Most managers and leaders are very interested in learning what motivates their employees; And for good reason. If we understand that, then we could reward and incentivize them appropriately and this could have, would have, a huge impact on their performance and productivity. However, less time is spent considering factors that do not motivate or can positively demotivate staff. More subtly still, the factors that Hertzberg, the celebrated researcher in this area, called the ‘Hygiene Factors’. As I have written before:

“Your lowest motivation score can be very revealing. The top three motivators are more exciting, but pointing to our lowest motivator can also provide useful clues on how to improve our motivation and our lives. First, ask the question: is he my motivator? lower is the one that is causing me a problem? Sometimes we call it a hygiene factor, which means that the motivator does not motivate us, but its absence can lead to demotivation ”.

One of the really fascinating aspects of motivation is the idea of ​​hygiene factors. It would be very easy to focus on someone’s top three motivators, or a team or the entire organization, and think that one has done the job. But we must be constantly aware that the nine motivators are related in the psyche and therefore affect each other, whatever their rank order. In fact, the least important motivator in terms of its effect on our motivation is paradoxically vital to our overall well-being.

What Hertzberg meant by hygiene factor was some aspect of the job that did not motivate the individual, but its absence could become extremely demotivating. Thus, for example, people in an organization may not be motivated by tea / coffee or snacks in the canteen, but the absence of their availability over time in the workplace can begin to seriously discourage the staff and lead them to have a negative view of the situation. administration. This idea is taken a step further when it comes to mapping motivations and getting a more complete picture of an individual. Perhaps the synonym for “hygiene factors” that best conveys exactly what I mean is: “Achilles heel.” That the absence of some motivators, in a given context, not in an absolute sense, can be extremely detrimental to the performance (and therefore the work well-being) of an individual (and also for the team and the organization). In other words, it can be a very real weakness that affects performance on a deep level.

Some examples here might better illustrate what I mean. Take the motivator of ‘making a difference’. Making a difference is always by someone or by some group. The essence of making a difference means having a customer / customer focus. So, suppose someone is appointed to a position where customer focus is the very essence of the position, AND suppose that the motivator for making a difference is the lowest push in their profile. Problem? Well, the person may have the skill set, the qualifications, the prior experience to fill a customer service role, BUT deep down, they don’t really get excited. Hmm! In the long run, that will definitely prove to be a problem; and it can even be a problem in the short or medium term, depending on the severity of the problem.

Or take the motivator of being in charge, the desire to control and manage, and imagine that this is the lowest in the profile of someone applying for a management position? Or take the competitive desire for more money, and this is the lowest in someone in a commission-driven sales role? Or take the desire for freedom and autonomy, and the applicant applying for a desk job where every 10 minutes of their time must be accounted for and charged to a client? You could analyze the 9 motivators and rank them as the number 9, the least important in someone’s profile, and then provide a job or role context in which it can be clearly seen that this lack of drive has important implications for overall performance.

In this sense, then, it should be clear what I mean by an Achilles heel; it’s a weakness that can literally trip over the work you’re doing, because ultimately you lose the desire, you lose the internal energy, the fire, that makes playing the role fulfilling. One of the tragedies of work is that very few people understand this; if they did, they would stop applying for jobs that will never be able to fill them.

But we must clarify that the search to map the motivators is not only about analyzing problems; it’s all about providing solutions, and here are two solutions that are extremely helpful. One is to avoid the problem before it arises: in other words, use tools to map the motivators in the hiring process. Select more people to work in your organization whose motivators match the roles you have available! It sounds obvious, but it will turn out to be a wonderful and cost-effective way to help companies fix the problem.

The second potential solution is what I call reward strategies. Organizations spend so much time conducting an NCD, or a training needs analysis, why not do a motivational needs analysis? And having done that, also start compiling a list of creative and timely ideas to offset the hygiene factor and allow managers to do the same. So to take an example above, and perhaps the most common, is the motivator ‘seek control or be in charge’ the lowest for someone in a managerial position? The key reward strategy here is to get the manager to accept that managing is not what they want to do and, as a result, increase their knowledge and skills in an area that could compensate for ineffective or negligent management: namely, delegation skills. Although one does not particularly want to manage, if one has effective delegation skills, one can become super competent in this area. So that becomes the positive area to focus on.

Hopefully, as the Hobbit Sam Gamgee says, “It sure is a true revelation!”