Achieving Organizational Balance

I've long suspected the doctrine of many motivational consultants goes something like this: "If you're not part of the solution, you can at least make a lot of money by prolonging the problem."

Over the decades, American management has been seduced by the siren song of innumerable motivational theories and models. Certainly, there's merit in the concept that says. "People are basically productive if we help them find the map." At the same time, scores of motivational theorists have harvested a trazillion dollars positing ideas, many of which have done businesses more harm than good, by carrying the "Let's-win-one-for-the-Gipper" mantra too far. Employees are not like pets that can be trained to perform circus acts in their respective occupational roles. Instead, they are individuals who can become advanced in skill and, to some degree, motivated by surrounding climatological conditions. If we go too far in reconfiguring our organizations based solely on "employee satisfaction," we risk suffocating our objectives and the people charged with meeting them.

All the while, the motivational industry has continued to reintroduce failed solutions to productivity, creating yet greater need to find the right answers. At the risk of indicting all motivational authors and consultants, it seems as though many business books espousing miracle models and processes, have in reality, simply repackaged the same old stuff that didn't work the first time around the track. What reluctant and confused business leaders must now consider is that the theories posited by many motivational consultants may be the source of their organizational problems as opposed to the remedy for them.

The right path then, would appear to lie with balance; tweaking your remedial recipe so as to avoid the delusional rush of infatuation with endless motivational flotsam, leading to unbalanced organizational architecture, leading in-turn to a license-to-fail within the ranks of your employees.

It works something like this:

1. A manager and an employee have a close relationship.
2. The employee falters.
3. The manager decides his colleague requires more hands-on attention.
4. The employee sees his or her extra attention as a sign of failure and falters some more.
5. The manager sees this withdrawal and turns up the attention to an even higher level.
6. The employee says a psychological good-bye to the organization while still among the ranks, killing any remaining productivity.
7. The manager feels betrayed and dismayed. Finally, the employee surrenders completely, and leaves.

The terrible irony of some motivational myths is that managers who believe they can motivate their people solely by bolstering their self-esteem often compound the problems of the company. Other managers who understand the acute need for accountability, trammeled with human understanding, fare better in today's complex company climate.