Culture and Motivation

I interviewed an H.R. director of a national software company.  She asked that I keep her name and the name of the company confidential.  She will be referred to as the Unnamed One, or U.O., for this discussion.  U.O. has been with this organizion for five years and has been in human resources for twelve.

LD:  Hi U.O. thanks for taking time out of your weekend to chat with me.

UO:  Not a problem.  I hope I can helpful.

LD: How do you identify top talent when recruiting?

UO:  Software engineers as an example – education is a strong indicator of success.  I look at past companies they’ve worked for and career progression.  I look for technical language terms and very specific computer languages.  I also look for an element of creativity.  For example, one engineer used a pictorial representation of his success and I had to play a game to get to his actual CV.  This told me he was innovative and not afraid to take risks. 

LD: What qualities do you look for in a top-performer?

UO:  I look for individuals who will exemplify the culture and DNA culture of this company.  They need to be, bright, active, engaged, self-starters, motivated and kind.  Kindness is very important.  They need to set an example and take on leadership roles without necessarily being put in a leadership position.

LD: What strategies have you found to be most effective in keeping top performers at your organization?

UO:  Well, using the criteria I mentioned to identify them is the first step.  We want to provide opportunities for growth and career development for these employees.   Engaging them in their own advancement is also important.  Offering them interaction with upper management is another way, of showing them they’re truly valued.  Rewards and acknowledgement also go a long way.

LD:  What ways would you engage, reward them and show them how valuable they are?

UO:  A trip to Silicon Valley to interact with or shadow upper management is one way, if the employee is not already based here.  Recognition during company meetings and bonuses are other ways.  Top performers are also given company shares.

LD:  What have you found best motivates an employee?

UO:  Compensation always motivates but it’s not always the best thing.  I think providing a healthy working environment with people who truly like each other and are talented is a good motivator.  Also, growth opportunities and providing ongoing training can be motivating.  The overall culture of the organization has to be positive and one that the employee believes in.  Take Google, for example. People at Google now are not as motivated as they were nine years ago because the culture as shifted.  People are not getting fulfillment like they used.  We just recruited someone out of Google who was dissatisfied with the new culture there. 

LD:  Have you ever been surprised when a rising star has left you organization?

UO:  Yes, but that person was offered an opportunity that they felt was a better fit for their career path. 

LD:  Would you have done differently to keep that individual?

UO:  No, I’m not sure we could’ve changed their mind.   This person was enticed by something they thought was bigger, better.  Our voluntary turnover has been very low compared to other organizations I’ve worked for.  This has made for a stronger team.  Overall people generally tend to stay, and we do our best to make sure we keep top talent.

LD:  Do you think there is value in engaging top performers to all levels of company goals and asking for their input when trying to solve big company issues (Martin & Schmidt)? 

LD:  Yes, it is a huge element of success, but it their input needs to be very measured.  There is danger in asking without giving the full picture, however.  We want to avoid a bunch of “yes” men and women here.  It’s okay to disagree with upper management, but we also want to make sure an employee has the whole picture before providing input.  We’re very fortunate to have a CEO that actually cares about the health of the organization and the culture. 

LD:  Do you equate current high performance with future potential (Martin & Schmidt, 2010)? 

UO:  Yes, we look to them to be the future leaders of the organization.  We want to identify top performers and put them on a path for success.

LD:  If you were to ask your current employees this question, “What would cause you to take a job with another company tomorrow?”  What do you think the top three reasons would be? 

UO:  That’s a tough one.  I think a more attractive title or position might cause someone to take a position elsewhere.  A better or different comp plan may also be a reason.  Perhaps, there are life changes, like having a baby, getting married, a spouse taking a job in another state or country.

LD:  In assessing top performers for growth, does senior management in your current organization drill down to discover what true potential lies in these performers or is the assessment based on feedback only from their direct supervisor?

UO:  We do regular checkups on employees.   It is a process though.  We get feedback form managers, yes, but there is a more in-depth process.  There are annual reviews and we encourage employees to use a direct line of communication to my department, upper management and even to the CEO.

LD:  Psychologically speaking, there are four attributes, or drives, that are attached to everything we as humans do.  They are: to acquire, to bond, to comprehend and to defend (Nohria, Boris, Groysberg & Lee, 2008).  Research shows that by satisfying these drivers, employers can better motivate employees.  Do you think your organization effectively motivates by utilizing these?  

UO:  I would say, yes.  We provide competitive salaries and benefits along with stock options for stellar employees.   I believe that will satisfy the acquire need.  As for bonding, we want employees to know that they are part of something bigger than themselves.  Since kindness is a big part of our culture, we want people to know that we care about them and want them to be emotionally invested in our company.   I hope that we create an environment of learning and growing here and that employees understand what we do and why we do it.  Providing ongoing training and seminars hopefully keep people mentally engaged and stimulated.  I think we do reach this by taking away mystery and communicating changes effectively.  We just bought a company in Europe.  We announced this acquisition as soon as possible to take away any fear or mystery around the event.

LD:  In addition to the afore mentioned drivers, do you think your organization supports the innate human needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness to feel connected, effective and agentic (Ryan & Deci, 2000)?

UO:  I certainly hope so.  We are a very large company, so it’s simply not possible to say that we’re meeting all of these human needs.  Consistently, though, I think we do a good job.  My department very rarely hears of any dissatisfaction that could be attributed to these needs or the drivers we talked about.  I think based on the almost non-existent issues of this kind; we’re doing a good job.

LD:  Does your organization have an open book management style (Heyman & Barrera, 2010)? 

UO:  We certainly are more transparent on where our financials are and what the strategy is than other companies I’ve worked for.  It’s up to individual managers to transfer this into goals for their team, but it is also up to the employee to be engaged.  So, what I’m saying is the information is there.  The door is open for conversation at all levels, and it’s up to management to make info available, but it is up to the employee to gather, process and participate.

Through this interview I surmised that this organization has a healthy culture and good pulse on employee satisfaction.  They seem to encourage employee engagement and have motivated well by satisfying the four drivers of acquisition, bonding, comprehension and defense (Nohria, Groysberg & Lee, 2008) and keeping employees engaged by meeting the human needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

The very low turnover rate at this organization tells me that they are effectively motivating and rewarding their employees (Martin & Schmidt, 2010). It would seem that the direct lines of communication and open environment have proven to be effective methods for motivation and retention (Heyman & Barrera, 2010).  The compensation package, incentives and rewards system also appear to in line with Heyman & Barrera's (2010) theory.

I do happen to know that this company is run by Generation X CEO (Erickson, 2010) and many of the employees are Generation Y (Meister & Willyerd, 2010), so it is not surprising that it has an open feeling and a more progressive, less bureaucratic culture.  The younger employees are pushing for more engagement (Meister & Willyerd, 2010) and the CEO is open to change and diversity (Erickson, 2010).

Erickson, T. J. (2010). The leaders we need now. Harvard Business Review, 1-5.

Heyman, J., & Barrera, M. (2010).  Engaging employees in the company’s profits and their own. Profit at the bottom of the ladder: Creating value by investing in your workforce (pp. 1-28).  Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

Martin, J. & Schmidt, C. (2010). How to keep your top talent. Harvard Business Review, 1-8.

Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). Mentoring milennials.  Harvard Business Review, 1-4.

Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L. (2008).  Employee motivation.  Harvard Business Review, 1-8.

Ryan, R. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.