Out of the Crisis.Org

[Louis Altazan]

Part One discusses some intangible behavior that can bring about de-motivation. I use the term de-motivation, because I believe all normal people are, by nature motivated. I feel motivation is the natural state of normal beings and lack of motivation is a “caused” state. If this is the case, the current notion that people can be motivated is incorrect. Rather they are already motivated and in order for this behavior to manifest, the causes [de-motivators] must be removed.

Similarly, health is the natural state and disease is unnatural. One need not cause health, rather they might prevent disease. Disease might be prevented with proper hygiene. With good hygiene we have a lack of disease, but not an increase of health. To increase health we must increase health [motivational] items. Exercise for example might increase health.

I have written of hygiene items and motivational items and how they effect workers. Hygiene items must be in place to avoid dissatisfaction. While they will not motivate, they will, if missing or if present in insufficient quantity de-motivate. Most people who use incentives are familiar with the symptoms, though they may not consider what is taking place.

For example, a flat-rate worker earns several consecutive large paychecks. The worker’s needs are met by the money they are earning. The shop wishes them to do more, but they will not put out additional effort, even though they could earn more by doing so. If their pay is cut they become very de-motivated and possibly quit. While the reward failed to motivate, lessening the reward succeeded in de-motivating. This is a normal human reaction with regard to a hygiene item.

Later I will write about the three levels of performance, with regard to motivation. For now a very limited explanation might be as follows. Our worker above was maintaining average performance when he was satisfied with the pay. This is a level subconsciously agreed upon by the worker and the employer as “a good day’s work.” It is far below the capability of the worker, but average to the employer and considered adequate at the time of the agreement [book time?]

When pay is reduced the worker can no longer earn the same reward with “a good day’s effort.” Instead the worker moves to the second state, of below average performance. Psychologically the worker has adjusted the effort because they no longer feel the wages represent a “good days pay.” The worker was neither motivated nor de-motivated as long as the reward was considered adequate. They were simply neutral with regard to the pay for the work; X amount of work produced X amount of pay. Decreasing the pay moved the scale to the de-motivated side.

This neutral feeling will always exist, regardless of the amount of pay. Increasing pay may temporarily excite the worker and possibly cause them to produce more effort. This increase is more due to a feeling of advancement in their career [motivational factor] than the actual money earned. Soon, continuing to receive the same amount can no longer be seen as advancement. The worker then moves to the neutral state or “what have you done for me lately.” This is an escalating need that will always return to the neutral state.

The third state is motivation and can only be reached once hygiene needs are fulfilled, de-motivators removed and motivational opportunities are presented. At this point the worker produces much closer to their capability, because it pleases them to do so. This is not unlike the state achieved when performing a hobby or enjoyable task.

Incentive pay systems are a tangible de-motivator but certainly not the only one. Listed below are a few more with comments:

• Disagreement with the philosophy of the company. A company may have the philosophy of repairing things to prevent problems, rather than treating only existing problems. An employee could see this as overselling unnecessary items. That may or may not be the case, but as long as the conflict exist there will likely be de-motivation. The same could happen with an employee wishing to prevent problems and a company interested only in repairing that which is broken or any other contradictory scenario.
  
  
• Being rushed through a job at an uncomfortable pace or being asked to deliver a job the employee feels is not correct. For instance, a delivery time may be promised to the client. Due to unforseen conditions the delivery time cannot be met. Rather than realize the problem lies with the system of predicting delivery, the supervisor rushes the technician. Worse, they release a vehicle that is not properly repaired. Delivery time is a function of many factors. It is management’s responsibility to learn how to accurately predict it. Expecting a technician to meet a pre-conceived deadline can cause de-motivation.
  
  
• Extremes in the work environment, whether too cold or too hot will result in de-motivation. Human beings function properly within a narrow range of temperatures. As the actual temperature deviates from the ideal, discomfort increases. Very slightly at first, but more and more as we move further away. This is particularly de-motivating when sales and management personnel are seen in a climate controlled environment. Not only is there physical discomfort, but the relative importance assigned to personnel is indicated.
  
  
• Conflicting priorities. For example a tech is told “The shop wants only quality work.” He aligns a vehicle, resets the machine and checks the readings again. The second readings are not the same as the first, the machine does not repeat. When the supervisor is told, he says, "Align cars and quit fooling around!" The same holds with any test equipment that is not accurate yet must be used. Regardless of effort, the work may not be right. Often, the human reaction is to quit or quit trying when faced with a no-win situation.
  
  
• The last point, and I will write more on this later, is the status of technical people within the organization. If technicians are treated as “second class citizens” they will begin to act as second class citizens. There is very strong evidence that thought follows behavior, as much or more than behavior follows thought.

_________________
Louis Altazan
Owner/Manager AGCO Automotive Corporation
Baton Rouge, LA

[slimmv]

Hi Louis,

Louis Wrote

[Louis Altazan]

[slimmv]

Hi Louis,

Having worked on the management side my theory is this, management knows what they will pay an employee before anything else is said and done. They create the schemes to promote to the worker the illusion that if he works harder he will make more. If the worker masters the program and does well and earns more than management intended, the program will change. Management might say to the worker, "When we put together this program we did not see "this" cost factor, so in all fairness we both can share in some of the cost". Then down goes the workers pay for the same effort. Management would be better served if they would put as much energy into removing obstacles to joy in work as in their incentative programs.

Some workers are good at staying ahead of the Programs. They are the consistent high achievers in this system at the expense of co-worker, clients and yes even management.


The three Levels of Performance are;
1-Average Performance
2-Below Average Performance
3-Motivated
Is this correct?


Louis wrote

[Louis Altazan]

Hi Mike,