In search of justice: Obvious principles of motivation of professionals who did not immediately come to mind

Hi, Megamind!

Today we would like to share the text of Mikhail Zavileysky, DataArt CEO and the author of another great article on management. Hope you enjoy!
')

Disclaimer and thanks

I would like to share a lot of thoughts that became mine much later than I would like and did not come to my head “by themselves”. I just happened to hear something, see, read or get advice, and in my head something “fell into place”. I would like to say thank you to everyone by name, but I can't - I only remember David Meister's books, retellings of Mikhail Greenfeld's seminars, and even the faces of half a dozen smartest people whose names I forgot ... And I don’t remember how many I remember! And suddenly someone else will come up with your ideas.

Fundamental principles of professional motivation

All my experience says that motivation and loyalty are more human properties than relationships. If a person is sluggish in principle or alone in life, trying to motivate him or develop loyalty in him is a bad investment of resources. And if really motivated, "he will make any assignment special." You can use the word “motivated” here, but the majority have internal sources for motivation, so let's not complicate things.
Most of the professionals and all the good professionals are motivated people, because they found the strength to study and improve a lot, and they were not stopped by the realization that they would have to continue to learn and improve all their lives. The vast majority of IT-specialists love their work and try to do it well (to the best of their understanding, of course, but this fact gives the job to managers).

All companies have a system of rewards and incentives, tangible and intangible, and occasionally punishments. All this is often called motivation systems, although it seems to me that in reality these are demotivation systems. If we fall into expectations or exceed them, the system works well, if not - we demotivate the initially motivated employees. Since the ideal in managing expectations and rewards is difficult to achieve, demotivation is almost always there, and reducing it is the most constructive task.

In the formulation of “minimizing demotivation”, the focus of the manager is shifted from himself to the environment, system, organization. (Well, yes, I want to be a “motivator” myself, and the “demotivation” is better out of circumstances.) This position is more convenient for most organizational development tasks, it is easier to work in one Cartesian system, rather than jumping between polar ones.
Consider a typical example. A colleague who is unhappy for some reason, but who wants to look cool, comes with a complaint disguised as a proposal for improving the motivation system. The proposal is based on his concrete, fresh, offensively negative experience. It is convenient to immediately divide the discussion into three stages. The first is an analysis of the consequences of such a change for the whole system “on average”, the second is an analysis of the problem of incompatibility of the system and this non-average colleague, and finally, the third is the solution of the problem within an individual approach. The first and second stages can go in any order, depending on the individual characteristics.
Rumming around with a system of rewards and rewards is generally dangerous. If the system is stable, those to whom it suits will be motivated and will continue to work, many will make a career. Those who do not like the system are demotivated and leave the company anyway. The average level of motivation will be decent. But if you constantly change the rules, we will reduce the risk of losing the disgruntled and the level of happiness of the most loyal employees. In the long term, this is undesirable, because it reduces the number of active leaders and “locks up” discontent within the organization.
So, we agreed that we are trying to reduce the demotivating effect of our systems of remuneration, encouragement, management of expectations, etc. It is reasonable to start from the main sources of unhappiness and demotivation, and gradually deal with less significant, while it is practical.

Injustice

The demands of justice are firmly entrenched in my hit parade formulations of the causes of misfortune. Justice does not exist, but the feeling of injustice is quite objectively and terribly distracting, demotivating.
So, our task is not to build a fair system (this is impossible in the general case due to the complexity of social systems), but to fight with a sense of injustice. There are many simple recipes in this area.

Why do you need someone else's salary?

Almost all companies ask colleagues to keep their salaries in secret. It’s not always good to do this. But my typical advice to colleagues is not to be interested in other people's wages at all.
Suppose you find out that your salary is lower than that of a “similar” colleague or average. It's a shame, you are underpaid and underpaid, and you have to go and ask for money, which is unpleasant. And if higher? Oh, so you have little chance of improvement, and so you overpay. This is of course only if you are a pessimist, and your glass is half empty ... But if not, then there is no problem ...
It is much better to have an open policy and service that can be asked to evaluate you and give normal weighted information. Here trust plays a key role. If the company is really concerned about paying market wages, building trust is easy.
Why market? It is unprofitable to earn below the market. Above the market is risky, because Having lost your job, you can hardly find that good, and you and your relatives are already used to the budget. The leader, overpaying, feels power, and the power spoils the character. Of course, market figures are inaccurate and changeable, but finding practical systems for discussing where the payroll balance is shifted and how we should correct the distortions is not so difficult.

Procedural justice

Almost all the phenomena of the world in our perception receive a qualitative and quantitative assessment. For example, three minor news, perceived negatively, can spoil the mood more than one really bad. In this property of our psyche there is a great potential to reduce the feeling of injustice. Someone will call it a manipulation, someone a game, but in practice it is well accepted by all parties, because it allows everyone to feel better.
The simplest example. In the organization there are conflicts for resources, objective. We decide that if I yielded to you, it's time. If next time I am again, this is two. And let's try to live at “0” and not do more than two. Concessions may not be comparable in scale, but it helps.
Among engineers, whose brain is very sharpened for the perception of complex algorithms, much more developed schemes are applicable.
My main source of inspiration here is the task of sectioning a cake of irregular shape or a pile of treasures. Well, let the two of us, we have a chest with values ​​and there is no way to cut it into two exactly equal parts. How to share without a sense of injustice? One divides into two halves, which it considers equivalent, the second chooses half. Summarize the group. One divides, the others choose, he takes the last one for himself. Then the rest of them are dumped again into a heap, and again one divides and takes the last remaining part. We continue until two remain. The essence of the algorithms is to prevent someone from proving an injustice in the absence of objective criteria of fairness, this is what is important.
The project team can argue how to agree on a project bonus and how to divide it so that there is no offense to injustice. The optimal procedure that helps to fight together for the size of the cake is bad, which pretends to fight for their share. With a wise and recognized leader, just distribution of bonuses by the boss, secret or obvious, is suitable. In a team of equals, one can come up with quite sophisticated algorithms, partly analogous to the treasure section and using an alternation of qualitative and quantitative factors.
My most common template (too complex in most cases) is something like this:

• We accept the total prize fund for the whole.
• We select factors and metrics that need to be taken into account, divide by measurable and non-measurable.
• If there are many factors, we group them by regions and agree on weight.
• We establish a procedure that distributes parts of a fund according to factors or groups of factors, for example, each suggests a distribution and the total is averaged.
• We establish the calculation of ratings on non-measurable factors, for example, by polling.
• We agree on the formulas for dividing parts of the fund, in proportion to the factors or the sum of the factors in a group, with weight.

The difficult method of calculation does not give the best result compared to the more simple ones, but in practice the risk that someone feels offended is reduced. Someone “hypnotizes” the procedure, someone prefers to come to terms with the group decision, someone plans to join the game by the rules and catch up, but it turns out calmer.

Thanks

A typical question in the field of bonuses - is there even a need for monetary prize money and difficulties with sharing and resentment? So it turns out that people often want to thank for their efforts. And, at least in the post-Soviet reality, just words of gratitude work well only with personal contact or with elegant implementation. Any pathetic system of moral incentives quickly degenerates into formalism and causes ridicule and irritation more often than appreciation. But if you allocate money beyond what was promised, the holy belief of the majority helps that “the company will not give you money”. It is only important to forget to say, thanks for that, otherwise they will think out the wrong thing, and then it will be bad.

Boredom

The conviction that engineers need to be motivated is largely born of the paradoxical cycle of professional development of a professional (paradoxical is this cycle, however, only for managers and businessmen external to the professional environment).
So, a new employee comes to the company or project. He needs to be trained, and, even if he is superprofi, integrate, enter into a specific context. At this moment, normally, his motivation is high, but the return is not at its peak. Finally, the training or adaptation period is complete, and the return has peaked. Far from the realities of the professional world, the boss or the client wants to exclaim: “Stop, a moment, you are fine!” There is no professional growth, no increase in workload, no reason to raise wages, and returns are at their peak. But then the return begins to fall - the professional, not experiencing difficulties and not learning, is bored and the motivation begins to fall. Requests begin to “increase motivation,” which means “give more money.”
Intuitively professional behaves absolutely reasonable. His assets - knowledge and skills - grow in the learning process. If the assets are not growing, but are being spent, it is reasonable to try to maximize the cash flow generated during the depreciation of assets. Professionals with training, access to new technologies and interesting tasks take part of the payment, and this distinguishes them from workers who ask for more money than the more difficult and longer work.
Wise managers and clients always care about the rotation and periodic relocation of specialists to the area of ​​incomplete competence. But what to do if you are unlucky, and the specialists are “locked” by the contract and circumstances during uninteresting work?
Someone uses gamification as a tool to make the process more interesting. It works, but not in any environment and situation, from experience - it works poorly with mature and busy colleagues.
A good medicine is “managed hack-work” or “social work”. The participation of a team or specialists in additional, preferably internal for the company and creative projects is often the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, there will be own startups or hack-work on the side, and the level of loyalty to them can outgrow the company’s loyalty level. But even if you appeared on the side, it is better to agree on how to live further and avoid risks, and not to arrange disassembly.

Deficit and existential needs

People want to feel better, motivated by this. But needs are different, as is the improvement that follows their satisfaction.
Deficit needs are acute, but, being satisfied, they immediately lose their strength. Everyone remembers that it is impossible to be distracted by the lessons, but, as an exception, you can ask for the toilet. Because the deficiency need for additional bladder volume makes the rest not so important, including rules and authorities. Good Internet in the workplace is a professional need. If not, the trouble when there is - well, 10 times thicker - in general, better, but not particularly important. The reverse side of the deficit needs - hygienic motivational factors: the climate in the office, functional workplaces, the payment of salaries in the agreed amounts and on time, etc.
Existential needs cannot be saturated and are different for different people and at different periods of life. The existential need for power will break through either in career zeal, or in an attempt to usurp information, or in moods and an attempt to make everyone wait. Other popular existential needs are self-realization, recognition, creativity, harmony, freedom. Existential needs are extremely important, they underlie the motivation of professionals, and can push both constructive and destructive actions.
Here I want to apologize that in this article it is impossible to talk about working with existential needs - this is too big and complex topic. I can only say that they should be treated with respect. These needs are not sharp, but their strength is enormous. If a spring is concreted, a cliff may collapse. If you do not give to create a creative person, his ingenuity can take destructive and even criminal forms. If an immensely sociable person is disconnected from social networks, the attendance of a smoking room and the consumption of office coffee will increase, as well as the loss of time distracted by real-time colleagues.
It is easier to work systematically and individually with deficient needs.
Crystal clear toilets are good, but accessibility is more important. Now we have in Buenos Aires - a small office in a large building, and when both breaks between continuous telephons fall on the manic-frequent toilet cleaning on the floor - this is very demotivating. Cookies, water, windows or ventilation, air conditioning, a first-aid kit in the office are essential, it helps to instantly solve problems with acute physiological needs. Caring about the health of employees and ergonomics - the topics are large and complex, but giving the opportunity to drown out the demotivators is simply beneficial.

Individual approach and deals

Problems and temptations

Alas, acute and short-term needs occur in colleagues and outside the physiological framework. We urgently need money, because a child is sick or a successful car deal has turned up, and the rest is no longer important. Offended in the project and I want an apology or revenge. Divorce, alimony and the new marriage struck a hole in the budget. The owners refused to extend the lease and need money for bail. I want a new laptop so that you can work from home, but not simple, but cool. All this has little relevance to the professional side of the matter, but it strongly influences the work. If the needs and problems are acute, then they are very distracting. On the other hand, such problems are opportunities to strengthen relations with an employee, often by small means.
The first thing to do is to understand how to solve a problem. It seems to me that the optimal policy is to divide all problems into three classes:

• Personal problem caused by reasons beyond the control of the employee. For example, a threat to the life or health of an employee or his immediate family. In this case, the company can and should use the resources to solve the problem. Most often these are interest-free loans, material assistance, aid fees, etc., sometimes communications and other resources. While the statistics did not create a contradiction between such assistance and the financial stability of the company.
• Mutually beneficial transactions, for example, a loan to buy a laptop, to be able to work from home, or to participate in a conventionally useful conference. It is worth helping here, if possible, and the scope of the possible is determined by budgets or other financial instruments. And it is important not to create freebies: an additional holiday or interest-free loan is good, but a paid trip to the conference overseas will create a queue in no time
• One or another loss of profit. For example, an employee does not have time to take a loan for a bargain purchase or use a preferential loan repayment. In this case, the company should be conservative, since the demand here can easily exceed any limits. Loans below the market rate are already a form of compensation and management of non-core activities, with incomprehensible organizational and tax consequences. Here it is necessary to clarify and deny, and only extremely short-term ones should go for exceptions, under the guarantee of the management, even in the case when the employee accurately realizes the scale of the assistance provided and the degree of risk.

I often came up with the idea of ​​tying employees to a company with housing loans, etc. This practice seems to me unwise for the same reasons as paying salaries above the market. In fact, this is an indirect restriction of freedom, which may not have negative consequences for someone, but on average leads to an increase in the number of those who work in the company only for material reasons, grumbles and spills despondency over the content and organization of work. Yes, and to fire any employee is not easy - he has no money to repay a loan ...

Barriers and "bribes"

I met a few professionals who were not ready to agree on almost anything for good money. Often the money offer is the easiest way to solve a question or reach a compromise, but this method must be used skillfully.
Choosing a bonus or an increase in salary is already a problem. 100 thousand rubles often look steeper than an increase of 10 thousand per month, and 10 thousand a year later - more than 100K. On the other hand, sooner or later the salary will still have to be raised, and 100 thousand will be forgotten in a year. Other things being equal, I believe that if an employee’s salary is below the market level, it is necessary to raise it. If on the market (well, accuracy here is 20%, usually plus or minus) - we look at the situation, but also here, and when the salary is higher than the market, the one-time bonus is usually more practical. It carries a much lower risk of a sense of injustice and intracorporate inflation.
Another important factor - the increase often leads to "unpredictable" consequences, such as taking a mortgage loan and the emergence of an acute need for money than a one-time bonus. One-time bonus is often “pure joy” - toy, entertainment, etc.
Therefore, one-time deals with one-time bonus are practical. Often deals help a professional get a simple explanation of “why am I doing this”. To take two juniors instead of a middle one - hemorrhoids, but for a bribe you can agree and even have fun, educating young people is a good thing. And if someone asks why they didn’t give it to me, a simple answer is often enough: there was a unique opportunity, you will have it, and we will give it to you. There is no rule, no comparison, just luck, we are used to it.
Long-term deals such as project bonuses, which clients and managers often give unhappy employees to continue doing their boring or boring work — a tool that is much more dubious. Yes, again the exit barriers and the accumulation of misfortune. But for a period of three to six months is often the normal option. For example, it is difficult to agree on a replacement with a client or a manager right now, but it’s more realistic to agree on a replacement in six months and there will be more arguments in time.
But the most important thing to remember is: money is a good incentive and a strong demotivator. Demotivation from income reduction is much stronger than the motivation from its increase. Therefore, it is worth remembering that the premium that a year pays monthly is very painful to take away.
However, time and space limited transactions remain a working tool for an individual approach, far less toxic, more practical and cheaper to administer than complex systems for calculating labor participation, individual contracts or the “special relationship” of the authorities.

Abstract and Concrete Heads

The chemistry of the relations between the boss and the subordinate is a complex thing, and in the matrix and project organization, and with different hierarchies and client domination, is generally beyond the scope of analysis in general.
But one trap is found very often. According to the way to build relationships with reality, people are concrete and abstract. More precisely, you can try to place everyone on the scale of thinking, from concrete to abstract.
Concrete people build a picture of the world from the particular to the general, see the reality not very muddled, act decisively and according to circumstances, reflect less and are usually more productive. Abstract people think from the general to the particular, are inclined to build metamodels and only within their framework look at specific cases. Abstract people are more inclined to see problems where there are none, but they may notice that there is no problem in the conflict that has happened and suggest win-win instead of a compromise. Abstract people act more slowly, but better cope with complexity, uncertainty, contradictions.
What is important? Under the concrete leader, only the most cunning and flexible abstract subordinate can successfully make a career. Everyone survives under the abstract leader, he will rather think in the categories “how to adapt a good person to the job,” while the concrete will try to teach and force him to do what is necessary (in his opinion). At the same time, the tradition is still alive to raise successful ones, and due to greater productivity, specific people are more successful in the initial stages of their careers. They gradually replenish the ranks of the authorities, experiencing difficulties after this with the recruitment of subordinates. Tops are trying to rectify the situation, lowering the policies and regulations that are adopted by specific leaders literally and ossify.
What to do, to raise less effective abstract colleagues through the heads of top performers? In a professional environment, two circumstances save us.
First, the manager and the performer are not the boss and subordinate, they are partners, normally equal, just doing different jobs. In a normal IT organization, engineers and managers should not be “class-wise” to differ in salaries at equal levels of maturity, and career paths should be shown as parallel.
Secondly, there are very few concrete people in the professional environment. Most often, engineers and IT managers have developed abstract thinking, but are not taught how to apply it to managing people (and personal life, too, what they make fun of on TV). Therefore, learning how to manage people is an eternal hit in engineering companies, and yes, you should invest here first of all.

Autonomy

Closes the demotivators charts violation of autonomy. In terms of toxicity, this is comparable to the "clamping" of the bonus or canceled leave, only it can happen every day.
Professionals need autonomy, it's easier to accept it as an axiom. Lack of autonomy demotivates fatally, violation - acute.
At the basic, initial level of a trainee or junior in the framework of the simplest instructions, this principle is translated into the presence of at least some autonomy. It is necessary to paint the fence - let the performer choose the color. You can not color - a brush or roller. It is impossible - well, let him at least decide where to start and in what mode to work. Experience is the son of difficult mistakes, and we must have the space to make them. Therefore, the obviously best way to do things is far from being always optimal, paradoxically it sounds.
When a professional has a significant area of ​​responsibility, the invasion of it is an irritant and a sign of distrust. Micromanagement is a constant irritant and a sign of distrust of the absolute. All this is demotivating. But what about a manager who does not trust (has the right), is afraid (also a person) and is going through (he also has a zone of responsibility)? Remember that it is necessary to skillfully violate autonomy:

1. With a warning, an apology and an explanation.
2. Delicately - asking, demonstrating not commanding, but “guest” behavior.
3. Showing gratitude (in the end, time and patience are taken away) and constructive (to think and discuss how to minimize the invasion in the future).

In the end, getting in, the manager or subcontractor just took off a little anxiety, and demotivation will have long-term consequences, it is more profitable to try.
At the system level (and when working with clients) the potential for maintaining autonomy lies in proactive reporting. By making your work understandable, and progress is observable - you can significantly reduce the expenditure of energy and the level of irritation. In the end, inviting and receiving guests is rather cool, and uninvited guests themselves know who ... And yes, this is also taught.