9 Things That Motivate Employees More Than Money
-
An interesting article about how to motivate employees without spending much money ! :omg: Do you think its possible ? http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=960869492&ids=0TcPsPd30VdjAIdPsMdP4SczoVb3kOd3AQcjwReiMNdPgMczgMdzAIczAQejoUc3oV&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod2-b-ttl-0&ut=2NB3aI6s2Uxl01[^]
-
Maybe you are just poor? (Sorry.) The point for the employer is that after reaching a base level, more motivation through money becomes prohibitively expensive. In other words, the money you ask for isn't there. However, there are things the employer can do tp improve your quality of life measurably without spending much money. Leaving work healthy, happy and energetic you can make much more out of the money you do have.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyBut a company can motivate with the mis-guided belief that you can obtain more money :~ Even if you are at the top of the scale, a company can give you numbers showing how there is room for growth.
Typical Manager says:
If you do yadda yadda yadda, we can land this client and we will all be winners. You will certainly move to the top of the scale!
In truth they are correct that everyone will be winners and you will move to the top of the scale (you are at the top... I guess 'move' is incorrect but then again most people get a nudge just for inflation, which could be considered a 'move'). The truth may be that the client lands more funds but also has an overhead that will consume those funds. Doesn't really matter. The fact is they motivated you "with money". Granted they did not give you any money, but the tactic is the same. Statistically it is a winner for employee motivation. In the cases an employee does not care about money, they tend to want more lax hours. Which actually is also more money (work less for more money). Not providing the 'scale' shift (that was promised) is easily washed away with crafty wording and stats.
Manager can say:
The scale has shifted, you are actually over the top. It seems the recession has lowered the average pay for [your role/title]. However, you did do a marvelous job so we will give you something (Inflation adjustment).
However allowing an employee to work less hours will actually cost the employer siginifantly more as a new employee will cost far more than a slight bump in pay, regardless of how much you make. This is of course not the case if the workload allows it. But in that case you may want to question your actually value in your role as if it is deteriating you may find it will not be needed at all soon enough.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
viaducting wrote:
I know people who never criticise or correct their children, and it turns them into arrogant little sh*ts.
And this applies to all children... how? Or... managing adults? I've helped out at youth camps a few times. What I learntis that critizicing alone doesn't take you anywhere. Clear rules, clear consequences. This has only limited application in a business environment, however. I also don't think that avoiding critique by all means is helpful. However, punishment alone pushes people to avoid When shitfancontact happens, I make it a point to (a) figure out how to solve the immediate crisis and (b) how to make it better the next time. There is some room for a technical analysis *why* something happened but that is better done when everything calmed down again. Dwelling on the immediate cause in a panicky situation easily leads to corporate stupidity. ("Why the fuck didn't you read my e-mail! It was important! From now on, all employees have to check their e-mail every half hour!")
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyThe article said "never criticise or correct", which I said was wrong. There is a world of difference between saying that never criticising is wrong, and saying you should only criticise.
-
The article said "never criticise or correct", which I said was wrong. There is a world of difference between saying that never criticising is wrong, and saying you should only criticise.
That's right. Don't take me wrong: employees need to be able to deal with critique, and if you have to shout you have to shout. My point is: critic is easier destructive than constructive - and as a boss, you a very likely to not notice. So trying to find when you can avoid it is worth a shot.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
But a company can motivate with the mis-guided belief that you can obtain more money :~ Even if you are at the top of the scale, a company can give you numbers showing how there is room for growth.
Typical Manager says:
If you do yadda yadda yadda, we can land this client and we will all be winners. You will certainly move to the top of the scale!
In truth they are correct that everyone will be winners and you will move to the top of the scale (you are at the top... I guess 'move' is incorrect but then again most people get a nudge just for inflation, which could be considered a 'move'). The truth may be that the client lands more funds but also has an overhead that will consume those funds. Doesn't really matter. The fact is they motivated you "with money". Granted they did not give you any money, but the tactic is the same. Statistically it is a winner for employee motivation. In the cases an employee does not care about money, they tend to want more lax hours. Which actually is also more money (work less for more money). Not providing the 'scale' shift (that was promised) is easily washed away with crafty wording and stats.
Manager can say:
The scale has shifted, you are actually over the top. It seems the recession has lowered the average pay for [your role/title]. However, you did do a marvelous job so we will give you something (Inflation adjustment).
However allowing an employee to work less hours will actually cost the employer siginifantly more as a new employee will cost far more than a slight bump in pay, regardless of how much you make. This is of course not the case if the workload allows it. But in that case you may want to question your actually value in your role as if it is deteriating you may find it will not be needed at all soon enough.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
The point is: If you want to motivate people to work more, harder, better or just want them top be happier with their job for mutual benefit, buying them the right perks is much cheaper than throwing the money at them. Long term motivation with money is surprisingly hard (for non-starving people). The "wow" factor fades rather quickly, the pay rise stays. --- Assume you have a decent apartment, an ok car, dine out with friends two times a month, spend a reasonable amount on pension funds and still have monthly savings of ~$120 average. How would raising your pay by $100 affect you? --- Working shorter time isn't so bad, actually. A 2002 study by Kellogs showed that people are more productive in total with a six hour day - the reaosn for which isn't quite clear, though. Another study (cna't find a lead anymore, though) showed that productivity of "information workers" declines significantly after 5..6 hours, and is halfed in the eighth; basically giving a full hour pay for half an hour work. ---
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
People are only motivated by non-financial rewards when they have no chance to make more than their peers. Which makes sense, most jobs feature scaled salaries based on tenure rather than ability or success. If they paid you more to make you happy, they would have to pay every one more to make you happy. So instead, they hold a lame party, and make you fill out anonymous employee moral surveys with your name written on them.
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
Apparently, I am not people.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
An interesting article about how to motivate employees without spending much money ! :omg: Do you think its possible ? http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=960869492&ids=0TcPsPd30VdjAIdPsMdP4SczoVb3kOd3AQcjwReiMNdPgMczgMdzAIczAQejoUc3oV&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod2-b-ttl-0&ut=2NB3aI6s2Uxl01[^]
Yes, already convinced before reading the article. When it comes to cognitive labor money is simply a terrible motivator. With manual labor, performance increases when it's tied to a bonus-system. But people are actually worse at solving puzzles when it's tied to a performance/reward system. Thinking about money could be a positive distraction if your job doesn't require thinking, but if you have a complex job then worrying about not getting your bonus can actually become a self fulfilling prophecy. Same principle goes for companies stare themselves blind at maximizing profits instead of why they having a right to exist. If you wonder how the financial crisis happened, it basically comes down to the same thing. Banks having no vision, only thinking about maximizing profits and being run by people only worrying about getting their bonus.
Giraffes are not real.
-
Apparently, I am not people.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyI am not entirely convinced that CodeProject isn't some figment of my imagination so ...
Need custom software developed? I do custom programming based primarily on MS tools with an emphasis on C# development and consulting. I also do Android Programming as I find it a refreshing break from the MS. "And they, since they Were not the one dead, turned to their affairs" -- Robert Frost
-
The point is: If you want to motivate people to work more, harder, better or just want them top be happier with their job for mutual benefit, buying them the right perks is much cheaper than throwing the money at them. Long term motivation with money is surprisingly hard (for non-starving people). The "wow" factor fades rather quickly, the pay rise stays. --- Assume you have a decent apartment, an ok car, dine out with friends two times a month, spend a reasonable amount on pension funds and still have monthly savings of ~$120 average. How would raising your pay by $100 affect you? --- Working shorter time isn't so bad, actually. A 2002 study by Kellogs showed that people are more productive in total with a six hour day - the reaosn for which isn't quite clear, though. Another study (cna't find a lead anymore, though) showed that productivity of "information workers" declines significantly after 5..6 hours, and is halfed in the eighth; basically giving a full hour pay for half an hour work. ---
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyI understand what your saying but it seems the tactic is not necessarily to 'Throw' the money, but rather dangle it. You are right in that it does not work for people that are 'completley content'. However, even 'content' people can be motivated by money. Instead of dining at Apple Bees now you can dine at Red Lobster. Instead of an 'OK' car you now have one with navigation and blue tooth. Instead of a decent apartment you are now able to swing a mortgate. The thing about are society is there is always more. With that said, it takes a very strong person to say "No I have enough, thank you." Most are not that strong. Most want a taste of the 'better' life, and 'better' is always ALWAYS percpective based, meaning there is always more to be gained from money. Just take a look at the ridiculously rich people of the world. They first made millions.. Then hundreds of millions. Then billions. Most say to themselves "Well if I had that much I would just retire and be happy". Its a situational thing. You really don't know for a fact unless you have it. When I first got out of college and started working I was living the high life. Eventually I said "Hey, I need more". The reason being I was making didly. But I was actually making a lot, compared to what I made when I was in school. It is perspective based. You will be content until you realize there is something better. If not, as I said you have a strong inner person. But most do not. I also COMPLETELTY agree about productivity. However, cost wise it still ends up costing a company more. Those last couple hours they are not getting as efficient of work from the employee. But an employees bennefits must also be considered. Say there is a team of 10. They work 8 hour days totalling 80 hours per day. However, as you said they are inefficient the last hours. The last hour is 50% and lets say the 2 hours before at at 75% efficiency. This leaves and effective resource pool of 10*0.5 + 20*0.75 + 50 = 70 hours. If the employer cuts their hours (and even is allowed to cut their pay accordingly) down to 6 hours they would get 10 * 0.75 + 50 = 57.5 hours. To get the workload back up to what they were acheiving, i.e. 70 hours they need to hire 2 additional resources. 2 * 0.75 + 10 = 11.5 => 11.5 + 57.5 = 69 hours (close enough, but note they are getting slightly less resources) So even if the employer maintained the same hourly rate (i.e. the employees work less and get paid less), the employer is now paying out a lesser rate (cost savings) to more people (cos
-
He sounds like a liberal/communist: 1.Be generous with praise. (even if it's false praise, it will keep the employee feeling like he can do no wrong until you can muster the secret police to raid his home) 2.Get rid of the managers. (substitute "managers" with "bankers", "rich people", etc) 3.Make your ideas theirs. (brainwashing is always an effective technique) 4.Never criticize or correct. (just send over the secret police without warning) 5.Make everyone a leader. (everyone is equal - now there's an idea) 6.Take an employee to lunch once a week. (engrain a sense of entitlement so that they learn to be depenedent on the state) 7.Give recognition and small rewards. (this sounds like #1) 8.Throw company parties. (it makes rounding them up and putting them into detention camps a lot easier) 9.Share the rewards—and the pain. (many times, the state's reward IS the pain it causes).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
9.Share the rewards—and the pain. (many times, the state's reward IS the pain it causes).
The key to satisfaction in the present job market is to learn to love the whip.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Yes, already convinced before reading the article. When it comes to cognitive labor money is simply a terrible motivator. With manual labor, performance increases when it's tied to a bonus-system. But people are actually worse at solving puzzles when it's tied to a performance/reward system. Thinking about money could be a positive distraction if your job doesn't require thinking, but if you have a complex job then worrying about not getting your bonus can actually become a self fulfilling prophecy. Same principle goes for companies stare themselves blind at maximizing profits instead of why they having a right to exist. If you wonder how the financial crisis happened, it basically comes down to the same thing. Banks having no vision, only thinking about maximizing profits and being run by people only worrying about getting their bonus.
Giraffes are not real.
0bx wrote:
If you wonder how the financial crisis happened, it basically comes down to the same thing. Banks having no vision, only thinking about maximizing profits and being run by people only worrying about getting their bonus.
I would disagree. The banks were doing quite well at maximizing profits. In fact their top executives have now taken those profits and went off to do other grander things. The banks that collapsed fell due to a domino affect of loans defaulting. Granted, those banks should not have given those loans in the first place (more about ethics though). They were still pulling in hand over fist. They just did not ballance quick enough. They had such huge overhead costs they could not manage all of the under losses. But you also should realize that not all banks collapsed. And in fact many banks returned to record profits with in a short while after the crash. So using them as an example of money as a motivator actually shows it working.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I understand what your saying but it seems the tactic is not necessarily to 'Throw' the money, but rather dangle it. You are right in that it does not work for people that are 'completley content'. However, even 'content' people can be motivated by money. Instead of dining at Apple Bees now you can dine at Red Lobster. Instead of an 'OK' car you now have one with navigation and blue tooth. Instead of a decent apartment you are now able to swing a mortgate. The thing about are society is there is always more. With that said, it takes a very strong person to say "No I have enough, thank you." Most are not that strong. Most want a taste of the 'better' life, and 'better' is always ALWAYS percpective based, meaning there is always more to be gained from money. Just take a look at the ridiculously rich people of the world. They first made millions.. Then hundreds of millions. Then billions. Most say to themselves "Well if I had that much I would just retire and be happy". Its a situational thing. You really don't know for a fact unless you have it. When I first got out of college and started working I was living the high life. Eventually I said "Hey, I need more". The reason being I was making didly. But I was actually making a lot, compared to what I made when I was in school. It is perspective based. You will be content until you realize there is something better. If not, as I said you have a strong inner person. But most do not. I also COMPLETELTY agree about productivity. However, cost wise it still ends up costing a company more. Those last couple hours they are not getting as efficient of work from the employee. But an employees bennefits must also be considered. Say there is a team of 10. They work 8 hour days totalling 80 hours per day. However, as you said they are inefficient the last hours. The last hour is 50% and lets say the 2 hours before at at 75% efficiency. This leaves and effective resource pool of 10*0.5 + 20*0.75 + 50 = 70 hours. If the employer cuts their hours (and even is allowed to cut their pay accordingly) down to 6 hours they would get 10 * 0.75 + 50 = 57.5 hours. To get the workload back up to what they were acheiving, i.e. 70 hours they need to hire 2 additional resources. 2 * 0.75 + 10 = 11.5 => 11.5 + 57.5 = 69 hours (close enough, but note they are getting slightly less resources) So even if the employer maintained the same hourly rate (i.e. the employees work less and get paid less), the employer is now paying out a lesser rate (cost savings) to more people (cos
Nice exercise you did there :) I understand that under this premise, long hours always win, until you run into the zombie zone where the productivity gets negative. However, you would have to weight that against employees with less sick days, employees who can much easier throw in a lot of extra hours in times of need, employees that have a perk they will never get at another place. In turn: How much more would you have to pay someone who is used to a 6h workday and all the spare time activities this enables to go back to an 8h day? The larger team is additionally penalized because of more communication and less availability for support calls (or less overlap and thus harder-to-schedule meetings). OTOH you are more resilent for losing someone temporary or permanently, because there's likely more haring of responsibilities. I am not saying it cancels out. I am just saying that we laugh a lot at phycisists that discuss spherical cows in a frictionless vacuum, yet this is still more realistic than the single-minded, greedy and selfish sociopaths that economists use.
My point is not about "completely content" people. The question is: Would you stay one hour longer once a week for a dinner at Red Lobster once a month? The pay rise - even though it's a permanent cost - will fade fairly quickly and acts more like a one-time perk. How much, in comparison, would a great espresso machine and free coffee cost the employee? How could that affect how workers
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
Nice exercise you did there :) I understand that under this premise, long hours always win, until you run into the zombie zone where the productivity gets negative. However, you would have to weight that against employees with less sick days, employees who can much easier throw in a lot of extra hours in times of need, employees that have a perk they will never get at another place. In turn: How much more would you have to pay someone who is used to a 6h workday and all the spare time activities this enables to go back to an 8h day? The larger team is additionally penalized because of more communication and less availability for support calls (or less overlap and thus harder-to-schedule meetings). OTOH you are more resilent for losing someone temporary or permanently, because there's likely more haring of responsibilities. I am not saying it cancels out. I am just saying that we laugh a lot at phycisists that discuss spherical cows in a frictionless vacuum, yet this is still more realistic than the single-minded, greedy and selfish sociopaths that economists use.
My point is not about "completely content" people. The question is: Would you stay one hour longer once a week for a dinner at Red Lobster once a month? The pay rise - even though it's a permanent cost - will fade fairly quickly and acts more like a one-time perk. How much, in comparison, would a great espresso machine and free coffee cost the employee? How could that affect how workers
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchypeterchen wrote:
How much, in comparison, would a great espresso machine and free coffee cost the employee? How could that affect how workers
Depends on the employees and the perks, but I do whole heartely agree. Stuff like that is what either eats away at the employee base (cause it is missing), or gives them the little sanctuary they need (when provided). It is often over looked because it is a long term moral boost, IMO. I worked for a company that widdled away each and every such perk and even stuck it to ya on ones you were willing to pay a little for (e.g. cans of pop). As they did it, no one cared that much. I mean sure people griped a little, but everyone aknowledged the company was hurting and had to do something. As time went on though, that is what we missed. But of course what was returned first, the free tea or increases in pay? Well when you break it down so simply most will take the pay. Moral is already shot so an immediate boost is needed. Offering cookies at a meeting does not really boost the moral compared to pay increases. But you are right. It is only temporary. Eventually your lifestyle adjusts and the pay increase is not noticed. In a same way though the other perks have the same effect. You don't really notice them after time and are just accustomed to them being there. I did not care that my company offered free tea, until it was gone. Just human psychology I guess. For good motivation an employer should keep mixing it up :) One week its free bagels and another its take the day off (with pay of course). While still another week you get your bump in pay. You need a little of it all to stay happy :-D
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
An interesting article about how to motivate employees without spending much money ! :omg: Do you think its possible ? http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=960869492&ids=0TcPsPd30VdjAIdPsMdP4SczoVb3kOd3AQcjwReiMNdPgMczgMdzAIczAQejoUc3oV&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod2-b-ttl-0&ut=2NB3aI6s2Uxl01[^]
I go crazy when I get all praise and no criticism...I figure I must be making a mistake somewhere and I can't fix it or avoid it later if I don't know what it is. But then again I think it might partially be that I'm an intern so they expect less of me, but I just consistently manage to exceed it (I try to avoid such thinking, but my ego is slowly inflating...).
-
An interesting article about how to motivate employees without spending much money ! :omg: Do you think its possible ? http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articleID=960869492&ids=0TcPsPd30VdjAIdPsMdP4SczoVb3kOd3AQcjwReiMNdPgMczgMdzAIczAQejoUc3oV&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod2-b-ttl-0&ut=2NB3aI6s2Uxl01[^]
