Understanding and managing motivation

I recall laying on a lovely beach, Waikawau Bay, Coromandel New Zealand. The sun cooking the sand, three inch waves crashing on the beach.I heard a cry, looked toward the ocean. A five or six year old boy had fallen and was rolling down the beach in the water. I went to leap up when the father raced past his wake almost knocking me flat. As he walked back up the beach with the little boy clinging to him, he nodded to me and smiled quietly, stroking the wet hair of his sobbing son.

We describe the father as motivated to get to his little boy.

What exactly happened? How do we understand it? Once understood how does it apply at work, for ourselves and for motivating other people?

Motivation is about why people act as they do and how to influence that. The particular focus at work is how to motivate people so they achieve improved results.Many of the definitions of motivation discus it in terms of ‘desire’ to do things. The problem with that is that it does focus on ‘desire’, and so to influence someone’s motivation we need change the desire.

The definition I prefer, that provides a much more objective assessment is from Encyclopaedia Britannia ... ‘forces acting either on or within a person to initiate behaviour’.

These differences are not pedantic, they reflect a way of thinking about motivation that will profoundly shape what we do to try and achieve motivation in ourselves and in other people.

The fundamental question is how can we consider motivation in the absence of a general theory of psychology?Why? Because to understand motivation is to understand ‘forces acting either on or within a person to initiate behaviour’. Forces initiating behaviour within a person can only be understood from within a general theory of psychology.

There is no general theory of psychology, at least the only one available in found in my book The Origin of Consciousness.

There have been many, many attempts for hundreds of years to answer the question why we do what we do. In the last hundred years we have had very popular theories of Freud, for example, and Jung, various cognitive theories, and the ‘anti inner-states’ response in the behaviourism of Skinner. The most popular theories are Freudian type psychodynamics, the unconscious and higher consciousness, desires and the like, and the cognitive theories focused on our thinking, popularised in self-help books, with the effort to get on same page, have people think it out for themselves, goal setting etc.All attempts to influence another person is based on one or more of the historical theories of psychology.

Today, no historical theory of psychology has in-depth intellectual validity. Hence none of the lingering residues of these theories has any intellectual validity. When any definition of motivation contains the word ‘desires’, or another word similarly focused on some internal state[1] of the person, then please understand such a definition is implying one or more of the historical theories of psychology. All historical theories are limited or totally wrong.

All definitions, especially today, with Wikipedia, shape commonly held opinion. Commonly held opinion shapes what we think as individuals. What we think as individuals shapes what we ‘see’. What we ‘see’ shapes what we do. If a definition of motivation states ‘giving someone a reason for doing something’, then we are very likely to act that way, and look to ‘persuade’. Such is the power of ideas as self-fulfilling prophecies.

To repeat, the only definition I have found implying no assumption as to the nature of what moves people is from Encyclopaedia Britannia ... ‘forces acting either on or within a person to initiate behaviour’,

We need new thinking. We need better thinking carrying us to a better tomorrow. We need new thinking to provide clear and definitive insight into the ‘forces’ relevant in motivation.

New thinking is available, The Origin of Consciousness. It approaches the question of ‘understanding us’ from a different perspective. Interpreting the end result provides surprising depth and breadth of answers to all fundamental questions on how we work that I have yet uncovered.

The remainder of the essay summarises the theory in ‘Origin’, illustrates it by explaining the motivation of the father racing to his son, then applies it to understand how to build motivation at work.

Relevant aspects of the theory in ‘Origin’ are summarised below (the theory and its application to explaining depression is also discussed in the essay, at this site Understanding and managing depression).

• The analysis begins by defining fundamental methodological principles. A significant principle is that all we can know in advance of any situation are the mechanisms that lay behind appearances and generate outputs with which we interact and from which is formed our experience of the situation.

• The theory is built by applying well defined intellectual tools, called Ashby tools[2], to a start point ‘person in their environment’, defined as the system under study.

• The result is an Ashby diagram[3] describing the mechanisms of the system that processes input to produce outputs.

• The theory proposes our psyche is constructed of interlinked fundamental units called mental sets.

• There are three main forces in each mental set: Ideas, emotions and habits.

• Each of emotions, ideas and habit can exist in any combination in a mental set. So a mental set can be one of the three, two of three, or all three, integrated as per theory.

• The core of our psyche is a number of mental sets most closely linked to our life long experience of ourselves, the foundation sense of ‘ourselves’ predating language, and our thoughts about ourselves constituting our self-esteem. I define this group of mental sets as our spirit.

• The theory defines the whole of us as a spirit within a mind within a brain within a body. Each equally important, since failure of any part can cause failure of the whole.

• ‘We’ exist in the energy flows in the brain and nervous system. When the energy flow ceases, we cease to be. There are also particular aspects of the brain that if the energy flows cease, then we cease to be. (Refer to 'brain dead'.)

• The brain is an ‘entropic’ device, meaning the energy flow in the brain is directed by entropy, defined as the tendency to flow to the lowest available energy state. Entropic flow in the brain is neurological/biochemical not psychological but influencing our psychology.

• Energy flow in the brain directed by entropy is experienced as habit.

• Our spirit is a fixed neural structure associated with our attention system, hence always activated while conscious. When we sleep the link of our spirit to our attention system is ‘rested’, but not severed. Even asleep we continue to be attuned to significant environmental changes. In deep sleep, the changes may need to be very significant.

• Our attention mechanism has two functions. First we are able to ‘observe’ all aspects of our mind. Second our attention system enables intervention in our brain to alter the activation energy of neurons so energy will flow along paths if left to entropy it would not follow. This property leads to the conclusion from theory that on evidence to date, consciousness is the only force in the universe that can thwart entropy. (A water pump and holding tank on the hill in order to facilitate gravity distribution, for example, is created by consciousness and achieves exactly that result.)

• Energy flow into neural pathways is dominated by the energy of activation of that pathway. To have energy flow into pathways of higher activation energy than those available requires energy I refer to as effort of activation.

• Psychologically effort of activation is referred to as self-discipline, namely managing our mind so that we act and feel according our choices now, and not act and feel according to yesterdays choices, lived out via acquired habit.

• We use ideas we have to interpret all perceptions[4]. What we see is determined by our interpretation. It follows we see with our mind not with our eyes. What we see depends on what we use or have used to ‘look’.

• Emotion is energy in the brain, and is not psychological as such. It is experienced in mind but not generated in mind.

• Emotions can become attached to ideas.

• The strength and type of emotion in a mental set will determine the response and vigour with which we act and feel within that set.

• Freewill lies in our ability to alter the activation energy of neural pathways.

• Ideas give us choices, freewill gives us the ability to action our choices.

• Our spirit is independent of mental sets external to our spirit.

• Our spirit provides our sense of continuity.

• The core of our spirit is the sense of us we acquired prior to language. The core of our spirit is emotional, generating the essential sense we feel about us.

• We can change our ideas without changing our spirit, without changing ‘me’.

• We can strengthen the mental sets within our spirit so they nurture us more, enabling a more fulfilling life.

• The fundamental of our experience is the resolution of tension between habit driven by entropy, and freewill exercising choice. “I feel like eating that cream donut, but I shouldn’t really!”

• Morality are the ideas we say we believe.

• Ethics are the ideas from which we draw our actions.

• Integrity is the relationship between what we say we believe and what we do.

The theory should give you a sense of ‘yes, understand that...’ the theory is unlikely to introduce anything that you do not sort of already know. This ought to be, since you are a living example of the theory in operation, and unless you are really, really un-insightful, which I doubt, then you know a lot about you. The theory should express your understanding of you all be it more tightly and with much deeper and thorough intellectual structure.

The originality of the theory is twofold. It is reasoned from an irrefutable start point (the system under study), determined by well-defined methodological principles, using well-defined intellectual tools (Ashby tools) to reach a solution with well-defined properties(Ashby diagram).

Second, the theory describes all aspects of the person and must account for all human output. The theory integrates mind and brain, resolves the body-mind problem, accounts for human knowledge, including its own existence, and is itself causal, while defining the nature of cause. The theory gets behind appearances and provides structure to our understanding of the mechanisms giving rise to appearances.

The part you may find challenging is the intellectual stuff at the beginning of the summary. This is important as the base intellectual tools that make the theory more than opinion. The theory is the reasoned result of a well-defined intellectual process. Hence to reject the theory is to reject the process of its construction, or to reject the start point.

You may read more of the analysis of the mechanisms that lay behind appearances in The Origin of Consciousness.

The theory can be simplified by an analogy.

Imagine a box of power point frames just behind the eyes. Each frame represents a mental set. The set of frames is the structure to our psychology. What is on each frame is ‘us’. We can change what is on a frame.

Habit is when frames pop up on their own accord. They shape our psychology, but are driven by entropy. Habit reflects our historical intentions not our current intentions. Current intentions are only expressed in active attention where we exercise self-discipline to act as we choose, not act as driven by habit.

Frames typically have ideas on them. We can understand how ideas influence us by thinking of a house to buy or burgle. The study has been done, the researchers found the two groups created lists with no overlap (see ‘Origin’ for detail). We can understand a frame as a filter, when we think buy, then up pops the frame and filters what we ‘see’.

Emotions get attached to ideas on frames, but can also arise on their own, whereby the frame is blank and we may not even understand that it is an independent frame. Therefore if we have several mental sets active at once, as we typically will, then we may experience emotions we think comes from some of our thinking, when in fact it may be unrelated to that thinking and arise from something else totally. An emotional mental set may just happen to be triggered in the circumstance we are experiencing and we can remain quite unaware and not able to isolate the emotion as irrelevant.

It is emotion that gives force to the ideas on a frame, and therefore gives energy to the actions derived from that frame.

How does the theory account for the actions of the father racing to his son?

I had to look around, I sighted the child, up pops a frame ‘danger for the child’. I begin to act. However, the father would know the ‘help me’ cry of his child, he was reacting one to two seconds before I was. Time enough for him to be flying past me while I was but half way to my feet.

We can visualise the frame arising from the child’s cry, it spelled ‘my son in danger’. The emotions associated to the frame are not hard to imagine. Those emotions gave enormous energy to the action derived from his clear understanding on the frame.

We understand motivation as emotion through a frame.

How does this apply at work?

The first issue is building the frame. Elsewhere I have discussed in detail the application of goal-action to define a job at work. KPIs derived from the strategy, ideal actions required to ensure having the greatest chance of greatest success. See the essay, Okay, the strategy is agreed. Now what?, or Achieving perfect game plans to double profits, or the book The Mind of the CEO, or any of the management eBooks in the series redefining the organization at www.amazon.com/author/grahamlittle.

OPD theory, derived from the fundamental position outlined here, defines management as the activity of refining the game plan consisting of KPI and ideal actions needed to have greatest chance of greatest success. See the essay Management is more important than Leadership.

The first task of the manager is to get clear on paper the game plan for every position, the KPIs derived from strategy that define the contribution the position must make to strategy. Then define the ideal actions derived from the KPIs that enable greatest chance of greatest success at achieving the KPI. This first management step is referred to as defining the direction in the job.

Once the game plan defining the direction created and agreed it must be linked to the person assigned the position.

The person is expected to memorise the specification, creating a frame so when they think about ‘what I do at work’, up pops the frame containing the game plan. The manager must guide the person in building the frame of what they do at work. Then using management by walking around (MBWA) and regular reviews the manager supports the person to retain clarity and to keep ideal actions top of mind.

Leadership is now the task of getting more emotion through the frame. Fear, or the flight or fight response of the father is not appropriate at work. The aim is to fill the frame with positive energy. First, by building apt ideal actions, KPIs are achieved, then making sure the person is recognised for the success, so the frame fills with emotions of recognition, success and satisfaction.

Then the most powerful positive energy of all, the team leader making sure people are having fun while delivering the ideal actions.Every day, while MBWA, make sure people enjoying the day, enjoy being at work, having fun while doing the things that need done to enable the greatest success.

If ideal actions are not being acted out, warnings and cautions are appropriate. But outside any performance management interventions, do not treat people such as to engender in them negative emotions. This will interfere with their drive to deliver the ideal actions and can reduce performance. Ensure every person treated with 'please', and 'thank you', done courtesy of being advised and kept informed as appropriate. I refer to this as ‘professional respect’. Any person unable to treat people with respect, social courtesy and consideration should not have leadership duties, certainly not within OPD theory based on enabling the enjoyment of work while delivering clear and apt ideal actions to achieve top results.

The required ‘buy-in’? People wanting to do a good job at work, and because they did, at least tried, each morning they want to feel proud of the person looking back at them in the mirror. Second, they want to enjoy each day at work. If people do not want either, then they are entitled to their choice. The choice is very likely related to deep seated issues within their spirit. Under no circumstances assume any responsibility for these two fundamental life choices. Do not debate or argue. Their spirit is their responsibility, and theirs alone. No superficial agreement will suffice, such people are best released as soon as possible. Further, if they agree they will do it, and then do not, give them opportunity. If they continue to not do it, then again such people are to be released as soon as possible.

Motivation summary.

1. Management.

   1. Ensure the direction clear on paper.

   2. Ensure the direction clear on the frame in the mind of the person assigned the job.

2. Leadership.

   1. Work to imbue the frame with positive energy. Recognition, satisfaction in success, having fun, enjoying every day at work. Help people find flow[5].

Research shows that when it is clearer on a frame results improve without additional emotional effort. Hence, under OPD theory, management is more important than leadership.

There are several ways this argument is both original and compelling.

The recommendations on what to do are deduced, they are not merely opinion. To reject the conclusions is to reject the reasoning whereby the conclusions arrived at.

The recommendations are derived from a general theory of psychology.Therefore if the theory of psychology accurate, then the recommendations are compelling, and likely the only way to achieve maximum motivation. This is first deduction as to motivation from within a general theory of psychology that has any clear claim to the title.

The recommendations are very precise. There is limited room for interpretation. This means that anecdotal views on what the leader must do, based on what the person writing the anecdote did, are no longer appropriate, or only appropriate as examples within the overall theory.

Understanding of leadership and management is placed on a clear, formal basis applied with directness and precision that all understand and to which all can agree.

So why do we need management and leadership? Because doing it ourselves, maintaining the aptness of the direction, maintaining the standard of skill delivery, ensuring we are ‘up’, every day, is difficult. Management and leadership help us to achieve more than we could achieve on our own. But there is no reason why we do not clearly see how it should be done and even help our manager and leader do it better for us.

Recommended reading included in the text.