The war for talent is raging again. Firms are reviewing their ‘EVP’; Generation Y is providing a source of bewilderment or frustration, depending on your position and perspective; and most firms are struggling to attract and retain the ‘right’, or even enough, decent people.
There may well be a need for new and creative solutions to systemic issues such as ‘work/life balance’ and ‘alternative career paths’; and yes it may take some form of meltdown before all parties (including clients) are prepared to contemplate new paradigms of working; and yet, I can’t help thinking that a lot of the current wringing of hands fails to confront an inconvenient truth. It is this; in many firms, responsibility for increasing staff turnover - and hence the remedy for it - lies not in the HR department (or even the Boardroom) – but in the hands (and mouths) of the front line professionals.
In my thirty years experience of working with lawyers and other professionals, through times of feast and famine, of growth and retrenchment, the complaint that emanates most consistently and most often from all levels is that ‘my ‘boss’ just doesn’t understand what really matters to me’; or ‘if (s)he does, (s)he can’t be bothered to do anything about it’. Like the ‘bigger’ topic of ‘Leadership’, motivation is a complex subject; it is also one that has absorbed vast amounts of time and money of academics, consultants and employers. But in some ways the solutions are fairly simple; what is lacking is often the leadership will to act on them, to encourage others to find the will and develop the skills to do the same and to tackle those who can’t or won’t (even if they are big hitters).
Why bother?
Retention (and real opportunity costs of turnover) apart ‘how do we motivate people’ is a question worth addressing even when there is no ‘war’ for talent. The research consistently shows that it is the level of motivation of people in a know-how business that determines how successful that business is relative to its competitors. For those who like equations…
P = M * A * D
Where
- P is performance in relation to the ‘task’ – ie the results achieved
- M is motivation – the amount of energy and enthusiasm applied to the task
- A is the level of relevant ability (including access to resources, including time!) and
- D is the [sense of] direction in which the motivation and energy is channelled. (Hence the importance of this for leaders)
Or putting it colloquially and in the negative, lack of M equals “can’t be bothered”, lack of A equals “can’t”, and lack of D equals “can’t see or don’t like the purpose”. So if any one of these factors is missing or less than it could or should be – the result is either zero or impaired P; (and even minimum performance for so long as there are no attractive exit routes.)
This ‘equation’ holds good at the level of the individual, the group or the whole organisation.
The most important factor is thus Motivation because the presence or absence of Ability and (sense of) Direction will itself affect the level of an individual’s motivation. This is common sense but, as in so many areas of management people do not always seem to apply common sense in the way they behave as managers and leaders.
How to bother?
In looking to motivate people, the short answer is that there is no one size fits all approach. You need to find out what will work for the individual given where he or she is at the relevant time in terms of needs, aspirations and abilities, confidence and commitment to the direction or purpose to which you are asking them to apply their energy. This is tough and on top of this there are the needs of the client or firm to contend with, which in the short term may well appear to conflict. This makes the management task even tougher.
But arguably we are starting with the wrong question. A better – and less challenging - question is ‘what first can I do to remove or prevent behaviour and other things that undermine the inbuilt motivation of highly educated people to continue to learn, to give of their best and to make a contribution?. I will return to this subject later.
Whose need is it anyway?
For those attempting a more proactive approach to talent management, there is plenty of advice from the ‘experts’ as to how to plan and execute a differentiated approach.
Psychological research suggests that individuals have a hierarchy of needs
| 5. Self-actualisation (development, autonomy, responsibility)4. Esteem (recognition, achievement)
3. Belonging and love (social/emotional needs) 2. Safety and security 1. Physical needs |
 |
It also suggests that we may well not be motivated by things aimed at satisfying higher level needs if lower order needs are still unsatisfied. Whilst professionals often have high needs for responsibility, achievement and other higher order needs, they are still human and things that go wrong ‘lower down’ the hierarchy may interfere with the things that usually give them satisfaction.
Knowing this is helpful to avoid us wasting time – e.g. in trying to give more development to someone who is worried about their own (or their family’s) security or health.
Hierarchy apart, individuals differ in how much of something they need– e.g. security; sociability; responsibility; personal development; and thus in exactly what it takes to satisfy it.
These needs also vary over time with age, psychological state and other factors. When I was young and had no mortgage and no kids and school fees, I was less concerned with security of income than I am now!
Some people who have high social needs may thus lose motivation if there is unresolved conflict in the team or a sense of resentment or unfairness because of eg work allocation or performance issues that are not tackled. You may need to tackle these issues if you are going to get any discretionary effort out of these people; and if you don’t they may leave even if the work itself is just the sort of work they want to do and they can find it elsewhere. Managers who are motivated more by achievement of the task than by social needs may find this behaviour inexplicable.
Finally, we do not (and often cannot) get all our needs satisfied at work – sometimes organisations can help sustain morale and motivation most by ensuring that we get opportunities to get some needs satisfied outside it – e.g. by getting some free time to spend on personal development. This issue lies behind a lot of the work/life balance debate which actually is not new but has become more acute because of changes in technology and competitive pressures.
Many professionals assume that they are intrinsically different from ‘non-professionals’ – such as secretaries. This is simply not true – though the opportunities that the ‘non-lawyers’ may have to satisfy some higher order needs through their job may be limited (though not so limited as the professionals often think).
Is it worth the effort?
Other research shows that we all, consciously or not, use a ‘calculus’ to decide whether to put any or extra effort into something. If we don’t think that our doing so will make a relevant difference, then we will not make the extra effort. For example, we may not be motivated to do more than enough to get by if we think that we will get no ‘reward’ anyway, because the targets won’t be achieved; or that we will get the reward anyway, irrespective of our own efforts; or if the ‘reward’ is irrelevant to us – because we have enough of whatever is on offer, or we are not interested in it – such as in being a partner. This calculus explains why it is so difficult to make incentive and bonus schemes work when people do not see a clear link between their actions and the money payment or other reward on offer. It is better often to use bonus as recognition of a job well done rather than as an incentive to extra effort.
Money is often seen as a prime source of motivation – in fact in many cases it is not helpful except when it is a proxy for other ‘rewards’ such as recognition or a token of relative success in a competitive environment. This suggests that finding some other proxy might be useful.
Money is an example of what some writers describe as a hygiene factor – once you have enough (for your own needs) then giving you more will not result in greater effort. Other examples of such factors may be status; congeniality in the working environment; or a sense of autonomy.
Positive motivators are those rewards where the more we have, the more we want – typically those things that satisfy higher order needs; but even here there are limits to how much a manager can give and how much an individual can cope with at any one time. Examples of these positive motivators are responsibility; difficult tasks to give sense of achievement; or new tasks to give a sense of personal development (i.e. they are aimed at satisfying mostly the higher order needs).
For these motivators to work they must be supported by a good performance management system (for partners as well as staff), which clarifies expectations and goals, agrees resources (including time and training), gives feedback on progress (and not just at appraisal time) and then delivers on the promised ‘rewards’. All this means that managers must be willing and competent to manage well; and also that the firm’s leadership must give them time and recognition (and if necessary some skills training) to do so.
In summary, it may be easier to avoid de-motivating people than to find ways of positively motivating them. I am sure that readers can list the behaviours of managers that cause normally enthusiastic people, including ‘self-motivated’ professionals, to become disillusioned, or even rebellious. These include the opposite of many of the positive things listed below. Taking people for granted; ‘dumping’ them in it; taking the credit for the work they do; failing to deal with sources of resentment and conflict in the group, and keeping people in the dark about how they and the group are doing, hoarding good work, having ‘favourites’ are all prime examples in many professional firms.
Here are some rules of thumb for more positive things you can do and encourage others to do:
- Know yourself, and your people including those peers whom you need to influence– and try to assess their different levels of tolerance/need for ambiguity, responsibility, reassurance and feedback etc; be aware of what is happening outside work that might affect their capacity to be motivated by the work itself. This means you do need to find the time to talk to them about ‘non-chargeable’ issues - and at a time that is convenient to them, not just you!
- Recognise and respect differences between people – do not assume that if they do not behave or respond like you, that there’s something wrong with them or that they are being ‘difficult’
- Use work allocation in a positive way to encourage learning and development as well as a means of getting the work done most cost effectively; there is a need to balance short and long term aims here. Using the ‘safe pair of hands’ should not be an automatic choice
- Use a coaching style of management where practicable, especially when setting objectives and giving feedback. This means leaving as much scope as you can for the individual to think things through and develop their own ways of achieving the task. At the very least, ‘ask before you suggest’ how to go about the work you delegate. Excellent questioning and listening skills are at the heart of a coaching style. Remember to ask for as well as to give feedback. Sit down with the team – perhaps over a drink after a deal is done and ask ‘OK so what do we want to make sure we avoid/do better next time?’ and if they tell you – listen.
- Be prepared to grasp nettles – deal with bad behaviour and underperformance (and find out how to do so skilfully); failure to do this breeds resentment and a climate where excellence is impossible to require
- Ensure that you set SMART[1] objectives wherever possible so that people know what is expected of them, and what success looks like; ensure targets are realistic and relevant – and agreed. Here too ask before you suggest what individuals would like to contribute
- Use ‘fair process’ – explaining the rationale behind decisions and consulting where practicable with people affected by them; this applies especially to the criteria for and the process for promotion (or redundancy)
- Do not expect people to be able suddenly to change behaviour without adequate support and resources – even if they genuinely want to
- Think carefully about what information you collect and how and to whom you report it; consider the impact it can have on people’s motivation and behaviour; remember the old adage – what you measure is the behaviour you get
- Many people want a sense of involvement in and of belonging to a successful team – share plans and celebrate successes; do not expect them to trust you unless you demonstrate that you trust them.
- Take time - even just a few minutes – from time to time to reflect and ask yourself how you are behaving as a manager and how people appear to be responding. Self-awareness and awareness of others are the two cornerstones of so-called ‘emotional intelligence’ – shown to be a hallmark of effective leaders. If you know that self-discipline is a challenge, you could exchange ‘nagging rights’ with a colleague – giving each other permission to say ‘stop and take stock’ of how you are doing, and even to give a well-aimed ‘kick’ if you see each other behaving inappropriately.
- And finally, do recognise that some of the strategies mentioned require considerable sensitivity and skill to make work; these behaviours do not come easily to everyone and there should be no sense of failure in admitting that they don’t come easily to you. Many firms are now investing large sums of money and considerable amounts of management time in off the job ‘training and development’ for younger members of the firm. Far fewer law firm leaders are investing time and effort in developing themselves and their partners; and, even those who are often do not intervene when fellow partners fail to invest similar effort or engage in behaviours that undermine motivation and retention. Walking the talk is as essential here as in any area of leadership.
Good HR policies and processes are very helpful in enhancing the right environment and for dealing with the ‘hygiene’ factors (such as pay and benefits), but a good or bad manager can enhance or kill anyone’s energy, excitement and enthusiasm. Research shows that good managers can get tremendous motivation and success in even the worst environments and the opposite also applies. This inconvenient truth needs recognising and addressing, as well as firms investing in exploring new paradigms of working and extrinsic reward.
Contact Sally Woodward
[1] SMART objectives are Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Relevant and Timed
