Management Leverage Blog

Every management textbook I’ve ever seen includes Herzberg’s 2-factor theory as a model for paying employees. Those who follow Herzberg seem to agree that managers should pay employees just enough to put the question of money to rest, but not more. That’s because he believed that while a lack of pay can weaken motivation, extra pay does not translate into greater incentive.

I find it curious that Herzberg’s ideas are still so widely taught and practiced, despite the fact that his theories get mixed reviews in terms of real empirical support.

Does money motivate? Based on the evidence, my best guess is that, like most ideas in management, it all depends. Research shows that sometimes it does and sometimes it does not, so a better question to ask is “When or why does money motivate, and when or why doesn’t it?”

My hunch is that investment bankers and commissioned salesmen find a pay raise extremely motivating, while social workers or military personnel may be completely incentivized despite lower pay.

In other words, some people love money and pursue it with zeal – whereas others are more passionate about something else. I don’t have any research to back me up on that (let me know if you know of some).

But it seems like common sense, wouldn’t you agree? My problem is, that if this is so logical (like it seems to me) then why do people still apply Herzberg’s theory so liberally or dogmatically in the workplace? Can somebody find a management textbook that doesn’t bow to Herzberg’s theories? Given the mixed empirical support, I really don’t get it.

Unless the issue lies with the interpretation. If that is the case, you can still add me to the list of Herzberg supporters.

Most would agree that money motivates a person that is having difficulties making ends meet. But does money motivate the wealthy?

Consistent with Herzberg, I would argue that money does not motivate the wealthy, even though they may report to researchers that it does. Instead, I believe the wealthy to be motivated, not by pictures of dead presidents, but by what money represents. Freedom? An easy metric to compare in a competition with others in their field? Success?

Now, would someone please collect some data so I can quit feeling like such a hypocrite, espousing hypotheses without support?

_____________________________________________________

[1] This notion is consistent with recent research by Hancock, who reported that consultants found money to be motivating, acting as an indicator of status with implications for their self-esteem and a sign of how valuable they were to their organization.

Personal preference is only one of the conditions researchers have found. To dive into the debate, you may want to start your study here:

Cameron, Banko, & Pierce (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. Behavior Analyst, 24, 1-44.

Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining effects of the extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Hancock (2006). What value does money play in the motivation of knowledge workers such as project managers? IEEE International Engineering Management Conference, pp. 127-131.

Herzberg (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46, 53-62.

This morning I was thinking about how a vibrant network leverages a manager’s abilities, and came across recent academic article by Galvin, Balkundi, and Waldman*. What interested me most about the article was their focus on how leaders at all levels of management can even inspire those with whom they have no direct contact.

The best accomplish this through their direct reports. Offices everywhere are replete with gossip, stories, and other forms of ‘water cooler’ talk we generally view as a distraction to getting things done.

But this academic review discusses the possibility that water cooler talk may actually contribute to the positive image of the leader through employee surrogates or evangelical ambassadors. Sometimes, for instance, surrogates promote and defend their managers or even provide illustrative examples and anecdotes about their leadership skills.

Not unlike Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point or Seth Godin’s Ideavirus (not affiliate links), Galvin and his colleagues argue that the most influential surrogates have at least one of these three attributes:

• They are well-connected. They can relay information between a leader or manager and a quite distant follower or employee.

• They have prestige. Others seek their advice, mentoring, or friendship.

• They are peripherally connected. They relate well with those at the core of the group and have open channels to those on the outskirts.

Obviously, you may never venture to the outskirts of your directs’ network–you cannot be everywhere at once. But you may still need to inspire and motivate those you do not even know. Therein we find the leadership and management dilemma. This article by Galvin, Balkundi, and Waldman seems, however, to suggest a practical solution.

* Galvin, Balkundi, & Waldman (2010). Spreading the word: The role of surrogates in charismatic leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 477-494.

Photo credit: Thorsten Becker

In a world of passing the buck, we have so few good examples of how to admit our mistakes. So watch the video below as Tom Vilsack offers his explanation of  his decision to fire Shirley Sherrod.

Can you really think less of him now?

The concept of a 4-hour work week is certainly appealing, especially to those here in the USA who, on average, work more hours than those in any other industrialized nation.

But Archimedes wasn’t working when he figured out how to calculate the volume of an irregularly shaped gold nugget. He was supposedly lounging in the bathtub. That paints an alluring image. Just relax in your Jacuzzi and you’ll become a more successful and innovative manager.

But research reveals that the 4-hour approach is not advantageous or conducive for creative tasks that rely on managerial brainpower and innovative thinking. You have to first invest a sufficient amount of time on task. Otherwise your brain will not feel the urgency to work overtime on a solution while you are on the golf course or in the shower. Unless and until you put in the time, in other words, neither will your neurological pathways.

A 4-hour week may be appropriate for certain repetitive tasks. Think 60-minute yoga classes, for example, that produce great results on an every-other-day schedule. But not so for creative or tasks.

The best managers leverage their efforts to get more done through others. Only then can they enjoy the necessity of more time to enjoy the leadership aspects of their responsibilities, such as dreaming up new creative and strategic solutions. People who work in think tanks, for instance, are much more likely to come up with the answers they seek if they do not have to first accomplish time-consuming tasks that distract from mental focus.

They may not necessarily arrive at the solution while on task or in the office, mind you. Perhaps it will come to them while strolling along the beach or doing a sun salutation.

Photo credit: simpologist

Today’s post is written by  David Kasprzak. Check out his blog over at My Flexible Pencil.

Over the years, I’ve encountered several managers who place a premium on training.  That is, they believe that training is very expensive and serves as a distraction, so you should do it sparingly.

The problem is even worse when it comes to training new managers.  I had a conversation once with a newly-minted manager who took a couple of days to attend a leadership development seminar.  When he returned, he raved about the program to the company’s HR department.  Those folks also became enthusiastic, and were looking to send more people to the seminar in hopes of introducing people to innovative leadership styles.

Sadly, the young manager’s superiors got wind of his zeal, and quickly admonished him.  They were afraid the time spent on developing his leadership skills was becoming a distraction, and that he needed to spend more time managing his team.  After all, the team needed his direction to move forward and would be stuck for days, making mistakes, if he wasn’t there to take care of them.

In no other position would we ask a person to take on their new role without developing their skills.  If we ask an operator to work on a new machine, we make sure she understands the new role and the machine thoroughly, for both safety and effectiveness reasons, not to mention efficiency.  Accountants and other professionals are constantly trained and re-certified.  Once promoted to management, however, the need to keep developing skills and learning new ones to do the job better somehow, magically, goes away?

I believe the thinking is that only those who already have the innate ability to lead others are selected for promotion in the first place.  Therefore, they simply need to exercise those capabilities, rather than hone them or develop new ones.  Unfortunately, this ends up being nothing more than a strict dedication to the status quo, and doesn’t lead to the innovations necessary for future prosperity, or even survival.

Managers need to continue to learn and grow as much as the people they manage.  In any position within an organization, a few hours or days spent learning to do the current job, or even a future job, better, benefits the individual as well as the group.

If people are so overloaded that they can’t continue to grow and learn new skills away from the office once in a while, that’s indicative of much greater problems.  Unfortunately, without exposure to new ideas, no one will know the countermeasures that can be employed to combat them.

Photo Credit: doug88888