TribalInstinct
As a human animal it is very difficult for me to work in my work environment. This fact in no way relates to the caliber of my co-workers both professionally and personally. In fact my current employment outshines all my previous work environments in every possible category. So my observation touches on a very fundamental aspect of my current position and how it relates to me as a HumanAnimal. I can go for days without performing any job duties and no one around me will notice. I can bust my ass for days and no one around me will notice. This is most likely a delusion of mine so I will attempt to be more precise and raise the main issue as it relates to human behavior. I can go for days without performing any job duties and no one around me will change their behavior toward me enough for me to notice. I can bust my ass for days and no one around me will change their behavior toward me by any perceptible degree. Now the relationship between my first assertion and this last one should begin to resolve.
Motivating the human animal can be much like motivation the ocean. The complexities of the domain stagger our collective ability to understand it. Yet we can identify basic fundamental forces that impact the human animal in significant ways much like the moon and the sun impact the behavior of the ocean. Even as homo sapien awoke from the cognitive soup in which it was born, it was interconnected by a sense of tribe. Each individual found itself part of a family of families. The tribe’s survival and thus homo sapien’s survival depended on integrating each individual into the tribe. <uneducated speculative hypothesis> From an evolutionary point of view, this single advantage gave homo sapien the edge over all of its land dwelling brethren. </hypothesis> The individuals relationship to tribe runs deep in the cognitive makeup of the human race. To use a currently accepted analogy, one might say this need is hardwired in us.
So in our current society we find ourselves searching for relationship to tribe. In my home nation especially, the concept of tribe by family relations has drifted to the point of near irrelevance. As an individual, I have been able to take care of myself and my children without relying at all on even my own parents much less my larger extended family. So, we instinctively try to build tribes based on other types of relationships, the most obvious of which is our workplace.
Now the workplace tribe is a much different organism than the one our more primitive ancestors knew. In fact we find ourselves not truly at home, for the most part, at a deep level in this strange new environment. The workplace tribe we know today takes its form from our collective cognitive sensibilities, which, more often than not, are completely out of sync with our more primitive selves. <intuitive speculation> At the end of the day our ancestor would have been acutely aware of his changing status within the tribe based on his performance that day. He would have received many and varied signals from several members in the tribe to this effect. </speculation> This reinforcement has a deep, sub cognitive, effect on the human animal as stated in Skinners Law. The fact that this reinforcement moves along the tribe relationships doubles the impact of the reinforcement affect.
So we find that our current tribes are significantly hindered from being effective motivators because our current social framework prohibits true reinforcement of an individual’s contribution. To compensate for this often overlooked deficiency managers will implement other, usually superficial, inducements such as bonuses and the like. Creating a social framework in which contribution or lack of contribution is instantly recognized by the individual will prove to be a far more productive and efficient solution.
Now the sticky part. How can we create an organization that harnesses the potential of our tribal instinct without so completely violating our cultural norms as to be unacceptable by the average person? --DavidSiegel
Well DavidSiegel, I think you need a bit more observation, input, and analysis, but you are on the right track. IMAO, :-D
I agree, and thank your for taking the time to slog through my wordy ramblings. :-) That is what makes this WikiThing so dern cool. I can toss a half baked idea out there then get a chance to synthesize it with everyone else's perspective. Hopefully at the end of the day I will have a broader and more expanded workbench in my mind which I can use for future problem solving and analysis. --DS
We humans are social beings. Well, almost all of us, anyways. As social beings, we form social relationships with all that we interact with. As emotional beings, we form emotional bonds with those we interact with. Taking our social and emotional aspects together, we form emotional, social bonds to those we interact with. Now, depending on the feedback we get, these bonds can grow quickly or slowly. However, they do grow so long as there is interaction of some form.
This can work against us. Such as when someone is abusive. The non-abusive interactions strengthens our social and emotional bonds, making it more difficult for us to leave the abuser. This can work for us, such as allowing us to form a bond of friendship and respect with neighbors, despite having little in common with them, other then some neighborhood activities.
These elements, social and emotional bonding, helped strengthen our group's loyality to itself, encouraging the sharing of all resources within the group (herd, troop, pride, whatever you want to call it).
In the work environment, if you want a family sort of atmosphere, work for a small company. In a small company, everyone is more aware of each other, and tend to form closer ties, and their work quality and effort tends to be well known. In a large company, while you can form the similarly strong bonds, work effort and work quality tends to be removed by the corporate mechanism from any corporate work consequences. Hence, less importance to the worker's environment.
---StarPilot
%%%
This last paragraph nails what I am after. In a small family like enterprise the handful of employees will likely have strong enough bonds that they will want to work hard. If the relationships are close enough, then they will be more likely to confront the one who is slouching and recognize the one who is giving the extra effort. This reinforcing feedback brings out the best in all involved. Even in this environment it can be difficult to engender these types of open and honest relationships. Most of the time we are afraid to hurt each others feelings. In a corporate setting it almost never happens.
Part of reason for this has to do with shared risk. In the case of our ancient ancestors, the risk and reward was shared by all, sink or swim. Another extreme example is a squad of infantry soldiers in a live battle. I imagine that when your life depends on the performance of the one next to you, you will most likely give him some constructive feedback should he fall asleep in the foxhole while on watch. In a corporate environment there are generally a relatively small number of shareholders. Only the shareholders shoulder the risk of failure and the real reward of success, return on investment. Everyone else is working for a paycheck. As long as I do enough to not get noticed by the boss then I am doing good. I may have a good friendly relationship with the guy in the next cube. If I notice him sleeping on his keyboard, well, let him sleep. (deliberate hyperbole) I have no real incentive to tell him to wake up and get to work. My paycheck does not depend on his performance. Of course there is a limit to what we will accept from a co worker even in a corporate environment. Deep down we believe we are all in it together, and that we need each other to survive.
So how can we apply this principle? What would an enterprise look like that recognizes this principle and uses it to the benefit of itself and its members?
---DavidSiegel
You would need to have everyone work tightly together in their individual business units. Then, when your buddy slacks off, it means more work for you. That will lead people to give back negative feedback. And when someone does something extra, this tends to result in being given positive feedback. And this tends to create that 'Small Business' atmospher.
Other then that? You'd need to directly tie someone's pay/raise/whatever to their job performance.
---StarPilot