For entrepreneurs, executives, managers, bosses and all those who have staff under their care, the issue of motivation (enthusiasm, commitment, aspirations, criteria, ability to achieve, or whatever we want to call it) constitutes a double responsibility: on the one hand that of motivating his people, and on the other, that of sustaining his own motivation that is not always, nor does it have to be: elevated, enthusiastic and extraordinary.
The paradigm that it is the levels of leadership that have to motivate their work team is as frequent as it is debatable. The first objection is that it ignores or dismisses the individuality and decision of each person, even when the consequences of their decisions were not immediately beneficial, not even for themselves. The second discrepancy is the illusion of omnipotence of effective leadership: if we are good leaders we can motivate our people or, conversely, if our people are unmotivated it is because we are not good leaders. The truth is that if our leadership is truly effective, we can positively influence people to work according to strategic objectives, but we will not be able to control the feelings, attitudes and expectations of our employees.
It is not necessary to analyze the different organizations, to realize that the assumption that we are responsible for motivating others is so widespread and unconditionally accepted that it constitutes an unconscious mandate of the business and corporate culture of the last decades. It is enough to observe both the abundance of articles, courses and traditional theories about motivation, as well as the exclusive requirement of having “leadership capacity” (read “to motivate” your team) to aspire to any job with staff to position. However, delving into the fallacy of this conception is not the main reason for this note. The intention of this initial message is: “do not feel incompetent or ineffective because you cannot control the“ soul ”of each collaborator”.
Does this mean that organizations do not need people to be motivated, to have initiative, to be committed, to achieve results? Does this imply that a manager has to worry about looking for a way to arouse interest and let each collaborator manage? Does this mean that it is no longer the manager's responsibility to achieve strategic results through his team? No way.
This is so elementary, so obvious and so pragmatic from the point of view of the market and life at work that no arguments are needed here.
In addition to what has been said, we can list five key situations that pose a sometimes complex panorama:
We can't control anyone's motivation
Organizations need more and more motivated people
Apathy and lack of motivation are symptoms that appear more frequently in today's workplace reality (for multiple causes)
Entrepreneurs, directors, managers, bosses, etc., have the demand to achieve the objectives of their area.
Entrepreneurs, directors, managers and bosses have the responsibility to stimulate their collaborators to achieve their objectives and above all not to discourage their motivation.
One of the resources that organizations most "use" to solve this dilemma is training. The great masters of the past, Maslow, Herzberg and Vroom march to the beat of coaching, leadership and persuasive communication in an outdoor activity. And, the days after the event, the thrust fades without going off, because there is always something left, everything adds up and, somehow, you always learn.
But what is really effective, lasting and deep training?
- For everyone (driving levels and operational levels):
- the one that makes each participant understand that the life they spend at work is their life, that they are minutes, hours, days and years of the only life they have. that which allows participants to take charge of their own motivation in the work and manage the key factors that affect it (taking into account that today we have accredited theories and much more precise resources that have been "climbed on the shoulders of Maslow and Herzberg to see beyond".) Providing them with practical tools gives them a memorable satisfaction experience with their work team.
- For directors and managers:
- one that provides them with tools, not manipulative (since this generates more resistance in people) to stimulate the achievement of the objectives and not to discourage the spontaneous motivation that people already have, since many times we unintentionally discourage them and the consequences are irreversible.
