We’ve all experienced it. The loss of motivation at work. Sometimes it comes in waves. Sometimes in perpetuity. But why? What are the factors that influence motivation?

This is the question posed (and answered) by this article by David Sirota, recently reprinted in HBS’s Working Knowledge.  It’s often said that employees leave jobs because of their managers, but that’s just at the end of the line. Managers also have a tremendous impact on motivation levels. Regardless of whether organization wide policies are healthy or not, individual managers can, all by themselves, motivate or demotivate people.

But there’s lots that can be done to make sure things stay positive. According to the article, there are three separate and equally important spheres of influence for motivation – Equity (the need to be respected and compensated fairly), Achievement (to be proud of the job, one’s achievements and company) and Camaraderie (good relationships with coworkers).

The article goes on to outline 8 tactics for maintaining and enthusiastic workforce. They’re worth both reading and doing.

Here’s an article at Baseline that talks about some of the ins and outs of talent management applications by showcasing some of the companies that have chosen to implement them. We’re mentioned in there, as are competitors Authoria and Vurv.

My most favorite bit includes a quote from (our customer) Gary Short of Kimberly-Clark:

Human-resources professionals caution, though, that it’s important not to use such systems to replace face-to-face meetings, which are vital for evaluating candidates or reviewing employees. “You want an efficient process,” says Gary Short, senior consultant for talent management at paper-goods maker Kimberly-Clark, “but you want an effective process.”

This hits on something I’ve been thinking about lately – the idea of “conversations.” Technology is an excellent enabler, but I’m moving towards the belief that the real point of any of these HR related applications is to support more and better conversations between people. Results come from conversations.

The technology serves, among other things, to provide the supporting data to enforce a process. But the value will remain in the conversations that take place as a RESULT of the technology. The better, more sophisticated and more usable the technology, the better and more sophisticated the conversations.

Everyone thinks they’re above average.

This tidbit found via the Damn Interesting blog where they deconstructed a report by some Cornell researchers on the topic. What they found was that the worst performers in a variety of tested categories often rated themselves on par with the best performers and in most cases far above average. Top performers are of no help either. Even they weren’t able to accurately assess themselves, rating themselves lower than their performance merited.

The reasoning for these behaviors is fascinating. Poor performers lack the skills to perform – which are the same skills required to evaluate their performance. They don’t understand that they don’t understand, and so believe their abilities compare positively to their peers.

On the other hand, Top performers incorrectly assume that their competence is shared among their peers – leading them to rank themselves lower than they deserve.

You can see what this looks like in the chart above. People that fall into the lower three quartiles believe they performed better than they actually did. The highest performers underestimate themselves.

There’s relevance here to self-assessments as the HR world understands them. When asked to evaluate themselves on a variety of competencies, it would seem that people can be expected to incorrectly rate themselves most of the time. Poor and average performers will overestimate their abilities, and top performers will underestimate them.

So what to do? I think that the importance of gap analysis makes itself evident here. It’s only through external feedback that people can understand the difference between what they believe to be true and others’ perceptions of the reality. There’s nothing clearer than a competency gap:

 When you can see what you think about yourself right next to what others think about you – there’s simply nothing more compelling to a change in perceptions and ultimately, in behavior.

Our new poll for the next couple of weeks is on the topic of employee engagement. Specifically, what, in your opinion, are the most important drivers of engagement?

The responses are based on a 2003 report from Towers Perrin called “Understanding what drives employee engagement.” (PDF) Based on some statistical analysis, they arrived at 10 workplace attributes that they determined to be the most critical in driving employee engagement.

Of these 10, which are the most important in your organization?

You may have noticed a poll in the left-hand column over the past couple of weeks. Though clearly not scientific in any way, the poll has provided some insight into what’s on the minds of our readers.

We asked, “What is your most pressing HR issue?” 

We had 50 people respond to the poll, and the results are interesting. Despite all the talk about succession and compensation, the core issue (28%) for our respondents was Performance Reviews followed followed closely by Goal Alignment (24%).

To me, it indicates that Performance Management and Goal Alignment are still the biggest pain points for HR practitioners. They represent the heart of talent management initiatives, and Succession and Comp. are just further down in the hierarchy of HR needs.

I’d be curious to hear what you guys have to say about the results. Do you think they’re generally representative, or are they skewed for some reason?

A management issues article points out that employee engagement is THE KEY concept in retention:

Rather than working on employee engagement in parallel with staff retention and talent management, a high quality strategic emphasis on employee engagement will as a matter of course positively influence both staff retention and talent management.

Make employee engagement your ‘hub’ not an after-thought.

Via Gautam, I came to this Time article about “microinequities” and “microgestures” – fancy talk for the horribly frustrating, inconsiderate, rude and otherwise small but rage-inducing behaviors like using your BlackBerry in the middle of a conversation or saying someone’s name incorrectly or talking on your cell phone during a meeting, etc.

Besides the crass ignorance displayed by such actions, it turns out they may actually have a negative impact on workforce performance as they work to demotivate otherwise engaged employees.

And, of course, there’s a consultant who goes around advising companies on these issues.

The Human Capitalist (known more properly as Jason Corsello of the Yankee Group) shares his views on Performance and Talent Management. Hint: he likes it. To wit:

The solutions are not the “end-all-be-all” and will not solve all of the issues in the performance review process.  They are though a huge enabler to level the playing field, eliminate (or at least minimize) the emotional factors involved during the difficult review process, and have the ability to build in the necessary flexible required to accommodate the changing demands of an increasingly dynamic workforce. 

Or so says this HBS article (via Be Excellent).

Instead, they argue it’s the job of every operating manager and senior management up to and including the board should play a part:

In this worldview, it is part of the line manager’s job to recognize his subordinates’ developmental needs, to help them cultivate new skills, and to provide them opportunities for professional development and personal growth. Managers must do this even if it means nudging their rising stars into new functional areas or business units. They must mentor emerging leaders, from their own and other departments, passing on important knowledge and providing helpful evaluations and feedback. The operating managers’ own evaluations, development plans, and promotions, in turn, depend on how successfully they nurture their subordinates.

Further, boards can play a vital role in shepherding up-and-comers. Because they are detached from  day to day operations, they can more clearly see the company’s leadership needs and bench strength.

This feels about right to me, but if it’s the case, what then is the role of HR? To me, it’s twofold: guidance and enablement.

Guidance in that HR experts will always be needed to help assess an individual’s ability and potential inside the organization. If the board adds value because they are outside the company, HR can add value by being the insider.  As far as enablement, by providing and owning strategic platforms like performance management, HR can ensure they are the fundamental enabler of leadership development and succession planning.

Thoughts?

With all this talk of the downsides of performance management going on in the blogosphere, I thought I might take a look at this from the employee perspective. Hey wait, I AM an employee! Thusly: Some reasons why I, Max Goldman, like performance management and wouldn’t want to work for a company that didn’t do it - a brief list:

1. What the heck is my job again?
Being just one piece of a bigger entity like a company is not an easy thing. It’s sometimes hard to know what part I need to play to add the most value. I want to add as much value as possible because I want to advance my own career, make more money and do something important with my life. Our performance management system lets me understand what I can be doing to support the company’s larger goals, know what’s expected of me and find opportunities to do bigger and better things.

2. Why is THAT guy driving a free Touareg?
At our company meeting this past January, four VW Touaregs were given out to top performers -people who add a lot of value to the company and our customers. Two went to salespeople. They bring in the bucks, so fine. But two went to regular employees. Why are they driving brand new, free cars (or getting watches, vacations, bonuses – you get my drift)? If I know why, I can work at those qualities and results and get myself a brand new ride next year. But what are those qualities, what is the measure of success? Without performance management, it’s anecdotal, arbitrary and simply unfair.

3. What is this company doing, anyway?
I now know what it is I’m meant to be doing (see #1), but what is everyone else doing? Why does any of this matter? What is this company striving at? What are the strategies and tactics that will make us all (and me, particularly) successful? Our performance management system lets me understand that. How what I’m doing aligns to what my boss and his boss are working on. Why what I’m doing matters. And I want it to matter.

4.  What’s wrong with me?
I admit it – I’m not perfect. I’m close, dammit, but I’m just not there – yet! What can I do to get better? What areas do I need to work on to perform at the next level? Without performance management maybe I’ll figure it out and maybe I won’t. With performance management, my development needs are outlined and I can know where I need… (ahem) work. Even better, I can get my boss to agree so when I nail those things, he has no choice but to admit it.

5.  What’s great about me?
Like I said, I’m pretty close to perfect – now tell me about it! It makes me feel good and lets me know I’m on the right track. Performance management forces my peers and my boss to tell me what I’m good at so I can lord it over everyone and do my special victory dance. Ok, no dancing, but you get the idea. People, myself included, like to know what we’ve done well so we can keep doing it.

6. Pay me more money. And a bonus, too.
What’s that, I achieved every goal we set out? Nice. Pay me. When I know what I’m being measured on, I can work against those goals. When I achieve them, there is no choice but to recognize my performance. If the company doesn’t, I can take my clear track record of success elsewhere.

What do you all think? What are the reasons you like (or dislike) the results of your performance management system or process?