Antony Aitken asks a number of pragmatic questions that deserve careful
answer.
Q: Is there current evidence that $$## Rewards are not motivators?
My thoughts: Current evidence says the following. A number of factors
are motivators, among them, money. Money is not, on average across the
population the primary motivator. Anyone who took a lousy job for money
can explain why. Evidence also shows there is a wide range of criteria
that are important motivators, and for some, the primary motivator really
is money. Like most easy questions, this has no easy answer.
Q: Could it be also that $$## Rewards are substitutes for the security
which is no longer offered by the organisation? Has there been a shift in
perception?
My thoughts: There is significant evidence that company-driven employee
turnover is no higher now than any time in the last 30 years. Drucker was
recently quoted as saying this, and I have read research indicating this
as well. Unfortunately I can't find the source. Furthermore, the
research indicated that employee-initiated turnover was roughly equal to
employer-initiated. To me this indicates that organizations and employees
work together as long as there is mutual benefit. When one of the two no
longer perceives the benefit, there is a parting of the ways. The sense
of long-term partnership is and always was a myth -- a misperception of
reality. And the lack of loyalty cuts both ways. Employees are not
particularly loyal, and neither are employers.
Other research shows that contrary to perceptions, the ranks of middle
management are fully employed -- 3% unemployed at last count -- and if the
current theories over the CPI prove out, that real wages were not flat,
but increasing nicely.
Q: Is it right to suspect that the individual has already decided that
his/her objectives are to survive in the highly paid area of fulltime work
for as long as possible, having seen how organisations usually treat
people as disposable - and then to move into pastures new, which might be
closer to his/her real values?
My thoughts: This is undoubtedly true of some, but not -- apparently --
for most people. Evidence indicates that roughly 2/3 of all people view
their glass as half empty rather than half full, and this is regardless of
their personal circumstances vis a vis those who view the world more
optimistically. The human race does not appear -- in general -- to be a
particularly hopeful group. This LO group according to my biased opinion,
is pretty representative. So, while people tend to be negative about work,
this may say more about their fundamental attitude than it does about
their work.
Q: What is the lesson for the organisation? Pay the rewards, or they will
go elsewhere?
My thoughts: Except for a very few superstars or special circumstances
around skill sets, this is a big mistake. Others will go elsewhere as a
consequence of feeling unfairly treated. It ends up being no win for the
company, and as stated above, for some -- actually most -- it is not about
money.
Q: And in a period of change and uncertainty, how does the organisation
communicate a learning culture which is at variance with the real
expectations of the individual, supported by so much evidence? Why should
it be believed?
My thoughts: According to the evidence, virtually all married Americans
find marriage to be less than what they once expected. Is this about the
failure of marriage, about naive expectations, or our generally
pessimistic view of ife? I suggest the real answer to Antony's question
lies in each individual asking him/herself how he can make the most of
what he has rather than blaming someone else for what is not the way we
want. The 'greener pastures' syndrome is not a fairy tale. We all have
it, and all the evidence shows that despite the perception that greener
pastures exist, we never seem to find them.
Just one opinion.
--Rol Fessenden 76234.3636@compuserve.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>