people do what it pays them to do

 

There is a saying I use to remind myself to think carefully about the complex motivations behind the behaviour of any person.   A little reminder to myself that I find slows my tendency to jump to a conclusion - that I understand fully what's going on, and am sufficiently informed to judge how important some issue or event might be considered by someone else...

 

"People do what it pays them to do.”

For me this suggests a straight forward equation:

if the benefits outweigh the costs,
then people act;
if not, they don't.

Quite simple really.   

Well actually, no.   Assessing motivation is anything but simple.   
My litany has to be qualified by 2 important, but anything other than simple, corollaries,

Corollary 1

"How a person determines what is a benefit (or a cost) and how they value each benefit (or cost) is personal, not universal." 

Worth remembering that not everyone responds equally to the same stimulus.

• Money? Sure everyone wants it, but its effect as a motivator varies enormously.
• For some, a major driver is status; others it’s all about work value.
• Some are motivated by change in their work environment, and yet others by the fact that things don’t change.

For most people, it really is a mixture of all of the above and more.

 

Corollary 2

“A person's motivation in any one moment is almost always not just a simplistic reaction to what is happening at that moment.    
Rather, it is the sum of their reaction to the moment measured against all the facets that makes them human."

With work colleagues, I at times have little idea of what is going on in their life – our relationship is primarily defined by the work place.    I am conscious that I may have a very incomplete understanding of what their recent history might be; what prior experiences have significantly shaped their attitudes; subtleties of culture, values etc that in turn shape how their thinking generates presumptions, assesses motivation. 

And it is so easy to presume you know - to project one's own value system as the basis for assessing and interpreting the motivation of others.

Example 1

A newly-appointed manager was commenting on how one of his subordinates was anything but enthusiastic.   He found her unresponsive, demotivated.   She did what was asked but no more.   Just didn't join in ....

His initial conclusion?    The subordinate obviously wasn't all that interested in her work.   

Fortunately he was wise enough to seek additional information from the HR Department before he sought to act.

Being new to the company, the manager was the one person who did not know the heavy burden his subordinate was carrying away from work, with quiet dignity.   No one thought to inform him.   
Great induction, guys.

The manager's initial conclusion, based on the incomplete information available to him initially, was certainly plausible but not the only one possible.   He re-learnt an old lesson - that it pays him to not jump to conclusions that he understands everything affecting his staff ... but to pause and question before acting.

 

Example 2

I encounter versions of the following scenario frequently in the workplace.

A strongly extroverted manager who prefers to think out loud, talk face-to-face about issues and decide what to do there and then.   Some of his team enjoy the dialogue and face-to-face interaction with the manager.   Their contribution is immediate and welcomed.

In the mind of the manager, these staff members are obviously performing well ... .

However, the balance of his team are not extraverted but introverted.   They prefer to think before they speak, and prefer time to consider their opinions.   They see the manager's approach to decision-making as gung ho, sloppy and the speed of his discussion alienating.  They felt the manager was missing other options, potentially jumping to conclusions, responding without sufficient thought.

These team members consider themselves disadvantaged by the strength of the manager's personal preferences in how he works with others as well as by what they see as an unnecessarily precipitous, shoot-from-the-hip management style.

Clearly, the manager is assessing contribution and individual performance through his own strong preferences rather than concentrating on work outcomes, strategic thinking and valuing difference.   A strong personality who is yet to learn how to get the most out of all of his people.

I usually get called in at the end of the first round of performance appraisal process ....

 

Example 3

A year or so ago, I was on an interview panel – one of three interviewing a candidate who on paper was a very good match to our selection criteria.   The candidate presented as a personable, vivacious woman with ready wit and evident intelligence, supported by good research prior to interview.

She was skilled in the way she influenced the panel, using highly polished interpersonal and verbal skills, her physical beauty and vivacity.    I could feel her attempt to persuade us to ignore any doubts and accept her point of view.

And this is for me a key interviewing skill – to retain the mental separation necessary to examine the dynamics in the discussion - to recognise the subtleties and embedded presumptions of what is said and the manner in which it communicated. 

Our unanimous opinion was that this candidate was ambitious, talented but not perhaps a great team player.   

For the panel, it paid us to be cautious in who we added to a team already operating well.

For our candidate, her vivacity, good looks and evident intelligence have resulted in her learning that it pays her to be as she is.


Cheers
Nic