If you have done much study of how people act, you've likely heard of
Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.
Personally, I'm not sure where I heard the term first, but I do know that it became an early chapter in the leadership textbook for Civil Air Patrol in the middle 1990's. At the time, the idea seemed (to me) to be the common psycobabble of the ages; something that was both inherently obvious and yet had no practical application. I mean, of course people look to survival needs first, then longer-term safety, then to social and more emotional needs.
Duh.
In other news, grass is green . Water? Still wet.
Nearly twenty years later, I still believe the theory is sound, and, better yet, there is some practical application. Here's a quick example:
Say you are on-route to a conference, taking one of those new Delta flights with the ten-dollar wireless plan. You are being productive, getting work done, when the fasten seatbelt sign comes on. The pilot comes on the intercom and announces some turbulence. Over the next ten minutes, the turbulence slowly increases until you are very uncomfortable. In the next minute you experience a feeling a low weight, as if the plane is quickly losing altitude. The pilot appears on the intercom again, pointing out the issue, saying the plane is going through an "air bubble", and may lose pressure. A minute later, the plastic air masks drop out of the ceiling. You put the mask on, and, over time, things get better. About thirty minutes later you are able to take your mask off, and yes, you do land safely.
Consider if this actually were to happen ... how much work would you have gotten done on that laptop once the fasten seatbelt sign came on?
I'm guessing not very much.
Fear is the Mind Killer
Granted, people in the typical software organization aren't worried about losing Oxygen. They may, however, be worried about something just a little bit further up Maslow's hierarchy - about paying the mortgage, keeping their job, perhaps getting a raise high enough to maintain their standard of living.
The extreme example of this is what happens after layoffs are announced. I mean, logic would indicate that productivity would go up; that people would be scared for their jobs thus working harder. Instead, in my experience, when layoffs occur, productivity goes through the floor. Instead of doing the work, people stand around the water cooler talking about the layoffs. "Who do you think will be next?" they will ask, or perhaps "Should I work on my resume?" You may see some new activity, but instead of improving business outcomes, the work will be directed to improve personal positions.
Or consider the employee with the formal performance reprimand. Again, the logical argument is that Joe, scared about his job, will work harder. Sure, there may be a new burst of energy, but it will likely be spend addressing the reprimand. Joe might write a reply, or perhaps suddenly stop doing one thing in favor of another. In general, he will be spending effort to make the reprimand incorrect, not to improve the general performance of the team and the organization. (He may even begin playing politics, a net drain on the team.)
Someone is going to say that to some extent, fear can work -- and I might agree -- but you'd be surprised how small that extent might be. Certainly a little talk about getting 'lean and mean' and 'tightening our belts', perhaps combined with bringing in a
productivity consultant or two could get a short term boost in performance. Yet to paraphrase
DeMarco and Lister, people will work just hard enough to keep their jobs, nothing more. Certainly, if they know of things that management think are good, but don't add much value to the organization, and are cheap and easy, they'll do
lots of that.
Notice, again, I'm slowly moving from productivity killers that the do-ers can do something about to systemic problems. If management has a culture of fear, it seems unlikely that the last private in the rear rank will be able to stop that culture of fear from infiltrating the organization.
I've got some ideas to do it anyway
Who are you?
I've been a do-er for most of my career, and, as a do-er, have heard every single excuse in the book why people can't do this, and they can't do that -- and all of it's true. Of yes, the big boss may be mean, and there may be no money at the end of the month, and yes, it is a one-company town and you've got to stay in town to take care of your ailing grandmother, of course.
And, yes, characterizing the excuses in this way is a little uncharitable on my part. These are real people, with real feelings, emotions, blood sweat and tears, trying to do the best they can in a bad situation.
But when it really comes down to it, those things are all still excuses. They set up an implicit assumption about how the world works: T
hings happen to me and I respond.
Here's the secret to the ultimate productivity boost, The Thing That Made Bill Gates Bill Gates, the Thing That Made Steve Jobs Steve Jobs:
I do things and the world responds.
When it comes to productivity-killers, the first slogan puts you in a box and makes you a victim; the second opens up new possibilities you didn't previously know existed.
The sad part is, this advice is a little bit like the ol' Maslow's Hierarchy of needs from "
Leadership: 2000 and Beyond." It's one of those things that is inherently true, but to have any effect on your life it needs practical application with examples.
Whether you are dealing with
Sociopaths in the Organization, a Culture of Technicians, or a culture of fear, it's time for some direct answers.
More to come.