Intrinsic methods of motivation, those that arise from the task itself, are finally getting some of the attention they deserve. In the past, business has relied heavily on external motivators such as a pay bonus, an extra pin on the uniform, or a parking place near the door to help motivate employees. There comes a point, especially in jobs that entail creativity, that an employee will start identifying with that great line from the musical Hello, Dolly! when Dolly Levi tells her would-be beau, "And on those cold winter nights, Horace, you can snuggle up to your cash register. It's a little lumpy, but it rings!" His wooing technique had failed to motivate her.
Dolly stated what every employee learns—that there is more to life, and to a job, than simply a paycheck. Distilled down, the wisdom of recognizing "more to life" has found three new motivational buzz words: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Autonomy
Simply stated, this means that people want to have control over their work. Giving people a goal and then giving them the freedom to have some say-so over how they meet the goal can be a terrific motivator.
Mastery
Every normal person wants to be good at what they do. There is more enjoyment in doing something when you can do it well. By using this fundamental human trait as a basis for motivation, work becomes more interesting and productivity increases.
Purpose
Studies in behavioral sciences have shown that people don't mind being a little cog in a bigger machine as long as they know that their cog has significance. A good boss knows how to capitalize on the natural desire to be part of something that is larger than one's self by helping employees know that their work is meaningful.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
How to Make People Feel Like a Million Bucks Without Spending Any
Last year Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a professor at Harvard Business School, wrote a column on gift giving ideas for cash-short, recession-weary workplaces. It was both innovative and practical, making the point that "gifts that don't require a commercial transaction can strengthen human bonds." It was refreshing to see someone from a high profile business school actually suggesting alternatives to the commercialization of the holidays.
But if low- or no-cost gifts can add energy to the workplace and lift morale one week out of the year, what's to say that it won't work the other fifty-one as well?
Building on Professor Kanter's premise that gifts that create a "connection of caring" will reinforce motivation, and by adding a few ideas of out own, we offer our list of "How to make people feel like a million bucks without spending any."
• Hold a Management Slave Day. The bosses can cook, serve and clean up after a meal or do other chores for their staff.
• Give a mini-vacation. Can you close up an hour early one day? Or start an hour later after a weekend?
• Be an Affirmation Elf. This is a take on the Secret Santa idea, except that instead of giving a gift, you give a compliment.
• Try a Time Share Chore Exchange. Almost every job comes with at least one yucky, routine chore, right? Let your employees switch a ten-minute chore of their choice with someone else. It breaks the routine and builds sympathetic camaraderie.
• Rule suspension. Remove the most frustrating and least necessary rules. Okay, that last sentence is a verbatim copy job from Professor Kanter's list, but it was just too cool to overlook.
• Post a note. Except that this time when we say "post," we mean post office, as in use snail mail and send a note home to the employee's family telling them how their parent/sibling/child makes a difference.
• Name Recognition. This is another idea borrowed from Professor Kanter—actually, she suggested a graffiti wall—but we think smart folks like our readers may want to spin that a little and add some audio recognition as well.
• Do kid stuff. Remember elementary school assemblies when they'd bring in a magician or sketch artist or a Punch 'n Judy puppet show? This idea may not be no-cost, but it can be cost-effective to take an hour break for a bit of entertainment.
But if low- or no-cost gifts can add energy to the workplace and lift morale one week out of the year, what's to say that it won't work the other fifty-one as well?
Building on Professor Kanter's premise that gifts that create a "connection of caring" will reinforce motivation, and by adding a few ideas of out own, we offer our list of "How to make people feel like a million bucks without spending any."
• Hold a Management Slave Day. The bosses can cook, serve and clean up after a meal or do other chores for their staff.
• Give a mini-vacation. Can you close up an hour early one day? Or start an hour later after a weekend?
• Be an Affirmation Elf. This is a take on the Secret Santa idea, except that instead of giving a gift, you give a compliment.
• Try a Time Share Chore Exchange. Almost every job comes with at least one yucky, routine chore, right? Let your employees switch a ten-minute chore of their choice with someone else. It breaks the routine and builds sympathetic camaraderie.
• Rule suspension. Remove the most frustrating and least necessary rules. Okay, that last sentence is a verbatim copy job from Professor Kanter's list, but it was just too cool to overlook.
• Post a note. Except that this time when we say "post," we mean post office, as in use snail mail and send a note home to the employee's family telling them how their parent/sibling/child makes a difference.
• Name Recognition. This is another idea borrowed from Professor Kanter—actually, she suggested a graffiti wall—but we think smart folks like our readers may want to spin that a little and add some audio recognition as well.
• Do kid stuff. Remember elementary school assemblies when they'd bring in a magician or sketch artist or a Punch 'n Judy puppet show? This idea may not be no-cost, but it can be cost-effective to take an hour break for a bit of entertainment.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why Small Business Won't Be Hiring
At the end of last year, business economists and government prognosticators alike had a growing list of reasons that small businesses weren't hiring. Chief among the causes were the continuing credit crunch and bleak prospects for future sales.
Even the improving numbers for new orders that looked optimistic at the surface had shadows of pessimism showing around the edges—many of the new sales were not so much "new" as they were restocking of inventories that had been purposely lowered for end-of-year tax reasons.
The results of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 have been either disappointing or abysmal, depending upon who you talk to. By in large, small businesses, which are the creators of half of all non-government jobs, haven't experienced the rising numbers depicted on the colorful bar graphs at Recovery.gov.
As the new year opened, the State of the Union Address promised a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee in 2010. The goal, according to federal officials, was "to encourage businesses that are on the fence about hiring to take the plunge." The problem is that there aren't that many small businessmen who are on the fence. Most are standing firmly behind it and only peeking through the knotholes, waiting to see how the Senate will vote on part of that promise later this month.
More recently, reports of trillion dollar deficits and chatter of coming tax increases have made small entrepreneurs even more cautious. Those who are familiar with history and are wary of its repeating itself know that government spending has never brought private sector recovery.
Additionally, many employers are already operating with employees who have accepted fewer hours just to keep their jobs. Should the economy begin a recovery, the first new hires will be in line behind the part-timers who are waiting to get their full time status back.
In the end, the varied reasons that small businesses are not hiring—the lack of credit, the sluggish sales, the threats of future tax increases, and the surplus of hours for existing employees—are all attached to the same root: uncertainty in the economy. For most small businessmen, the risks of expanding are still too great.
Even the improving numbers for new orders that looked optimistic at the surface had shadows of pessimism showing around the edges—many of the new sales were not so much "new" as they were restocking of inventories that had been purposely lowered for end-of-year tax reasons.
The results of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 have been either disappointing or abysmal, depending upon who you talk to. By in large, small businesses, which are the creators of half of all non-government jobs, haven't experienced the rising numbers depicted on the colorful bar graphs at Recovery.gov.
As the new year opened, the State of the Union Address promised a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee in 2010. The goal, according to federal officials, was "to encourage businesses that are on the fence about hiring to take the plunge." The problem is that there aren't that many small businessmen who are on the fence. Most are standing firmly behind it and only peeking through the knotholes, waiting to see how the Senate will vote on part of that promise later this month.
More recently, reports of trillion dollar deficits and chatter of coming tax increases have made small entrepreneurs even more cautious. Those who are familiar with history and are wary of its repeating itself know that government spending has never brought private sector recovery.
Additionally, many employers are already operating with employees who have accepted fewer hours just to keep their jobs. Should the economy begin a recovery, the first new hires will be in line behind the part-timers who are waiting to get their full time status back.
In the end, the varied reasons that small businesses are not hiring—the lack of credit, the sluggish sales, the threats of future tax increases, and the surplus of hours for existing employees—are all attached to the same root: uncertainty in the economy. For most small businessmen, the risks of expanding are still too great.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Can Bonuses Do More Harm Than Good?
The terms 'greed' and 'Wall Street' have been linked since 18th century traders and speculators met to make deals and bargains under a buttonwood growing along the street. In the 21st century, the term 'Wall Street' has expanded to include the self-indulgence of big business interests and investment banking. When these indulgences dip into the little guy's already shrinking pockets, it is time to cry "Foul!"
With recent government bailouts, that is exactly what is happening. Americans still have a strong sense of fair play. We first learned about fair play from mom when it was time to share the candy, we reinforced our sense of fairness on the Little League fields of our youth, and we demand to see it in business as adults. When Wall Street executives were being handed bonuses—big bonuses—for driving their companies into bankruptcy, the hue and cry could be heard on Main Street. This is anathema to the American conscience: Make good choices, get rewarded; take stupid risks, get rewarded big time!
"But isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?" you may ask. "Aren't risk-takers deserving of the payoff?" Except that once again, government bailouts have siphoned money from other sources to manage a crisis that need not have happened. When those 'other sources' are you and me, we have a rightful responsibility to speak up. It is a problem that has yet to be resolved.
Jack Hough, associate editor at SmartMoney.com, writes, "for risking everything and failing spectacularly, the bosses lost plenty but gained more." He bases his conclusion on research reports from Harvard Law School and The Yale Journal on Regulation that uncovered some mind-boggling numbers. The top executives at Lehman Brothers received $1 billion in cash; those at Bear Stearns totaled $1.4 billion. Even though the executives had personal on-paper loses of millions as their stocks fell during 2007 and into the crisis of 2008, the studies found that the cash payments "substantially exceeded the value of the executives’ initial holdings in the beginning of the period.”
The period for the study stretched back to 2000. The researchers went back that far because the real question that they wanted to answer was not how much cash did the CEOs get, but whether or not the executives had some incentive to make decisions that we can now, in hindsight, label as crazy risk-taking. By looking at this broader time span, the researchers were able to compare cash rewards of the earlier decisions to become heavily involved with mortgage securities against the penalties that occurred later and then determine the overall gain or loss. The conclusion was yes, they had incentive to take wild risks.
The real tragedy is that not much has changed. For those of us who must live on Main Street, it is time to add a new refrain to the protests of "Unfair!" It is time to add, "Use your brain and don't let this happen again!"
With recent government bailouts, that is exactly what is happening. Americans still have a strong sense of fair play. We first learned about fair play from mom when it was time to share the candy, we reinforced our sense of fairness on the Little League fields of our youth, and we demand to see it in business as adults. When Wall Street executives were being handed bonuses—big bonuses—for driving their companies into bankruptcy, the hue and cry could be heard on Main Street. This is anathema to the American conscience: Make good choices, get rewarded; take stupid risks, get rewarded big time!
"But isn't that how capitalism is supposed to work?" you may ask. "Aren't risk-takers deserving of the payoff?" Except that once again, government bailouts have siphoned money from other sources to manage a crisis that need not have happened. When those 'other sources' are you and me, we have a rightful responsibility to speak up. It is a problem that has yet to be resolved.
Jack Hough, associate editor at SmartMoney.com, writes, "for risking everything and failing spectacularly, the bosses lost plenty but gained more." He bases his conclusion on research reports from Harvard Law School and The Yale Journal on Regulation that uncovered some mind-boggling numbers. The top executives at Lehman Brothers received $1 billion in cash; those at Bear Stearns totaled $1.4 billion. Even though the executives had personal on-paper loses of millions as their stocks fell during 2007 and into the crisis of 2008, the studies found that the cash payments "substantially exceeded the value of the executives’ initial holdings in the beginning of the period.”
The period for the study stretched back to 2000. The researchers went back that far because the real question that they wanted to answer was not how much cash did the CEOs get, but whether or not the executives had some incentive to make decisions that we can now, in hindsight, label as crazy risk-taking. By looking at this broader time span, the researchers were able to compare cash rewards of the earlier decisions to become heavily involved with mortgage securities against the penalties that occurred later and then determine the overall gain or loss. The conclusion was yes, they had incentive to take wild risks.
The real tragedy is that not much has changed. For those of us who must live on Main Street, it is time to add a new refrain to the protests of "Unfair!" It is time to add, "Use your brain and don't let this happen again!"
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Social Media: The New Word of Mouth
I recently came across another blog that spoofed a Human Resources robot, claiming that the HRbot would 'spider' all your tweets and social networking info each time you apply for a job. It may have been meant as satire, but there was a kernel of truth in it.
Major—and minor—businesses are posting their company profiles on social media and using them for recruiting new employees. During the hiring process, it is likely that any personal profiles that an applicant may have on the web will be searched. It is not so much that a potential employer is interested in the size of your mob in Mobsters, or how many potatoes you've harvested in Farmtown. It is more that these social networking sites can offer a window into the kind of community that you choose to belong to and provide a fuller picture of who they might be hiring.
The jury is still out on whether tweeting for work is the wave of the future or a passing fad. In the here and now, it is the new word of mouth. Most of the best jobs are filled on the basis of personal word-of-mouth recommendations. The thing to remember is that it works both ways.
With social media such as LinkedIn, which was set up for the purpose of business networking, members expect others to scrutinize their profile. But what about friend networks like MySpace and Facebook? If you are looking for a job, there is a fair chance that the person looking at your application will be looking for your social media profile.
If there really was a spider HRbot, would you get caught in its web?
Major—and minor—businesses are posting their company profiles on social media and using them for recruiting new employees. During the hiring process, it is likely that any personal profiles that an applicant may have on the web will be searched. It is not so much that a potential employer is interested in the size of your mob in Mobsters, or how many potatoes you've harvested in Farmtown. It is more that these social networking sites can offer a window into the kind of community that you choose to belong to and provide a fuller picture of who they might be hiring.
The jury is still out on whether tweeting for work is the wave of the future or a passing fad. In the here and now, it is the new word of mouth. Most of the best jobs are filled on the basis of personal word-of-mouth recommendations. The thing to remember is that it works both ways.
With social media such as LinkedIn, which was set up for the purpose of business networking, members expect others to scrutinize their profile. But what about friend networks like MySpace and Facebook? If you are looking for a job, there is a fair chance that the person looking at your application will be looking for your social media profile.
If there really was a spider HRbot, would you get caught in its web?
Monday, February 8, 2010
Neurodiversity in the Workforce
The twenty-first century has brought a groundswell of multi-cultural diversity to the workforce. For the most part, society has judged that to be a positive thing and employers often seek to achieve it, but what about neurodiversity? Are we equally willing to embrace these differences?
What Exactly is 'Neurodiversity' Anyway?
The term was first coined by Harvey Blume in 1998 for an article he wrote in The Atlantic about geeks and nerds. The neuro- part of the word refers to how the brain is wired. People with neurological conditions like hyperactivity, attention deficit, and high-functioning autism all have brains wired a little differently than what is typical. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is about how they process the information their brain receives. Neruodiversity accepts atypical wiring of the brain as beneficial.
Many examples exist where someone whose brain is wired a little differently has succeeded in life—the absent minded professor, the hyper-active used car salesman, and those who have channeled attention deficits into lively jobs where they thrive as journalists, restaurateurs, or soldiers. Asperger's Syndrome can be an asset when working with the predictability and logic of computer technology.
The Wave of Things to Come?
Blume says that neurodiversity is "not only timely but quite possibly irresistible." Employers who take a fresh and objective view of the hiring process recognize that many people with tons of talent and intellect aren't very good at selling themselves during the job interview. These are people whose neurological wiring is a little different than the conformist team players and the socially adept in-crowd. They are the individuals who solve problems outside the boxes and see things that others may miss.
It is not always easy to integrate someone who thinks or acts a "little funny" into a stable and staid working environment. Change merely for the sake of change is a rash decision. Employers should still be mindful of hiring people with good and honorable character, but a neurologically diverse roster of employees can give a business more flexibility, open up new prospects, and accommodate a wider range of challenges than a cookie-cutter crew.
What Exactly is 'Neurodiversity' Anyway?
The term was first coined by Harvey Blume in 1998 for an article he wrote in The Atlantic about geeks and nerds. The neuro- part of the word refers to how the brain is wired. People with neurological conditions like hyperactivity, attention deficit, and high-functioning autism all have brains wired a little differently than what is typical. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is about how they process the information their brain receives. Neruodiversity accepts atypical wiring of the brain as beneficial.
Many examples exist where someone whose brain is wired a little differently has succeeded in life—the absent minded professor, the hyper-active used car salesman, and those who have channeled attention deficits into lively jobs where they thrive as journalists, restaurateurs, or soldiers. Asperger's Syndrome can be an asset when working with the predictability and logic of computer technology.
The Wave of Things to Come?
Blume says that neurodiversity is "not only timely but quite possibly irresistible." Employers who take a fresh and objective view of the hiring process recognize that many people with tons of talent and intellect aren't very good at selling themselves during the job interview. These are people whose neurological wiring is a little different than the conformist team players and the socially adept in-crowd. They are the individuals who solve problems outside the boxes and see things that others may miss.
It is not always easy to integrate someone who thinks or acts a "little funny" into a stable and staid working environment. Change merely for the sake of change is a rash decision. Employers should still be mindful of hiring people with good and honorable character, but a neurologically diverse roster of employees can give a business more flexibility, open up new prospects, and accommodate a wider range of challenges than a cookie-cutter crew.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
How To Improve Your Payroll Accounting
You have a business to run. Do you really wish to spend your workday caught up in the minutiae of ever-changing payroll tax laws and forms that have numbers and letters for titles instead of real names? No.
You have a business to run. Is it really wise or affordable to disconnect from that aspect of your business and have your payroll completely outsourced? Maybe not.
Between these two extremes is the alternative of using a payroll service with flexible options. A payroll service will take the data on the hours your employees worked, their pay rates, and other payroll-related information and use your numbers to generate the paychecks, payroll reports, and payroll tax filings for you.
Having a good payroll accounting system helps keep both your employees and the government happy, and it can keep you from pulling your hair out. Employees get paid correctly and on time. The government gets its cut correctly, on time, and filed with the proper form. You get a service that helps shoulder the load and frees up more of your time.
Some payroll accounting services will handle just the payroll taxes and filings for you, while you remain hands-on and pay your employees. If you want your payroll service provider to pay your employees, they offer both paper paycheck and direct deposit options. A full-service payroll accounting provider can manage retirement accounts, workmen's compensation, and specialty services for employees who receive much of their income in the form of tips.
The payroll service may use software on your own computer, or you may select to enter data online. Either way, the data has to be entered only once for both paychecks and taxes. The outcomes always match since they both started with the same numbers.
Keeping your data secure is always a priority with a good payroll accounting service. They will also generate accurate, understandable reports that make it easy to see exactly what your labor costs are and to share this information with your accountant. Choosing to use a payroll service is often the simplest way to improve your payroll accounting.
You have a business to run. Is it really wise or affordable to disconnect from that aspect of your business and have your payroll completely outsourced? Maybe not.
Between these two extremes is the alternative of using a payroll service with flexible options. A payroll service will take the data on the hours your employees worked, their pay rates, and other payroll-related information and use your numbers to generate the paychecks, payroll reports, and payroll tax filings for you.
Having a good payroll accounting system helps keep both your employees and the government happy, and it can keep you from pulling your hair out. Employees get paid correctly and on time. The government gets its cut correctly, on time, and filed with the proper form. You get a service that helps shoulder the load and frees up more of your time.
Some payroll accounting services will handle just the payroll taxes and filings for you, while you remain hands-on and pay your employees. If you want your payroll service provider to pay your employees, they offer both paper paycheck and direct deposit options. A full-service payroll accounting provider can manage retirement accounts, workmen's compensation, and specialty services for employees who receive much of their income in the form of tips.
The payroll service may use software on your own computer, or you may select to enter data online. Either way, the data has to be entered only once for both paychecks and taxes. The outcomes always match since they both started with the same numbers.
Keeping your data secure is always a priority with a good payroll accounting service. They will also generate accurate, understandable reports that make it easy to see exactly what your labor costs are and to share this information with your accountant. Choosing to use a payroll service is often the simplest way to improve your payroll accounting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)