News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Life
Culture & Art
Hobbies
News
Entertainment
Science & Technology
Culture & Art
Hobbies
Innovation
Why Incentives So Often Fail | Digital Tonto
Many managers spend a lot of time and energy designing compensation schemes to incentivize performance. Yet as Daniel Pink explained in Drive, decades of studies show incentive pay often decreases productivity, especially for tasks that require creative thinking. He argues that the best way to motivate people is to give them opportunities for autonomy, mastery and purpose. The 19th century philosopher Immanuel Kant believed strongly in the notion of dignity, which he defined as treating people as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. I’ve found that Kant’s ideas about dignity are essential to managing employees, customers and partners. Nobody wants to be a cog in somebody else’s machine. When you treat people as ends in themselves you make their goals your own. You want employees to do more than perform tasks, but to attain their potential. You see customers as more than a way to pay the bills, but as central to the mission of the enterprise. You want communities to be invested in your success, rather than just tolerate your existence. So rather than working to construct some Rube Goldberg-like incentive structure and then adjusting it every time you want a change in behavior, try treating people with dignity. Think about what they want to achieve in terms of autonomy, mastery and purpose and make it clear how their actions can advance your collective mission. Sound leadership is not about prodding to get people to do what you want, but attracting those who want what you want and leading them with shared values in pursuit of a shared purpose.
The Identity Trap | Digital Tonto
On September 17th, 2011, protesters began to stream into Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan and the #Occupy movement had begun. “We are the 99%,” they declared and as far as they were concerned, it was time for the reign of the “1%” to end. The protests soon spread like wildfire to 951 cities across 82 countries. Despite all the hoopla, within a few months, the streets and parks were cleared. The protesters went home and nothing much changed. Occupy was, to paraphrase Shakespeare, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Eventually, even its founder had to admit it was all a dismal failure, while he voiced support and admiration for Donald Trump. This pattern of hype leading to discredit is not just for social justice warriors. Business leaders are prone to many of the same pitfalls. Fads like six sigma, stack ranking and the war for talent emerge for a time and create a cascade in which adherents rush to not only adopt a practice, but signal their inclusion into the tribe. Later, when the idea is found wanting, it is discarded and something else comes along. A lot of damage is done along the way. This is the identity trap: if we're not careful, signaling our identity can become more important than the underlying idea itself. Yet, our identities are not fixed. They grow and evolve over time as we add new elements and shed of others—switching careers, moving to new places, or shifting relationships. “Identity can be used to divide, but it can and has also been used to integrate,” Francis Fukuyama wrote in his book on the subject. And that is the challenge for anyone who wants to lead an endeavor of any significance: How can you create an inclusive identity that doesn't divide and ostracize those who don’t belong, but that integrates and empowers? If you are to achieve anything meaningful, you can’t just preach to the choir, but must venture out of the church and mix with the heathens.
We Live In Dangerous, Confusing Times. Here’s How To Make Sense Of Them. | Digital Tonto
Western society tends toward reductionism. We focus on our own particular area of expertise, learning subtle nuances largely invisible to those outside the field. As a result, we tend to overvalue developments within our realm of knowledge, while that which lies outside our immediate attention often seems less relevant. Yet the reality is that everything is connected. We simply can’t separate the forces of technology, economics and identity. So while Silicon Valley types wax glowingly about the wonders of the latest advance, waves of disruption crash through people’s lives, creating crises of identity that result in backlash, undermining progress that could have potentially been made. These forces can bubble beneath the surface for decades, while incumbent institutions try to keep a lid on them, curbing the worst of the turmoil, confusion and disorder they create. But eventually, they must be dealt with and some fundamental change to the existing order—a revolution— needs to take place. That is the point at which the danger is greatest. History tends to converge and cascade around certain points and we seem to be at one now. The philosopher Martin Heidegger thought about technology in terms of both revealing and building. The forces of the universe being what they are, we do not have much choice in what we uncover. Yet how we create and channel technologies such is very much in our control. The choices we make not only reflect who we are, but what we will become. We can’t separate the forces of technology and economics from that of identity, because they are inextricably intertwined. We are, no doubt, at a time of great potential, with technology advancing to such a point that we may soon have the power to create infinite energy, shape biology and conquer space. What we lack is a shared vision for what we want the world to be. Surviving progress is always a matter of identifying and leveraging shared values. As Francis Fukuyama has written, “Identity can be used to divide, but it can also be used to integrate,” and that is how we navigate to the other side.
Communicate A Vision To Shift Strategy, Shape Networks To Change Behavior | Digital Tonto
The 18th century French enlightenment writer Voltaire once said, “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms,” and we need to approach transformation with a similar mindset. Some transformations require changes in investments, while others require changes in behaviors and these have very different challenges. Until fairly recently, our economy was based on atoms and transformations were usually focused on strategic decisions such as building a new factory, entering a new market or launching a new product line. These types of decisions fall squarely within the authority of senior managers and rarely inspire much internal resistance. It is to communicate clearly at every stage so that the rest of the organization can effectively align. However, when a transformation is focused on changing behaviors, leaders should expect significant resistance. With these types of transformational programs, early alignment is not possible and leaders need to form a coalition. It’s important to start slowly, identify people who are enthusiastic about the change, want it to succeed and focus on an early keystone change to gain traction, before the project can accelerate. What leaders need to recognize is that the vast majority of transformations today are not strategic and consensus-driven, but focused on shifting behaviors and coalition-driven. Over-communicating can provoke early resistance and will likely undermine what you’re trying to achieve. Decades of research shows that people adopt behaviors that they see working for people around them, not those they just hear about or that are dictated to them from above. So the first thing you need to ask before undertaking any transformational effort is whether the goal is to change a strategic asset or to shift behaviors. The answer will determine how you need to move forward.