Motivation. A key word in the history and development of management. Discretionary effort. ‘Going the extra mile’. How do we link the two? Since Taylor, management theorists have been trying to make this connection. In this article, the authors make a rapid journey through motivation theory, to conclude that a good manager will understand the conditions in which s/he is working, will strive to understand subordinates, and will marry this with a sound theoretical knowledge of motivation, psychology, and how to integrate this into the pay and reward system. Only then is competitive advantage in the people business guaranteed.

What is ‘discretionary effort’?

In recent years the term ‘discretionary effort’ has entered the business vocabulary – it is used to describe that proportion of an individual’s effort at work that could be described as ‘going the extra mile’. It has been suggested that this can amount to as much as 30% of normal output. This concept neatly captures the essence of what it is that managers have been seeking to release through the linkage of the behaviour of people at work and their pay. But to what extent can pay be said to play a part in ‘discretionary effort’?

First, let’s briefly review the theory.

Theories of motivation have evolved from the assumption that performance can be regulated by understanding and managing the employee ‘mind set’. Taylor’s prescribed methods of ‘objective control’ led to a workforce which was unhappy and disinclined to perform. The idea that the simplest way to get someone to move was to kick them in the pants, gave way, through the Human Relations School, to a recognition of the need to understand the employee at an ‘emotional’ level – the assumption being that a happy worker will feel motivated and committed to the job.

Need theories assumed employees had a set of innate universal needs which had to be satisfied in order to motivate. More recent theories around the psychological contract recognise that needs vary from person to person and continually shift throughout the employee life cycle. The ‘relational’ contract is based on feelings of involvement and attachment to the employing organisation, whereas the ‘transactional’ contract denotes an attitude of money comes first; employees are more concerned with personal benefit and remuneration. Identity theories argue that if an employee perceives an organisation’s values to be similar to their own, this will lead to a sense of organisational identity and in turn, intra organisational co-operation. So, pay might motivate people to work in the first instance, but it will not explain what they do or why, once they are there.

It is clear that no theoretical approach provides a complete explanation of the relationship between performance and pay. However, history and theory provide us with some useful pointers, and the best we can do is understand the conditions of our time, in the light of our actual history, and fine tune this with the best of our psychological theories and applications. First, then, what are the conditions of our time? What is it that makes people tick at work?

So what is it that gets people to ‘go the extra mile’?

Putting the textbooks to one side, we selected a small, unscientific sample of friends, acquaintances and colleagues and simply asked them what it is that makes them ‘go the extra mile.’ As a first point of interest, no one in our sample challenged the concept of discretionary effort – they all recognised it and in doing so tacitly accepted that there was ‘an extra mile’ to go. So let’s have a look at what emerged from these conversations.

Self-awareness and trust

One of the things that impressed us most about the participants in our straw poll was their level of self-awareness. This awareness was expressed not only in terms of those things that turned them on to ‘going the extra mile’ but also in terms of the personal barriers that sometimes get in the way of improved performance.

Dealing with personal performance impediments requires trust. People aspire to adult-to-adult relationships at work; they want to develop relationships in which trust can thrive and grow. Trust is felt to be the key and is required for individuals to display their vulnerabilities explicitly to their boss.

Developing trust takes time and thus giving time was seen as another key element in the elicitation of discretionary effort. Not that the people that we spoke to were not thinking of turning the issue of their individual performance into sessions of prolonged self-analysis, but rather brief, focussed and unambiguous discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of their performance.

The notion of performance itself was not confined to the longer-term annual objectives that are so often the concern of performance management processes, but also the shorter-term issues that people face at work including work planning and prioritisation. Performance measures and targets including the outcomes of work planning and prioritization processes were seen as, ideally, mutually established. Therefore such measures, plans and priorities should only be altered by discussion and agreement.

Being aware that your boss knows ‘where you are at’ from moment to moment is important. The awareness that an individual’s personal situation is known and understood as it ebbs and flows suggests to people that not only are they accepted and valued but also that the exchanges that individuals have with their boss and their colleagues are real and meaningful.

Language is also important – adult-to adult relationships are at their best when the lingua franca of the relationship is open, honest, unambiguous and free from ‘spin’ and jargon. The meaning of the words used must be clear, and if not, the relationship needs to be sufficiently robust to bear an exploration of what is meant. Performance discussions were seen as at their best when they had a light touch, were regular, were more informal and provided a real structure on which individuals could build their contribution.

Clear and honest feedback

The importance of feedback to people should not be underestimated. Indeed many people see honest, open and well-conducted, accurate, feedback as part of the quid pro quo for ‘going the extra mile.’ For some, the feedback of their boss is sufficient whilst others welcome feedback from multiple sources – friends, clients, customers or colleague as well as boss. The value of feedback to the individual not only enhances their feelings of self-worth, but is also a form of recognition. In addition the ‘feedback relationship’ was felt to be at its most effective when it had an element of mutuality about it. In other words the relationship was of value to both parties and provided opportunities to learn and develop and to reflect on their behaviour and practice.

Furthermore, in such a relationship individuals felt freer to ‘ask’ for some of their personal needs to be met. Needs such as achieving some semblance of work-life balance, stimulation, variety and challenge in their work, the opportunity to exercise intellectual freedom, the need for personal, as well as professional growth and development; and finally the need for thanks.

Good motivation relies on good relationships

What do we learn from this? Firstly, we can see that earlier theorists were not wrong – there are messages here that show that human relations, needs, goal-directed, and identity theories all have some real human understanding. Our straw poll shows that all these factors play a part in most people’s perceptions and expectations of work. The main message is that bosses and their subordinates need to get to know each other and to treat each other as individuals. For some the key is feedback, feedback, feedback, whilst for others a greater range of issues and factors are important.

What is also clear is that what is presented here is no easy for option for either party. As we all know creating and maintaining any relationship requires skill, effort and ability; and the particular issues and complexities in work relationships provide a challenge for all but the most able participants in those relationships. Finally it is worth noting that in none of the discussions did anyone talk about wider, contextual organisational issues and yes, other than at a hygiene level, nobody mentioned money.

‘Going the extra mile’: a question of good management

From this speedy journey through the history of motivation and pay, we can draw out the following general principles:

• Involve employees in the development of linkages between pay and performance and consult them about any difficulties that they anticipate may arise from it.
• Make sure that employees are interested in the proposed rewards
• Remove the barriers which get in the way of employees’ attempts to achieve high levels of performance
• Performance standards should be fair and comparable for all employees who should be consulted about the goals, targets or behaviour changes which will earn them a reward

These principles place as much, if not more, emphasis, on the skills of managers at all levels in creating the conditions in which employee performance may flourish as they do on the skills of employees to improve their performance. Maybe the most important insight to be gained from over a hundred years of trying to understand what motivates employees is that often, if not always, where you find poor employee performance you will also find poor management performance.

A good manager will understand the conditions in which s/he is working, will strive to understand subordinates, and will marry this with a sound theoretical knowledge of motivation, psychology, and how to integrate this into the pay and reward system. Only then is competitive advantage in the people business guaranteed.

For further information, please contact Natalie Carolan or Peter Lawson:
T 44(0) 1223 31594
E peter.lawson@erconsultants.co.uk
E natalie.carolan@erconsultants.co.uk