In order to figure out how to get the best performance out of our people, we as managers need to begin by understanding what motivates people in general. If this topic fascinates you, there are entire seminars on this subject in business school, or in any good psychology or sociology degree program, but today I’m just going to bring up one of the giants of management theory, Abraham Maslow, and his famous Hierarchy of Needs.
At the heart of Maslow’s theory is the idea that all people have a series of needs that can be arranged in ascending order; that is, you can not advance to the next higher level if you have not met all of your needs on the level below it first. The classic example starts with breathing; if you can’t breathe, the fact that you are hungry isn’t really important just at that moment. If you haven’t eaten in several days, the uncertainty of how you will find food next month is not really important compared to eating now, and so on. Issues like social belonging (e.g. friendship, family, love) and esteem (e.g. the respect of others, recognition for the quality of your work) are not going to matter to you if you are lying awake every night wondering how to pay the rent.
For the management professional, all efforts to motivate the workforce must begin with a basic understanding of this theory. If your employees are concerned about feeding their families, assuring them that their jobs are secure will not really help; and if they are convinced that they are all going to be fired next week, a company picnic on Saturday won’t do any good. We must understand the needs of the workers, and try to figure out which of these needs are not being met – and what we can do about it.
Low wages are always going to be the first level; most employees are working to make a living, not because they enjoy the activity. If your people are unable to support themselves (or worse yet, their families) on the wages you are paying them, they are unlikely to perform well, and quite likely to quit in order to take the first better-paying job that they encounter. In the 21st Century compensation has grown to include benefits such as health insurance (employees are unlikely to perform well if they or their families can not afford needed health care), and the management team must take these into account as well.
Safety (or Security) is generally the next concern. This refers to job security as well as personal safety while on the job. Very few people are willing to put up with the lack of either factor; one is constantly hearing of people looking for more job security and better working conditions. Depending on your industry, difficult working conditions may be standard, and it may be impossible to guarantee long-term employment for every member of your staff, but the management team must still attempt to deal with these issues, at least on a relative basis (e.g. our company is relatively safe and offers quite good job security for our industry).
My point in dragging out all of this dusty B-school theory today is that there is no getting around the hierarchy. We can argue for days about what factors belong on what levels, and whether the hierarchy should have the traditional 5 levels or some larger number, but there is no way to avoid the fact that if these basic needs are not being met, all of the attempts to use Social, Recognition or Self-Actualization measures to motivate the workforce are a waste of your time and your company’s money. That many companies continue to use team building exercises, meaningless performance acknowledgements and unpopular social events to attempt to compensate for low wages and low job security is an indicator that the people in charge of such organizations are not paying attention; that such measures continue to fail is an indicator that Maslow was right…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would just add that its not just low wages (which certainly is very important), but also somewhat equality in wages. Finding out your co-workers make more than you for non-merit reasons (such as, they work in a different office than you or are a different sex), is just as bad, if not worse than low wages overall.
Equity in the workplace is very important, however, I would argue that in the context of Mr. Belin's post, equity is more of an issue when those involved are already earning a liveable wage.
For example, let's look at the equity issue from the other side - If your wages are barely enough to get by, I seriously doubt that the knowledge that the rest of your co-workers are making just as little is much of a comfort.
First, you survive, then issues of fair play and equity become important.
Post a Comment