In fact, almost all managers recognize the importance of employee motivation. However, often the force is not right, resulting in a huge sense of powerlessness for managers, and employees do not appreciate it.
In the end, the manager felt that other people's employees were struggling to work overtime, and the employees felt that other people's bosses were trying their best to pay.
How to make yourself "other people's boss" and let your employees become "other people's employees"? We must be aware of 3 issues:
"Money" is a question, but not just "how much"
I once gave a private enterprise a talent incentive consulting project, and the company boss asked me a question:
Internet companies can attract so many outstanding young people and work so hard. Is there any way to make our employees do the same? However, we are a traditional industry, and wages are not comparable to them.
I thought about it for a while, looked at him seriously and said: No.
To this conclusion, I am not speaking from the perspective of employees. Because it is difficult for someone who is a business owner to understand the difference between 5,000 yuan and 6,000 yuan for ordinary employees.
However, from the perspective of managers, my conclusion will not change, because: free or low-priced things are always the most expensive, including employees.
When I was recruiting a course product manager before, several readers came to me and said that if I wanted to work outside the circle, I could ask for a small salary or no salary, as long as I learned something.
But I didn't accept it in the end, for a very simple reason: I have to spend time mentoring any employee who comes over to design a good course; if he doesn't do his job well, I have to do it myself.
Therefore, if I hire the wrong person, it means that I am using my time cost to offset his salary, which is too expensive.
Taking a step back, even if the other party is the right person, if we cannot form a contractual relationship through a certain salary, I will feel insecure, and I am worried that I will spend a lot of time teaching him, and he will leave the next day after patting his butt. , this is still a huge time cost for me, too expensive.
Therefore, for the truly suitable and potential talents (please pay attention to the modifier), it is the most cost-effective way for managers to pay enough wages.
But this point, most managers have not figured out, for two reasons:
First: Managers see employees as costs, not resources. While most companies have changed "personnel department" to "human resources department", claiming that talent is their resource, in fact, from my experience, very little can be done. Whether it's money, time, energy, or opportunity, most managers are reluctant to invest in talent.
Second: the manager does not see himself as a resource and does not see the value of his time. While viewing employees as costs, many managers view themselves in the same way. Therefore, they are reluctant to nurture and empower themselves to take their time out of transactional work and to value their time higher.
Having said that, does paying enough salary solve all the problems? Certainly not. Money is something that has always been "inequitable rather than widowhood".
So what is "average"? The "average" here does not refer to an even distribution, but to make employees feel "average". In the standard of employees, "average" has two standards:
Criterion 1: Compare with the rest of the team
Every employee has a reference when weighing how much he is worth, and this reference is often the people around him. But the problem often lies here.
American scholars Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize winner, author of "Thinking, Fast and Slow") once proposed the "availability bias", which means: because of the limitations of memory or knowledge, when we judge, Always use information that is familiar or easy to imagine.
This can lead to a disproportionate share of information that is obvious, easy to remember, and more vivid, while ignoring other potentially more valuable information.
This "availability bias" will cause each employee to remember their own contributions clearly, but not see the contributions of other colleagues.
Therefore, in a company, everyone will feel that their abilities and contributions are greater than that of their colleagues. Of course, they believe that the salary should also be higher than that of their colleagues.
Therefore, for a core employee, the boss increases his salary from 15,000 to 20,000 yuan, which is a big increase, but if the employee finds out that his colleagues around him are also 20,000 yuan, he will soon feel unhappy, considered unfair.
how to solve this problem? The core is that work output needs to have convincing measures. There are many ways to do it, and I will write a separate article to expand it later.
Criterion 2: Compare with your own contribution
Every company has its own philosophy on the relationship between work output and compensation. With the same amount of money:
Some companies' philosophy is: Hire 3 people to do 5 people's work and get 4 people's money; while other companies' philosophy is: Hire 5 people to do 4 people's work and get 3 people's money.
In the former company, employees are paid more, but the latter seems to be more cost-effective. Which one does the employee approve of? Which approach should the company take? It's hard to generalize.
In fact, there is no right or wrong between these two concepts. It depends on the nature of the work, the industry, and the characteristics of the team members.
The former is suitable for industries with rapid development, high work complexity and obvious individual roles, such as Internet companies; the latter is suitable for industries with stable, single work tasks and low individual criticality, such as traditional state-owned enterprises.
However, managers must know what kind of philosophy is suitable for their team. If there is a mismatch, management collapses. For example, I have seen many teams, obviously in the industry that should be 354, but use the 543 management method, which leads to attracting people who are messing around, while excellent talents leave one after another, and bad money drives out good money.
So I say, "money" is indeed an issue, but not just "how much."
"Development" is the problem, but not only "painting"
Employees often say: My boss has made cakes for me again.
Antoine, the author of The Little Prince, once summed up: If you want to build a ship, try not to recruit employees to collect wood, and do not assign them any tasks and jobs, but teach them to yearn for the vastness of the sea.
I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, and I don't think there's anything shameful about drawing cakes. The reason is simple: who doesn't yearn for the sea? Who wants to face wood all day?
"A Brief History of Humanity" mentioned that it was a major breakthrough that Homo sapiens could begin to understand "imagined things", which allowed us to come together to fight the enemy, and became an important reason for our victory over Neanderthals.
Therefore, yearning for the sea is our instinct. If there is no hope in the future, and work is almost like eating and dying, why am I still doing this job? I also wrote in the last article: One of the most important jobs of managers is to explore the significance of work for the future development of employees.
What's more, money alone won't attract the people you want. Good people are often good because they have a long-term vision, a growth mindset, and are good at and willing to learn.
Such talents will regard work as a platform and view any opportunity from a development perspective. Therefore, it is difficult to impress them if a temporary high salary cannot be accompanied by long-term development potential.
Therefore, the ability to "paint pie" is indeed an important part of leadership.
However, why do many managers make cakes every day, but in the end they have no effect? There are two reasons:
1) This cake is not what employees want to eat, but only what managers want to eat
The butt decides the head, employees and managers are in different positions, and their concerns must be different. What managers care about is whether the company can develop rapidly and whether the team can win. What employees care about is: as the company develops, will my position and salary increase along with it? Have my abilities improved?
If you blindly emphasize the company's prospects and department development, but don't tell employees what the benefits will be to them after development, no matter how big the pie is, it will not be attractive.
So, spend more time with your employees, care for them, empathize with them, figure out whether they want more money, a higher position, or a sense of achievement in changing the world in the future, and then draw based on their needs. cake. What people want is obviously steamed buns. If you try to promote how delicious the steamed buns are, don't feel that the other party doesn't appreciate it.
2) I often draw cakes, but in the end I can't always eat them
A lot of cakes, never eaten. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me
If employees never get to eat, they will soon see the manager as a liar and stop believing him. Therefore, to promise any future, at least you must truly believe in your heart and fight with all your strength.
I once consulted for a fast-moving consumer goods company. At that time, the sales boss encountered a problem: when the plan was made at the beginning of the year, in order to stimulate the launch of new products, it was said that the bonus would be doubled when 130% was reached this year. However, it was later discovered that the popularity of the new product far exceeded expectations. It was only half a year after the launch, and it exceeded the target. If this trend continues, the sales team will be able to get a lot of bonuses even if they lie down in the second half of the year. This is actually caused by the misjudgment of the market by the senior management team, so should the bonus be issued?
At that time, many employees of the sales team, and even middle-level managers felt that the company could not be released.
Finally, the senior management team held a meeting and decided: send! Because the sales team is very particular about execution, and the sales boss is a profession that often needs to draw cakes. This time, he drew such a big cake, but he was not willing to give it in the end. In the future, the team will not have any execution ability.
As for worrying about not working hard in the second half of the year, they also made a decision: a bonus that was supposed to be distributed at the end of the year, part of the bonus will be distributed to employees first, so as to reassure people and let everyone know that the management is all about what they say. Then, keep another part of the bonus and add another one to adjust the sales target, promising everyone that if the new target is achieved by the end of the year, you will get more.
Finally, by the end of the year, the sales performance was twice the original target, and it also exceeded the new target. The employees did not give up their efforts because of the bonus.
Therefore, "painting a pie" is very necessary, but it is not just about drawing a pie and it is over.
"Culture" is a problem, but not just "verbal"
When it comes to corporate culture, the first reaction of many people is: every morning at a meeting, a group of people stand in a row, holding an employee handbook and reading it aloud.
The second reaction is: innovation, efficiency, loyalty, pursuit of excellence, honesty and trustworthiness, customer first... a bunch of slogans.
Might as well find out if there are any of the above words in your company culture, 80% of them can't escape. However, if you find an employee, ask him: What does innovation mean in your company culture? What do you have to do to be in line with the company culture? He was mostly dumbfounded.
Does that mean no corporate culture is needed? Isn't the so-called culture, are all very imaginary things? On the contrary, culture is very, very, very important.
A person's behavior is influenced by several types of factors, including his: 1) personality traits, values, and motivations; 2) behavioral abilities; 3) past experiences; 4) social roles; and 5) external environment. The first three are internal factors of the individual, and the latter two are external factors.
This means that a person's behavior is not constant and only related to himself, but related to his social role and the external environment. It's also easy to understand that our behavior in front of our parents, spouses, colleagues and clients is often very different.
So, in a company, what determines a person's social role and external environment? culture.
We all have this experience, when you start a company, you are very reserved and don't know what to do with yourself. At this time, you tend to carefully observe the behavior of colleagues, and then adjust their behavior accordingly. This is the power of culture.
So what is a good company culture? Are they really the politically correct slogans of "sincere, innovative, and the pursuit of excellence" we mentioned above? uncertain.
There is such a company: if an employee makes a mistake once, they will be warned and fired the second time; in 4-5 years, the entire company can basically be replaced; the performance, promotion, and retention of employees all depend on the subjective judgment of managers; Old employees who have been dedicated to the company for many years will be fired directly if they do not meet the needs of development. Although the interview is 6-8 rounds of exams, the CEO does not recruit personally, he thinks he will know more after 3-6 months of work. You can try it first, and if it doesn't work, give a high compensation, and then continue to recruit people.
Moreover, they lay off 1/3 of their employees every year. Only profitable departments can survive, and others will be cut off. Of course, they also have good points, that is, employees can take as long as they want, and no one cares about you. If you perform very well, you will get a very high salary return.
Is this company culture bad? Can I be blacklisted for job seekers? It is believed that neither managers nor employees can think that this is a good culture that is conducive to attracting and retaining talents.
In fact, it's Netflix, the producer of the hit American show "House of Cards." Founded in 1997, it was originally a DVD rental business. Later, it has undergone several iterations, dared to change its own life, and it has been thriving for many years, and it has successfully transformed into streaming media. Netflix, on the other hand, has recruited almost the best talent in this field.
Netflix's CEO said very directly that "the company is not a family" and that their company culture is "freedom and responsibility." For good people, they're not afraid to work in a high-pressure, high-competition environment because they can always win in the end. But what these great people want is freedom, and Netflix gives it very well.
So, want more freedom? Then you have to take more responsibility! ——Nexflix implements such a company culture to the extreme.
Therefore, no company culture is the best, only the most suitable. Look at your industry, your company, and the characteristics of the people on your team to create the right team culture.
In addition, there are many misunderstandings when creating a culture. When most managers shape the team culture, the way they use it is nothing more than: often shouting slogans in various occasions, publicly criticizing and accusing when they encounter behaviors that do not conform to the culture, and telling stories and emotions in meetings to tears .
Some students from outside the circle shared their companies with me and found that many managers attach great importance to corporate culture. They often hold symposiums, lectures, and invite trainers to train to instill company values.
However, at any time, managers must know a fact, that is: the three most useless education methods in the world are reasoning, losing temper, and deliberately moving.
So what is a useful method? Lead by example, lead and be an example. About these points, I will have the opportunity to expand on them later.
So, culture is a big issue, but not a "slogan" issue.
http://36kr.com/p/5088424.html