by Peter A. Arthur-Smith, Leadership Solutions, Inc.®

“People generally enjoy working in pairs or teams: other people’s enthusiasm can be contagious.”   

Ever since the industrial revolution and the emergence of production lines, we have all relied increasingly on individual performance. Production efficiency demanded breaking down every job into discrete steps which could be measured and monitored against each worker’s contribution. Once this was feasible, the next logical step was to speed-up all those steps as much as possible to maximize production and profit. Over time, someone came up with the bright idea to incentivize individuals with a carrot-and-stick approach: “If you do this well, we’ll give you this.”

Bribing production workers had some success, so it proliferated more and more until it became a panacea… almost. Executives lauded the idea because it met their goal of becoming wealthy. But the thinkers in our midst over the past 20-30 years have increasingly pushed back against this notion. They began to see it as shortsighted and counter-productive, because:

» It’s like a drug or narcotic; people become addicted to it and increasingly only perform when the “bribe” is present. Without it people can become complacent or irritable and potentially become self-loathing for sucking-up bribes rather than enjoy participating in something of their own free will. When you are dependent on something or somebody, you tend to become disgruntled with them over time.

   » The majority of people are not especially comfortable with bribes because it cheapens their own self-worth.

   » Such methods have increased the power of unions because it enabled them to become the mouthpiece for irritated workers and also to use incentives as near-term bargaining chips to placate their members.

   » Executives were able to utilize money as a substitute for providing effective leadership: it enabled them to manage people rather than lead or inspire them.

(Note: It’s no wonder, with this 100+ year period of focusing on individual performance, that people are somewhat unclear about how to work together as teams…even though it’s a pretty enjoyable and natural thing for them.)

Every time your author rides on the rather dilapidated and grungy Manhattan subway system; he contemplates what might have been if a high proportion of fares had been reinvested into its infrastructure. Instead that money has gone on wages and overtime payments – to get drivers and conductors to show up – as well as on productivity programs, executive salaries and everybody’s pension schemes…which are in arrears anyway. Money became the dope to keep the subways running, which deteriorated badly over time and consequently reduced ridership – hence a vicious financial cycle of decay set in. Again, this writer recalls arriving in Manhattan in 1980 and riding on dirty subway cars that were covered in graffiti both inside and out. Track fires and train delays were a regular occurrence.

If the subway executives and first line supervisors – as opposed to team leaders – had provided leadership instead: in the form of 1) a compelling purpose to provide, regular, reliable train service; 2) treating subway staff with respect and fair incomes; giving staff a daily sense of how well they were doing; 3) enabling them to feel a sense of camaraderie all-around; 4) allowing staff a degree trust and empowerment; and 5) providing regular education, so staff felt worthy and knowledgeable: then those same executives would have borne witness to a much different ball-game today. (Note: Such intents wouldn’t have required big $s; it only required authentic and committed leadership, rather than viewing staff as just “pairs of hands.”)

The leadership vacuum created by our traditional approaches of “managing” people has ceded enormous power to unions, which have sought to provide subway-staff a voice to tone-deaf executives. The most tangible way for unions to show their worth is by bargaining for man’s elixir – more money. Who can blame them? All in the name of individual performance. As the famed sociologist Fred Herzberg pointed out, by courtesy of his mother who dusted around her house daily: he saw money as a hygiene factor instead of a motivator. Because, like dusting, you have to regularly increase the financial stakes as their motivational effects don’t last very long…much like drugs.

What’s the alternative? To treat people as people and offer what really stimulates them, like:

»People-centered leaders – Who treat their people with respect, empower them as much as possible, and regularly recognize them for their genuine talents and contributions.

    » Teamwork – People generally enjoy working together with colleagues they respect, as well as accomplishing common objectives.

   » “Pairing” – Allowing people to work in pairs, rather than as individuals, can be enormously stimulating and

        productive. “Pairing” can be among the most valuable ways to get something accomplished: two heads are often better than one.

     »Fair Treatment – If executives receive timely bonuses after obvious success, so pairs or teams should also be considered for bonuses – or something valuable to them – after completing a project well done or a sustained period of success.

But the latter after means that the associated reward is not known until after the sustained period of success or project is completed: on the basis: “Now that the team has accomplished that; we’ll give your team something that it deems worthwhile.” Such an approach means discussing preferred reward options with pairs or teams well in advance of any future projects or performance periods. If they are then ultimately successful, what would they deem worthwhile? It could include time-off, community projects, increased learning, different work hours, bonuses, team breakfasts or lunches, and so on. In the near term, they may err toward bonuses, because that’s what people have been conditioned to, but over time they may opt for a combination with other components: especially if they are given a respectful wage at the outset.

In other words, their efforts are not just about money and the rewards are announced after the project or performance period has been accomplished. That way those rewards are an expression of gratitude in terms that people value and act less as an outright bribe. Now they feel more like adults and respected, as opposed to behaving like sycophants. Ask Danny Meyer, the famed restaurateur for quality eating houses and Shake Shack? He’s switching his servers away from tips to a professional salary, benefits, bonuses and perks based upon their restaurant’s overall performance.

Executives, more often than not, are extensively money and profit driven: that goes with their persona. Although they make the common mistake that their people are similarly driven. However, numerous experiments have shown that their staff is not mono-motivated to the same degree. Job security, empowerment and camaraderie are much more important, provided people are paid a respectable wage. Placing people on a minimum wage and leaving the rest to incentives is both stressful and tiring for workplace people over time.

.

By working with: “Now that as a Team You’ve Done That: Then as a Team You’ll Get…”- you should expect the impact to be different, because:

» People do not feel they’re being bribed up front.

    » People do whatever needs to be done because they value their work and trust their leaders.

    »  People generally enjoy – most times – working in pairs or teams: other people’s enthusiasm can be contagious.

    » Pairing is especially valuable, when getting something done, where participants share in the success-rewards. 

           ______________________________________________________________________

To learn more about team building, please contact: