Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Enigma of Motivation


How does a leader motivate followers? There are many theories of motivation but most recently I've been studying the writings of Albert Bandura. In an article entitled, "Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory" (1989) Bandura argues for what he calls "social cognitive theory" as the prime motivation for self-generated activities. (Whew! That's a mouthful.)

Let me break it down a little bit. "Self-generated activities" are those things which an individual chooses to engage in. It may be church attendance, a hobby, a course of study in continuing education, attending discipleship classes, etc. There are three schools of thought as to why people choose the activities that they choose. The first school of thought is the "autonomous agency" perspective. This view sees all humans as free moral agents who can make any choice they want to, and they can do so independently of the influence of their environment upon them. Many religious traditions call this free-will and have little patience with people who don't make quality decisions for their own lives. It is, according to this view, always their choice.

The second school of thought, "mechanical agency" sees the environment as the deciding influence. How we are raised, where we are raised, the culture we are born into, our race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, etc. all combine to shape our worldview and all our decisions will emerge from that worldview. Further, we have no control over these influencing environmental factors. That's why Christian nations have more Christians, and Muslim nations have more Muslims. That's why poor people tend to live in economically depressed areas for generations. The Proverb tells us that if we raise up a child in the way that he should go, when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6).

Bandura proposes "emergent interactive agency" as the best model for understanding one's motivation for engaging in specific self-generated activities. According to Bandura, "Persons are neither autonomous agents nor simply mechanical conveyors of animating environmental influences. Rather, they make causal contribution to their own motivation and action within a system of triadic reciprocal causation" (p. 1175). In other words, the choices that one makes emerges from a continuous stream of experiences and how those experiences are processed in out thinking (cognitive process). For example, a poor child may choose to attend a class on economics because he wants to know why he has grown up poor. As he understands the process better, he now thinks of ways to improve his economic condition. As he begins to gain more wealth, he learns to invest until he is wealthy. Where he is now has emerged from an interaction between his thinking, his actions, and his changing environment.

According to Bandura people are motivated first by what they believe they can do. If they believe that they can accomplish something, even though it may come in the face of great obstacles, they will endure to see it through. If, however, a person does not believe that he or she can accomplish anything, than they are not likely to invest even minimal effort or energy to accomplish it. In the illustration above, the child may never initially have believed that he could be rich, but he may have believed that could pass that class. This then, led to a chain of events that changed his thinking, and changed his life.

A leader can motivate his followers to achieve great things if he or she can, first help them see that while it may be difficult, it is possible. A teacher may have told that child that he was more than capable of passing that class. He believed and then he achieved.

I think we see waning motivation in the Middle East conflict because many Americans are now questioning if it is possible to win a definitive victory in an area of the world so rife with sectarian animosity and violence. Those sects are motivated to act because they believe that they will ultimately triumph, even if it takes many years and lives. Americans cannot envision an end to the conflict, given the divide within the very country we are trying to liberate. How does one liberate a country from itself?

Anticipated outcomes, says Bandura, will be a deciding factor in commitment to a self-generated activity. A leader must be able to help his or her people envision the preferred outcome as a result of their efforts. Even with this vision, however, if the people do not believe they can achieve it, they will not engage in it, even if the vision is worthy. Therefore, the leaders must continually engage in human resource development, increasing the ability of followers to meet and exceed the tasks they will be asked to do in pursuit of the vision. One teacher mentors a child through an economics class and out of that single act a wealthy man with an expanded worldview emerges. Leaders have this power when they can get their people to believe in themselves. Even the Apostle Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ who strenthens me" (Phil 4:13, NKJV)

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Wisdom from Warren

Having written over 18 books on the subject, Warren Bennis, Ph.D., is a respected and influencial voice in the leadership/organizational arena. He has also written and published over 900 articles covering a wide range of issues dealing with leadership, management, and human resource development. So his insights should never be taken lightly or easily dismissed. Further, while I know nothing of his faith, nothing in his writings, which I have read, is inconsistent with Scripture or the leadership model portrayed by Christ.

Having said that, I want to excerpt some quotes from an article he wrote in 1999. The title of the article is, "The End of Leadership: Exemplarly Leadership is Impossible Without full Inclusion, Initiatives, and Cooperation of Followers." This article was published in Organizational Dynamics, 28 (1). The follwing are all direct quotes:

The source for effective change is the workforce in creative alliance with top leadership.

I came to the unmistakable realization that TOPdown leadership was not only wrong, unrealistic and maladaptive, but also, given the report of history, dangerous. And given certain changes taking place in the organizational landscape, this obsolete form of leadership will erode the competitive advantage and destroy the aspoiriations of any organization . . .

What we tend to forget is that greatness lies within nations and organizations themselves as much, if not more, than their leaders.

No change can occur without willing and committed followers.

... the TOPdown model, in the present business context, is dyfunctional, maladaptive and, as I'll get to now, dangerous.

What should be clear by now is that post-bureaucratic organization rquires a new kind of alliance between leaders and the led. Today's organizations are evolving into federations, networks, clusters, cross-functional teams, temporary systems, ad hoc forces, lattices, modules, matices--almost anything but pyramids with their obsolete TOPdown leadership. The new leader will encourage healthy dissent and values those followers courageous enough to say no. It will go to the leader who exults in cultural differences and knows that diversity is the best hope for long-term survival and success.

1. The New Leader understands and practices the power of appreciation.
2. The New Leader keeps reminding people of what's important.
3. The New Leader generates and sustains trust.
4. The New Leader and the Led are intimate allies.

Only a poet could sum up the majesty of this alchemy:

We are all angels with only one wing.
we can only fly while embracing each other.
These New Leaders will not have the loudest voice, but the most attentive ear. Instead, of pyramids, these post-bureaucratic organizations will be strutures built of energy and ideas, led by people who find their joy in the task at hand, while embracing each other--and not worrying about leaving monuments behind.