We are looking for input from people like you to answer some questions on how you were able to change something in your life or set out and achieve a goal. We want to understand how you were able to lose weight, get a promotion, start a new hobby, eat healthier, change a bad habit, start a new positive habit, complete a project, etc…). We are trying to uncover the underlying factors that help people purposefully changed a behavior or attitude. This research will be used as input to a model of change that we are developing as well as possible inclusion in a book we are writing on the subject. In the comment section, please share the following:
1) What did you purposefully set out to change or achieve?
2) What was your motivation that drove you to that do this (was their a specific trigger or was it something that you had focused on for a long time)?
3) What were the key actions that you took to achieve that change or result?
4) Did you change things in your environment to achieve this (i.e., move the treadmill into the bedroom or hang a progress chart on the wall)
5) Did you tell people (or a single person) what you were trying to do?
6) Did you set milestones to your goal?
7) Did you measure your progress against those milestones?
8) What was the hardest part about the process?
9) What was the most important part of your change journey?
10) What tips would you give for someone else who is trying to change this aspect of their life?
Leave your response in the comment section 0r send me an e-mail at kurt@lanterngroup.com – Thank you!
This blog has been kind of quiet lately – partly on purpose and partly because life is busy.
The on-purpose part of being quiet was brought on by a post I read by Derek Sivers blog (http://sivers.org/boring) on whether it is better to focus, entertain or both? The underlying message being that we sometimes put out content to just put out content, when instead we should be focusing and developing our ideas and build a “path to mastery.” It is a great conundrum that we all face…as Derek says, “you’ve got a conflict: What’s best for you is to shut up, sit down, and focus. What’s best for them [audience]… is for you to be entertaining.”
That being said, I’ve been working on developing a few concepts that build off of what we’ve done in the past, but reflect a new approach for us. This required me to shut up, sit down and focus.
As readers of this blog know, we have concentrated on improving employee motivation at an organizational level for years. We put a lot of stock into understanding the research out there on this topic and not just repeat the same old ideas. For instance, outside of the original researchers, we have probably done more work on the 4-Drive Model of Employee Motivation than anyone in the country (see here, here, here, here and here for just a sample of our thoughts on this). We think that this motivational theory offers companies new ways of looking at their reward and recognition framework that is refreshing and helps drive motivation in exciting ways. We used this and other research (mostly insights from behavioral economics and psychology) to help organizations set up reward and recognition systems that tap into these insights and improve employee motivation and engagement. We’ve done exciting work with a number of large and small companies helping them do this.
What we hadn’t done is focus on what individuals could do to improve their own motivation.
We had not explored how individuals, such as yourself, keep on task and stay motivated to achieve your goals? How can we leverage the new research that is out there to help us stay motivated everyday.
So we are shutting up, sitting down, and focusing on that.
And it is fascinating.
Recent work by researchers on habit formation, willpower, and individual change have shed light on a number concrete steps that we, as individuals can do, to help keep us motivated and on task. We have taken the first strides in building a process that melds together all this research into a few main concepts that can be framework for a personal motivation plan. Our initial work has led us to develop a five step process, that we think will not only help people to ignite their own motivation, but also to build ways to maintain that motivation for the long run. These five steps are:
1) Find your motivational flow
2) Recalibrate your habit triggers
3) Enable your daily environment
4) Socialize your motivational strategy
5) Track your goal progress
Each step has both research and real actions behind it.
We are still working on this and are looking for collaborators to help refine the process and test our assumptions. The idea is to create a workshop and support materials that can be piloted. In the near future, we will be testing the model and piloting the process with a few people. If you want to be part of that group, let us know (leave a comment below or e-mail kurt@lanterngroup.com) and we will put you on the list and you can be one of the first to try it out.
Even in the best of times, companies experience different competitive and environmental factors that can lead to organizational change and thus employee uncertainty. In hard economic times, those changes occur at a much greater pace and employee uncertainty can be even greater. Employee uncertainty creates a number of challenges for organizations as employees often feel anxious, disillusionment, disappointment, confusion, and even anger over their lack of control in an unknown situation. This often leads to decreased employee motivation, focus and subsequent decreases in productivity and performance.
Companies can employ a number of different mechanisms to help recharge employee motivation in changing environments. One key mechanism is the use of targeted incentives to help engage employees and focus them on improving productivity. Because incentives can be structured in a number of different ways and use a variety of reward options, it is important to understand what aspects of incentives will drive the greatest return given the uncertainty and emotional response that is felt by employees during these organizational shifts.
Understanding the psychological response:
The emotional response of individuals to potential negative changes is theorized to go through a process similar to grief. The Kubler-Ross Reaction to Change[i] cycle shows how employees typically flow through recognized stages when faced with change.
Initial denial is followed by resistance, then a period of self-doubt and worry, followed by a time of letting go, with acceptance of the change and exploration of options, and finally moving to new commitment and focus. This is an emotionally charged process that requires time to respond to change.
Organizations need to be able to manage this process and move people through these stages as quickly as possible. The engagement of the emotional elements of the brain is vital to being able to achieve this. During the high stress, denial and resistance stages, our brains do not process rational arguments as easily or readily as they usually do. In order to gain a foothold in this emotional cauldron, incentives need to have an emotional hook. Non-cash incentives achieve this hook through a variety of behavioral economic principles. First, they provide hedonic luxury escape which is about being able to remove yourself from the current state and imagine yourself with a luxury item or good[ii]. Second, they activate different sectors of the brain associated with visualization (i.e., right hemisphere brain functions) versus the more rational sectors associated with transactions (i.e., money and left hemisphere brain functions)[iii]. Third, non-cash elements do not push employees into a calculative modality in which they equate effort with monetary amounts. In stressful situations, this calculation is short-changed and often interpreted as “they are trying to bribe me.” Non-cash awards are evaluated as a separate, non-financial component that is viewed in isolation and not in factors that are associated with other compensation factors.[iv]
Examples:
Many organizations have utilized non-cash incentives in periods of uncertainty and change. The following are just a few examples of these incentives and the results that they generated.
Y2K Angst
A technology firm out of Des Moines, Iowa was experiencing high levels of turnover and angst with its software programmers because of the uncertainty surrounding Y2K and how their jobs were going to be negatively impacted. A non-cash incentive program aimed at achieving specific Y2K milestones was implemented across the organization. AwardperQs (a non-cash point system) were awarded to individuals and teams that achieved specific milestones. This program provided clear focus and motivation for the software programmers and achieved in excess of 90% of employees engaged/ participating/hitting one or more milestones.
Sales Force Integration
A leading medical technology company was moving from a product-centered sales philosophy to a customer-centric team approach. This involved a realignment and adjustment to the sales force that created significant uncertainty in the field about their jobs and roles. A six-month incentive program was developed that rewarded people for sales that required integration of two or more product groups. A fixed award pool created a sense of urgency and engagement in the incentive. The client realized a return of more than 300:1 on this program.
Realignment
A pharmaceutical firm was going through a major realignment of territories and product allocation due to a large product soon to come off of patent. Many sales representatives had new managers, new doctors and new products that they needed to work with. A short-term team based award was put in place that offered teams the chance to earn from selected merchandise if they were in the top 20% of districts across the nation. Quota achievement across the division came in above the stretch goal, even with the distraction of realignment.
Other Factors
Obviously there are other factors that influence how quickly organizations move their employees through angst to engagement in situations that are stressful or uncertain. While this paper does not expand upon those, two key factors that relate to incentives include:
Incentives should be short-term to allow for readily available goal progress particularly when dealing with uncertainty. By providing short-term incentives and tracking to that, individuals will achieve a sense of progression towards goal which increases the perception of certainty in the program.
Communication is key. Incentives cannot be viewed of as a bribe or they will be summarily dismissed. The tone and narrative of the communication needs to be set up to have the most positive impact and create a separate interaction with the incentives that sets it as different from the cause of the uncertainty.
[i] Kübler-Ross, E. (2005) On Grief and Grieving: Finding the Meaning of Grief Through the Five Stages of Loss, Simon & Schuster Ltd.
[ii] Kivetz, R. (2010) Rewards Hierarchy and Hedonic Luxury, presentation at BIW Forum
[iii] Jeffrey, S., (2006) Cash or Hawaii: The benefits of tangible non-monetary incentives, dissertation
[iv] Jeffrey, S., (2008) The benefits of tangible non-monetary incentives, Incentive Research Foundation
[This article was first published in September of 2009]
It has been interesting how much attention has been paid to Dan Pink’s latest message on motivation that was presented at TED. The number of tweets, blogs, and other messages about this have been huge. We ourselves highlighted the speech here on this blog a couple of weeks ago (http://wp.me/pypb9-31 ).
What I find interesting and a little worrisome, is the idea that many are taking from Dan’s presentation that all incentives (or at least most) are bad. I disagree 100% with that concept. I would like to expand the conversation to explore why.
The debate about intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation has been going on for a long time. The candle experiment presented by Pink was done in the 1950’s. Deci & Ryan research from 1970’s and 1980’s suggested that extrinsic rewards can decrease intrinsic motivation. Alfie Kohn wrote about how he thought extrinsic rewards were bad in “Punished by Rewards” in the 1990’s. All of this research suggested a negative correlation between extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation.
However, that is not the only research out there! Research based on both real life corporate performance data and academic experiments show a different side to this debate.
First, performance data from a number of sources points to an increase in performance when incentives are used. Stajkovic and Luthans’ meta-analysis of 72 contingent based behavior programs found that money incentives increased performance by 23%, social recognition increased performance by 17%, and feedback increased performance by 10%. BI, a performance improvement company, has shown increases of over 300% between a control group and an incentivized group in sales performance.
Those are hard numbers to ignore!
Also, Paul Hebert does a nice job of highlighting research by the International Society for Performance Improvement that indicate a 22% increase in performance for individual incentives and 44% for team based incentives – (see it here http://tiny.cc/nHfAj – he also discusses some other arguments around Dan Pink’s message).
Second researchers have found that the way that incentives are structured has a significant impact on their performance as well as on the impact they have on intrinsic motivation. Work by Eisenberger, Cameron and Pierce show that extrinsic rewards, if structured correctly, can actually increase intrinsic reward. They state, “The findings suggest that reward procedures requiring ill-defined or minimal performance convey task triviality, hereby decreasing intrinsic motivation. Reward procedures requiring specific high task performance convey a task’s personal or social significance, increasing intrinsic motivation.” Specific to creativity, Eisenberger and Cameron “concluded that decremental effects of reward on intrinsic task interest occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions and that positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are readily attainableby using procedures derived from behavior theory” [emphasis added]. Yet Dan Pink does not reference any of their work in his book (see here for some research articles that point to how extrinsic rewards can increase creativity: Eisenberger, Armeli, and Pretz,Eisenberger and Rhoades, and Eisenberger, Cameron and Pierce)
In our own work, we’ve seen that when individuals are given a choice in choosing levels of goals and subsequent rewards, they have an increased motivation to choose (and achieve) higher goals than what management would have given them.
That being said, Dan Pink has gotten the discussion flowing on this – which I think is very good. He has also highlighted the fact that most organizations only see one lever to pull when trying to impact employee motivation – i.e. pay systems. As he points out, there are other aspects that influence employee’s motivation. This is vital. To improve performance, creativity, and accountability businesses need to look at more than just rewards! I hope that this will help expand the use of other motivators!
Dan talks about Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose – these fit right into the Four Drive Model of Employee Motivation. Autonomy and Mastery align with our Drive to Challenge and Comprehend, while purpose fit nicely with the Drive to Defend. What Dan leaves out is the power that the Drive to Bond has on motivating employees.
Overall, I think the discussion that will result from Dan’s presentation is great, I just hope that it doesn’t get boiled down to the simple sound bite that “incentives are bad.”
UPDATE APRIL 1, 2011
Let’s start with the positive: Dan’s book has done very well and has helped focus people on the the need for looking beyond the pay system to help drive motivation throughout the business. This is a very, very positive impact.
Now for the bad: the mantra that “incentives are bad” has been one of the larger themes to arise from the success of his book. This is not a positive impact. It has led to a number of non-experts jumping on the bandwagon expounding their personal belief that all pay-for-performance measures should be gotten rid of. That incentives themselves are bad. And that people will be 100% fully motivated if we can just figure out how to make jobs more autonomous, provide mastery and have a purpose. Of course, this doesn’t really account for a lot of what really happens in the world as we know it.
Moving forward, I would like to propose that the discussion around this topic is good – as long as we look at all the research and at how incentives should / should not be used. We need to look at all the tools in our tool belt – that includes things such as Mastery, Autonomy and Purpose – but also includes other things like rewards.
Let me know your thoughts – click on the comment section below!
Salespeople who are engaged in their roles, who are motivated to succeed, and who’s goals are aligned with the organizational goals have been shown to have a significant impact on helping an organization succeed (Badovick, Hadaway, & Kaminski, 1992). Successful organizations understand this and try to keep their sales employees motivated and engaged through a variety of motivational methods – mostly involving extrinsic rewards.
While much has been much written about how extrinsic rewards may have a detrimental effect of on a sales person’s intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, Kohn, or Pink – note: there is also a lot of research on how this extrinsic/intrinsic effect can be mitigated) there is little disagreement on the short-term impact that extrinsic rewards can have on a company’s performance . The short-term benefit of extrinsic rewards assures us that these rewards will be used in businesses no matter what Dan Pink has to say on the topic. However, this does not mean that these types of programs can’t be improved.
Successful organizations and leaders of the future not only need to focus on the optimization of extrinsic reward programs but also on moving other levers within the organization that can drive sales motivation. Using the Four-Drive Model of Employee Motivation (Lawrence and Nohria, 2002) provides a clear framework for how to do this.
Ok, we have put some fun items (t-shirts, mugs, calendars) out on CafePress – check it out for some fun and whimsical motivational gifts http://www.cafepress.com/ru_motivated
Salespeople who are engaged in their roles, who are motivated to succeed, and who’s goals are aligned with the organizational goals have been shown to have a significant impact on helping an organization succeed (Badovick, Hadaway, & Kaminski, 1992). Successful organizations understand this and try to keep their sales employees motivated and engaged through a variety of motivational methods – mostly involving extrinsic rewards. While much has been much written about how extrinsic rewards may have a detrimental effect of on a sales person’s intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, Kohn, or Pink) there is little disagreement on the short-term impact that extrinsic rewards can have on a company’s performance. The short-term benefit of extrinsic rewards assures us that these rewards will be used in businesses no matter what Alfie Kohn or Dan Pink has to say on the topic.
It is important then that we get sales incentives right. We need to ensure that as leaders, we are not limited in our thinking about how we can structure sales incentives and how they operate. We must look at optimizing how our incentive plans are designed, the type of reward that is offered, and how goals are set.
Extrinsic Reward Program Structure
There is a very clear framework, based on the research that suggests that extrinsic reward programs should be designed such that the rewards are contingent on achieving increasing performance goals. By doing this, companies not only limit the negative impact that extrinsic rewards can have an intrinsic motivation, they also increase the actual performance that extrinsic rewards drive. This means that the use of non-contingent incentive rewards should be limited. It means that incentive plans that are strictly “do this – get that” are not optimal. Contests that rank people against one another also are not optimal as they only provide feedback that the sales person did better than the others – not against a goal.
Extrinsic Reward Type
The typical reward for performance is usually cash. When surveyed, over 70% of sales people indicate that they would prefer cash. However, there have been studies that show non-cash rewards (i.e., trips, merchandise) have a bigger impact on performance than cash alone. This does not mean that one would replace their annual sales incentive programs cash bonus with rewards of trips and tv’s – but it does mean there should probably be a mix. It should also be noted, that sometimes extrinsic rewards are based on fulfilling the drive for Achievement and as such, do not require significant outlays of dollars – recognition of performance by senior leaders can be a significant motivator for sales people.
Goal Setting
A majority of sales incentive plans have goals that are provided to individuals. Goals are good – they have been shown to increase performance across a myriad of environments (see Locke and Lathum). However, we’ve seen significant backlash against goals when they are not understood or felt to be so out of reach as to be laughable. The negative impact of this can outweigh any positive motivation that you get from the incentives. Goals must be understood and bought into (i.e., perceived as fair) to be effective. There are a number of ways that companies can do this, but they often require changing systems and processes that have been in place for years. The key is to get the setting of individual sales goals to be as close to the sales representatives as possible, while still ensuring that they align with the company sales objectives. The science (or art) of this can be very daunting – but trust me, I’ve seen it done. One simple way to help is to provide a means for front-level managers to effectively shift quota from one territory to another but provide mechanisms to ensure fairness.
Of course extrinsic rewards are just one piece of the motivational puzzle and shouldn’t be used as the only lever to drive motivation and engagement. The key is to ensure that the incentives are right and that they do not detract from the other methods of motivation.
There has been a significant amount of research on the merits of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation (see Eisenberger, Deci, Ryan, Locke, Latham, Kohn, and now Dan Pink…). Both sides of the controversy claim that their favored motivational drive is best. In my opinion, they are both barking up the wrong tree.
It has been shown empirically that both types of motivation drive behavior. In the real world, both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are utilized in almost all work situations. I don’t know of any work place that doesn’t provide employees with some type of pay and most have some sort of variable pay. I also don’t know of a workplace where there isn’t a focus on (or at least lip service to) improving how jobs are structured for greater engagement or how leaders can inspire their employees. However, the real discussion should be on how to leverage both forms of motivation to get the behavior change that is needed.
The main issue in this debate focuses around the general impact that extrinsic reward has on intrinsic motivation. Both sides of the debate admit that in certain circumstances extrinsic rewards can either have a detrimental or positive impact on intrinsic motivation. The issue that businesses face is how to create incentives that not only drive immediate performance but also have a positive influence on intrinsic motivation. The discussion needs to be not on an either/or type scenario, but on how do we leverage the power of both.
Dan Ariely brings us research that highlights how we don’t always understand what it is that drives us or motivates us. If you haven’t read his book, “Predictably Irrational” I highly recommend it – go out and buy it now! I think the real insight here is how we as humans tend to believe that we are in control of our own behavior – that we choose our decisions based on rational decision criteria. As you will see in this clip, Dan shows how off we are.
This is important for us thinking about employee motivation because of the implications it raises. For instance, while I think it is important to ask people what it is that motivates them, we have to take the answers they give with a grain of salt – because they don’t always know. As I stated in an earlier post, we need to look beyond their answers and get at the underlying drives that move them. As with Dan Pink’s video, the power of this clip is in how it makes us re-examine what we think we already know. Enjoy!
How do you increase employee motivation? For many companies, it appears that they think it is done by just changing their reward systems. In their worldview, “more money equals more motivation.” I had one Regional Sales Manager tell me in an interview, “…if I could just get more dollars down to my reps, they would be fully motivated.” It often seems that companies view their pay plans as the only lever they have to use to impact employee motivation. This simply isn’t true.
Dan Pink, in the TED presentation he gave in July of 2009 (see post below), highlights some of the fallacies that focusing only on the pay plan can have. We agree with a lot of what he says. We know that pay is a vital part of a comprehensive motivational strategy but that there is more to motivation than just pay. Using the four-drive model we understand that there are other levers that can be used to improve performance. Companies need to expand their thinking and look at how they are creating cultures that improve employee’s ability to bond with their co-workers, managers and customers. Leader’s need to structure work so that employees are challenged and that they have an opportunity to learn and grow. Organizations cultures need to be enhanced so that workers feel like they belong to something worth defending.
However, we must also think about pay. The drive to acquire is a strong motivational force. I don’t know of many people that would do their jobs for free (however, I’m sure there are a few out there). I also know that most people would consider leaving a job they loved if they were offered enough money to go to a different job. That being said, more money in and by itself is not enough to drive significantly more motivation in the long run. Pay needs to be structured so that it is fair, it provides guidance around what the organization values (i.e., incentive pay focused on revenue is very different than one focused on market share), provide feedback to the individual about their performance, and allow the opportunity to satisfy the drive to acquire.
Much of Dan Pinks presentation (I’m anxiously waiting for his book) points to the negative aspects that incentives can have on creativity and intrinsic motivation. This is true. The alternative can also be true. Work by Eisenberger and Rhoades (2001) concluded that “how” the extrinsic reward is perceived by the participants has a significant impact on the effect it has on motivation. They found that when extrinsic rewards are designed to reward improvement or quality aspects of their work, their creativity improved. The important part then is not that incentive pay (or pay in general) is bad, but how it is structured and perceived needs to be well thought out to ensure that you are driving the right behaviors.
