Motivation 3.0 – why we’ve been motivating our workforce all wrong

Running a marathon, climbing a mountain, making an eight-hour round trip to see our most-loved sports team play… Motivation is a funny thing, isn’t it? Sometimes it fills us to the point of obsession (often when it’s something we enjoy doing); sometimes we force ourselves into it despite not really wanting to; and at other times, bashing our head on the keyboard or screen in front of you would seem like a more attractive proposition.

I’m intrigued by the concept of motivation. Are some of us naturally more motivated than the next? Are we all motivated in the same basic ways? Should business leaders be following strict motivational ideas for their employees or focus on an individual basis? An article on Lawyerment noted that according to various theories, motivation may be rooted in a basic need to minimise physical pain and maximise pleasure, or it may include specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired object, goal, state of being, ideal. Or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such as altruism, selfishness, morality, or avoiding mortality. Conceptually, motivation should not be confused with either volition or optimism. Motivation is related to, but distinct from, emotion.

Of course, there’s hundreds of articles on motivation, lots of them are very good, and very interesting (trust me, I read a lot) – but then I stumbled across a video from Kerwin Rae, an Australian businessman, entrepreneur, investor and international speaker. The video as entitled ‘The Evolution of Motivation’. It struck a chord as a concept I liked. So, I thought I would share it here.

Motivation 1.0

Kerwin starts by saying that the first level of motivation we have instilled in us is the essential caveman instinct. The motivation to survive. It’s fundamental, and will not change. If you’re unable to take care of this first basic motivation (1.0) then the next two ‘updates’ will elude you.

Motivation 2.0

Motivation 2.0 is a different beast, and stems from the advent around the 1900’s. It’s one we’ll all be familiar with, termed ‘the carrot and stick’ style of motivation.

If you do what I say and it pleases me, then I will give you a carrot.

Don’t do what I say? Get ready to be belted with a stick.

Does this work? Well, yes… until… it doesn’t.

And here is the real crux of Kerwin’s theory (and a part I particularly liked): Motivation is… evolutionary.

We are motivated differently depending on the level of life we are currently cruising at. Kerwin suggests that if we are in a dark place, motivation 1.0 will be key. Just out of that dark place? Carrot and stick 2.0 is likely to work for you. But what happens after 2.0?

The power (or powerlessness) of rewards on performance

There have been lots (I assume thousands) of studies about the use of incentives and the effect on performance. And, much like any well-studied concepts, there have likely been numerous conclusions. But Kerwin chooses to look at one specific study, one referenced by Dan Pink in his book, ‘Drive’. In this study, school children were split into three groups. One group loved to draw, the second who would draw if asked to and the third that hated to draw. All the children were then incentivised to participate in the art, told that if they did, they would get a certificate of participation.

Two weeks later?

• The children who loved to draw… were painting less.
• The children who would draw if asked to… were painting less.
• The children who hated to draw… stopped drawing altogether.

The theory goes that if you incentivise someone to do something that they already love, the reward system in their brain overlaps and they move from doing it because they love to do it, to doing it because they think they must. The outcome? They begin to enjoy it less.

Motivation 3.0

As opposed to Motivation 2.0 (carrot and stick), which is extrinsic, meaning that it is externally motivated, Motivation 3.0 is, according to Kerwin, intrinsic motivation, meaning it is internally motivated. These are people who are internally driven or, in other words, self-motivated.

Question: What is the fastest way to kill someone’s internal drive?

Answer? Give them external incentives.

Kerwin notes that externally motivating someone who is already internally driven is counter intuitive. Going on to say that if you introduce a financial incentive, that performance actually drops for those who would enjoy doing something well, naturally. Not only that, it increases the likelihood of deceptive and risky behaviours.

All fair and good, but how exactly should leaders motivate if a financial incentive will only decrease rather than increase performance?

Employ wisely

Kerwin suggests that number one, we should actively look to employ intrinsically motivated people, because by doing so – leaders are half way there, with a workforce who are already motivated without incentive. But how do leaders then reward these intrinsically motivated individuals, without making their motivation dip?

‘If then’ versus ‘Now that’

Good business leaders, according to Kerwin, recognise that there are two different types of rewards. ‘If then’ and ‘Now that’. When it comes to motivating, he says that we shouldn’t motivate on a ‘if then’ reward. If you do this, then I’ll give you that. Rather he says that an unexpected, surprise reward is the way to go. Now then. Now that you’ve done this, then I’m going to give you that.

The problem with unexpected rewards? They can quite quickly become expected. And so, the cycle of potentially lowering performance with financial rewards may well raise its ugly head once again.

Kerwin says that the only way to really keep self-motivated people motivated is to offer truly sporadic rewards which have zero structure or order to them.

The thing I like about Kerwin’s theory is that it applies to both individuals and the business as a whole. That is that if you focus your business on external reward, chances are you are going to be more likely to engage in high risk behaviour, but also that your performance is likely to drop. This is because, according to Kerwin, you’re not doing it for something that internally makes you feel good, you’re doing it because it’s something you externally feel you must do.

What are your thoughts on motivation? Have you found a tried and tested theory that works for you and your workforce? Would you agree that financial incentives can sometimes have a detrimental effect or would they boost your motivation for the long haul? Would you be tempted to behave in an unethical way if external motivators were put upon you? I’d love to hear your views.

Mark.