Workplace Myths: Motivating People

In the past, we humans identified the causes of unexplained events as goblins or invisible agents. As science began to limit this behavior, we began wrapping our goblins in pseudo-scientific dress.

Occasionally, some of these explanations "stick," probably because they're memorable; or they appear to have predictive value; or they're simple to explain to the uninitiated, which elevates their propagation rates; or they have value in consolidating power, which gives them the blessing of the powerful. These explanations then become the organizational form of urban legends.

Understanding which of our beliefs could be mythological gives us a decided advantage as an organization. Here are some examples of pseudo-scientific workplace myths that claim to explain how to motivate people.

As a new manager, fire a few people to send the right message

Some believe that the best way to show their new subordinates that they mean business is to fire a few of them, and it doesn't really matter who. Calling it anything from "cleaning house" to "reorganization," the result is the same: some people lose their jobs.

This tactic has an unintended consequence: nearly everyone begins to feel insecure. The risk is that those who have alternatives might take advantage of them — and leave. And those with alternatives are usually the most capable people. What you get is turnover of precisely the wrong kind.

Pay-for-performance is the answer to all our problems

While fear might have motivated
the galley slaves of the film
Ben-Hur, there's some doubt
about whether it makes
people more creative

In its purest form, this myth holds that pay-for-performance is an effective way to manage everyone in the organization, no matter what their duties.

Pay-for-performance policies have numerous flaws, but here's just one. Such policies assume that performance goal setting is an objective process that yields sensible results. While this may be practical for certain easily measured functions such as sales, it's difficult to imagine a practical way to implement goal setting for R&D or strategic planning. How can we tell how good an innovation is, or how good a strategy is? Those determinations take time — sometimes decades.

The Strategy of the Whip

The strategy of the whip holds that we can increase performance by browbeating our subordinates, or threatening them with dismissal, corporate failure, or other punitive measures.

This approach is essentially fear-based, and it assumes that fear is a universally helpful motivator. While this might work for the galley slaves of the film Ben-Hur, there is at least some doubt that fear makes people more creative or insightful. On the contrary, effective fear-generating policies might make people and teams less creative and less insightful.

Learning to recognize workplace myths is a little like learning to recognize any other scam. Usually, they're too good to be true. More important, they tend to support the agenda of the social stratum that believes and propagates them. Be attentive to business wisdom where you work. Do you notice any possible myths?  Top    Next Issue

Love the work but not the job? Bad boss, long commute, troubling ethical questions, hateful colleague? This ebook looks at what we can do to get more out of life at work. It helps you get moving again! Read Go For It! Sometimes It's Easier If You Run, filled with tips and techniques for putting zing into your work life. Order Now!

More about achieving goals

Commitment Makes It Easier  [October 16, 2002]

When you face obstacles, sometimes the path around or through them is difficult. Committing yourself to the path lets you focus all your energy on the path you've chosen.

Beyond WIIFM  [August 13, 2003]

Probably the most widely used tactic of persuasion, "What's In It For Me," or WIIFM, can be toxic to an organization. There's a much healthier approach that provides a competitive advantage to organizations that use it.

Your Wishing Wand  [October 8, 2003]

Wishing — for ourselves, for others, or for all — helps us focus on what we really want. When we know what we really want, we're ready to make the little moves that make it happen. Here's a little user's guide for your wishing wand.

Give It Your All  [May 19, 2004]

If you have the time and resources to read this, you probably have a pretty good situation, or you have what it takes to be looking for one. In many ways, you're one of the fortunate few. Are you making the most of the wonderful things you have? Are you giving it your all?

Knowing Where You're Going  [April 20, 2005]

Groups that can't even agree on ``Em''what``/Em'' to do can often find themselves debating about ``Em''how``/Em'' to do it. Here are some simple things to remember to help you focus on defining the goal.

Workplace Myths: Motivating People  [July 19, 2006]

Up and down the org chart, you can find bits of business wisdom about motivating people. We generally believe these theories without question. How many of them are true? How many are myths? What are some of these myths and why do they persist?

Astonishing Successes  [January 31, 2007]

When we have successes that surprise us, we do feel good, but beyond that, our reactions are sometimes self-defeating. What happens when we experience unanticipated success, and how can we handle it better?

Achieving Goals: Inspiring Passion and Action  [February 14, 2007]

Achieving your goals requires both passion and action. Knowing when to emphasize passion and when to emphasize action are the keys to managing yourself, or others, toward achievement.

Reader Comments

Mark Iocolano, Mark Iocolano &|| Associates, Inc.

Rick,

Your article reminded me of an experience of a few years ago, in which I encountered a combination of the "fire/fear" motivators. A fellow manager in my organization cited a technique that he said was inspired by Jack Welch: routinely fire the bottom (10th or 20th?) percentile of performers.

Rick: This scheme (often called "rank and yank") has been used at Enron and is still (I believe) advocated by many leading consultants.

This was the first I had heard of it and it struck me as insanity.

Rick: Good for you!

(First of all, our organization consisted of only 16 people at its peak, all in different functions, from sales to consulting to secretarial). I suppose in some circumstances, this technique could work,

Rick: Not really. Even if the population is large, its main effect is to motivate the politically ruthless.

But it suffers from these flaws:

1. It assumes that performance of the people in the bottom percentile is unsatisfactory.

What if you happen to have an organization of people who are performing well? If you say that that's statistically and practically impossible, then what do you hope to gain by implementing this practice? Do you think you can achieve perfection, or that there is no limit to improvement — you can get consistent 10 or 20 percent increases in improvement by relentlessly firing people? If you have good people to start with, aren't they the ones who are most likely to get even better if you provide the right climate?

Rank-and-yankers are also assuming that performance resides purely in the individual, and that to change the performance of the group, you have to change who is in the group. Balderdash.

2. It assumes that you can quickly find superior replacements to those who were fired. (Unless your goal is workforce reduction).

Rick: Right

3. As you mention, unless you have clearly measurable and unambiguous standards of performance (and short-term, possibly shortsighted ones at that), how do you know which people are at the bottom? It seems to me that this practice, routinely applied, would rapidly lead to blame-shifting and risk-aversion. Disastrous particularly if team-building is important to your organization.

4. It creates a persistent climate of fear. It reminds me of decimation,

Rick: So true. It zeroes out risk taking and creates a motive for lying and misrepresentation.

practiced by the Roman legions and, I've heard, also by at least one latter-day Italian general in the First World War: After you lose a battle, line up your remaining army and kill every tenth soldier. This is just another one of those rules of thumb you cite that seems tough and effective at first glance but is usually just a myth. Thanks for another fine article.

— Mark

Rick: You're welcome!

Your comments are welcome

Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenfHlRlTgqCIXkUHBTner@ChacrEuHRQPYVKkOucGfoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

A Message Is Only a Message

When we receive messages of disapproval, we sometimes feel bad. And when we do, it can help to remember that we have the freedom to decide whether or not to accept the messages we receive.

Paths

Most of us follow paths through our careers, or through life. We get nervous when we're off the path. We feel better when we're doing what everyone else is doing. But is that sensible?

Organizational Loss: Searching Behavior

When organizations suffer painful losses, their responses can sometimes be destructive, further harming the organization and its people. Here are some typical patterns of destructive responses to organizational loss.

How to Reject Expert Opinion: II

When groups of decision makers confront complex problems, and they receive opinions from recognized experts, those opinions sometimes conflict with the group's own preferences. What tactics do groups use to reject the opinions of people with relevant expertise?

Six Traps in Email or Text: I

Most of us invest significant effort in communicating by email or any of the various forms of text messaging. Much of the effort is spent correcting confusions caused, in part, by a few traps. Knowing what those traps are can save much trouble.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 30: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: II

When we finally execute plans, we encounter obstacles. So we find workarounds or adjust the plans. But there are times when nothing we try gets us back on track. When this happens for nearly every plan, we might be working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 30.

And on May 7: Subject Matter Bullying

Most workplace bullying tactics have analogs in the schoolyard — isolation, physical attacks, name-calling, and rumor-mongering are common examples. Subject matter bullying might be an exception, because it requires expertise in a sophisticated knowledge domain. And that's where trouble begins. Available here and by RSS on May 7.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenfHlRlTgqCIXkUHBTner@ChacrEuHRQPYVKkOucGfoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info