February 6, 2016 at 1:30 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Culture and Performance
February 8, 2016 at 5:32 am
I'm definitely in the "Play" motivation in my current job. I go to work, play with cool toys, and every so often something useful pops out.
And they actually pay me for it. Can't get much better than that.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
February 8, 2016 at 6:44 am
I love how "total motivation" only includes 3 of the 6 factors. Management doesn't like to think that people are economically motivated because that means they might have to pay people better and/or give meaningful raises as you become better at your job (even without a promotion). Instead they'd like to do the easy things like have a games room or buy everyone a couple $3 beers at the end of the week and have a "friendly" culture.
You need both. Money might not keep you motivated but when it is missing it is very motivating (to leave). The other two missing motivations are more negative I suppose and easier to do away with but I think part of it is the wording. Inertia: your work might involve things that aren't so fun every once and a while still getting out of bed and getting it done sometimes is what is needed.
Emotional pressure: I have and suspect most others have those family members that are always getting fired, living on welfare, always complaining about work etc. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to tell them sometimes "hey smarten up you have responsibilities".
February 8, 2016 at 7:28 am
I think you misinterpret the economic factor being in the bottom section. Having to think about money decreases motivation, because the individual is struggling financially. In other words, why work hard for a company that pays you just enough to survive without ever prospering?
However, once someone is paid enough they are living comfortably, there is definitely a diminishing return on getting a big raise versus enjoying your work more.
February 8, 2016 at 8:37 am
mike.gallamore (2/8/2016)
I love how "total motivation" only includes 3 of the 6 factors. Management doesn't like to think that people are economically motivated because that means they might have to pay people better and/or give meaningful raises as you become better at your job (even without a promotion). Instead they'd like to do the easy things like have a games room or buy everyone a couple $3 beers at the end of the week and have a "friendly" culture.You need both. Money might not keep you motivated but when it is missing it is very motivating (to leave). The other two missing motivations are more negative I suppose and easier to do away with but I think part of it is the wording. Inertia: your work might involve things that aren't so fun every once and a while still getting out of bed and getting it done sometimes is what is needed.
Emotional pressure: I have and suspect most others have those family members that are always getting fired, living on welfare, always complaining about work etc. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to tell them sometimes "hey smarten up you have responsibilities".
Man, you nailed it!
We all see managers at various levels making claims about how great things are because of X, Y and Z - when those things aren't at all relevant to anyone. People work to make a living. They deserve to be respected. Differences are a good thing, and nobody should be harassed due to having different ideas.
Yet a friend of mine works at a company that actually asks people what they feel needs improvement, and consistently responds that the top three items everyone complains about every year are off the table. Seriously. "Please tell us what we need to improve on. Oh, I see you picked those same annoying things again, well we refuse to talk about those. Pick something else."
Dave
February 8, 2016 at 9:46 am
If employees have interesting projects to work on, are well compensated, and generally happy with the direction of the organization, then having a "corporate culture" in place will give them all something to rally behind and bond them even more as a team. However, if the employees are not happy, then forcing a top-down corporate culture won't somehow encourage happiness. Just the opposite, it will be a source of annoyance and drive them out the door even faster.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
February 8, 2016 at 10:06 am
There's an American company that introduced a flat baseline salary of $75,000 -- janitors, receptionists, programmers, managers -- everyone. The concept behind it was that if you're not making enough to not worry about making your bills from month to month, you're not going to perform your job well. Some people were offended by this as they'd been there for a while and were making good money. Even the owner took a big pay cut.
I don't know how this will work out long-term as there's some behind the scenes goings on with a former partner suing for dilution of his assets, or something like that. But it's an interesting concept, being paid enough so that you can relax a little and do your job well.
Another thing is to do what you say and say what you mean. One org that I know of the big boss had an open door policy: absolute discretion, etc. When many members of the IT staff went in to complain about the person who was probable to be appointed permanent director from acting director, and promised absolute confidentiality by the big boss, said big boss brought in said acting director. Temperature went decidedly chilly, and all but one of the people were pushed out of the org within the following year. And a couple of years later the big boss and IT director were gone.
If you are good to your people, they will probably be good to you. Screw over your people, and you not surprisingly might find yourself in a sticky situation. I once had a boss who, a few years after I left, was not told 'quit or be fired' by the city council, but 'quit or be prosecuted.' There were no tears when she left.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
February 8, 2016 at 12:21 pm
Steve,
Good editorial as usual. I think you sum it up well in the last paragraph:
The mark of a good manager is that they find ways to treat each employee differently, in a way that suits them best, while maintaining a core set of values and rules for the entire organization.
Wayne West hit what I think is a big key as well:
Another thing is to do what you say and say what you mean.
Nothing is more frustrating than being told, " we want to hear what you have to say" and then never seeing any results with what you say, even just a, "We heard what you had to say and this is why we either can't or won't address it at this time"
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
February 8, 2016 at 2:57 pm
Jack Corbett (2/8/2016)
Steve,Good editorial as usual. I think you sum it up well in the last paragraph:
The mark of a good manager is that they find ways to treat each employee differently, in a way that suits them best, while maintaining a core set of values and rules for the entire organization.
A lot of managers find that an impossible skill to master. It isn't an easy one because so many people are motivated differently and relate to others differently.
February 8, 2016 at 3:40 pm
Ed Wagner (2/8/2016)
Jack Corbett (2/8/2016)
Steve,Good editorial as usual. I think you sum it up well in the last paragraph:
The mark of a good manager is that they find ways to treat each employee differently, in a way that suits them best, while maintaining a core set of values and rules for the entire organization.
A lot of managers find that an impossible skill to master. It isn't an easy one because so many people are motivated differently and relate to others differently.
Knowing how to motivate and manage people/projects are distinct skill sets. Most orgs don't recognize that lots of people have very specialized skill sets that are frequently non-transferable and don't apply to other areas of operation, and lots of years as a programmer/whatever does not mean that you would make a good manager of programmers/whatevers if promoted in to such a position.
Thinking about it, some of my best managers were not computer experts. One was a retired Air Force officer who knew enough about computers to speak well as an interface between management, end users, and programmers. But he didn't know the minutia of database development or server management. He trusted us to do our jobs well, and we did.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
February 9, 2016 at 1:30 am
Wayne West (2/8/2016)
Thinking about it, some of my best managers were not computer experts. One was a retired Air Force officer who knew enough about computers to speak well as an interface between management, end users, and programmers. But he didn't know the minutia of database development or server management. He trusted us to do our jobs well, and we did.
To me, you hit the nail on the head when you used the word 'trust'.
I have worked for a number of companies where 'culture' was frequently talked about by management. I used to work for one where senior management's default position was to not trust the staff to do things right. Therefore everything was mired in layers of 'process'. You could take forever to produce nothing as long as you could prove you'd followed process.
Where I am now, the view is that the company hires smart people and trusts them to do a good job.
You can probably guess which company's culture gets better results. And at which company people don't cringe at the hypocrisy of management's claims to a great culture.
February 9, 2016 at 2:16 am
Wayne West (2/8/2016)
There's an American company that introduced a flat baseline salary of $75,000 -- janitors, receptionists, programmers, managers -- everyone. The concept behind it was that if you're not making enough to not worry about making your bills from month to month, you're not going to perform your job well. Some people were offended by this as they'd been there for a while and were making good money. Even the owner took a big pay cut.I don't know how this will work out long-term as there's some behind the scenes goings on with a former partner suing for dilution of his assets, or something like that. But it's an interesting concept, being paid enough so that you can relax a little and do your job well.
If that's the firm I think it is, then there's some very mixed reporting going on - some stories say everyone gets $70k, others say it's a $70k minimum for everyone and the boss cut his salary to $70k to pay for it. And, like you say, there's something else going on behind the scenes...
For a better example of decent wages without these shenanigans, I would probably look at CostCo in the US. OK, the base rate isn't quite as headline-grabbing, but I gather it's about 3x minimum wage, but the real kick is that the boss isn't earning multi-millions a year. Unless that's changed since I last looked...
Thomas Rushton
blog: https://thelonedba.wordpress.com
February 9, 2016 at 7:17 am
If you work in IT the chances are that you are above average intelligence.
If you have an IT department of 100 people then that is 100 above average brains that can contribute to solving company challenges. The instant you disempower people by hiding behind process and layers of management you have reduced the brain power that can be brought to bear.
I put a lot of thought into finding the true underlying requirements and also the constraints that must be considered. If I can articulate those then my staff will produce good solutions and often elegant and innovative ones at that.
February 9, 2016 at 9:15 am
David.Poole (2/9/2016)
If you work in IT the chances are that you are above average intelligence.If you have an IT department of 100 people then that is 100 above average brains that can contribute to solving company challenges. ...
I've worked with a few of the exceptions that prove the adage! :hehe: Some of them were flat-out scary.
I definitely agree that most IT people are of above average intelligence. One thing that I love at my wife's workplace: she's an astronomer and everyone there is quite bright. She has a PhD and they just hired a freshly minted PhD for her telescope, the other telescope has a half dozen or more doctorates. In astronomy, a master's degree is the consolation prize for not getting your doctorate.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
February 10, 2016 at 5:14 am
David.Poole (2/9/2016)
If you work in IT the chances are that you are above average intelligence.If you have an IT department of 100 people then that is 100 above average brains that can contribute to solving company challenges. The instant you disempower people by hiding behind process and layers of management you have reduced the brain power that can be brought to bear.
I put a lot of thought into finding the true underlying requirements and also the constraints that must be considered. If I can articulate those then my staff will produce good solutions and often elegant and innovative ones at that.
:unsure:
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply