Be careful Using Money As A Performance Incentive

This article cites Dan Ariely’s research into the effects on monetary incentives on people’s performance and the surprising results. I first heard about this in an online video of Dan Pink’s and he included references to Ariely’s work in his great book ‘Drive.’ You should check out both Pink’s book and Ariely’s ‘Predictably Irrational.’ Impactful research told engagingly.

Broadly, money works fine as a performance incentive in limited situations. For dull, linear, routine processes where ‘more’ productivity is easily produced by ‘more’ effort. The moment any degree of cognitive processing is required at-risk extra money becomes, at best, a distraction. Mostly its impact is negative.

Money is what 70-year-oldd psychologists refer to as a ‘hygiene factor.’ It won’t motivate anyone but the absence of it will demotivate people.

I’m looking at a big pile of absent money right now and it is, indeed, highly demotivating. Oddly though it has motivated me to scribble out a quick blog post. I suspect there is a strong correlation between my blog productivity and money absence.

“>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaeFnxSfSC4]

Nice satirical piece as usual from ‘The Onion’ that ties in nicely with my blog’s employment theme: http://www.theonion.com/articles/all-of-area-mans-hard-work-finally-pays-off-for-em,26957/

So, when I read the essay by Scott Adams in the Wall Street Journal about his year of living dangerously, it hit home to me. And, he’s funny.

Check out the article. It may not last online for long…

Wikipedia: benefit definition: ”’archaic”’ an act of kindness. →

My last post for the year and a quick one at that. I had my last gig for 2011 yesterday. It was as MC for a Make A Wish Christmas luncheon onboard P&O’s Pacific Pearl docked at Auckland. Pacific Cirque performed some suitably impressive thing that we should not try at home. I interviewed the Wish Child about his going to the Rugby World Cup and meeting the All Blacks. I sold raffle tickets, toured the ship and much money was raised.

What impressed and pleased me greatly was their focus. It wasn’t entirely on the Wish Child, who by definition has a life threatening condition, and feeling sorry for anyone. It was very much about creating magic and enriching lives – generating some positivity where it can only do a lot of good. And it was about doing that for everyone involved not just the Wish Child. What a great idea!

I’ve written a lot about focus. Always sounds good but it can sometimes blind us. If we’re focusing solely on a ‘sick’ child, that ends being all we see. Redirect the focus and so much more is visible. The whole child, their future, the family, the volunteers, everyone involved. All of whom are having their lives enriched.

And there was dessert – chocolate!

You've only got so much self control; Don't waste it!

This article in ‘Psychology Today’ by Susan Krauss reports on Roy Baumeister’s work about how our self control can be sapped through overuse.

Personally, I’d also had a mental model of willpower / self discipline / self control as a muscle that you could exercise and get to grow stronger. It turns out to actually be a tank that gets emptied but can be refilled and we can rely on random chance to do it for us or be proactive and consciously and deliberately take actions that refill our willpower tank.

Oddly, the only thing proven to do so is consumption of small amounts of actual sugar. As much as we’d like to think of ourselves as rational creatures who, through strength of character, can be better people, maybe our natural level of self control is set through natural random chemical chance? It’s like those old Donald Duck cartoons where he’s in a dilemma and on one shoulder a little duck angel appears and on his other shoulder appears a little duck devil who argue it out into each of his ears. This ‘strength’ or ‘ego depletion’ theory implies that the angel gets weary and the devil gets his way until the angel rests up. And the best advice is to slip the angel a barley sugar or a powerade like its on a triathalon.

Krauss argues, and I agree, that if the model is that of a muscle that gets tired then maybe the same progressive development can be applied to our willpower muscle that bodybuilders apply to their actual muscles. Keep working it out and it’ll get stronger over time but you need to keep increasing the weight / temptation to build it up.

No weight trainer or body builder says, “I’m going to curl this 20kg with my bicep forever,” yet you’re supposed to say, “I’m never going to have chocolate cake ever again.” That seems unrealistic, demoralising and potentially counterproductive. Weight trainers say, “I’m going to curl this 20kg weight 8-12 times or until I can’t, then rest, then do that set two more times. After time, that’ll get easier and I’ll increase the weight.” I don’t know what the cake equivalent is but it isn’t, “None ever again.” Work up to it.

Employers probably aren’t directly interested in employees’ cake avoidance or body building abilities but willpower  / self control is likely a contributor to perseverance and grit which, as I write about frequently, are the most common precursors to success at work (or anywhere else for that matter.) So, if you’re leading someone at work who gives up, can’t focus for long enough or is constantly engaging in temptations that are distracting them from activities that should be adding value to their work and their lives, what can you do?

Well, if we’re stick to our weight training metaphor, you become their personal trainer. Not one of those old school cliche ‘Drill Sergeant’ types who shout, “You’re worthless and weak!! Give me twenty!!” Set challenging but realistic micro-goals that progressively build towards the desired target. Each success builds on itself, they’re more likely to buy-in to it and participate and, ultimately, you and they are more likely to achieve the end goal. But even the fluffiest of personal trainers aren’t pushovers. They don’t accept excuses and they demand honesty and effort.

And the irony is, given that sugar refuels our willpower tank, even if you do eat the cake, you may regret it but you’re less likely to eat more cake. So, in a tenuous way, you can have your cake and eat it too. Try a handful of dried cranberries. They’re the supposed ‘Superfruit.’ You never hear of ‘Supercake.’ (If you have heard of ‘Supercake’, please do let me know…)

Recognizing sarcasm (and other emotions) is a skill linked to other productive skills

This article by Richard Chin at Smithsonian Magazine discusses how our relative ability to identify and interpret sarcasm reveals, to an extent, how our brains process communication. I wonder how this skill, or lack thereof, impacts the potential engagement and productivity of our employees? I wonder if its something we’re born and stuck with, or whether it can taught and learned? Not the sarcasm per se but how some people are better than others at comprehending multiple layers of communication in this increasingly saturated world of communication in which we’re trying to make a living. Often the message isn’t really the message. It’d save a lot of time, money and heartache if people could ‘get’ that quicker.

Apparently when used in conversation the phrase “Yeah, right” is done so sarcastically 23% of the time. Maybe it’s a cultural thing in my country but I find that figure staggeringly low! When would anyone ever use it genuinely? For those of you not from New Zealand reading this, there is a New Zealand beer brand whose primary advertising campaign has been built around this phrase for a decade. Billboards with their logo have a comment on the left side and on the right side is the simple phrase, “Yeah, right.” (I’m writing this from memory. I’m thinking they probably didn’t use the comma.) Often these are verbatim comments from politicians or celebrities or things that real people say, “Hey babe, I’m sure no one at the office knows about us…” – Yeah, right.

I know a lot of advertisers claim their campaigns have become iconic and entered the zeitgeist etc but in New Zealand, seriously, ask anyone, everyone gets this. New born infants first words are often, “Yeah, right.” (Usually after being told, “Welcome to the world.”)

The criticism of sarcasm itself by the readers of Chin’s article revolve mainly around the issue of hierarchy. Sarcasm between equals is funny. Sarcasm between people of unequal power is either mean or bolshy, depending on which end of the power you’re on. The Greek root for sarcasm, sarkazein, means to tear flesh like dogs. Ouch!

Rightly or wrongly, New Zealand presents itself as an egalitarian land so maybe that’s why we’re so enamoured with sarcasm? (Nice haircut by the way.)

I recently ran a sales training programme for a group of reasonably experienced salespeople who sold large, costly capital equipment that often needed to be on-sold-in to decision makers within the purchasing company. That is to say, a committee or board. Part of our programme included anticipating and dealing with objections. Often, there are delays and barriers and excuses throughout a negotiation process and I found some research that implied that 70% of the reasons given for such objections were not the actual reasons. So, it would seem that the ability to read between the lines and to interpret subtext are very valuable skills with tangible financial and measurable consequences. It struck me as I started reading Chin’s article about sarcasm that some people are naturally attuned to picking the non-obvious emotion in statements and some people aren’t. Having Leonard from TV’s ‘The Big Bang Theory’ hold up a sign that reads ‘sarcasm’ so the austistic Sheldon can understand Penny is funny but unfortunately impractical for us in our workplaces. Fortunately we can all learn how to do this better in a work context. It can be taught. It can be learned. My sales people trainees found that out.

We could get into a long argument about the smarts of recruiting employees who already have the skills we’re looking for and how many employers totally over rely on recruiting for specific technical skills rather than attributes that actually lead to longterm success such as ‘fit’ and ‘perseverance’ and so forth. Here’s another one. Although I advise against being sarcastic to applicants in job interviews. That’s definitely one of those inappropriate power-imbalance situations!

Anyone who ever said that two positives cannot make a negative has obviously never heard the phrase, “Yeah, right.”

Unrequited hype is one of 3 primary employee demotivators

This article with video from ‘Good To Great’ author Jim Collins identifies three primary employee demotivators. Actually, he doesn’t limit them to employees but rightly says they are inflicted on people in many forums. Parents especially are noted as perpetrators. Those three demotivators are:

• hype
• futurism and
• false democracy.

There may be others but these three are good ways to put out the fires that might be burning inside people you have who are already inherently motivated. Crazy. You’d think that employers would want to not do that, yet I see an awful lot of hype, futurism and false democracy in a lot of workplaces. All of it is well-intentioned.

In one of my previous management roles where I was a significant agent of change, I had a little personal catchphrase, “No fireworks, no bugles.” What I was trying to reinforce to myself and to others was my own anti-hype position. I really did not want to overpromise. I’d learned from being on the receiving end of too many projects or ideas that were going to magically transform everything into a wonderland of worker amenity and prosperity. Never quite panned out quite as wonderlandy as they painted it. Few things do. Honestly, I’m not anti-hype. It has its place. Used in short bursts at appropriate times, it can generate heat, energy, attention, focus and movement. My problem is that, often, the hype is all there is. In fact, isn’t that the meaning most of us apply when we see, hear or use the word? Too much hype. Nothing but hype. Over-hyped. Don’t believe the hype. What must follow hype to avoid demotivation is prompt and positive change of meaningful substance.

Workplace examples of death by overhyping I’ve seen have included introductions of performance management systems and departmental restructures. That said, I’ve also been involved in introductions of performance management systems and departmental restructures that were highly successful, well received and used hype, to some extent, very well. So, I’d disagree with Collins if he means that all hype is bad. I suspect he doesn’t mean that. I believe he means the hyperbole that isn’t followed up with action of substance. Far better to, as he says in the video, “…to confront the brutal facts.”

How is futurism bad? I thought we were all meant to be planning for the future, setting goals, anticipating and pre-solving problems etc? Once again, Collins isn’t slamming all futurism, merely those bosses who focus on nothing but the future with little or zero emphasis on the now or recent history. Those bosses can’t learn from mistakes, can’t celebrate successes and can’t leverage employees ‘in the zone’ or in ‘a state of flow.’ These high performers don’t ignore the future but when they’re at their most productive, they are very much solely in the now. Bosses who break that focus and drift off over the rainbow are counter-productive.

Collins says to show results as an indication of progress, to show that people are part of something that is actually working. He refers to this as ‘clicks on the flywheel.’ (I get what he’s saying but will admit to having to go look up what a flywheel is – a heavy disk or wheel rotating on a shaft so that its momentum gives almost uniform rotational speed to the shaft and to all connected machinery. I’m pedantic enough to argue that change never happens at a ‘uniform rotational speed’ and I don’t even like the metaphor’s ‘rotational’ representation of change. But I still get it and love the whole point of it which was the benefits of showing progress and being part of something that works!)

False democracy is a label for all the actions by those employers who have already made up their mind but would like to paint over their intentions with a thin veneer of dishonest inclusiveness by engaging in some token campaign of capturing ideas and inputs from the team. Not that anything ever amounts from these campaigns. This is worse than just being a blatant autocracy. At least that’s honest and transparent. Sometimes even well-meaning managers will engage in such a campaign even though the system of their workplace is so rigid and unresponsive that actual democracy is unlikely. That might be worse as it raises false hope?

Doctors have their oath and the first part is about at the very least not doing harm. Leaders, when it comes to motivating their people, could, at the very least, take that page out of the doctors’ book. (Don’t take a page out of their prescription pad though. You’ll never read their handwriting!)

Why is the metaphorical ‘half full / half empty glass’ never a wine glass? Not businesslike? That hasn’t been my experience with businesspeople...

Are you leading someone who is always radiating ‘doom and gloom’ and bringing down your team? Do you suspect that your team would be more productive and your workplace more a workplace of choice if the gloomy guts could just change their ways? You’re not wrong (except for the odd occasion when you are. More about this soon..)

Resilience and perseverance are two critical characteristics of successful people. One of the factors leading to our own levels of resilience and perseverance is the nature and extent of our optimism.  The way we think about success and failure determines, in the long run, who among us becomes successful or fails. The nature of that thinking is nothing but a learned habit. Our genes, childhood, teachers, parents, experiences etc, good and bad, have shaped our thinking. The people you’re trying to lead, when about to begin a job, project, relationship or major task, will view their prospects through a mental lens that has been polished and scratched. You could help them choose to get rid of that lens if it’s not helping them and replace it with one that will – one that they choose themselves.

Pessimists, when they actually experience a genuinely negative event, tend to believe the bad effects will be for a long time, that it doesn’t just apply to a specific area of their life but will cut across everything and that the event is their fault. Optimists tend to believe genuinely negative events are temporary, isolated and, whether or not they are to blame or partly to blame, there is a challenge from which to learn. Studies have shown that naturally pessimistic people are generally less successful, less healthy and, by definition, less happy.

If you’re leading a team, how many of those people do you have? How many do you need? Zero? Really?

Studies designed to generate states of learned helplessness amongst the participants (be they dogs or humans) show that about one in ten are inherently prone to giving up almost instantly. Six out of ten will eventually learn to be helpless given the relentless conditions of the study. BUT three out of ten are naturally inclined to never giving up. How many of those people do you have on your team? How many do you need?

I’m not suggesting you should fire or screen out of recruitment processes all those who are natural pessimists. BUT maybe you should try and consciously plan to have the right sort of people in the right sort of roles at the right times? I could be wrong but project planners, financial controllers and neurosurgeons should probably have at least a streak of pessimism in there for safety’s sake. Studies show that pessimists accurately judge how much control they have, whereas optimists overestimate how much control they have. They distort reality in their favour. And I’m glad for the health and happiness of the irrepressibly external optimists but there are, in business, many times when the wisest move is to simply give up. Having someone on board who simply cannot give up might be risky.

So, let’s think about helping average people improve their lives and your team’s productivity by raising their optimism levels. It’s a win-win!

There are various assessments you can undergo if you wish to discover the nature and extent of your own levels of optimism and pessimism. (I was quite surprised at my own. I did very well except for my interpretation of positive events; I didn’t take enough credit for those apparently.) But like so many others of the supposed styles we have such as communication, personality, learning, conflict and so forth, these are natural defaults and preferences. Most are not carved in stone. I choose to believe that we can choose. Some we’re stuck with but not optimism – that, we can choose to adapt and improve and be as optimistic or pessimistic as we think we need to be given the circumstances that we’re in. For all the advantages of being generally optimistic, some situations are better off with a pessimist around. Anytime the cost of failure is high, that’s when you want someone around who considers the possibility that s##t may hit the fan.

An event is just an event. Whether or not it’s adverse is in the eye of the beholder. These events may or may not have actually happened. The sales call that fails. The proposal that gets rejected. The suggestion that gets ignored. The earthquake. The adultery.

How can you take control and train yourself, and eventually model to others, how to sensibly explain the meaning of events and learn how to be more optimistic and reap some of those benefits? Martin Seligman’s ABCDE model is both simple and effective. I’m always a big fan of simple and effective.

A – Adversity
B – Beliefs
C – Consequences
D – Disputation
E – Energization

Write things down for a week. Draw up a rough grid with five headings: ABCDE. A is the Adversity (real or perceived, present or potential.) What beliefs are driving your feelings about the adversity? What are (or might be) the consequences if you belief that? Disputation is arguing with yourself. (It doesn’t have to be out loud although that might be entertaining for others.) In this argument, look for real evidence, consider alternatives, implications and the usefulness to you. Once you have an alternative, then energize it by taking an action, any action however small. Over time, this becomes a habit and those small actions add up.

Supposedly the average person thinks over 12,000 thoughts a day and 70% of those are negative. Some might be useful like, “If you change lanes now you might hit another car,” but some might be holding you back, “If you quit your job you might not get another one.” If you can become a leader who can instil in others, at least the ability to recognise and catch their own negative thoughts followed by some internal dialogue about alternative thoughts, then you’re a long way to standing out from the crowd and being a successful leader of positive and proactive change in your workplace.

1 out of 5 people are difficult. Look at the 4 people around you. If it's not them - it's YOU!

OK, the 1 out of 5 statistic above is a joke. It might be true but that can said of 57% of all statistics. Tony Schwartz in his HBR blog writes that the difficulty in the dealing does indeed actually lie with YOU.

He makes some good points. It’s bad enough for you if you have to deal with someone you find difficult at work and you’re stuck with having to deal with them every working day. Schwartz stresses how much worse it is when that person is your boss. Firstly, it’s a natural stressor when you choose to believe you’ve lost control and / or are powerless. Both these situations will add to that. And, of course, when it’s your boss, you’ve got a dollop of fear thrown in for good (bad) measure. Baseline security fear, the powerful kind. (Thanks Maslow.)

Schwartz uses a very helpful ‘lens’ metaphor as a possible solution. There’s the lens of ‘realistic optimism’, the ‘reverse lens’ and the ‘long lens.’ The stress, the feelings of control and power and the fear are largely driven by how you choose to react to situations. So, choose to stop and look at it from some different perspectives. What are the facts and what am I telling myself about those facts? What is this other person feeling that is driving their behaviour? To what extent can I influence that? Ask some other questions about how this might play out and what can be learned and how important it is in the scheme of things.

So far, I’ve written from the angle of you having to deal directly with a difficult person of your own. If you’re reading this, you’re probably an experienced grown-up. You’re probably able to take care of yourself instinctively. But how can you help your people who perhaps aren’t as instinctively clued up?

I like Schwartz’s approach of using questions, only instead of asking yourself, you engage your team member in a private conversation. They may come to you with a problem in dealing with someone else in the workplace. You cannot realistically give them some miraculous piece of advice that will work every time. You do not want to create a relationship of dependence with you having to always step in and solve others’ interpersonal problems. But in engaging them with these questions, it’ll drive them to think, not just with this person they’re having difficulty dealing with today but in the future as well.

I read of a  social experiment. Individuals were told they’d be working with a partner in a another room. Each would do one of two tasks, one of which was unpleasant. You got to choose who did what & your partner would never know. (Of course, there was no partner in the other room.) The researcher left for a few minutes while the subject decided. They had a coin in a sealed plastic bag in case they wanted to “decide fairly.” 90% of non-coin tossers gave the crappy job to their partner. Of those who tossed a coin, the crappy job was given to their partner…

…90%!

The only variable that made the decider make fairer decisions = putting a mirror right in front of them.