A Theory of Motivation and Process Improvement

"Managers do not motivate employees by giving themare instructed and trained to follow them - good or
higher wages, more benefits, or new status symbols.bad. If the process is good then the outcomes are
Rather, employees are motivated by their owngood. However, if there is waste and variation built into
inherent need to succeed at a challenging task. Thethe process the outcomes will neither be consistent
manager's job, then is not to motivate people to getnor predictable. This lack of predictability causes
them to achieve; instead, the manager should providefrustration at all levels within an organization but the
opportunities for people to achieve, so they willfrustrations are often magnified at the employee level,
become motivated." Frederick Herzberg.because they live within the processes daily. As such,
So what does this theory have to do with processemployees know there is a better way to do things,
improvement? When done properly, motivation is abut management doesn't allow or encourage them to
core component to process improvement, total quality,find it. Even if permission and encouragement is given,
6 Sigma, lean, or whatever other description one usesit is important that it be done correctly. Without the
to express this philosophy that according to W.proper understanding and knowledge of process
Edwards Deming causes 85% to 90% of animprovement tools to guide the discussions, greater
organization's problems. It has been proven time andfrustration is created during the analysis, the decision
time again that "bad processes will always squashprocess and the improvement phases.
good people."A more effective approach is to provide everyone
Typically employees do not go to work with thewith the training necessary to best understand and
preconceived attitude of, "I can't wait to get to work toutilize proven process improvement tools and to
see what I can screw up today." Most employees arecreate a structure to allow employees to find and
committed to doing a good job and providing results.eliminate variation and/or waste in an existing process.
Very often, however, when management does notGiving employees this opportunity is one way to
see the desired or forecast outcomes, they begin theoperationalize Frederick Herzberg's above definition of
search for the bad apples. "Who caused this tomotivation. Highly motivated employees who have
happen, rather than what caused this to happen?"been given the opportunity to be involved in process
It is our experience that the "what caused this toimprovement will generate accelerated results for the
happen" i.e. a bad process, is more often the actualorganization allowing them to run circles around their
cause of bad outcomes rather than "who caused it tocompetition. Additionally, the results of process
happen?". "What caused this to happen" is typically aimprovement when identified and implemented by the
defective or ineffective process. In the classic sense aemployees who are actually doing the work achieve
process is the series of interrelated steps it takes toquick, bottom-line economic gains, greater employee
complete a task, and this applies to both business andloyalty with higher moral, and more satisfied customers
manufacturing processes. Management designs thewho will be loyal to your products or services.
majority of a company's processes and employees