Nineteenth-century English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge declared that “No man does anything from a single motive.” With rare exception, I think he was dead right. Motivation is seldom simple and straightforward, nor does it faithfully follow any single thread. Motivation more closely resembles a multilayered tangle of wants, needs, fears, and projections, all distorted by the ghosts of personal history. It may reflect the expectations of those who formed us or exhibit staunch rebellion against their values. Motivation may be consciously held or function outside our immediate awareness. Therefore, what routinely moves us to take action may at times be obvious and at times not.

Synthesizing motivation into a policy or program is challenging, because how people behave and respond will not be wholly consistent or unfailingly predictable, but will vary with context. Believing that context rarely changes in the workplace, employers rely on a fixed system—either formal or informal, stated or implied—of rewards and punishments to keep all oars in the water. The results are, at best, spotty, because employees change more rapidly than their company does. Thus, the motivation that works today may not be as compelling tomorrow.

In the search for the perfect motivator, not much can be said with scientific certainty. With few exceptions, most of the literature on motivation is educated guesswork rather than empirical proof. Simply stated, just when you think you have human motivation nailed down, people can and will fool you.

Having said that, Abraham Maslow provided invaluable insight into the enigma that is human motivation. In 1943, he published his now-familiar theory which portrayed human development and motivation as a hierarchical process consisting of five levels, each building on the preceding stage. His work has had such a profound impact on our understanding of motivation that it warrants a brief review. Any system of workplace rewards will owe its underpinnings to Maslow.

At the base of Maslow’s hierarchy is the physiological level at which human energy and concern are focused on satisfying bodily needs such as hunger and thirst, obtaining shelter, and finding sex. Teenagers, you may recognize, often appear stuck at this level.

The second motivator in Maslow’s hierarchy is safety, and at this level, humans search for security, protection from physical and emotional harm, and a measure of order. The desire for a predictable level of security is a fundamental reason people keep getting up in the morning and going to work.

Once the need for safety has been satisfied, we turn our attention to social demands: striving for acceptance, affection, friendship, and a sense of belonging to something bigger than ourselves. Many people have had the experience of staying with a job primarily because they liked their coworkers or were committed to the mission of a particular organization. This is especially true of non-profits where employees often accept token salaries out of a sense of loyalty to a cause and affection for the people they work with. It is one of the sad commentaries on our time that most successful corporations have downsized loyalty nearly out of existence, and we have managed to litigate most of the caring from the workplace.

Next, egos assert themselves at the esteem level. Internally, we become conscious of a need for self-respect, autonomy, and achievement. Externally, we crave recognition and attention and covet status. For many people, the quest for external acknowledgement and the trappings of status are the driving force behind their career aspirations. Sadly, after years of chasing the prestige pony, disillusion often sets in when people discover that acquisition, as a final destination, is ultimately not fulfilling.

Which brings me to what was undoubtedly Maslow’s greatest insight: self- actualization. Self-actualization is the process of identifying your work in the world, finding your passion in life, and expressing it through action. Maslow discerned that self- actualization is the driving force of human personality, and that it is absolutely compelling. Artists paint because they must, just as writers write because the ideas inside them demand expression.

Maslow believed self-actualization to be the highest expression of human maturation, but one that can only be attained after the other levels are satisfied. Each level, in Maslow’s model, builds on the preceding stage, and each successive need must be satisfied before a person can move on to the next. It is noteworthy that the esteem and self- actualization levels, which most people recognize as intuitively accurate, are the only ones that have not been confirmed through empirical research.

Nonetheless, after nearly sixty years, Maslow’s theory still represents some of the best thinking on the subject and has provided the foundation for the work of numerous other theorists. Among them, Douglas McGregor built upon Maslow’s research in McGregor’s work on humanistic management—dubbed Theory X and Theory Y. McGregor’s work has, in turn, been extended by such notables as Tom Peters, who preaches employee empowerment as the road to self-actualization and increased corporate profits. In his book, Flow, psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi explores the psychology of optimal experience. Flow is a state of deep focus that occurs when people are immersed in demanding tasks that require intense concentration and unwavering commitment. Athletes, during periods of peak performance, are frequently acknowledged to be “in the flow.” In effect, flow is a self-actualizing state. It can occur in the workplace when jobs are structured in such a way that a person’s abilities are perfectly balanced to the demands of a task which has well-defined goals and provides prompt feedback. Good programmers frequently enter this state as they alternate between coding and testing software: The coding specifications are typically well-defined, and testing provides feedback.

Maslow offered two additional notable observations. First, that more than one motivational level can be in play at any given time. Thus, there is an inherent limitation in appealing to a single motivation. Second, (and here’s the dilemma for those seeking to motivate others) once satisfied, a need no longer acts as a motivator. Hunger, for example, is a powerful motivator, but, after having eaten a full meal, a person is no longer highly motivated to search out food. Likewise, once a comfortable level of security is achieved, it is quickly taken for granted, and unless directly threatened, security loses its motivational value. When choosing motivators for your IT staff, flexibility will be a useful virtue.

To the degree motivation is predictable, it is affected by cultural values which are implicitly or explicitly shared: pursuit of the American dream, money, status, power, control, independence, security, family, reputation, creativity, and the need to make a difference, to name a few. Anything that assists people to secure or protect these values will serve as a motivator.

Motivation, however, changes with age. A young, entry-level programmer fresh out of college may be operating primarily on the safety level: seeking to establish some security and order in his life. His initial motivation may simply be to get and keep a job. A 35-year-old candidate will likely be driven by a more complex set of needs including salary range, promotional opportunity, desire for achievement, and the chance to do interesting work. By age 50, a candidate may only be interested in positions of status and prestige or in opportunities to do the kind of work for which she has passion and strong commitment.

In Maslow’s view, self-actualization—the most powerful motivator—was only available to mature adults capable of transcending the first four developmental stages. While these observations are arguably generalities, they illustrate a more than tenuous relationship between age, motivation, and career choices. The skilled manager will use motivators appropriate to where employees appear in this continuum.

There are as many methods of motivation as there are books on the subject, but they all fall into one of two classic categories, both of which have limitations: fear and incentives, the carrot and the stick.

The Oldest Motivator

Fear is undeniably a major motivator, albeit a negative one. Because working people have financial commitments, the fear of losing one’s job is never far submerged. Loss of a job can be accompanied by loss of status, loss of identity, perhaps loss of a house, or even a spouse. Certainly when the economy plummets and layoffs are inevitable, everyone knuckles down to protect their positions. Yes, fear is a primal mover, and many of us spend a lot of energy avoiding the objects of our fears. But, fear primarily motivates people to avoid mistakes rather than to excel. As such, it is limiting and adversarial. And, while fear is easy to dispense, people quickly develop a tolerance for it. How many times have you threatened or heard parents threaten to ground their kids?

McGregor’s Theory X suggests that the use of fear reveals more about management than employees. Management’s use of fear in the workplace is based on the belief that people don’t really want to work and will avoid it whenever possible. And, if employees are less than fully committed, management must constantly push them to perform at acceptable levels. Mind-numbing assembly line jobs often have strict quotas, and pace is maintained by fear of termination. Fear is inherently oppressive and, therefore, works best on people who have no other employment choice. Midrange professionals are not among that demographic. It is no accident that quality guru W. Edwards Deming included “Drive Out Fear” as one of his 14 management guidelines.

Fear is the motivator of last resort, and a reliance on it indicates other serious problems in an organization such as high turnover and widespread employee dissatisfaction. Teams that excel do so because they are working at a self-actualizing level, not because they are bullied into doing so. Edmund Burke put it masterfully: “No passion so effectively robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”

Incentives

Incentives are rewards for behavior, but, when people say incentives, they usually mean money. At first glance, money is an excellent motivator—not much happens in this world without it. Happily, IT salaries are generous, and the competition for skilled professionals keeps salaries high. But the expectation of high salaries makes good pay something of a given in the industry.

An AS/400 professional anticipates being nicely compensated, and while good- paying jobs are sought after and appreciated, beyond a certain period of time, even the most generous salary becomes the baseline.

The problem with money is that people tend to spend it. Eventually, for many folks, expenses expand to fill all available income plus credit, and the salary that looked great a year ago starts to look average.

Perhaps more than most motivators, money is subject to Maslow’s axiom that once satisfied, a need no longer motivates. Not that people don’t have an on-going need for cash in the form of mortgages, car payments, and all the rest. They do. But, once a level of income has been achieved, it quickly becomes a “what is.” Employees know that whether they have a good day or a bad one, they will not be denied their salaries (at least providing they don’t have a whole lot of noticeably bad days), and, consistent with the restless nature of human beings, a low level of dissatisfaction sets in. Employees may be making good money, but what have you done for them lately?

The problem with incentives is that the rewards have to keep escalating to achieve the same impact, and withholding them will be viewed as a punishment. Nor will incentives satisfy an employee’s desire for achievement. Rewards are the trappings of achievement, not the achievement itself, and may be based on a goal that is of little interest or importance to the employee.

If you choose salary to motivate employees, know that it works but only for a while. What works better than money itself is the promise of money. Bonuses for the successful completion of meaningful projects or as a means of honoring exceptional effort can be powerful motivators. If employees know they can pick up an extra couple of thousand dollars at year’s end for outstanding contributions, many of them will strive to excel. Bonus money is often considered play money or vacation money, so in the mind of the recipient, it is tied to a pleasant event rather than the drudgery of monthly bill paying.

Bonuses and commissions are traditionally used with good results in marketing settings. They do, however, tend to create intense competition, which may not be desirable in an IT environment where cooperation is much more useful. So, rather than rewarding the same superstars over and over, consider rewarding teams.

Obviously, offering bonus money at the beginning of the year with the expectation of superior performance would probably generate less than optimal results. Like the promise of salvation, the promise of money can help you leverage the behavior you want. To be effective, it is important that a program of rewards be well-defined, the goals be attainable with effort, and that the program is open to all employees.

The Best Incentive

The strongest incentives operate at the esteem and self-actualization levels. Work that is vital and interesting, the opportunity to make a difference, autonomy, and achievement are the qualities that keep employees fully engaged. Of course, from any individual’s perspective, most jobs simply do not offer the opportunity for self-actualization. But that’s not precisely true. It would be more accurate to say no job is self-actualizing for everyone. There is no one-size-fits-all motivator. To avoid the need for motivation altogether, match the right person to the right job. That was the basis of Csikszentmihalyi’s flow theory: Match a person’s skills to a task, set clear goals, and provide continuous feedback. An overqualified person will be bored, and an underqualified person will be bewildered. A person matched to the task will excel.

The degree to which motivation is necessary in an organization is inversely proportional to the quality of the hiring process. The more time spent choosing the right person, the less time will be spent prodding him.

For the most part, IT professionals choose their careers because the work is interesting and challenging, and because many enjoy being on the cutting edge of technology and helping to reshape the way the world communicates and works. These professionals are already there for the right reasons. Management’s job is not so much to motivate these professionals as to not kill the motivation that already lies within. A better solution than offering material incentives is creating an environment in which all employees

feel motivated—an environment of stimulation, encouragement, and opportunity, where inspiration is the best motivator of all.

People are inspired to excel when they feel safe from ridicule and humiliation, and when they can speak the truth without fear of punishment. A safe environment is one in which blame is banished, and the rewards for success are known to be far greater than the penalties for failure. Employees need challenge; tasks that excite and stretch them to grow. But growth is risky and paved with mistakes, and if the penalty for mistakes is too high, growth will cease.

Employees excel when they have the right tools for the job, sufficient authority to produce that which they are accountable for, and a larger context within which they can understand the purpose and value of their work. Employees give their best when their effort is recognized and appreciated, and when their values and interests are considered.

Psychologist and corporate consultant Nathaniel Branden thinks of motivational managers as traders, not a parasite—offering value in exchange for cooperation. “When your goals require other people’s involvement,” Branden writes, “you’ll get more enthusiastic participation if you recognize that nobody exists just to serve you. The best way to motivate others is to offer them reasons that are in line with their values.”

An Inside-out Job

Ultimately, motivation is an inside-out job. All external motivators are temporary. As an internal process, motivation has little to do with what you do and a lot to do with who you are. The people who are self-motivated know that they are the cause of the effects they desire. These people bring the same work ethic and the same passion for excellence to tasks both large and small. Whether it’s building a fence or building a network, pride, integrity, and the joy of achievement drive them to do their best.

A high level of commitment is infectious and tends to attract people of like consciousness. An understanding of motivational principles, and the development of formal incentive programs, will always be useful management tools. They cannot, however, hope to replace the motivational power of inspirational leadership.