
How to kill team motivation in 10 simple steps - kyllikoort
http://www.slideshare.net/weekdone/10-team-motivation-killers-and-how-to-fix
======
malux85
I would love to work somewhere, where there's the 20% time, it makes me so
much more productive.

If I leave the office stimulated and excited about what I'm working on, I will
work until 2 or 3am in a frenzy, and get a lot of work done.

If I leave the office tired and exhausted from hours and hours of yak shaving,
I go home and rest.

Everybody wins on the 20% days, especially if they're friday, because I will
likely spend the weekend coding what I didn't finish friday night.

~~~
eru
Google is always hiring. I'm happy to help with applying.

~~~
tobinfricke
Is 20% time really still alive and well at Google?

~~~
skj
20% is still encouraged, but it's hard to fit it in sometimes.

~~~
mratzloff
Then it's not 20% time, as most engineers external to Google understand it.

~~~
eru
Nobody will force you to take 20% time. Some managers actively encourage their
teams to take it; but more often, it's up to the individual to step up and
grab.

------
MadManE
I see a lot of people saying that money isn't an issue they would leave a job
for. To me, money is the #1 thing that could make me leave a job. Maybe not
5%, but it realistically wouldn't take more for me to bail. 10% is almost a
guarantee that I'll work for you.

I think this shows just how significant the gap is between software
engineering and everything else. I went into mechanical engineering; my
brother did software engineering. I don't know the specifics, but he makes way
more than I do. Not 20% more, but _200%_ more. Some of that is location - I
live in the middle of the country, he lives in California. But even without
leaving, I could increase my salary by at least 50% by being able to write
software.

Assuming that this is for a generic employee/employer relations advice, then
pay is absolutely a huge concern. It's simply one that has been mostly solved
in Silicon Valley.

~~~
Iftheshoefits
It isn't even close to being solved in Silicon Valley, for a variety of
reasons, mainly due to the culture within the industry. My opinion is that
there are two strains of cultural thought in this industry that allow
developer wages to be kept relatively low compared with the revenues and
margins of the companies they work for: 1) the rather Galt-like (and
empirically unjustfiable) thought that development work is a meritocracy; 2)
the strong line of thinking that prioritizes "enjoying my work" over "selling
my very life in the form of time" coupled with the frequent (mistaken, in my
opinion[0]) belief that the work is _important_.

[0] I believe it's mistaken because, frankly, the vast majority of development
work is for the very base purpose of commerce. Rarely, in cases where
development is related to some scientific or artistic pursuit to advance human
knowledge, it's important in any meaningful sense outside of commercial
activity. On this basis, the commerce-related importance of a role necessarily
implies that compensation ought to be a major factor if considered from a
rational perspective.

~~~
MadManE
I think that here "solved" is relative. What I meant was that pay is mostly
removed from the equation as a requirement, because it is high enough that
there is no possibility that base needs aren't covered by it. The motivation
behind whether higher pay is effective or not is mostly irrelevant.

------
jiggy2011
I'd be interested in seeing the source on the first claim "26% would leave for
a 5% pay rise". In my experience people will rarely leave a job that they are
otherwise happy with unless the pay rise is very significant.

~~~
FLUX-YOU
They may be underpaid. 5% looks a lot more appealing on the lower end of
things, and if you're underpaid, there are probably other things wrong.

~~~
wildpeaks
I'm not sure they'd be the ones on the lower end of things because when you
don't earn much, you don't want to risk what you already have for almost no
increase (given 5% of little money is very little) whereas 5% of a medium
salary is much more of a difference/incentive.

------
ibmthrowaway218
I thought 20% time at Google was all but gone?

~~~
JacobAldridge
I came here to ask the same thing - my understanding was that Innovation at
Google had shifted from "Internal Curiosity - 20% Time" to "Inspire via
Moonshots - Acquire what we need to get there".

But that's my external perspective.

~~~
eru
I just started a few months ago. 20% time is still alive, and easy to take.

~~~
JacobAldridge
Thanks eru! I wonder if there's a difference between Sydney and Mountain View?

I'd heard otherwise, but am glad to be corrected - it's a model many other
businesses (NB: Not all) could utilise.

~~~
eru
Sydney is way more laid back than Mountain View. We also have better offices;
not as open-plan-y here, and not crowded like in Mountain View.

------
johnward
"2\. AWFUL OFFICE SPACE Not providing an environment that nurtures
productivity Open o ce setups report 62% more sick days Fix: Re-think the open
o ce layout"

Or maybe allow partial remote work. I think I have called in sick 1 time in
the last 5 years because I couldn't get out of bed. Other than that work from
home makes it much easier for employees to not have to take days off for
things.

------
asolove
Whenever I see advice like this, I remember that it is very specific to the
environments the author has seen. All of these items are actually measured
across a spectrum where you can be too far to either side. The suggestions
might help if your current company is like the ones the author is thinking of.
Or it might be exactly the wrong thing to do if your company is on the other
side of the spectrum. And worst of all: the answer that seems most natural to
you is probably the one that is wrong, because your thinking has been shaped
by the very culture you're trying to change.

Some examples:

#1: an open rewards system might help if you have people paid flat salaries
that are inadequate. But many companies already base people's compensation too
much on individual metrics that don't reflect their real value. In that case,
adding a reward system only compounds the problem. In general, the research I
have read suggests that for creative jobs like programmers, it's best to pay
people a good salary and not have rewards systems that might cause them to
value metrics of visibility over doing good work.

#4: inefficient collaboration is obviously a problem. But in my experience
it's just as often from too much open discussion (bike-shedding) as too
little. In some cultures, asking more questions is helpful. In others,
defining decision rights and removing room for outside stakeholders to comment
is beneficial.

#5: negative people obviously aren't good. In some environments, caring more
about individuals' happiness is helpful. In others, managers are already too
cautious about not upsetting any one person's feelings, and that leads to
keeping people around or not helping them improve when they are hurting the
team as a whole.

#6: not every company is afraid of failure. Some are afraid of success,
constantly giving up and trying something new when their current project gets
difficult.

#7: clear goals seem like a great idea when you're at a company that doesn't
know what it's doing. But some companies think they know what they're doing
too well. I often see goals that are clear, focused, and absolutely unrelated
to what the company really wants. If you know what you really want, report on
that and let people find creative ways to achieve it even if they don't mean
the "goals" that are supposed to get them there.

#8: micromanaging is bad, but non-managing is worse. At many tech companies,
former programmers promoted to management are so hands-off they prevent their
teams from getting better.

#10: don't ever do anything with the goal of making your team 'motivated' to
work long hours.

------
dc2447
Bit of a mixed bag here:

> Inadequate rewards

In my experience it's very rare for someone to leave for a 5% uplift in
compensation.

> Awful office space

Bang on the money. What is even worse is when engineers have a great space
that gets changed. Always churn after that.

> No self development

Typically the people who say this are the people who are most likely not to
get much from free time to learn new stuff. if you are the type of engineer to
learn new stuff then formal training and free time is not going to change your
ability to pick things up. If you come to me and say I could not learn X
because I had no free time, I am generally sceptical.

> Inefficient collaboration

Generally means other teams / people do not recognise what an awesome thing I
did. Generally implies your awesome thing was not massively awesome.

> Negative people

Totally true. The most devastating thing that can happen to teams is to have
negative personalities.

> Fear of failure

Did not understand this.

> Lack of clear goals

bang on the money.

> Micromanaging bosses

it's different strokes for different folks. Whilst lots of engineers like the
freedom to get to the goal by themselves there are some who actually really
enjoy the directive style.

> Useless meetings

Is this still an issue in 2014?

> Wasting your team's time

I sort of get this but again it varies per engineer.

~~~
ThomPete
Fear of failure means whether you work in an environment where it's ok to
fail. Environments where it's not ok to fail are normally counterproductive
and hinders people sometimes form doing the right things.

~~~
mratzloff
If failure has no stigma then people won't worry about, especially if it only
causes externalities. Failure is not OK when it's due to laziness or apathy,
or when it's chronic.

~~~
ThomPete
And I am pretty sure that is not what the post means.

------
jackgavigan
My rules:

1\. Place the interests of the company and team above your own personal
interests.

2\. Communicate and keep people informed. (i.e. Don't treat people like
mushrooms.)

3\. Listen.

4\. Be open and honest.

5\. Know your shit.

6\. Be prepared to say "I don't know."

7\. Lead by example.

8\. Be reliable.

9\. Be fair.

10\. Be patient.

11\. Be prepared to admit that you were wrong.

12\. Pay attention to detail.

13\. Delegate (i.e. don't micro-manage)

14\. Accept responsibility when things go wrong.

15\. Share the credit when things go well.

~~~
mratzloff
16\. Tell people frankly and directly when they are not performing at an
acceptable level.

~~~
jackgavigan
Before that, you need to define what level of performance is expected from
them - i.e. set clear goals that are achievable.

------
louhike
It feels like it was done only for the ad at the end. It is hard to take it
seriously considering this.

------
netcan
I think there's a catch 22 to actually getting to the bottom of why motivation
is poor. When people don't like their job, school or sister-in-law everything
she does pisses them off a little. The way she talks. The fact that half the
monitors had dead pixels for six months before they were replaced. The fact
that everyone stays until 7:30 when something needs doing but you got a dirty
look for heading off at 4:45 that one time when that damn sister in law asked
you to pick up her brat kids with 20m notice!

Its about how things feel and how things feel depends on how you feel about
them already.

If you love the school and the whole experience of it but the gymnastics coach
always finds an excuse to peek into the girls showers, you might let it slide.

------
lowbloodsugar
This is advertising for a time management application. Judging by #2, it could
all be total bollocks.

------
edw519
This is a nice list of stuff everyone hates, but I'm not sure that these
things are the _cause_ of killing team motivation. Instead I'd call them co-
factors, things we can't stand but put up with if the most important stuff is
covered (More about that below...).

1\. INADEQUATE REWARDS - Everyone wants to be paid more, but how many of us
have tolerated less pay to work on great stuff? I would jump to another job
for a 5% pay increase only if I already hated my current job. I would never
even think about leaving a job I loved for just a little bit more.

2\. AWFUL OFFICE SPACE - Important, but not that important. Oddly, my most
favorite assignments I've ever had were in the worst conditions. My favorite
job ever: writing a custom ERP system with 3 great co-workers. We had 4 desks
in the basement.

3\. NO SELF-DEVELOPMENT - Not an issue. I take full responsibility for this.
That where the "SELF" comes from.

4\. INEFFICIENT COLLABORATION - This is everywhere to one extent or another.
If the work is important enough, those of us who really care find a way to
remedy this.

5\. NEGATIVE PEOPLE - They are everywhere, too. Some of my best work has been
in spite of assholes who I wish I had never met. But I never let them stop me.
Sure, there are (sadly) some environments that are too toxic to fix, but these
are the exception. Learn to deal with negative people or suffer. Your choice.

6\. FEAR OF FAILURE - Not sure I understand what this means, but it can be a
motivator as much as a roadblock. Sometimes we overachievers just have to drag
the non-believers along, kicking and screaming the whole way.

7\. LACK OF CLEAR GOALS - I see how this can be demotivating, but again, it
can be a challenge. On the other hand, some of the most fun I've ever had was
building stuff (without goals) and seeing where it would take us. Great
places, quite often.

8\. MICROMANAGING BOSSES - Again, they are everywhere. I have stock answers
for every one of them: a) Where exactly on the project plan is your concern?
b) Would you rather have me producing or on overhead?

9\. USELESS MEETINGS - They suck, but again, there are many ways to deal with
them. Many of my favorite jobs have been full of useless meetings, but I loved
the work so much, I just accepted them (telling myself, "They pay me this much
to sit through these?!?")

10\. WASTING YOUR TEAM'S TIME - Not sure what this means, but once a developer
learns how to handle other people as well as the ones and zeros, this isn't
such a big deal. Just another issue to deal with.

To me, what's really most important?

Working on something important enough. Getting stuff done. Having fun. If I
have these, not much else really matters. If I don't, I move on.

~~~
vinceguidry
> I would jump to another job for a 5% pay increase only if I already hated my
> current job. I would never even think about leaving a job I loved for just a
> little bit more.

I'm pretty sure they got at this number by asking people if they would leave
their job for ~$200 extra a month. That makes the choice far more immediate
than 5% extra a year. Everybody can think of things they could do with a few
extra hundred a month, and everybody's got things they don't like about their
job enough to _fantasize_ about moving over.

If you look back at what you wrote, there's a false dichotomy there. Very few
people either love their job or hate it. Most people just don't have strong
feelings one way or another about it. That's why 27% would leave over peanuts.
One job's as good as another, so why not take the extra cash?

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>> That's why 27% would leave over peanuts. One job's as good as another, so
why not take the extra cash?

This also depends on the industry. Being a developer right now is like being
in a gold rush. Supply and demand is what's driving salaries and contract
rates. Need a Jevascript developer? Good luck finding one under 100K per year.
When your industry is ripe for you writing your own ticket, then the leverage
is with the employee, not the employer, it makes easy for people to leave one
company and join another on a small raise since they know if things don;t work
out, there's a dozen other companies in need of their services.

What about being a Carpenter? With the housing crash, and the slow recovery,
most carpenters don't have the opportunity to be moving all the time.
Considering right now the supply outstrips demand, their salaries are being
driven down and the power then rests with the employers. The carpenter in this
scenario is more likely to just stay put regardless of how much he hates his
job or his boss because there is no certainty he'll find something better and
get be paid more than he currently is.

~~~
vinceguidry
> Need a Jevascript developer? Good luck finding one under 100K per year.

This is not true except in Silicon Valley. And that's just simple supply and
demand. They need way more devs per-capita so they have to really incentivize
people to move.

Everywhere else dev is well-compensated relative to other professions and you
get more leverage and autonomy but it's much harder to translate that into an
inflated salary. There are paths to get there and it is possible to get $100K+
as a developer but it's really just an open career ladder, whereas most other
careers the ladder is closed to all except the ridiculously productive and/or
sociopathic. Not a gold rush.

------
amunicio
Step 1 - Scrum

~~~
UK-AL
Scrum is a relief for me. Set a steady velocity, and keep to it. And a chance
revaluate every 2 weeks.

I worked in places without any system, and it was awful, such as half finished
issues that was never closed. No one knew the real state of the product.
Requests where sent in via email, emails got lost, people backtracked without
telling you, 3 different people pushing you on to different tasks to the
exclusion of the other 2. Where as scrum sets a single direction for 2 weeks.

~~~
mratzloff
Sounds like you worked in a place without _management_.

~~~
UK-AL
A lot of companies are like that. A lot of developers like it like that as
well..

Nice fancy gantt charts stuff, but underneath it was like that. Where as Scrum
more accurately described reality. Any late changes, any changes to the
sprint, any over commitment, any delays where quite clearly shown on the
board. As a result, they were reduced. The boss could not just come down, and
ask to work on this task instead.

They had to create a user story, with mock ups etc and then the product owner
decided if it should be included, scheduled it in for a sensible time. A lot
nicer than before.

~~~
mratzloff
My point is that what you described is a symptom of a problem, and although
Scrum solved it for you, it's not the only solution. The real problem is a
lack of effective management.

------
wyc
I wish the statistics had more context. They make me uncomfortable, and I feel
that they were haphazardly thrown in there just to bolster the argument. E.g.:

"26% of Engaged Employees would leave their jobs for just a 5% pay increase":
26% of what sample of employees? What industries? What does "Engaged" mean?

"On average, 39% of workers don't feel their input is appreciated": Again,
what kind of sampling was used? How were their sentiments ascertained?

"Average professional wastes 3.8 hours per week on unproductive meetings":
Mean, median, mode?

:(

------
flurdy
OKR. Enormous waste of a lot of time and effort, anti agile and demoralising.
Proper shared team goals with no individual goals, and frequent non abrasive
appraisals are 100x better.

------
swombat
I'm currently reading "The Joy of Work" by Dennis Bakke, who was the CEO of
AES for a number of years... in it he makes the point that compensation is
rarely the most important factor for people.

Based on his own survey, he said that the most important factor to people is
whether they get to use their skills and talents to make a meaningful impact.

If your people would leave their jobs for a 5% pay increase, you have hired
the wrong people, or build the wrong kind of company!

~~~
elementai
I wholeheartedly agree. And there's also a rather well-known book by Daniel
Pink "Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us". Money isn't the
major factor in motivation indeed, but only if there's enough of it (to not
think about).

------
godber
How much traffic did this slideshow generate for weekdone?

~~~
porker
To much for such a contentless slideshow.

------
maxmwood
It's like someone is writing about me and my previous job. Almost makes it
kinda funny that someone is so easily able to compile a list like this and yet
there are still far too many workplaces who almost seem to _follow_ these
rules.

------
placeybordeaux
How do the sources correspond to the presented points? I see ten points and
only 7 sources.

I randomly chose one (2: Center for creative leadership) and it didn't seem to
correspond to any particular slide.

------
gchokov
Useless meetings, Wasting your team-mates time and micromanagement bosses
should be put in the presentation in the first place.

~~~
talmand
In those meetings, I sit quietly and work out pseudo-code in my head.

------
twistedpair
Who needs ten steps? One or two are usually sufficient.

------
michaelochurch
This is an advert for WeekDone, a piece of status-reporting software. The
pithy "fixes" named are rarely going to solve the underlying problem.

For software and product work, the answer is obvious: _open allocation_. For
radically different kinds of work (e.g. factory-floor manufacturing) I'm not
so confident; it's not my expertise. But I don't think the OP knows either.

"20% Time" policies don't really work, because if your manager is supportive
you don't need them, and if your manager's a jerk, they don't offer real
protection.

I agree on open-plan offices, because open-back visibility causes useless,
counterproductive stress. The noise is a small issue; being visible from
behind fucks with people's fight-or-flight systems. But if you can't afford to
have everyone in an office (and, in some jobs, you can't; it would be a
disaster on a trading floor) you could probably achieve it with booth-style
seating.

Also, no boss wakes up and decides to "micromanage" and few people
intentionally schedule "useless meetings". Those things happen and they're
really unpleasant, but you can't just say "Don't do that" and expect the
behavior to stop.

You need _constitutional_ guarantees, like an Employee Bill of Rights that
requires an employee majority to amend it and guarantees certain protections
(i.e. any criticism of an employee must be delivered to that person with as
small an audience as possible, and he has the right to defend himself; any
employee can transfer at any time unless there is an immediate business
justification for not allowing him). The problem with "20% time" policies and
the "No Asshole Rule" (point #5 about "Negative People") is that they rarely
have any real teeth; they just become the new language used to justify
business-as-usual.

