Motivating People
In the myriad of management theories regarding motivating people in their work there appears one approach that holds a combination of truths. In 1971 Dr. Clare Graves delivered an insightful (but obscure) paper titled “How Should Who Lead Whom to Do What?” (Read). It suggests that motivation theory may not have found the answer because we have been asking the wrong question.
The paper was before its time as it takes an integral systems view - looking at the psychology of the leader (I), the values of the led (WE), the policies in place (ITs) and the work to be done (IT) - so as to develop a whole approach to any management situation. His proposition: If any one of the four are out of alignment at their different levels, effectiveness is threatened.
Graves, in integrating many fields of personal and industrial psychology, concisely summarizes his conclusions on the styles needed for the management of the most talented:
“In this system the means to the end or organizational goals are restructured to fit the individual characteristics of the organizational member, rather than attempts to restructure that person to fit the organizational needs. The manager’s role is to rework the organization so that its goals are achieved utilizing the people as they are, not as someone wishes them to be or perceives they should be (1981:8)”.
Graves acknowledges here a subtle but profound premise - that people are already motivated. The perceived problem is that we would prefer they were motivated to do the same things we are - and in the same way. The paper goes on to ask the very different question about motivation theory. Rather than how to adapt people so as to motivate them, it asks how should we adapt our leadership to enable people who are already motivated to contribute at their best. It asks a question of us about our true motivation - not theirs.
The essence of his understanding has two truths. The first is that leadership is the art of leading people as they are. The second is to recognize when we are leading as we are. Which of the two approaches is easier: adapting our leadership style to the many ways people find meaning in their existence or requiring people to adapt to what we find meaningful? Not only is the second extremely difficult, in large and diverse organizations, it may also be unconscionable.
In Graves’ own words:
“This proposition is well represented in many managerial situations today. In many firms that I have observed I have seen training programs wherein the policy was to change the beliefs and ways of behaving of the manager. These firms developed managerial training programs designed to modify the beliefs of the manager as to how work should be conducted in order to bring them more in line with the organization’s preexisting methods and beliefs. (Seilers, 1968, p.134) These programs do not try to fit managerial development to the beliefs and ways of behaving that are those of the managing person. They attempt instead to get the managerial person to change his or her beliefs. When organizations foster this kind of incongruency they cast the managing person into a severe value crisis – a crisis which more often than not, reverberates to the detriment of effective performance in his managerial situation.”
In the emerging field of values management there is an enticingly real risk that while ostensibly respecting peoples’ values we will instead seek ways to manage those values. Seeking to manage people by managing their core values will have its own problems. Only those blinded by cleverness will walk into this trap. As any manager knows, people have a great resilience to being how they are.
To assist the unsuspecting, Graves has pointed us to a truth that helps us discern our own leadership motivations and the appropriateness of our leadership style - before we inquire as to the motivation of others.
For the leaders of Generation Y, and also for the new Generation Y Leaders - this simple truth is becoming increasingly apparent, as both seek to manage, and be managed, as they are.
Learn more: