Are your Employees Motivated? - Top 5 Myths

Employee Motivation: Top 5 Myths

While motivating employees is a key factor in an economic recovery, many companies are failing to keep their workers fully engaged in their jobs because they share some common myths and beliefs, according to Suzanne Bates, author of "Motivate Like a CEO: Communicate Your Strategic Vision and Inspire People to Act!" (McGraw-Hill 2009).

Employers must re-examine their beliefs about employee engagement if they hope to accelerate their business recovery and retain their top talent, said Bates, president and CEO of Bates Communications

(http://www.bates-communications.com/).

In a typical workplace, only 29 percent of employees are actively motivated and engaged in their jobs, while 71 percent are unmotivated and disengaged - either not engaged at all (54 percent) or are actively disengaged (17 percent) - according to the Gallup Management Journal’s Employee Engagement Index.

"While there has been a slight uptick in employee motivation in recent surveys, this may be only temporary because it's based on survival. As the pendulum swings back, employers should watch out - because employees will look at their jobs and their companies differently," said Bates.

"The Top 5 Myths about Motivating Employees" are at work even during an economic boom. However, in a serious recession, everything changes, and employers' misperceptions can be damaging. "If employers don't re-examine their human resource practices and beliefs about motivation," said Bates, "they risk damaging morale, losing top talent, and lengthening their recovery time."

The Top 5 myths about motivating employees, according to Bates and "Motivate Like a CEO," are:

Myth #1: Money is the number one way to motivate employees. "Salaries and bonuses have been the staple of motivation. Most companies relied primarily, even completely, on monetary rewards," said Bates. "Money is only one of many factors in motivation. Yet companies have become lazy about motivating people instead of giving them what they really crave, which is recognition, praise, and the opportunity to learn."

Myth #2: If you want to motivate people, don’t let them in on the bad news. "This is a particularly damaging myth. Bad news always gets out to employees. They hate it when you hide bad news; they consider themselves partners in the company, and they long for a chance to contribute and make a difference, especially in tough times," said Bates. "The surest way to motivate people is to empower them even with terrible news, so they can come to terms with reality, think their way through the crisis, and contribute to creative solutions going forward," said Bates.

Myth #3: Most employees know what motivates them. "Many people are searching for a larger purpose, and they are not finding it in their work," said Bates. "In challenging times, employers can become a powerful source of motivation and pride among talented people. In a downturn, leaders must talk to employees and help them discover who they are and what motivates them. Spend time with them; ask them why they enjoy the work, what they enjoy most, how they want to contribute, and where they see themselves in the future," said Bates.

Myth #4: You simply cannot motivate everyone. "This was true in boom times, when organizations were bloated and some people you hired were marginal. Those days are over," said Bates. "Now that companies have downsized and are arguably leaner and meaner with the best talent, this is a damaging assumption. It is a leader’s responsibility to motivate employees. It’s time to stop blaming employees, and start looking to leaders to ignite the spark," said Bates.

Myth #5: People are just grateful to have a job, and this attitude will survive the downturn. "Top talent will always have a place to go, and while they may have had less mobility during the recession, your competitors are already looking around to see who is unhappy and ready to leave," said Bates. "Employers who keep believing their people are just grateful to have a job will be blindsided when their top talent walks out the door because they don’t have leaders who are engaging them, praising them, recognizing them, and giving them opportunities to grow."

Ref: Suzanne Bates

Is Teamwork Always Productive?

When team work can be counterproductive.......

Key learnings:

Working in teams has its benefits

However, team work is not always the best thing for organizations

High-performing teams are a boon. That is why organisations spend fortunes on team-building activities. Even to suggest that businesses can survive without efficient work teams sounds blasphemous. But are teams always important? Is performing in teams the only approach to smooth organisational functioning? This article looks at when working in teams becomes counterproductive.

Absence of environment

Teams exist within an organisational context; and processes, regulations and infrastructure support team work and encourage it. The presence of certain factors or elements lays the foundation for effective team work. The following factors will have a direct bearing on the outcome of a team effort:

Rigid hierarchy: All organisations have hierarchical structures, only the degree of their flexibility differs. A flexible structure encourages delegation, open communication, participation in decision-making, and ensures that both individuals and teams have some leeway in what they do. A rigid structure would mean centralised decision-making, limited autonomy and strictly streamlined communication. A rigid structure limits the functioning of a team outside of it. Though a team is effective 'internally', its operations in the larger context will be difficult. For instance, if a team needs access to certain information, the management's rigidity will limit information sharing; thus hampering team functioning. Investment in team-building will be futile if the hierarchical structure prevents managements from being generous with permits, approvals and allotments.

Independence: There are individuals who thrive in teams; and for those whose success depends on their level of isolation, the less the interaction at work the better their performance will be. When an organisation is flushed with such individuals, then a largely team-based approach will be counterproductive. As one executive says, "Not everyone wants to be a team member. What this means is that an attempt to force them into a team structure imposed upon them will affect their performance and morale."

Nature of tasks: Some tasks require team work and some can be done by individuals with little intervention from others. Some call for both. If the prevalence of 'individual' tasks is high, forcing individuals into teams is a wasted effort. Furthermore, expecting individuals to function as a team when their jobs are linked remotely will affect individual performance. But how do organisations decide whether a task requires team work or not? Tasks do not need team work when they:

• Require little communication or interaction with others
• Are simple and repetitive-an old style assembly line for instance, where a set of simple yet discrete tasks can be performed by an individual
• When information needed for task completion is available with the individual himself

Autocratic leadership: When autocratic leaders like an idea, they insist on implementing it without analysing implications at different levels of the organisation. So when such leaders are 'convinced' about the need for team work, they will make it mandatory for employees to form and work in teams. This imposition of team work will have adverse consequences. Such teams do not perform as successfully as participative teams. Use of autocratic power to create teams results in:

• Mistrust in the management as information sharing will be limited
• Frustrated team members
• Difficulty in maintaining harmony even when performing simple, repetitive tasks

Stability factor: As dynamic as businesses are, stability is the quality that keeps organisations going. This stability results from streamlined procedures and a good corporate culture. In the absence of either, even a small change in the business environment will provoke a major overhaul within the organisation. Organisations which are shaken constantly by what happens in the market cannot support effective team functioning.

Teams need an ideal environment to perform ideally. When the requisite conditions are absent, asking individuals to form and work in teams will be a bad idea.

Ref: TheManageMentor.