Dessert Before Dinner

I wish I had a dollar for everytime someone searched our Web site looking for

the "M&Ms." No, not the plain or peanut types. Everyone seems to be looking

for "morale" and "motivation." From our perspective in the field of human

resources surveys, tests and assessments, the search for these two particular

terms leaves us wondering if people realize that morale and motivation are

not the "main course" of a well functioning workplace.

Morale, for instance, is largely a happiness measure. Managers like high

morale because it increases cooperation. The presence of high morale reduces

resistance and negativity in the workplace atmosphere. Unfortunately, general

happiness can be related to factors that have little or nothing to do with

with getting the right work done.

For instance, an example of a popular morale question on employee surveys is

this one: Overall, I am satisfied working for this organization at the

present time. The responses to this question are at least partially based on

satisfaction with compensation, safety, environmental comforts, and other

workplace factors that don't relate directly to the execution of mission,

strategy and tactics. The presence of a good benefits package doesn't

translate directly into a job well done.

Factors such as benefits, base compensation, and environmental features such

as lighting are called hygiene factors and they are the most basic features

of the workplace. They are expected. Their absence can make people very

unhappy, but their presence does not directly produce motivation, engagement

or commitment.

Other satisfiers, however, do set the stage for higher levels of motivation --

as long as they are deployed with an employee who has been well selected for

the job.

Consider two examples from the same work unit. Maria takes pleasure in

professional accomplishment both at work and in her personal life. As her

work unit experiences rapidly expanding sales, she finds herself personally

satisfied by being on a team that is reaching a challenging goal. Her morale

is positively enhanced by hygeine factors she finds acceptable, and her money

motivation is positively enticed by the bonus plan.

Susan, on the other hand, is more interested in affiliation -- workplace

friendships, customer relations and family -- than business accomplishment.

She finds the rigors of rapid sales growth irritating. She would prefer a

more relaxed work environment with lots of focus on relationships. The

absence of it has a negative effect on her morale. She doesn't quite trust

the bonus plan.

Maria is a good fit with the environment; Susan is not. Their morale is

partially an after-effect of their fit. It can be very worthwhile to address

the morale of employees who are a good fit. It may not be worthwhile to

address the morale of someone who is a poor fit.

We have often seen workplaces where management tries to help people feel

comfortable and satisfied, yet have NOT been rewarded with increased

productivity by those same employees. They may report good morale (high

responses on an item such as I am satisfied working for this organization at

the present time). But this does not always induce a desire to act. For

instance, low responses on an item such as "People in this organization do

whatever it takes to get the job done" might depict a workplace where

satisfaction is relatively high but propensity to act is poor. This is hardly

the needed outcome.

Motivation is not the same as morale. Motivation is an internal state of

willingness and readiness to act. The two terms are often used together and

sometimes interchangeably. Does high morale have a useful role in motivation?

Maybe, if satisfaction (morale) contributes to willingness and readiness to

act (motivation). But there's a twist to this, a surprise we've gotten over

and over again: high motivation (readiness to act) more often leads to

satisfaction (morale) than satisfaction leads to motivation. In other words,

someone who's a good fit with your job and culture is already predisposed

towards good morale.

Think of Maria in the example above. She arrives at her job already motivated

by the challenges and successes of her workplace. She may have been motivated

along these lines ever since she ran a successful lemonade stand as an eight-

year-old. Feeling a level of personal success and finding herself in a

stimulating environment, her morale is high.

Maria is a good fit. She's a salesperson, and she's motivated both personally

and professionally by her job. (She wants to buy a new Lexus with her

earnings from the 2006 commission plan.) She has high morale. Is this enough?

Engagement signifies involvement of the whole individual mind, spirit,

heart. If Maria is not engaged, she may go for easy sales and ignore

territory development. The fully engaged employee would be concerned with

developing a territory as well as short-term commissions. An example of an

engagement question on an employee survey is: The work I do is very

important to the long-term success of this organization. An engaged employee

is fully involved and aligned, and applies his or her motivations to the

organization's goals. Indeed, current thinking says that this is the

chocolate-covered cherry of workforce management.

But nothing is easy in organizational life. Let's say Maria has positive

morale and motivation and is engaged. Is there more? Maybe.

Commitment governs employees' disposition towards continued investment of

time and energy in a job or organization. Many employers contact us about

surveys when they see high turnover. What's wrong with our workplace? they

sometimes ask. Why aren't people committed to staying here? Yet commitment,

like morale, motivation, and engagement, comes from some intrinsic

organizational factors that may not be obvious at first. Our research and

experience show that two factors are more significant than others in creating

commitment:

1. Management skills of immediate managers and supervisors: We'd like to

think people are committed to organizations, but they must first deal with

the people immediately around them. When immediate managers are skilled, the

first barrier to commitment is removed. People are able to become committed

to working for their managers. For instance, a survey might contain a

question such as: My manager sets work objectives that motivate people.

High scores on an item such as this portray individuals who are more likely

to be committed to working for the immediate manager.

2. Successful job performance: Go back a few paragraphs, where we made the

comment that successful job performance can lead to high morale/satisfaction.

The experience of positive feedback that follows successful job performance

also increases commitment. Intuitively, employers want employees to be

committed to increase the success of the organization. But in the real world,

employees' organizational commitment seems to increase when they experience

personal success. This again underscores the importance of top-notch

selection and hiring practices. An example of a question that diagnoses this

element of commitment is this: My work gives me a feeling of personal

accomplishment.

To all those people searching for the M&Ms, I offer some advice: Make sure

you cook a good dinner before reaching for the candy. Look first for people

who have the right fit with your organization. Design jobs so that these

carefully selected people can experience success. Then open the bag of M&Ms.

And please save some red ones for me.

_________________________________________________________________
Author: Kathleen Groll Connolly writes on a variety of human resources topics
and is a partner in Performance Programs, Inc., an organization specializing
in human resources surveys and measurement. For more information call 1-800-565-4223. http://www.performanceprograms.com