Amabile and Kramer (2012) wrote a tongue-in-cheek article for the Washington Post on how to ensure your employees are miserable at work. The article is illustrated with a photo from the movie “The Devil Wears Prada,” which features quite possibly the most villainous boss ever to be portrayed on screen.
The authors collected confidential electronic diaries from 238 employees in seven companies over the period of several months. The diaries were used to determine what events at work made a day difficult. The four points on how to ensure employee dissatisfaction are: never allow pride of accomplishment, miss no opportunity to block progress on employees’ projects, give yourself some credit, and kill the messengers.
These points correlate to the four drives managers can use to increase motivation (Nohria et al). The advice from Amabile and Kramer annihilates these drives. Setbacks were the number one thing that the employees noted as a source of frustration in their diaries. This corresponds with the drive to acquire and the lever of rewards systems noted by Nohria et al (2008).
The article’s second piece of advice it to block the employee’s progress, specifically through issuing conflicting goals regarding the project (Amabile & Kramer, 2012). The authors suggest that if the conflicting goals are issued correctly, the effect on morale can be dramatic (Amabile & Kramer, 2012). This correlates with the drive to comprehend and the lever of designing jobs that are meaningful (Nohria et al, 2008).
The third piece of advice is to give yourself some credit (Amabile & Kramer, 2012). The articles goes on to say that the bad work environment should be attributed to the employee’s work ethic (Amabile & Kramer, 2012). This correlates with the drive to bond and the lever of culture.
The final piece of advice is to kill the messengers – deny problems and strike back (Amabile & Kramer, 2012). This corresponds with the drive to defend and the lever of transparent processes for performance (Nohria et al, 2008). Nohria et al (2008) state that when is comes to the lever for the drive to defend it is important for the employee to understand why decisions are made. Following the advice from Amabile & Kramer (2012) fosters an environment that does not allow for these conversations to take place.
All in all, the article definitely provides a succinct synopsis of everything a manager should do to encourage high turnover among employees and is backed by the science behind Nohria et al (2008).
Amabile, T. & Kramer, S. (2012, March 6). How to completely, utterly destroy an employee’s work life. The Washington Post.
Brenda, it does seem there are some parallels between this article and the Norhia et al. piece. I am a little confused by the third suggestion, give yourself some credit. Could you further explain that point?
ReplyDeleteNorhia et al. (2008) explain that all four drives should be addressed in the workplace. Do you think the same is true for these, or would one of these problems cause the employee to be miserable? Have you experienced any of these issues at work?
Hi Brenda,
ReplyDeleteThis made me laugh! Yes, I think all of these things can make employees miserable. What seems to be the overarching message is lack of communication which can lead to disolvement of the four drivers of acquistion, comprehension, bonding and defense (Nohria, Groysberg & Lee, 2008). One of the things that stood out for me in the interview I did with a human resources director of a tech company, was that she said the employee has some responsiblity to ensure their needs/desires are met. Do you think that's true for most organizations? Is it fair to say that if, along with the four drivers of motivation perhaps being unsatisified, should the employee take action to ensure intrinsic and extrinsic motivators (Ryan & Deci, 2000) are being enacted?
Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business review, 1-8.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Courtney,
ReplyDeleteGive yourself some credit in the Amabile and Kramer (2012) article is the manager taking responsibility for the work of the employees on their team. This completely undermines the mutual reliance, collaboration and teamwork among employees - all actions that meet the drive to bond.
Nohria et al. (2008) found that improving one drive showed some shows some performance increase, but improving all four drives shows a significant increase in performance. I believe the reverse is true for the suggestions by Amabile and Kramer (2012). An employee may be able to compensate for one missing drive on their own. However, as the advise from Amabile and Kramer is further implemented, it would drive an employee out of an organization with a very strong distaste for the company.
Yes, I have experienced some of these myself. As a matter of fact, I have had one previous manager who may have read this piece and not realized the satirical element. As an employee, I had minimal motivation for my job. I did enough work to stay under the radar and receive my paycheck. This type of behavior does not encourage employee or company growth.
Hi Brenda,
ReplyDeleteThis is a great article – very clever! I can relate to second piece of advice offered in this article. It can certainly be frustrating when management appears to give conflicting goals. At the other end of the spectrum, I’ve had managers who made efforts to “set their employees up for success” by setting clear expectations and keeping the lines of communication open. This helped meet the drives to comprehend and defend (Nohria, et al., 2008). You reiterated how important it is to address all four of the drives equally, and I agree. I think it’s interesting, though, that prior to this week’s readings, I probably would’ve ranked the drives – and put acquire and bond at the top of the list.
Brenda - FYI - Your title is an attention grabber, well done.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the odds that this article would have (4) points that perfectly match up, or combat, the four points made by Nohria et al (2008). Crazy coincidence!
I am most intrigued by the setbacks (Amabile & Kramer, 2012) that are supposed to conflict with the drive to acquire (Nohria et al., 2008). I'd like to know more about these setbacks; are they self-inflicted by employees who don't do a good job performing against performance measures or are these setbacks a device used at random to ambush and hinder the progress of otherwise examplary employees? I see an impact from this acquire v. setbacks paradox in the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of employees (Ryan & Deci, 2000).