This is a guest post from Lindsey Caplan. Lindsey specializes in applying the principles of Improvisation and storytelling to organizational development and leadership, most recently as a member of the Education team at DreamWorks Animation. She blogs at www.lindseycaplan.com. Follow her on Twitter @Improvtools4biz

Every moment and in every interaction we are capable of choosing our “performances” and how we act, behave, and respond in a given situation.

Often our performances, and our reactions are habitual, instinctive, and we aren’t even aware of the mindset that’s ingrained in us or our companies.

But is this mindset decreasing your organizational capacity for innovation?

It’s possible these two little words are killing the innovation and creativity of your team:

“Yes, But”.

Reflect on how you and your company respond to new or untested ideas. Do you “but” ideas to death? And in doing so, do you cast a negative light on risk-taking, failure, and openness.

The unconscious performance might look like this:

“Yes, but it won’t work”

“Yes, but we don’t have the time”

“Yes, but we tried something similar before and it didn’t work”

Researcher Shawn Achor from Harvard tells us 75% of or job successes at work come from optimism, our ability to see stress as a challenge instead of a threat, and social support at work.

When we are met with a “yes, but” attitude to our ideas and innovations, it can be difficult maintain the motivation to do our best work and to feel support for our contributions.

I’m not advocating a company full of just “yes” men. Instead, we can choose a performance that involves less judgement, more open-mindedness, acceptance of others ideas, and a willingness to build on ideas instead of rejecting them.

Luckily, research from Achor (and others) tells us we can train our brain to become more positive. Through practice and habit building, we can learn to scan the world through a lens of positivity, instead of negativity and to create more conscious performances that involve the words “Yes, and”, instead of “Yes, but”.

Think about all of the performance choices you have every day. How can your performance increase and not block the flow of ideas, open communication and an open mind.

“But….” , just give it a try!

This post is the seventh and final in our series on motivation theory. Over the past few weeks, we’ve reviewed the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

People have an inherent tendency toward growth. That is the main concern of self-determination theory, which examines the motivation behind the choices people make without external interference and influence. The theory developed as Edward Deci and Richard Ryan began to study why individuals engage in activities for their own sake without seeking to obtain a goal or reward. In doing so, Deci and Ryan distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.  Intrinsic motivation is the inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities associated with personal growth. Extrinsic motivation is motivation that comes from an external source, such as a goal or reward. Deci and Ryan argued that intrinsic motivation is driven primarily by innate needs: competence, relatedness and autonomy.

Self-determination theory contains three essential elements. The first that humans are proactive by nature and seek to develop their potential. The second that humans desire to grow and develop themselves and their capabilities. The last that this development doesn’t happen automatically, it must be worked toward. In order to work toward this development, individuals need nurturing from the social environment. The role of organizations, then, is not to develop complex incentive compensation schemes to manipulate performance. Rather, organizations should design the optimal environment for individuals to pursue their growth and development through working toward organizational objectives.

Self-determination theory is a radical departure from the formulas and models first developed by motivational theorists. Yet, in some ways, the theory brings the field full circle by expanding on the ideas of self-actualization first proposed by Maslow.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

This post is the sixth in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

One of the most popular theories in organizational psychology, Goal-setting theory states that humans are motivated by setting goals.

(“Thank you. Thank you very much. I’ll be here all week. Try the veal.”)

It is a little more complicated than that. Researchers such as Edwin Locke have been examining the process and results of goal setting for thirty years. They’ve discover that setting goals alters behavior in four ways: choice, effort, persistence and cognition. Choice refers to how goals narrow individuals’ attention and focus it on goal-relevant activities. Effort refers to goals ability to draw more effort from individuals. Persistence refers to individuals’ tendency to work through setbacks to pursue a goal. Cognition refers to individuals’ development of cognitive strategies to change their behavior if needed to achieve a goal.

Goal-setting theory also offers various moderators to the relationship between goals and performance. Goal commitment is an especially influential moderator; if people are not committed to a goal, then it has no effect on performance. Attainability can affect effort toward achieving a goal; if it is too hard, then it is not worth trying. Likewise, self-efficacy affects whether or not people will try to achieve a goal based on whether they believe they can do it.

The theory also highlights the importance of feedback. If individuals cannot check their status toward achieving a goal, they may cease working toward it. Goal setting theory also offers a warning to organizations. Individuals need to be involved in the goal-setting process, but their goals must also be aligned with the goals of the organization.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

This post is the fifth in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

Equity theory is less of a full theory of motivation, and more of a warning to organizations. The theory itself attempts to explain employee satisfaction through exploring employees’ perceptions of fair distribution of rewards. The theory was first developed and presented by John Stacy Adams in 1963. Adams asserted that employees desire to maintain equity between their inputs and the organization’s outputs.

Inputs are the contributions that employees make. They can include time, effort, loyalty hard work and many others. Outputs are positive or negative consequences that individuals perceive have been given in response to inputs. These can include job security, esteem, salary, benefits and more. Based on the mental equation in their head, employees evaluate whether their input/output equation is fair by comparing it to others. Individuals believe they’re being treated fairly when their ration of inputs to outputs matches those around them. If individuals believe they’re over- or under-paid, they will experience distress and a lack of performance will result.

Equity theory presents organizations with a warning about over-compensation or lowering expectations of certain individuals. Over-compensated employees may respond by working harder, or they may alter their perceptions about the worth of their contribution and reduce their contribution. Likewise, employees may perceive others as over-compensated and respond by reducing their effort. While many argue that equity theory offers an overly simple means of explaining employee behavior, most still heed the warnings it offers.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

This post is the fourth in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

The two-factor theory (also known as Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory) was developed by Frederick Herzberg. The theory states that there are certain factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while a separate set of factors cause dissatisfaction.

Two-factor theory distinguishes between motivators (e.g., challenging work, recognition, responsibility) which give workers satisfaction, arising from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition, achievement, or personal growth and hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits) which do not give workers satisfaction, but their absence can create dissatisfaction. These are extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices or wages/salary. The theory prescribes that, if management wants to increase satisfaction on the job, it should focus on the opportunities work presents for gaining status, assuming responsibility, and for achieving self-realization. If, on the other hand, management wants to reduce dissatisfaction, then it must focus on the job environment, working conditions and policies.

Unlike Maslow, who offered little data to support his ideas, Herzberg and others have presented considerable empirical evidence to confirm the motivation-hygiene theory. Their work has been criticized on methodological grounds. Nevertheless, Herzberg and his associates have rendered a valuable service to science and to management through their efforts to apply scientific methods to understanding complex motivational problems at work and have stimulated others to continue the search.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

This post is the third in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

Expectancy theory attempts to explain the mental processed of choice or choosing. In doing so, it seeks to present a framework for how to use incentives to motivate people. The theory itself was first proposed by Victor Vroom, who served as a professor at Yale School of Management. Expectancy theory’s basic premise is that employees in an organization will be motivated to perform when they hold three beliefs:

• More effort will yield better results.
• Better results will lead to rewards.
• These rewards are of value.

Vroom’s theory also assumes that humans are rationale and make conscious choices among alternatives in order to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. In order to leverage this conscious choice, Vroom presented three elements within expectancy theory that explain the thought process employees use in choosing to perform (motivation). These elements are: valence, instrumentality and expectancy.

Valence represents the strength of a person’s preference for an outcome (“do I value the reward?”). Instrumentality represents the belief of a person that effort will yield the outcome (“can I achieve better results?”). Expectancy represents a person’s belief that the outcome will be rewarded (“will the company reward me for better results?”). When these elements are considered as variables in an equation, the product is motivation. In order to motivate employees, organizations ought to tie reward systems closely to performance. They must also be ready to provide training if necessary in order to increase instrumentality.

Expectancy theory presents a formula for motivation. However, Vroom himself suggested that perhaps human beings aren’t simple enough to be explained in a simple formula. Nonetheless, expectancy gives us a framework to understand and evaluate motivational efforts such as incentive compensation structures.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

This post is the second in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is perhaps the most frequently cited psychological model of all time. Most often, one encounters Maslow’s pyramid in freshman year of college while taking Psychology 101 and never quite escapes it. Maslow first proposed his idea in 1943, but further developed and fully expressed it with the 1954 publication of Motivation and Personality. Maslow developed his ideas by studying the lives of exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt and Fredrick Douglass (perhaps a precursor to the new field of positive psychology).

Maslow presents a five-level hierarchy of human needs and the assertion that human are motivated to fulfill those needs. The first four levels of needs he refers to as “deficiency needs.” These levels are: physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem. The top level of the hierarchy, self-actualization, is a need pursued only after the others have been met.

Physiological needs represent obvious survival needs: air, food, water, shelter and reproduction. The second level, safety needs, takes precedence once the physiological needs are met. These are needs like personal security, financial security, health and protection from harm. The next level, love and belonging needs, covers humans’ desire to be in emotionally based relationships. These are needs like friendship, family and intimacy. Esteem, the second highest level, presents that humans have a need to be accepted and valued by others. Humans engage themselves in behaviors which they can gain recognition and feel a sense of contribution from.

Self-actualization, the pinnacle of the hierarchy, pertains to humans desire to reach their full potential. Maslow describes this as a desire to become more of who one is and everything one is capable of being. Whether or not self-actualization is possible is still being debated. Indeed, whether this hierarchy is accurate is also up for debate. What is agreed on, however, is that Maslow laid a powerful foundation for studying human motivation.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

This post is the first in a series on motivation theory. Over the next few weeks, we’ll review the history of empirical thought on how to motivate followers.

Motivation is elusive. We struggle with the challenge of motivating ourselves to get out of bed and find a job. If and when we’ve found one, we try to remain motivated by something other than the weekend. Sure, there are a lucky few who are motivated just by the very nature of their work. But we more often write those people off as workaholics

or just plain nuts.

Those of us who are normal (or so we believe) figure that it’s the role of “management” to motivate us to work. That shifts the job of improving performance from the contributor to the supervisor, but it doesn’t make motivation any less complex.

Management hires silver-tongued speakers, hangs pretty posters and designs complicated “incentive compensation” bonus plans. Yet still something is missing. Few people rise, shower and drive to work because their utmost desire is to look at a picture of an eagle and read its pithy caption.

What is motivation? How do we motivate others?

These are the questions researchers have sought to answer for some time. They’ve made some great strides. They’ve created useful theories and models to explain motivation and improve performance.

Management just needs to find the motivation to learn them.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.

Tucked into the book is the story of Tandem Computers, an early computer company that is now a division of Hewlett-Packard. The company had an interesting policy about salary negotiations – it didn’t. Companywide, salary was not discussed with potential new hires until after they’d accepted the offer. Even at the most senior levels, potential hires were told that the company paid a competitive salary and offered a competitive benefits package.

Those that insisted on knowing the salary before accepting the offer quickly found their offer withdrawn. The philosophy behind this innovative talent management policy is simple: if people come for the money, they will leave for the money. However, if they joined because they like the company, found the work meaningful and enjoyed the culture, then they would be more likely to stay and make a long-term contribution.

There’s a growing body of research suggesting that incentives like bonuses and commissions may not be as useful in knowledge work – the notion being that employees would focus too much on the bonus and not enough on the job. The Tandem example seems to take this further; suggesting that when salary is open for discussion it becomes a far bigger issue than it ought to be for someone intrinsically motivated to do the work.

Tandem Computers is a near-apocryphal case of how this philosophy plays out, however, I’ll be keeping an ear to the ground for similar examples.

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab. He speaks, consults and serves on the faculty of management at Oral Roberts University’s College of Business.