GALT Consulting LLC

I was in Omaha, Nebraska recently with my family and we visited the Children's Museum downtown. This is like a kid's heaven. There were hundreds of kids playing with hands-on exhibits of all kinds. One of the most popular rooms in the museum is known as the ball room. The ball room is an intricate series of pipes and blowers and mechanisms all designed to transport balls back to a central mechanism that periodically dumps the balls into the middle of the room onto the heads of delighted children. It takes a lot of work to pick up the balls, put them into the various mechanisms and then pull the cranks, push the buttons, and pump the handles that send the balls back to the middle... all to just repeat the process. Yet hundreds of kids collaborate to keep the machine running for hours and hours, and most of them don't seem to ever want to leave.

As I was watching the kids working hard, talking to each other to become more efficient and generally performing seemingly meaningless work, it struck me that this once again highlights how humans are really motivated.

Most of the kids in that room would whine and complain if asked to pick up the same balls a single time if they were located at home. Yet here, these kids not only picked up the balls, they did it repeatedly AND had a blast doing it. What is the difference? Why are the SAME kids completely unmotivated in one circumstance and totally motivated in the other?

I know at my house, my kids don't care much if their room is clean. They can put up with a lot. It isn't until the floor is completely covered and they can't find anything that they decide it is time to take action, and that is usually long after we decide to step in. The truth is that they don't feel related to the task. Why are we doing this? On top of that, they aren't particularly good at it. When they clean up by themselves, my wife and I usually have to follow up with additional cleaning. Lastly, when we tell them to clean up, we are making the decision to act, not them. They are not autonomous.

At the museum, the situation is different. The entire system is designed to show kids where the balls go when they put them in various places. They get to work on the system with other kids (they feel related). The system is designed so that even the smallest of children can use some of the equipment meaning they feel like they are good at what they are doing. Finally, they get to choose whether they watch the other kids work or work themselves (they always choose to work by the way) which means they have autonomy.

Same mechanical task... same kids... different environments... different results. Competence, Autonomy, Relatedness....

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.

This is a reprint from an old blog article from a couple of years ago.  It is still one of my favorites!  Enjoy!

-------
Got another good comment from "Church" (the blog reader, not the place) yesterday. She wrote:

This is interesting...
http://stephenslighthouse.sirsidynix.com/archives/2009/06/encouraging_pos.html

What does this say about motivation? What are the motivating factors in these types of statements? Social belonging? It's more than just doing the "right" thing or the statements at the beginning would hold more weight.

The link takes us to a study that was posted in the Wall Street Journal recently. The study showed the results to various approaches used by hotels to get guests to reuse their towels during longer stays. Here are the results of various signs posted in the bathrooms...

1. "Help the hotel save energy" results in 16% towel reuse.
2. "Partner with us to help the environment" results in 31% towel reuse.
3. "Almost 75% of guests reuse towels" results in 44% towel reuse.
4. "75% of the guests who stayed in this room reuse towels" results in 49% towel reuse.

As "Church" says, what does this mean about motivation?

Actually, this gives some great insight into how people are motivated. From past articles, motivation is generated from 3 conditions or needs that are met; competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

"Help the hotel save energy" is too vague and doesn't build on any of the 3 needs. What can I do to help the hotel save energy? Why do I care? This statement doesn't invoke a feeling that I have control. It is almost an instruction robbing me of making a choice to help out.

"Partner with us to help the environment" is considerably better and is almost twice as effective. It helps to explain why I would care about reusing a towel and it builds on my sense of autonomy with the use of the word "partner". I have a role in this one. However, this does nothing to build relatedness. I am only one person and I probably won't have that big of an impact on the environment.

"Almost 75% of guests reuse towels" is even more effective. It builds on my sense of relatedness. If other people are doing this, it must be important. Since it doesn't give an instruction (although it is implied), I still have my sense of autonomy. It still makes you ask yourself "why", but the truth is that most people probably understand why it is important.

"75% of the guests who stayed in this room reuse towels" was the most effective statement, beating out the last statement by a hair. This is similar to the last statement except that it further builds on my sense of relatedness because it refers to people in the same situation I am currently in (staying in this room using a towel).

So, this study makes sense when we apply competence, autonomy, and relatedness as key motivators. A couple of comments on this. First of all, the last 2 statements are lies and therefore should not have been used (sure its a small lie to save a lot of money, but how much is integrity worth?). Second, if you wanted to improve on the above statements (ignoring my first point), you might say, "75% of guests who stayed in this room partnered together to help the environment by reusing towels". (Again, I wouldn't use it unless it was true, but this type of statement really hits all 3 needs).

Motivation is a tricky thing. We often mistake "importance" as a key factor. The truth is that our sense of being a part of something bigger (relatedness) is a much larger component to motivation.

This past week, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by Russell Brunson, internet marketing expert and founder of DotComSecrets.  I also had the opportunity to have lunch with him after the event.  It was an amazing day!  Over 150 entrepreneurs and business leaders attended the event and few left without some great new ideas and perspectives.

One of the key success points Russell talked about is the concept of Opportunity Cost.  The question is simple...  what is your time worth?  I run into this a lot with business owners.  Is it worth $10/hour?  $20?  $50?  $100?  $1000?

What I often see with business owners is that they actually assume their time is free.  Yes... I said FREE.  They think and act like their time is worth nothing.  Sure, on an intellectual level, they know that their time is precious, but in practice, they don't value their time at all.  Let me explain.

Small businesses have a lot to do and are often limited on the resources they have to execute.  This means that when something needs to be done that falls outside of the normal job responsibilities of someone, the owner jumps in a does it themselves.  One business owner I've encountered spent 10-15 hours pricing tree removal for their building.  Another spent stopped their primary job of business development in order to replace an employee who had quit (and this was not a temporary thing).  I have made the mistake myself spending 50 hours developing various logo's for my business.  Russell talked about spending his time doing graphic design early in his career.  We all do it...

...and it is a HUGE mistake.

I am aware that resources are always tight, but don't fool yourself into believing that your time is free. You may be one of the most important people within your company.  You might be the one that develops new products or brings new clients into the door.  What is the value of that vs saving a few bucks on tree removal? 

So what do you do?  You collaborate, outsource, delegate, partner...  you let someone else do the tasks they were born to do.  My bookkeeper loves doing books.  My graphic designer loves designing brochures.  These are employees... they are outsource partners who work efficiently and effectively with me.  They SAVE me money because while they are working on a $100 design, I am writing blogs, speaking to a group of business owners, or spending time with a client...  all things that earn me more than $100. 

Don't get caught up in this common mistake.  What is your time really worth?  Answer the question... then act like it!

I need to thank my good friend and communications expert Matthew P. Block for bringing this story to my attention...

A school in St. Paul, MN, Avalon School, has no administrators.  It has no principals.  No directors.  No marketers.  No district supervisors.  Instead, the school is run by the teachers.

Instead you have a People-Centric School.  I often talk about the merits of People-Centric Management and here is a school practicing the concept.  CHAOS?!?  No.  Does it work?  You bet.

Avalon outperforms other schools in the area in both test scores and graduation rates.  In fact, Claremont Graduate University has studied the school and found that some surprising results.  Here are some highlights...

- Teachers at the school earn less than their counterparts at other schools and are not part of a teacher's union.  This means lower pay and less job security.  However, teachers are deeply committed to the school.  In fact, teachers have voted against pay raises for themselves in lieu of other programs designed to help the students.  (Did you hear that managers out there... employees choosing LESS pay to help the organization...  it can happen!)  As one teacher said, "I really feel like I don't have the right to be unhappy here.  If something is not going well, you have the power to change it.". 

- How do you handle a discipline issue if there is no "Principal's Office" to send a kid to?  Avalon once again utilizes a radical People-Centric method of bringing cases to the students themselves.  The school practices peer mediation and even allows the students to set the rules for the school.  (Did you hear that managers?  Employees setting their own rules?!?)

This school is not a utopia according to the study, but this shows once again the power of ownership.  People are internally motivated when they are put into a climate of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.  Increasing pay, benefits, and job security are all external motivators that simply don't work well.  People may want these things, but it doesn't get us fired up.

Huh...  it's looks like this whole People-Centric thing may have some teeth to it...

Read more about Avalon School.

I was recently asked to write an article for the Springfield Business Journal.  The subject was to be on how company owners can get their employees to think more like owners.  You can read the full article on SBJ.net, but I thought I'd highlight a few key points to you (some of which is NOT in the article).

1) Ownership is not a Character Trait - A misconception is that some people have the "ownership gene" which makes them automatically engage in anything they do.  This isn't true.  Some people enter into an organization and engage more than others, but this is because their personal mission happens to align with the company mission... or at least they think it does.  Ownership is an output of the environment where a person feels truly aligned, at a very personal level, with what they are doing. 

2) People are reasonable - When consulting, I commonly hear owners who are concerned about their employees getting "keys to the kingdom".  They want their people to feel like owners, but they don't really trust them to make good decisions.  The truth is that when people are given the opportunity to truly engage and find focus on something, they come up with reasonable decisions, especially if they are allowed to be responsible for the results.  An employee at a fast food place who doesn't care at all about what they are doing will do amazingly stupid things (we've all experienced this at some point).  However, if you can find a way to get that same employee truly engaged in their job (by building their competence, autonomy, and relatedness to the position), they will think before they act and start making good decisions.

3) Everyone is a Leader - Everyone has the capacity for leadership.  Leadership is simply helping others accomplish something they wouldn't have accomplished themselves.  Leadership, like ownership, is not a character trait.  It occurs when a person is empowered in a position that aligns with their strengths and personal mission.  Leadership and Ownership are very close cousins.

The concepts represented here and in the SBJ article are a paradigm shift to the way most people think.  As a mind test, think about the last time you felt really engaged and passionate about something you were doing.  Now think about something you hated doing.  What was the difference?  I'll bet it had to do with a combination of competence, autonomy, and relatedness...  I'd love to hear your input!

We've all heard one of our parents say... "God gave you a brain... use it!" when you did something wrong.  Really?  I'm the only one? OK, I'm going to have to work through that one...  but in the meantime, I'll make my point.

What about your people?  Even if you don't have "people", what about the people you interact with?  These people have brains (insert joke here).  My question is this... are you using them?

There are people all around you.  They have a variety of strengths... many of which you don't have.  Some of them have a similar mission to you.  Find those people and collaborate with them.  You will not only be more profitable, you will be happier.  Did you know that you are 30 times more likely to laugh with other people in the room than if you were by yourself?  We are hardwired to collaborate. 

Next month for Leadership Book of the Month, Randy Mayes and I are highlighting the book, Power of 2: How to Make the Most of Your Partnerships at Work and in Life.  It's a great reminder to expand on something our parents have always told us (or me) to do!

Go get out there and utilize at that potential around you!
.

I was chatting with my friend Kurt Theobald, author and CEO of Classy Llama Studios, and he made an interesting observation...  

People spend a lot of time playing online games.  In fact, many people spend hours and hours everyday playing online games such as World of Warcraft or Overquest.  I personally have had at least one friend commit more than 8 hours a day on these types of games. 

Managers spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to motivate people.  "What kind of bonus structure can I design to get people to care about their work?"  Yet, in these cases, people spend hours upon hours to totally invest themselves in a task that carries no tangible rewards.  In fact, people make great sacrifices to commit a large percentage of their waking hours to vanquishing wizards and interacting with virtual monsters.  Why?

There is something important to learn here... it's not about the money. 

Research shows that people are best motivated internally and that motivation comes out best in an environment where the person feels competent, autonomous, and related to the task at hand.  For some people, these 3 components of motivation exist in the virtual world so strongly that they override the motivation to earn more tangible external rewards like wages, food, and fresh air.

The point here to be learned is simple and powerful.  If you are trying to get your people to do something, remember the lesson from the video game.  Give them an environment where they can make choices that make them successful and enjoy the results with others.   Otherwise they will go home and find this environment on their own in a virtual world...

. 

I heard a great analogy last week that I thought I would steal (credit to Mike Tobin...  area director for Business Networks International).

Imagine the differences between 2 extreme management styles.  One style is used in the U.S. Navy and the other style is used by the old Pirates.

The U.S. Navy utilizes a command and control structure.  The captain of the ship puts out the orders and everyone follows them.  This is a classic top-down management structure where everyone knows their role...  to follow orders.  This type of management works for the Navy scenario, although ask anyone who has been in the Navy whether their thoughts on this type of management.  Few people live with it for very long.

Now consider the captain of a Pirate ship.  He also barks orders, but this time, his people are under no real obligation to follow this orders.  Regardless how big and scary the captain is, he is outnumbered on a small ship out to sea.  He has to sleep sometime.  His crew is totally voluntary.  They only follow the captain if they thing it is their mutually common interest.  This means that the captain has to continuously set a clear vision for the crew and their mission...  a vision and mission that the crew will support, and perhaps even die for.

I had never considered that an old time Pirate might be one of the first People-Centric Managers in history! 

I love college football and like to work in a football analogy from time to time when I can... so here you go.

Imagine the scenario...  it's fourth down and less than a yard.  You've called a timeout and you are standing on the sideline.  You look at your offensive line and you ask the group, "Can we get the yard?!?".  The line whoops and hollers in agreement, so you call the play and wait to see the outcome.  It is either going to be a feel good moment, or you are going to look stupid for not punting.

Now imagine if you had a culture on your team where players could be completely open and honest with you and with themselves.  Let's say you ask the question and each lineman assesses their performance through the course of the game.  The left-tackle and the left-guard each report that they feel pretty good about their side of the ball.  The right tackle admits that he is getting handled.  You call a play behind the left side of the line.  Will you make it?  Probably.

I haven't been on the sideline of a football game, at least not where the play was being discussed,so I have no idea how the reality is, but I do know the true story of Nebraska's 57-yard field goal against Colorado a couple of years ago.  Nebraska had 2 kickers, one known for accuracy and the other known for length.  Nebraska needed the field goal to pull ahead late in the game.  Coach Pelini asked the long-range kicker if he could make it.  "I don't think so... I haven't hit one that long all day in practice.".  Then the other kicker spoke up, "I can hit that coach."  Pelini later reported that it was the way he said it that made the coach believe it.  The kid knew he could do it...  and he did.  Alex Henery's 57-yard field goal won the day (and the kicking job).

Apply this to your organization.  When your employees aren't comfortable with something or aren't working within their strengths, do they tell you?  Do you have environment where they would say something?

One of my past employers had an annual review process where you selected 5 people to give feedback on your performance.  I selected 5 of the toughest critics I could find.  In the review, a couple of them were very critical giving me information that I needed to hear.  Unfortunately, my boss heard it too and decided to downgrade my raise for the year.  I was penalized for attempting to get an honest assessment of my performance.

Do you penalize employees for being honest?

.

This is your new blog post. Click here and start typing, or drag in elements from the top bar.