9 ms·

How to kill team motivation in 10 simple steps

• deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
• ibmthrowaway218 12y ago
  I thought 20% time at Google was all but gone?
  • JacobAldridge 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      I just started a few months ago. 20% time is still alive, and easy to take.
      • JacobAldridge 12y ago
        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 12y ago
          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.
      • davidw 12y ago
        Not to be nosy, but do you take it? Do people you know?
        • eru 12y ago
          Yes, and yes. I'm learning about machine learning, and will apply it to have an experimental stab at an interesting internal problem that will probably not pan out at all; but I will have learned something.
      • jemfinch 12y ago
        You just started a few months ago; how would you really know? (Perhaps 20% of your time is alive and easy to take; on the other hand, engineers who've been working on the same fast paced project for years and have built large bodies of domain knowledge often don't see it the same way. Not a single engineer I work with does 20% time, to my knowledge.)
        • eru 12y ago
          I just realized, there might be a cultural divide between Google Sydney and Google Mountain View. We are more laid back here. And, as everywhere in any company, you can do whatever you can get away with. From a pure career point of view, you can make a choice here: put in the 20% time for another project of your choice, to keep your skills sharp, have some fun and get some additional visibility. Or put the extra 20% time into your main project for some marginal improvements. I can see that social pressure (real or perceived) in lots of teams might be towards the latter. For a 20% project you have to find your own group of peers to get recognition for it.
    • jiggy2011 12y ago
      I've never been a googler but I think that makes sense. In the early days google could deploy an MVP and people would try it out even if it wasn't "done" , now the level of polish expected from a google product is much higher than could probably be produced by a 20% project.
      • eru 12y ago
        I don't know whether 20% projects are supposed to launch publicly. Officially Google launches are serious business. But, you can start a 20% project, impress people with your prototype, and get a real team started on that.
  • falcolas 12y ago
    From previous responses to this question, it depends entirely on your manager. Some make it easy, some mess up prioritization so badly you can't get regular work done to allow for 20% time.
• amunicio 12y ago
  Step 1 - Scrum
  • sgift 12y ago
    Step 2 - Change priorities all the time. (Bonus - Always think in extremes: "unimportant" and "YOU HAVE TO DO IT NOW" are your only categories)
  • chton 12y ago
    I'd say "bad scrum". If you do scrum well and get the spirit of it right, it's a joy to work in. It's not perfect, but compared to what happens almost anywhere else, it's great.
    • UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
      Agreed. Surprised to hear Scrum. Because the Waterfall model was SO much better? The nice thing about Scrum is that you are given up to a 3 week period, tasks, and you complete those tasks then re-evaluate. Creates a nice feedback cycle. Plus if requirements change (as they ALWAYS do) you are more able to address that without going "backwards" in your Waterfall model or creating unnecessary steps. That all being said, I'm sure you can make Scrum suck if done badly. But you can make anything suck via micro-management and political bullshit. If Scrum is done well it should limit micro-management to only the scrum meetings (which aren't daily or even bi-daily, so a weekly catchup meeting with a bi-weekly new sprint).
      • chton 12y ago
        The usual scrum meetings aren't places for micro-management either. All of them are led by the team, and nobody tells them what to do. If your company is micromanaging employees during your sprint planning or retrospective, it's grasping at the last straws of conventional management before finally giving up :p
  • UK-AL 12y ago
    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.
• jiggy2011 12y ago
  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.
  • jameshart 12y ago
    Not a contradiction. Perfectly possible that 26% of people are unhappy with their job.
  • chton 12y ago
    My thoughts exactly. Should be rephrased to say "26% is currently unhappy enough in their job that they'd leave".
  • johnward 12y ago
    I agree. If I am happy I won't leave for 5%. If I am unhappy I would leave for a pay cut. In my current position I wouldn't say I'm unhappy but would consider leaving for a 10% raise. Only because jumping ship tends to be the only way to get significant raises, over the normal 2-3%. Even if you use another offer to get a raise in your current position.
  • FLUX-YOU 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
• malux85 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    Google is always hiring. I'm happy to help with applying.
    • tobinfricke 12y ago
      Is 20% time really still alive and well at Google?
      • rjaco31 12y ago
        I heard they removed it
        • skj 12y ago
          You heard wrong.
      • skj 12y ago
        20% is still encouraged, but it's hard to fit it in sometimes.
        • mratzloff 12y ago
          Then it's not 20% time, as most engineers external to Google understand it.
          • eru 12y ago
• louhike 12y ago
  It feels like it was done only for the ad at the end. It is hard to take it seriously considering this.
• dc2447 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        And I am pretty sure that is not what the post means.
  • 12y ago
• johnward 12y ago
  "2. AWFUL OFFICE SPACE Not providing an environment that nurtures productivity Open oce setups report 62% more sick days Fix: Re-think the open oce 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 12y ago
  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.
• edw519 12y ago
  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.
  • jader201 12y ago
• godber 12y ago
  How much traffic did this slideshow generate for weekdone?
  • porker 12y ago
    To much for such a contentless slideshow.
• jackgavigan 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    16. Tell people frankly and directly when they are not performing at an acceptable level.
    • jackgavigan 12y ago
      Before that, you need to define what level of performance is expected from them - i.e. set clear goals that are achievable.
  • waps 12y ago
    Did you ever know any manager, never mind a higher-up manager, that did even 3 of those things ? Management is about money and favours, and about those things alone, and that's why work sucks. The only way to get ahead is with threats and horsetrading.
• swombat 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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).
• MadManE 12y ago
  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.
  • freshflowers 12y ago
    I think this is a function of the relative immaturity of software development. The pay is lagging behind the importance and scarcity of software developers, and this is distributed unevenly. Company A may be in a place where the relative value of their developers may be 2% more than what they currently pay them, but for company B is in a place where they would gladly pay 25% more and still get a big fat return on that investment. By the time company A catches up (as in, software has now become way more important to their business), half of their developers have moved on. They review their recruitment and retention strategy, and one year on they are the ones paying more than company B.
  • Iftheshoefits 12y ago
    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.
• gchokov 12y ago
  Useless meetings, Wasting your team-mates time and micromanagement bosses should be put in the presentation in the first place.
  • talmand 12y ago
    In those meetings, I sit quietly and work out pseudo-code in my head.
• lowbloodsugar 12y ago
  This is advertising for a time management application. Judging by #2, it could all be total bollocks.
• michaelochurch 12y ago
  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.
• placeybordeaux 12y ago
  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.
• wyc 12y ago
  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 12y ago
  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.
• netcan 12y ago
  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.
• maxmwood 12y ago
  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.
• twistedpair 12y ago
  Who needs ten steps? One or two are usually sufficient.
• cheery 12y ago
  The contrast on those slides kills my motivation of reading it.