On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 John Naylor wrote, Re: motivation
[...]
>Jack Ring is against; yet in preferring Herzberg he's still a 'content'
>person.
[...]
Comparing the Wright Brothers and Maslow is meaningless. The Wright
Brothers had to to take a final exam -- whether they would fall out of the
sky or not. They produced a real device, based on their theory, and tested
it. Maslow never took a final exam -- only a popularity contest. He only
announced theory and never built a real device to test it -- rather like
Peters and Waterman in Measures of Excellence -- or Covey's Seven Habits.
But P. T. Barnum already described this technique quite well (as does the
recent book, The Witchdoctors) so no use belaboring it here.
Could any of Maslow's believers describe for us a successful flight of
Maslow's fancy? The literature seems to be replete with reports of
crashes.
Are we mixing two distinct discussions -- the person as person vs the
person as employee (management object)? In a management context, I prefer
for inspiring, enthusing or motivating people, making sure they have;
1. Clear Client Relationships
2. Personal Accountability
3. Authority For Direct Communication
4. Clear Responsibility For Costs
5. Authority to Schedule Own Work
6. Opportunity to Demonstrate Unique Expertise
Get
7. Direct Feedback
and are supported (not directed) in
8. Psychological Growth
I have seen all of these present in the work context of people who produce
"double loop" results. The list has proven useful for years in diagnosing
"lack of motivation" problems. Do some people produce while not in this
this context? Perhaps. Do people still produce results better than their
peers when these factors are missing? Not that I have ever seen.
The fact that these stem from Herzberg does not say that all other Herzberg
utterances are preferred. Likewise,for example, I not agree with the
Wright Brothers' religion.
Although I think item #8 is key to the intensity level of inspiration,
enthusiasm or motivation that a person will sustain, I, as manager, must
make no judgement on the direction (or goals) of psychological growth the
"employee" should seek. The direction or goal is their prerogative as a
person. Just because that person becomes, temporarily, an "employee," and
may gain psychological growth (as they see it) from their employment does
not give the employer any right to control the direction of their
psychological growth. I may be able to advise that certain directions will
be counterproductive in a specific employment context but must still leave
the choice to their discretion.
Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.