LEADERSHIP & NON-MONETARY INCENTIVES
As someone who is keen on Thought Leadership, I very recently decided to start publishing my own based on knowledge acquired; from previous experience in various leadership roles, accounts I’ve read on leadership and meticulous observation of other leadership regimes.
It was in that light I wrote the following…
“The brain is the only organ that science has not been able to recreate. In its uniqueness lies the capacity for long-term innovative success. This is why leaders must focus on developing their people first. Competent people will always be capable of surmounting challenges.”
When I put that out, I was shocked at the number of positive interactions the post received after only a short period of time. Whilst still taking it all in, I received a question from a LinkedIn member, who wanted to know the area(s) leaders should focus on to achieve maximum buy-in from team members and if it is compulsory to use financial incentives as motivational stimulus.
My response to that was quite expansive in itself but concluded with the fact that, motivating a team of individuals within the non-profit sector (where people are involved because of a particular cause and not necessarily because of the financial rewards they seek to gain) has proven to require the more advanced levels of leadership. I even went on to state that any leader that can hold their own within a non-profit organisation and ‘do well’ can and should be classed as a good leader.
This mode of thinking helped formulate the following question on leadership and non-monetary methods of motivation.
What can leaders do to prolong a culture of motivation amongst team members without solely relying on financial impetus to achieve maximum efficiency?
Three key points came to mind which I have decided to briefly elaborate on.
Valued
Over time, I’ve discovered that motivated people feel valued. It is very encouraging when you know that your work is being acknowledged by senior management and is part of the reason for your firm’s success. However, two issues arise when considering this point. Firstly, employees take offense when their work isn’t always pushed upwards or considered. Secondly, a lot of leaders are insecure and as a result, are receiving the praise alone for a solution that was a combination of different individuals or departments.
Solution: Employees should accept that the strategic direction of any organisation lies in the hands of those who must also take responsibility, should that organisation fail. The leaders of such establishments are under immense pressure to consistently deliver and so might not always make the ‘best’ decisions (in your eyes) but are where they are (in most cases) because of their ability to prioritise and say ’No’ and so deserve to be cut some slack.
Furthermore, leaders must understand the invisible power of soothing words such as; “Well-done…Thank you…You made the difference…We achieved this because you…”. And how all team members seek the verbal recognition that far too many leaders fail to provide frequently enough. In addition, all insecure leaders should be made aware of the law of harvest and how what you reap is always far more than what you sow. As the popular proverb says, everyday is for the thief but one day is for the owner. Any leader that fails to restitute their ways, will be exposed one day and could risk losing the trust of key stakeholders.
Broken down
Secondly, motivated people operate in environments where goals are outlined, broken down into smaller steps and supplemented with the perception that the big goals can and will be achieved when the conventional everyday tasks are completed. On the contrary, however, most occupations require employees to ‘go out’, find solutions and ‘deliver’. For a lot of people, the lack of motivation arises from lack of direction; not always knowing what to do next.
Solution: Senior management need to better engage team members by providing more transparent direction. Depending on the nature of the organisation or level of leadership, it might not always be possible to completely describe and analyse each step but in helping all parties see how their current activities fit in with the fulfilment of the ultimate goal, you keep all parties motivated.
Multiple Delegation
Finally, motivated people are people and so will need occasional breaks. Over reliance on one person or department can lead to them burning out. There is a popular saying from the good book, “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak”. At times, senior management (in their desperation to hit targets or please stakeholders) overwork their staff to the point where any mention of the said project or deadline becomes distasteful.
A good leader is someone who finds the equilibrium between overworking and maximising the efficiency of team members.
I must admit, this is something I am still learning. As someone who is a great believer in “When something is working why change it”…I have come to understand that you change it because nothing is everlasting. No matter how good something or someone is, they are not immune to maintenance. According to the google dictionary, to maintain is to cause or enable (a condition or situation) to continue.
Several leaders can not afford to allow for maintenance breaks because they failed to allow for good succession plans.
The truth of the matter is, the best way to alleviate the feeling of burn-out and keep your team consistently motivated, is to apply a combination of financial and non-financial incentives. Where most leaders get it wrong is thinking that offering more money will always result in maintained motivation amongst team members. As far as non-monetary methods of motivation are involved, a working succession plan allows for the ‘main group’ to recuperate and possibly regain any lost interest without losing the process at hand.
It must be said that there are additional points that could be added to this list, so please feel free to mention (in the comments section below) any you find have worked for you; either as leader or beneficiary.
I leave you with these questions to ponder on: Is it cost effective/a wise allocation of already scarce resources to have two departments that do the same thing?
