job in a bad economy, etc) and do nothing to meet individual’s intrinsic motivation needs. Thus, my argument is that perhaps instead of thinking that a salary is enough for us, why not give us compliments on good work done? Why not seek our input for improving processes (and follow through)? Why not provide for simple things like comfortable chairs and god dam toaster upstairs! It doesn’t really take much to address intrinsic needs and when you do, the bang for the buck is much more valuable (to both the company and the individual) than simply a 2% raise.
Leave a reply